HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (978) AGENDA
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
JOINT STUDY SESSION
WITH PINAL COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SEPTEMBER 13, 2006
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE
STUDY SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 PM
ROLL CALL
1. INTRODUCTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM TOWN, COUNTY,
AND STATE AGENCIES
2. STATE LAND REGIONAL PLANNING EFFORT
3.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY / PIMA COUNTY / PINAL COUNTY
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DISCUSSION
ADJOURNMENT
The Town of Oro Valley complies lies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
p
an
If any person with
a disabilityneeds type of accommodation, please notify
Y
the Oro Valley Town Clerk, at 229-4700
POSTED: 09 07 06
4:00 p.m.
Ih
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
¶JUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: September 13, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL
FROM: Sarah S. More, FAICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator
Craig Civalier, P.E., Town Engineer
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting with the Pinal County Board of Supervisors
The Oro Valley Town Council and the Pinal County Board of Supervisors will meet in study session to discuss
issues of common interest and concern.
DISCUSSION ISSUES:
Oro Valley is part of a large metropolitan area and is affected by development in a regional context. Land
use, transportation, water resources, and the natural environment are concerns that should be addressed from
a regional perspective. The Town of Oro Valley is committed to providing leadership and participation in
cooperative regional efforts to address these issues. We are pleased to have Pinal County participation in
these efforts also, due to the significant increase in development activity in Pinal County and the potential for
impact on Oro Valley that it might have.
\gional Land Use Planning
The Town of Oro Valley is currently participating in the Arizona State Land Department conceptual
planning process for approximately 45 square miles north of the current town limits, extending into Pinal
County. The Arroyo Grande regional plan participants also include Pinal and Pima County representatives.
This planning effort is the beginning of the Town's work to assure that future development in the area is well
planned and implements General Plan goals for open space preservation and high quality design.
Regional Transportation Planning
An important element of the Arroyo Grande Planning Effort will be transportation. Based on land use, this
element will examine transportation needs for the long term. Various studies by the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) and the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) will be used to guide the planning
team on transportation issues.
PAG is in the process of wrapping up the State Transportation System Mobility and Regional Circulation Needs
Feasibility Study. This study is also called the Loop Study and its focus is to look at the base transportation
network beyond 2030.
ADOT is in the process of finalizing their Oracle Road Multimodal Corridor Profile Study. This study looks at
transportation improvements that will be needed in the Oracle Road corridor in the next 20 years.
the near future ADOT will begin the Southern Pinal County Transportation Study. Consultant interviews are
lgoing and will result in a contract to perform the study. The Town Engineer will be the Town's representative
on the study.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: September 13, 2006
Joint Meeting with Pinal CountyBoard of Supervisors
Topics for Discussion
• Scope of Work for the Arroyo Grande Planning Effort. Attached is a draft scope of work outlining the
roles and responsibilities of all of the jurisdictions and the State Land Department for this project. Oro
Valley and Pima County have agreed on the draft and ask that Pinal County join in that agreement.
• In particular, Oro Valley hopes for agreement on the concept of significant open space preservation and
the idea of planning for a self-sustaining mixed use community, rather than solely residential
development in the Arroyo Grande Planning area.
• It is of great interest to Oro Valley what the extent of future development in Pinal County is — what is
planned, approved, or in process, etc. And, what the potential population at buildout will be.
• Discuss possible solutions to take pressure off of Oracle and I-10. Currently, and into the future, many
of the Pinal County residents commute to either the Tucson or Phoenix metropolitan areas for
employment. That traffic is concentrated on I-10 through Marana and on Oracle through Oro Valley.
Even with plans to widen I-10 and Oracle Road, staff anticipates that there will not be roadway capacity
to accommodate the demand.
Attachments:
1. Map of Arroyo Grande Planning Effort study area.
2. Map(s) of Transportation Corridor Study areas.
3. Draft Scope of Work for the Arroyo Grande Planning Effort.
4. Map of Future Development in Pinal County(if available)
anning and Zoning Ad ' -istrator
Tow 4 Engineer
s
P
gt
/
Community Development Director
Town Manager
F:INDIV\Sarah\TC jt mtg Pinal Co BoS 091306
•
\ f
i
r
, o
i:;\a 't
r
,
. r
,i,,,„.
— r yM
,'; #
gib
w.s. t , ,^am` V t. c
I
•4.... ;-, m- 4
24.4 --,.._'' ' ,.--tki.
kr.
______ , T
' ••-•-,_._ ,.•• . , •411, '
1 t., „, ;
E-1-,, ,' ' i ,,,,,,,
'., 1 , ....),, 4,4 —\ : i. ' .)
g, - ,,,,,,,,t, ' = , i ,
F ; ._,, i , ,,,,,,/ ,,... ..,, „, 4 I ,,••,' ,
1F(
-AO
{ „ 0 _ ,•.„, i'
e
rix! • I
•
{ . '...,1 7
r .•�
i 1
,...41 r.
,_,, _ , , h„, - ,
'-' 1 idi
,
t Y
r
1 •
i r
1 1
-
Z
,�
•
` - .I *i 1, �,, .rr w...,..,,, - f tri r.{
°
v _. a•
♦ X
s *
r
,
i
.
1`
# y ,
f
a r i I i t' d' 4G
C) ' -. , , f . ..., i(
, -7 ,.' ....„,„„.....•••i-
<1
< 1 • _ .Z �' f,,.- i_.,r,._......... fY'r • /'C^'tic_. .i /r •,.
t
, I .— 1 C.): ,,)
....„,.. ,-.4..... . , ..-_,.... . . _
__......,....,.-....,11..:::::_.... ..—,..:.:Z--t 1
- Z
—
}
�" *ham t ' _ .�
r
; —
r.
w
a
.._---'°- _'. .rim `-`.
'Pk,' -,-.. '1 t. \ ,
, Z '' ".- .
I
(,..—.--.. ,•••-.7-•_-_,....ll,• {j ' f 11
,, Ifrvi
,
.
j
•
-I' ,t •
i Z
!• ti Via.
._.«. .., r' 1.,___-------E---' •_�.�-.- k�. ♦ • � ', { •%ate .^�,
f 0 • (~ .— ••�.,, ,tip 1 _, ( -4_...M
,
•`" Vim; !
. ..,Z 1/4,, ..,......
-r. -.-.— ...,1 , i '..,‘ni, 1-,.
7:5
r, I_ f.
•
Xl
di n 15_i_ _ � �
f , ..--„,c .: --...„,,_M
E _
0Exhibit 2-3
CORRIDOR CONGESTION DEFICIENCIES YEAR 2025
____- ---- riliiiij\Ali'4.
-, I
#11 \---)--)
r..
t
Saddl ebrooke
Blvd
Pinto Ln
1 Golder Ranch Rd
Wilds Rd ---ty
g r-
a) � 9
3 9 n
8. f % S
IIII 6,
33
o R
o Year 2025 Projected
__.��-��jrangerii+_ � -�"-.�p g_ Con estion Deficiencies
_,- 1
/ ' Nararya
eaminew Heavy Congestion
r . View Hanley
Blvd
ssSevere Congestion
• ,�;•, La Reserve
-w.-._ r- Dr Source: Pima Association of Governments
Linda Vista BI •
R. Si, • C)
Qve�tonR ••�,....
Hardy Rd, SI.
l If D
_..., Cortaro Farms Rd 0 —
1 Magee -•• 1 �.
mil
\ 1 1 ,
, I .
_..2. ..,.....,__,..., , .. ;,.•ummo ....,
\ 1 1 II 11.16 ,
a1 ,: •e A..4.4.-.
d Rud • \ ''t
��
matiAuto . __...__
xi
� ti .rR• � i � � Ti III
, „, III ? /
1-1r
1 '''',7 ( 1,14
wet • ..►
.. ) I
e -. AZ
o. ` Vmberlost 1.------------/
_____Eu;c1 .:0 me .:',`• y
111111
lz-- ,
' :
i 1 ,.
t
\ . - Hu I '
1 r
. .. ;• -, ..„. ,.- , R ' I {i
i.7..., \\,......
--,------,
,, 1
1
1 1 ± ,
-- '\\
� � Ili w y �
� .Speedway Blvd _ Z _k�_,; i i-----t---4— i-----4.-----4-.
• i_,,,, i
9
SR 77/Oracle Road Multimodal Corridor Profile Study February 2004
Working Paper#2 Page 2-4
Exhibit 3-6
Lor SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES
TO ADDRESS CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES
,4t
-d-r
f
iii4.01.1. imimlimir
, , '-' VIVritraT
f
\\,..9-‘‘94'
i1
'N\/ ,_
(I
Saddebrooke
Blvd
Pinto Ln
.
PIMA COUNTY
Golder Ranch Rd ...
Wilds Rd , .,.
LEG EN D
,.
Rancho Vistoso Blvd N Mirg g >'°,, /
P.: II 0 Intersection
improvements
g
i. % * Grade separated
�- z w intersections
1 411ir
�o p 0000000
Diamond lanes
r
.tt�: ---�---- 4-lane divided
a en ne Rd
i = i■� 6-lane divided
/ N. Nara rip Rd ____ - ane dived
1aney
chwiew. ,4 f"'
�;- Blvd �� Access management
_. ,Lambert Ln_____-_ ____ .
i D Gong ista:Akar Reserve
Dr Possible lighting
Bud W improvements
Overton Rd f: Linda Vista Blvd Possible high-capacity
Hardy Rd ,I 1 Calle Concordia alternate corridor
.Codaro Farms Rd i :
Ma a Rd ri +---
�� Provide connection to east-west
t 'ina d -- `--__• high capacity corridor.
1111110,
f�d
RudasilllRd : ,
i -,,„ .: ,,----) , ii AN
` ----i,,ved,-,Th', i.,, Auto i
vv. r Dr
tmore d�1 I._.... ._
, • .3 ; Lambedost R - 1
.� '`ter a t 1;1 • 1
, --un -
• ___..Fort_,..oweiq i
Mit'acderl�Qil -�- �
� t ._.
iiiiii
PrIllt---
.---_..�Grant,pd,;. �. /
-,‘„\t,
/, iimeimp 6
•
' may_lvd \ '-• _______
IIIMMIN
41 \ ri . M1111111 { ' 7 CI
I
SR 77/Oracle Road Multimodal Corridor Profile Study February 2004
Working Paper#2 Page 3-12
'f�44c* as �, s�i x^
S ::',1' .�.`. r�=� ''.
Le ,
, }r.1,,.:s'`* a '4 T Z- -
�w�..u.'......r�aws�rn ----�.r..�....�.�q.�.u..��.--- .r--+....•..rr...+ ....��r...��....w�..�r.��'�.�.w.�.��i At.,",,, ,, , `.`
x,�r
r
w
o O H
F 3 w GRIER SK!RUN
MOORE
TANGERINE w
o AVRA V b LEY � ARANJA
a \
0
TWIN AKS =
H
10
z
Q MAGES MAGEE
w /4O
PICTURE INA N�
ROCKS ¢ ,`v
SUNSET z OJ' '
I
-' w
RO z
. ¢z 70
GORET
w v O o
w GLENN GLEN tr Z C cn ,ikep ttG�pt'l
ILE WIDE SPEEDWAY �"'"�'�"�r-��11.! m
GATES pA 1�- 9TH :ROADWAY
• SS ., 'l9TH ENYON
' \ 22ND
''I 29TH
• /�4, 36TH .
.,
BO PP FY w 6, Or-
c .NYDER L z - 01'? cn
Q \ 4 Q Ill
-0
> I
• w t ��,
1—
co BILBY O , Z
H V
a
to •. • - A E H
Q � T`" 0
2 cc •' m, <
W -: .J H•—
Q 10
`� OSSAL CAVE
I--
IPCOL
Z
00 •. O DA �Q
HH- �co J ?r
c‘ S PIMA MINEcc
_ QG
t!? f .. p
V ' Z 1-
HELMET PEAK SAHUARI , Q 0 z
ER
0
I i
Figure2-2
4,
,‘ ($,
4t,
LoopSystem ,, _,
.z-,,
N
Candidate Corridor ..,
-,\ k�
0 2.5 5 Miles
1 Evaluation Segments mi ___________
Legend thik
/Tanque Verde dieKolb/Northern I-10 Loop Road
REGIO ."L
C 0001'TangerineNalencia Loop Corridor L_.1 Pima County Line
Barrazza-Aviation Corridor 400 Southwest Inner Loop
Oracle Junction/La Cholla Corridor 4,Southwest Outer Loop
'Houghton/Sunrise Corridor 'Houghton/Golf Links/Swan Loop
S/)9 SR 11
_�__ OP STUDY .
..�.__.I L `-L
--- I
, r--3
`1 HARD D -ily
L.
r �O
I.
p MOORE RD
u) 1GERINE D 4_
17
w < N.
w #\. 02
Z „ ,t co 1
ry�
TW PEAKS RD = is
_
r `
j 10 5 HARDY R[ ;'
3
w MAGEE RD'- ....,
C3 INA RD .. .., O _ j ;
PICT 4s RD ,---_l ORANGE GROVE RD Skyt/ p ,p .---:----
0 -d
r �--
SUNRISE��RD _.___.,`, __�-------�;
. � R
cc
MANVILL p�
a E F }
IU
\ -J TANQUE VERDE
MIL b ,w._ z GRAN I RD
Ci) tY _..,
,•-•4040,,,,e.,-,•-v..-ve „
• ,_ <
. z
0
!�'*+•♦♦•+t•• ,/ . GOLF LINKS RD i
i_ ,
*0►*♦ !♦# �♦+ S
�_ � OWY
IRVING TON RD t d -� i ti
,. 'Qp .J -m DREXEL RD _ _ _.._.
E . - ct co et .
ca
tir
lir
z
Li
iiijiiiiii• -4--,1 ,I 1 _ .,
/ Y 'L`s
(60
0�5
/08 VAIL CONNECTION RD/i/iird.;6-- 'II
1/1-.
HILLTOP RD o _r M
r
os
I /A � INE RD -J t""
CC
Z
Q
i SAHUARITA RD
HELMET PEAK RD I
83
L _...., -----,
Figure 2-3 -, - /- i
Justified H CapacityN
I , r- 1
Corridors (based on
0 3 6 Miles
i demand analysis only) au
v
Legend
4110 Western Freeway Loop - CAP Park
Southern Freewa Loop J^ IREGIO4P1..n1
Freeway /Freewayfir eii,:,;, t', Wilderness
I bughton I Golf Links Parkway c7 Proposed or Adopted Park Expansion!Natural Preserve
4011)River 1 Alvernon I Swan Parkway Other Road ,,jS"�
Airport
Kolb/Orange Grove Parkway a Possible Tangerine Road Correction Alternative
Indian Reservations
La Cholla Parkway C7 Existing Tucson Water
Barraza-Aviation Parkway 411 Pascua Yaqui Indian Reservation
C", t COT ParcelsArra County Line rfal Tohono O'Odham Nation(San Xavier District)
-
Proposed Tucson Water 6' Tohono O'Odham Nation(Shuck Tuak District)
SOUTHERN ARIZONA OFFICE
CONCEPTUAL PLANNING PROGRAM
SCOPE OF WORK - FY 2005/2006
A. Conceptual Planning proposal currently requested and to he completed with budgeted
funds under this Scope of Work:
1. Phase I—Data gathering/mapping: Contractor will be responsible for collecting
the following data in digitized format:
a. update municipal general plan @ 1"= 1 mile
b. update municipal zoning @ 1"= 1 mile
c. update county general plan @ 1"= 1 mile
d. update county zoning plan @ 1"= 1 mile
e. update municipal/county infrastructure plans
f. slope analysis(0.5%, 5-10%, 10-15% and>25%)*
g. 100 year flood plain*
h. update vegetation analysis (using known data and/or reports)
i. update habitat analysis/plant density (using known data and/or reports)
j. archeological records check*
k, update trails (existing/proposed)
1. update secured open space including BOR/Marana Recreation Area
m. update threatened/endangered species issues
n. update natural/man-made hazards(subsidence areas, power line
corridors*, hazardous waste sites, airport influence zone, etc.)
o. update existing and proposed preliminary and/or master drainage/flood
control plans
P. update existing and proposed preliminary and/or master water and
wastewater plans
y. update existing and proposed preliminary and/or master street plans
r. update existing and proposed preliminary and/or master utility plans
(electrical, gas, cable, etc.)
s. preliminary soils analysis (using Natural Resource Conservation
Service reports)*
t. assured water supply
u. identify lands suitable for mitigation
v. known/potential mineral reserves*
(* - already collected/on ASLD data base) .k.11"
110
2. Phase II -Needs Analysis
a. update analysis of population growth projections (Department of
Economic Security)
b. update -based on population projections, the direction of recognized
municipal growth areas on state lands (as designated in conformance
with Growing Smarter), determine land use acreage needs for
residential, commercial, industrial, office, schools, and open space for
the year 2015.
3. Phase III—Final Conceptual Plan
a. preparation of conceptual plan with input from ASLD staff
b. conceptual plan to be reviewed by Urban Lands Planning Oversight
Committee prior to Commissioner's approval. Consultant shall be
prepared to make presentation to Committee. (The Commissioner may
also be involved in the conceptual planning process and work task
issues.)
B. The contractor shall provide ASLD the computerized data and GIS maps generated in
conjunction with the Scope of Work utilizing technical standards contained in
ATTACHMENT A to the Scope of Work.ASLD's GIS Section will serve as the
clearing house for this data and GIS maps and will not accept any products that do not
adhere to these technical standards.
C. The contractor selected will submit monthly progress reports to the State Land
Department. In addition a summary report is required at the end of each Phase. Each
Phase must be approved by the State Land Department before the next Phase can begin.
All work must be completed no later than June 30, 2006.
re.• %% 1'4 u
Phase 2 Planning Area : _
Additional information required under Phase I:Data Collection
I. Planning Area Inventory
The inventory serves to identify and describe existing characteristics and conditions of the area. This step in
the process will identify both development constraints and development opportunities of the area prior to the
actual conceptual planning process.
A. Existing Land Uses
1. Describe and map the area in a regional context.
2. Describe and map:
a. Existing zoning;
b. Existing land use, including approximate density of residential uses and type of business for
commercial or industrial uses;
c. Pending or conditionally-approved rezonings and subdivision and\or development plans under
review within '/4 mile of the plan area.
3. Locate and identify the ownership of existing wells or well sites within the plan area.
B. Topography
1. Describe and map the topographic characteristics of the area, including the following elements:
a. Restricted peaks and ridges;
b. Rock outcrops;
c. Slopes of 15%or greater, and
d. Any other significant topographic features.
2. State the predevelopment average cross slope of the total area and show all calculations and values
used in its determination
C. Preliminary Hydrology
1. Describe and map on an aerial photograph the perimeter of all off-site watersheds that affect or are
affected by the area, both upstream and downstream to their logical conclusion,and note all balanced
and critical basins.
2. Provide a description of any significant off-site natural or man-made features located within the
above watersheds(as mapped in #1 above)that may affect or be affected by the area.
3. Indicate the area in acres for those upstream off-site watersheds(as mapped in #1 above)with one-
hundred-year discharges greater than 500 cubic feet per second(cfs).
4. Describe and map the characteristics of the on-site hydrology. Include all of the following:
a. Approximate 100-year floodplains with a discharge greater than or equal to 500 cfs;
b. Sheet-flooding areas with their average depths;
c. Federally-mapped floodways and floodplains;
d. Peak discharges both enteringand leavingthe area for 100-year events which exceed 500 cfs
g Y
using approximate methods such as the regional area versus discharge graphs.
e. Provide a qualitative description of existing drainage conditions along the downstream
property boundary.
D. Vegetation
1. Inventory,map and describe the following: %%‘ 11
a. Vegetative communities and associations;
b. Federally-listed threatened and endangered species,and significant groups of trees;
c. Any areas where vegetation is especially important for scenic value,screening and/or
buffering,and soil stabilization.
2. Describe and map the vegetative densities in terms of approximate percentages of plant cover.
Define the methodology used in determining these densities.
E.Wildlife
1. Provide a letter of confirmation from the habitat specialist of the Arizona Game and Fish Department
Tucson Regional Office in regard to the following characteristics and any other topics of concern:
a. State-listed threatened or endangered species (see Threatened Native Wildlife in Arizona,an
Arizona Game and Fish Department publication);
b. High densities of a given species'population, based on AZ Game and Fish Dept. data,or an
unusually high diversity of species; and
c. Aquatic or riparian ecosystems.
d. If any significant habitat or areas of concern are noted,map these portions of the area
involved.
F.Soils
1. State whether soils testing has been done for the area, either for the subject proposal or a previous
development.
2. When applicable, describe soil suitability for septic use.
G.Traffic
1. Map the existing and proposed off-site streets, onto which the area will have access,to their
intersection with a major route as shown on the Major Streets and Scenic Routes Plan. If the access
street(s)does not intersect with a major route,map the access street(s)to its intersection with a street
that will connect with a major route, as well as the connecting street to its intersection with a major
route.Also,map all major routes within one mile of the project area,denoting those that are existing
scenic routes. For those streets identified,provide the following general information:
a. The existing rights-of-way;
b. The rights-of-way for all proposed off-site roads;
c. The number of travel lanes,capacity, and posted speed limit on existing roads and
proposed off-site streets;
d.The present Average Daily Trips(ADT) for existing streets from existing sources, when
available;
e. If there are existing bicycle and pedestrian ways; and
f.When roadway improvements are scheduled for completion.
H. Sewers
1. Provide a copy of the capacity response letter from the Pima County Department of Wastewater
Management.
2. Map the location of the existing public sewers in relation to the project area.
I. Schools
For residential developments,
1. Map and identify all existing and proposed public schools within one mile of the area.
2. Describe the location of all public elementary,junior, and senior high schools that will serve the
area,if not within the one mile radius of the area.
3. State the current capacity and enrollment for those elementary,junior,and senior high schools that
\\Till serve the area.
4116
%% 1
J. Recreation and Trails
1. Describe and map all parks, recreation areas,and adopted public trails on and within one mile of the
area.
2. Describe and map proposed trail rights-of-way from the "Eastern Pima County Trail System Master
Plan", as amended.
K. Cultural Resources: Archaeological and Historic Sites
1. Provide a letter report from either the Arizona State Museum,the State Historic Preservation Office,
or a qualified archaeologist that reviews all of the available information for the area. This record
check shall:
a. determine whether the area has been field surveyed for cultural resources;
b. identify any previously-recorded archaeological or historic resources known to exist on the
property;
c. make an informed recommendation as to whether an archaeological survey of the area is
needed.
2. Describe and map archaeological and historic areas identified on the property in either the records
check or a subsequent field survey.Detailed location maps of such areas should not be included in
the area analysis, but should be available from the archaeologist or consultant for staff review as
necessary.
L. Composite Map
The composite map is intended to show the cumulative number of characteristics(as described in the
previous sections)that apply to specific locations on the area. It is used to identify areas that may require
special evaluation in regards to proposed development,due to the existence of several potential area
Vir constraints.Graphics used on the map may be determined by the consultant(examples include lines,dots,
shading,and/or cross-hatching);however, all graphics must be legible.
Characteristics to be included are the following:
1. Topography
a. Restricted peaks and ridges;
b. Rock outcrops, and
c. Slopes 15% or above.
2. Hydrology
a. 100-year floodplain with a discharge greater than or equal 500 cfs;
b. Sheet flooding areas with foot depths greater than or equal to one foot,and
c. Federally-mapped floodways and floodplains.
3. Vegetation
a. Areas of high vegetative densities, and
b. Areas where vegetation is needed for soils stabilization.
4. Wildlife
a. Wildlife habitats as mapped in I-E.l.a-c.
%t\\°`11
Phase II-Needs Analysis
1. Develop Needs analysis for residential,commercial, and employment land uses and for parks, and
schools, using DES population data and projections to 2015, based on PAG Transportation Analysis
Zones(TAZ).
2. Develop Growth Analysis projections based on PAG projections and existing and proposed
developments in the market area.
3. Develop a Suitability Analysis using weighted values per ASLD specifications.
Phase III. Conceptual Land Use Plan
Additional information required under Phase III- Conceptual Land Use Plan (CL UP)
A. Project Overview
1. Provide a map of proposed Conceptual Land Use Plan(CLUP).
2. Describe the characteristics (including use and type)of the proposed development.
B.Hydrology
1. Describe how the CLUP responds to the hydrologic characteristics identified in the area inventory.
Examples may include building setback,density restrictions, building placement, location of open
space and recreation areas.Describe the overall effect of the development on the drainage pattern of
the area.
2. Explain why it is not possible to avoid encroachment(of lots,structures,roads)into 100-year
floodplain, if applicable. State the specific measures that will be used to mitigate the impacts of
increased discharge or flow velocity, erosion hazards,etc.
3. Quantify and map post-development water discharge flowing onto and leaving the area.
4. Describe and map potential drainage impacts to off-site land uses both upstream and downstream of
the proposed development.
5. Describe and map the approximate location of engineering and design features that will be used to
mitigate drainage and erosion problems.
6. Describe how the CLUP conforms to all applicable area plan policies,basin management policies,
and any other applicable policies relating to flood control.
C.Wildlife Habitat
1. If any features of the development are located in areas mapped with high wildlife habitat, state
measures that will be used to minimize development impact, such as loss of habitat,displacement of
a threatened species. etc.
D.Traffic
1. Describe the proposed access points for the project,their location and the rationale for their
placement in terms of circulation,congestion, and impacts to surrounding properties.
2. If the CLUP depends on future off-site road improvements for access, identify these and state the
projected completion date,and the agency responsible for the completion of the project.
3. Discuss the change to ADT and level of service to all streets discussed in the Inventory and Analysis.
4. Describe how traffic impacts on local streets will be minimized by the CLUP.
5. If used, describe bicycle and pedestrian pathways within the development.
6. Describe proposed on-site road rights-of-way, indicate whether streets are public or private, and
show typical roadway sections.
%%‘ '
E. Sewers
1. Describe the method of providing sewer service.
a. If on-lot sewage disposal is proposed, state the reasons for not utilizing public sewer service.
b. If public sewer conveyance capacity is available,state whether or not off-site easements or
rights-of-way must be obtained in order to gain legal access to the public sewers.
c. If public sewer conveyance capacity does not exist, describe the actions the applicant must
take to provide public sewer conveyance capacity.
2. If collection sewers (not house connection sewers)are to be located in areas other than paved public
or private rights-of-way,state the reasons.
F.Water
1. Provide a statement of water service provision and availability. If the proposed development is not to
be serviced by a water company with a 100-year water supply, provide a letter from a qualified
hydrologist or the Arizona Department of Water Resources indicating (based on preliminary review)
an estimation of the probability that an assured 100-year supply is available.
G. Schools
For residential developments,
1. If required, state the projected increase to the affected school's tax base.
2. Describe and map how access will be provided to any schools that abut the area.
3. Provide an estimate of the number and percentage of students that are expected to be educated
outside of the public school system(i.e.,private,parochial or home schooling). Identify the source of
this estimate.
4. Provide a school capacity analysis response letter from the applicable school district that addresses
• the following topics(an exhibit which depicts the service area of each school should accompany the
response letter):
a. The present and official projected enrollments of the elementary,middle and high schools
which are expected to serve the proposed residential development;
b. The anticipated increase in enrollment at each school resulting from the proposed residential
development(include the multipliers used by the school district);
c. Tabulation of the under(over) capacity,by number and percentage,of each school's
enrollment as a result of the proposed residential development's anticipated school
enrollment;
d. Tabulation of the projected enrollment and under(over)capacity,by number and percentage,
of each school based on residentially zoned land located within the school's service area.The
calculation is to include approved rezonings, as applicable;
e. School facilities improvements affecting the above service area enrollment calculations,as
identified by the school district within its adopted capital improvements program.If no
written response to the capacity analysis request is received within 90 days of submittal of
the letter to the school district,provide a reasonable estimate of the above factors.
H. Recreation and Trails
1. Describe and quantify the size of all recreation areas to be provided.
2. Describe the proposed ownership of natural and modified open space within the development,(i.e.
whether through homeowners associations,or individual lot owners).
3. Describe and map any proposed trails within the development and demonstrate how such trails
comply with the "Eastern Pima County Trails System Master Plan".
I. Cultural Resources: Archaeological and Historic Sites
411110. 1. Describe the mitigation measures to be used for the protection of any archaeological and historic
resources that are known to exist on the area, based the records check.
%%°
FEBRUARY 2006
Proposed Dwelling Units
Apache Junction 6,240
Casa Grande 45,000
Coolidge 57,792
Eloy 35 000
Florence 56 821
Maricopa 29,000
Picacho 11,000
Red Rock 35,000
Queen Creek 98,429
Oracle/Saddlebrooke 39,842
Stanfield 128,915
TOTAL 543039 +
SFR 2005 Permits Issued
Apache Junction 136
Casa Grande 1,800
Coolidge 617
Florence 98
Maricopa 6,600
Superior 22
Pinal County 9,461
2006 County Permit Projection 11,135 + or—5%
Between Florence andQueen Creek, there are 98,429, proposed dwelling units, on
28,965.87 acres, 44.8 square miles.
West of
Casa Grande, South of Ak-Chin and Maricopa, there are 128,915 proposed
dwelling units, on 60,407 acres, 94.3 square miles.
R
I_____� $ d " k i y',\NAL co
' 1 I _ i ff ,,I=li_i--I,--';'-',--- :. `O' • G2-
18
75
---;-L'T--, +-- -- �rf'�' ,. r1, ' � � �.T--1^--;--- n-�--;--i•,'-i '-1'--1--1-- J�(x1 .+„- � � 1,,
r y
I-----4-----1- -- . 4 --!-- - 1 T : ;_r : , t--4, -- F .•d�
L I --- , i � �y1
•
I V I -''-
I , I
' rot:.18711 pp' I I_ 1 ' -- _ _ _,- ,'_____:__ ___1._,___._ _______i__I__ 075
1 i '
f_-•, '-_ate--- i- -}-__ �_ ' I _ .I__ - _'.--r - _' I; ' 1 ' I '
'
I
F--42---Ii---1-21-----44'-'--
' I X11-_' '� I ' u . "_'---''--F'-1---__ ”'--'_��
�s I `
r '
I
1 ,
L____ ' ;� ;__1_..I�.___.i_.�_1_--,___ y i_ Southeast
,----J---'-17--1--1 ' ; 1 ; t,, ;*4---t --,-7 -7, u ,
I '
I -_, I x ; �____�__ �_ __I. 08S Pinal County
1 r I 1 I__ _ ',J'��il�
--r—r�__I--"i- - r I i__ �_-__ I ; _____ —� i I - I__`_ � }fir,--I.
J
' 1 ; I-„,..;__ •-; 1- -- ; -=I - Legend
,
I I ;
I�I I I , I I I ' ' 1 -_-
_ 1
'___.L_I-,---1--+--,-
J_-J__+__-_ _i___I '_-_J_ I__ —,Y_y______:________.,_____‘4,:__ .M (. I L 09S Private
T ,
ling
� I
I• -I--I 1 1 1-- --—;- -i---1---' I TI-1- --1 I -' f-''' ,-''-I`, �1:-.41.3•I♦ i -1---r_ __+_ State
I ,' I I
i : ,�-___l- , , - ' -- -, —, :r,-, -'` 7,4,','--1;;_-,,- aa►�o,PoD: ; 1 I Incorporated Cities
1.
-I_--Irr F'- .:}fEdA49�h PR �__11_ x -`------1---i-----I-- , - -r - _ --,,s. - - - I--- -- - 105 {” airports
- Y
I -, ' :...,_-;;- ---f-' OR�IICL� .- t I ,d0 1 c - ; a its
_-—_k�i..t- '-- f,MO�SyNRlls>=A@ _ v _. , -_'-- --- - I , -' _Fr? - ' ,
,-.. VIS rur+(ni RP -,n , ____ {__— _ tom°'
I , :.1 �.� __-{`1_{_ � t 14:1 I �—M T- '�t ,�• `1, ' , ' --I,L I
IH PARK iip
10E 11E 12E
13E 14E 15E 16E 17E
, 1; ,
.,„i
Area Plans a 1 11 '
F _ -
Red Rock-La Osa PZ-C-71-85 31,431 DU -------,---',---------4; , , , - i ,,_
-_ , - T-___'-.,_,-'__, ,---` `--_�__;..__-_i_ -T � �
i' ' 1 -
' ,Proposed Willow Springs 1' __1. ; I i' + = I-'- --� -
Oracle PZ-C-03-87 37,599 DU --------- ------`-- -- I; 1 _
__._ � - ___ _4_ _
� fib'
Space Biosphere Ventures PZ-C-07-90 # 1# _._ __ _ r
PZ-C-02-90 60 DU +
_i.. ',_ , _ I,---.•,.—2,ek: '---cper-----------::-------, -
Sierra Tucson __r___,__ -" 11 I
L i 4;',1401.0- - r I `
77
—1 Lago Del Oro PZ-373-73 7,040 DU - ', 1:-1_,_r—
,
1
Los Cordones PZ-C-14-86,07-87 58,984 DU J I 1 -—_j -T
11 •
Falcon Valley PZ-C-11-88 56,160 DU ______,...__1____i____!_____!_____,---I F- III,_ i
,
r
-' ,
Willow Springs S PZ-PD-006-01 4,600 DU ,---; t---- -0,�+, i -1 ' i
Source:Proal County Planning and Development,Planning and Zoning area plan files
11 - ■ I7"��'IA 5;
-----i—1 ;; BIOSphe. _ I' R r :_-_--
---
`;lam? l
.
•
1-,---:,--,, r 1 -�_��— "Y 0 S- ,:` r ..AN+MANUEI} I y
' I- , ' 11 I 11 , ' -----
t! ■ -r-,---+___T Imo` __ _
x
' I I 1 ` ___ tI t _ ,_ I — i 1 a , , . MPO ._90 - ---- 1
__
--
•
I I ' ' ' ' ----!-----I------r-----I F-. ' "_._: ' ,OR'CL: , , rl----CORONADO I- I-
ill
I1 �, 1 , -- U TI - , -
' rV''-' ; •. j J NC -------
- FQRES74- I F
I I '�I
__ ' , P ,E--',
' y ____1 1T Ii ----I-----�1--- , r-- -----'---',---.r---- -`-- •'7L -- 1 I --------- '• ` - --I f -
' 11 I I I ' " EAS E CREST I ' l..--- i --- -
I
,
I
r
I
----- 1 .RED RC C
_ F HEMLOCK flR i_ CITIES&TOWNS AREA SQ.MI. POPULATION
-•---�__�--t r `�O is --, ` •OP RP Ef SUNRISE RD
- I��-_I - , I �. ovu�E LAMr AMB � ,--
_'�► P •-_i_ APS GENERATING STATION_.t }-__-- ORACLE 35.09 3,563
—__T_— DAVIS RANCH RD t4 �
5 I � -- {— ._ SAN MANUEL 20.9 4,375
_—� Y IE 1 LN :l_\�ACINTO RD
-_
7:„.i..../1
_--_ ,_ + __1___4___ 1 ,- ,rs MAMMOTH (INCORP) 0.98 1,762
MARANA 1 I 111,,,0
A RED ROCK N/A 300
A+R PARK ,,
I `� S
II --\ I i,. FAIR PA!..K RD
I ' I i
, , I , I � �W P; Source:U.S.Census Bureau,Census Summary File Research Admin.,Population Statistics Unit
(1111,
I/
ANEW
1
,.. --r r--'•'}-
--=- i � ppb I ,,`.�`, °,.
,NAL co..<
o' L
6,_,_,...�o
---H1-1--'1--1--
I I 1 �_ I
_
I �'
'T-
, ' RR% ' 'r-
T- 1 ' r 4--'-- 1--`-I------t--F-1--- ,• a ../S
i
I I 1 i ,. I
T' I' 4It-fi , i I !--1-'-;--}.--;:,-'-',:;_.;;;1.!Noi,Tr;8 ft ; i , ; _ ---t--1 --i-- , --'i- ---r-i 1- GAS.
'-i I ;7%,- T:II I _I I i-
- - _ __i___I.;__l___4-_y1._____ _-_-.-\ 1 _' ;
' `,, I 1
h__ 'j_-�_,__I__J'►d VdMy-Rad __ -� __ _ I__i' 1 � _irr � _ I; I 1; •
I' ' : 1 I ���,�+ I ' _- 1 {__�_ - _�_.1_--f_._�__'_y\�____ 1-_ Southeast
I ' I 1 I I -- _ y- I ' -.
I
__ jI I
-M
li
_ x ' ; - ___ . _ . _ L _ ' , -__I. 08S PinalCounty
I I , i,____,, ,,_ ' ' ,__3_,___ ,
1 i� E
,.--,-1-i-r- -i-,
,'::
,
, 111 I I I' r
I - a_ I !-I ,I i ."1,_ - - 1---------- - -- 1 _' '--, --- E - Legend
, 1
-_ 1 I I I 1 I I'� �___ -- JJ ,
-11,,1-1 11--1-. 1 1 ----1---i------r---17-1-1_1:1I - -.. 09S Private
�_ I
1 �
I ; ,_
I
_ -I-_-'--�r-- t-
I 1 I ' -I - -__--i'-_:%_:1-
____ �I■r�^����� -� State
I - +-1-_,-.:-!--1-:-
{--1 1 I --1-- -'.---�--i--'.`---1 T ri, '1-1-1, •
, V-_ 2,1■-441: y'�, - t
I -- --I—_ BIm
I-'- I 1-1-1.-1 1--' 1 C7 I ' 1 I I '-.-•_ -_-4"'_ _77:04,1117,1,-:,,•„ ,'ISI `
i.
7 _ :_i, 1Hi Incorporated Cities
L---, -� I r
rs,
1 ,_.4 o + airports
- 1-' `- hM'"'UN'S'rte.!_,_,_... ,-_.�_i_.. - :5' ,Airlc I0 k'- r _- - -,_
r ��
I
,
I
I f �
rr ;
I
1, I IL-,,,$.';"-;:k
1F-;:ks ' 16E 17E
10E 11E 12E
13E 14E 15E
I 1 j
I
I '
I ,
I _
,
Area Plans F _ _
, I
i.\' ---'`‘.. 7
Red Rock-La Osa PZ-C-71-85 31,431 DU - ----- ' ; `
1 Proposed Willow Springs I ___, ' a • ' j
Oracle PZ-C-03-87 37,599 DU --� ( ND'
Space Biosphere Ventures PZ-C-07-90 r 11 I ;
I
I '
I PZ-C-02-90 60 DU -+ '-r - i
Sierra Tucson f 1 '
P I 1 ; I
7 040 DU
:-
Lago Del Oro PZ-373-73 --r---, ,,- -,... --2621 '' � •---',--------1, I
Los Cordones PZ-C-14-86,07-87 58,984 DU } �, 4,-
I _-� k/__ ''' ---1 —
IFalcon Valley PZ-C-11-88 56,160 DU --j---+---;--- -----;—__ -----i - -= -. -
4,600 DU F i rod± '
Willow Springs S PZ-PD-006-01 ;
I I I
j .r 11111
,
Source:Pinal County Planning and Development,Planning and Zoning area plan files } -_
_t
_4'-'' ; i}
, I
— E3losphere II --- - :-----,-----1 --r'--
F
7' — O''«>i'''' '''''',::Ai - SAN MANUEL j
1 1 �'
�'� ' •--r---------ti-i-�-- I I I _.. �--- I iL
_ I I _OpyMFO --B-O�‘tO ------ ---- '--
-', 1 1 i I 1 I I I I I_ _ if I- ; ' ,
---) I I ' I,;,1_._ `----• I I i __ 1 I ----60Rg1�A :--'--- -I----J-__
_._.-.__- I/i /- I 1
;- I1---1.-01
‘i 1 ': `1 , OR CLQ - —�, -- --, I
1 1 ' ''y 'a ;❑ 1 1 I I i ;JU O Q 8T4 -_ -- ----I --1-"--------- --- ------
I
,
I
I I {' 11
1 I I _ I r-- - r---;-- SADI3LEBROO E
r 1 I t ; 1 1
lI I I , I EA/vZ.E CREST II 1 i '
, £ 1,11,1_,
u' .1
._._._ __L _--*--_-.,.-I ---1---rI ----;----- I I 1, ; II I '------- '
, 1\\ 1 , L
\' �
I ,7-,1
- RED Ra--
1 1 t -t--4:1's;. ,---1 '..HEMLOCK DR •
I n I CITIES&TOWNS AREA SQ.MI. POPULATION
ys"..'°,^'� - -' }�Oi_t.S.-... (J OPOWERP T.. ..8 S._-. 1 v
- I, �, UNEisE R�
_
I Q ,
3
09
-T-.__I `7 I -I. ii I I I 3,563
_`:, , -__t,o__.__APS GENERATING STATION_' - - j�ISiRANC�K_RD_,
ORACLE
-- -- , __ 1 ,,,,,ti, SAN MANUE 20.9 4,375
[ I I I SP`I
r 1E1LN *_,t�JAGtri o RU i MAMMOTH (INCORP) 0.98 1,762
1MARANA 1 1 -
RED ROCK N/A 300
1 1 1 -_A}R-PARI4,� �..J ,11 _ --I
t y
- AIR Pkii,K R1 , ' ; Source:U.S.Census Bureau,Census Summary File Research Admin.,Population Statistics Unit
1 I I ,11 l
Y r ,
• , ,..I
.., i
.,., .
, ,.
/ it ,,,
, .
.} ,,,, ,..
.,
,..,
LL
Fw 1 4,f�� ww.w.y••may .,(f r ."- ) '� �� j °; O p'---T— I•
I ..._....._
*, d ` ,1 it r
, - `
' :,_._, } 4 -...•...1,..,—• .-•-•.....;•—,••=,...„—•;www• ,` ` 3 D 1. ! I• (ZZ- --
''s•\'[ •
11
1
I v I
1 '•+ 1, �V _ - s ! 1 O i 1
a--1L,, , ',.... %-:(i, ''''''. ,....,,,,, ,r; W
qyr^ �''
I _
Ij
i cD i '' ' ."'S ,-;-'.."-', I
1' r r i 1--- 1 11,•:•, ._� k ! 1• ¢ C
L. r• ryy ----i.
} —� —' """SSI l f'�` . - 1
�� -'y_ ,T
1
• . = ' , ., i
..,---,-:::::.-•,,,, - ....,i.,,,....:-.. '_ 1 ,. .L
. 1 = =,- ,.,.4 ,_ ,,
rf+ y Z
4 V J d *.44 I ?� '. I .�.._.�. .`'�\ `bs:\:::\\\....j
\._ -,... SI... (7) -* \ ; I Z'''•--. (
u_i ry �t ±� S ��—,,� 0
6
-,, Z i: .--, ..
ti
t 1 N,.... ',.i --... -----,, ,..,....,....,.. -_—_,...„.,7:::„, _,,.._,..—rc-,-.. , _ ,, ...,
,, , . ,1
1
F------,... ,..t_.. .--_-_-__.... ....--. t_......... __. ._ ,; _1 , .
y
......,.•,__ L•....i '4,
I til , ___. . ,
. ,
..
rr ~ ".. �*
_ {' I 'I
A F 1
,
' i „ -L.) 1 ..._.......:,-
M
t �.1 1
1
, , ,, ,
,„
,........ ,: ,... .....„ .,„:, ______-„,.. ,,.._ .... ...;.,........_ ,. .
, , „ i ,-1.•-• ' >) '
i ,,.... ,
, i i ,,,..:
, ,.....
i .: ,. , , .„•,.„- .,:- , __.-_,-•••.---;*.-- ...,...-_,
4 .
r
r_._,,,..,...... , \
' 1 I f 1 1.,... , , ' 11, r' ;1...J� w� .......'Ilw.1
yi,„...i
-, f ll .1 .._,ice "r ' �� +4,►I II
s }. r. ' -,..)11/
1i ''-' f� ,..r" `_ i 1 ,I # wrr-�I IT•� f 1� rrtFsi+'! .
0. ,
,,.,-,..- ,-•4/.----:--/
i ).,; ; '1.— ,./ :,., ./ ..4 .,.' ', ...._.', 0)--1-------------1- ----'
}
1 a _y I-- _,, M{
1,
1 C r 1' 'I �' "'a ;
,
v E S 1 J., 1•'1 I,.1 t' t rt _4 .r
f itil ! , , i ��,g
_y .
I }
d' 3 y 1
j
_ S
_
.t
, ' ,.." ' i , F.- ,-,,._-_,,i ::: .,-,, .1 . ,---------,7----;::..„'
1 , ,,. _ .
r
. , r•-•--ii , „ . - r...._,,................._.......:
--I_ ._....„ 1.,„ _ ............1 —4 I... _____i______ '` '• ---- L..„ __-......- .
c
` w4
..
., f
iF ! ..,....... I ! t ,. • ,.'-'',:,--•-:- - --...._,_. .
.2... ,,'"t '—'—',- , , 1
1 ',, ?` R l i ti,
w.
,
1
t , 1 �k.r
,
` _ _
, . i— \ r ti , 0 fl
0
0, }Isis.? ,,,,
2111r-•--'1-j*:7-'' . 1\‘': 't i'C-r):,3 ,E i :
' i —�.42-3
° ,
f • _
C, ' , I Y• 7 V` 'f. /XS 1-- '`-.M.L ,i �' _
: ..•, _
ti
I t
'y5
I
•
Exhibit 2-3
CORRIDOR CONGESTION DEFICIENCIES YEAR 2025
v w
,,, ,„------ ''`---N.)_K,--
tat1/4
, 5�
1���
i
Saddl ebrooke '-'\- --1
Blvd
Pinto Ln f`
— ; /
1 /
s i
4111 Golder Ranch Rd
Wilds Rd
g r- r-
a 0 -510 iS
3 9 c, , 4.„ /, tr
Ioil
W CO a % ip
., 0 Year 2025 Projected
o �
t-- a ' ''` Congestion Deficiencies
(7' ' Mir' 'a-•• _ �► Heavy Congestion
r---) Pus Viow, Hanley
� ! n - BMd
._Letm Severe Congestion
--, _ -.-•. _ La Reserve
i a '"` Dr
Source: Pima Association of Governments
day . BI •
rlle
CA AL° a. 0,L.. ..-'bk.'', 0
r/ Hirdy Rd st
___._s._ ..«Ρ_,.F- ms Rd fr m
ee Rd,,.._..____. ....
, 7- 1, ? 7
-, 1 , ....\\ i ,
',-.,,, \. -ingt.e__. I.*.li 84_____ ,,,,,, _ 1
i\ \
Rud R• PIP:11111
Auto i 0 in
----T °\ ', r-• . –) / >,,,,_,F,„_,._._ ,,.. .,„ _,/, ,i
INetmote :• OrillikAtiall
p--___:foger A• JOUR Wag Mil ------1 L,,,,,------,
, ,,,,i,
Prince Rd,. ongemb ; --�.�..._.�..w M
d , h-
i'
t
Mracle Mile -1 ' is mg ii
.., + ort Lowell Rd,! Elil hi um ;
F � 7
_ i L,--
_ i
- 1 ;
1 /
Grant Rd. "II-- ...m....- 1-.-r--.
,,,,,,_j___,., , , _ ! , i _..i..4.±..,____ --/ ' 1 ),____,
¢Speedway Blvd ,,..
SR 77/Oracle Road Multimodal Corridor Profile Study February 2004
Working Paper#2 Page 2-4
Exhibit 3-6
SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES
TO ADDRESS CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES
\ ,,
i f...
, - ,,,,„atimoi
4
NP:9<,,,, scl
"
Saddlebrooke
Blvd
PINAL COUNT';(
Pinto Ln
PIMA COUNTY
Cool der Ranch Rd
Ards Rd kill LEGEND
i;'.:ER
Rancho Vistoso Blvd
I 1: 11 0 Intersection
-� � � improvements
i
? •
* Grade separated
y m :' intersections
a_ a `!� ` O°°°°°° Diamond lanes
• '�
�� I
l- -\ \ --- 4-lane divided
Tangcrinc Rd ;IA
.` 41111.1111111 6-lane divided
/ I
NJ Naranjalad •
�-- �� 8-lane divided
View ..enl ey
r Blvd
C-• Access management
•. Reserve
e Conq 'sta.., Dr Possible Lighting
Linda vista d W• improvements
•. •. d Lindai: — Vista Blvd Possible high-capacity
Hardy...d _. .
Calle Concordia alternate corridor
i •
L Codaro a+ s d •
ir 1 —
1 t• Provide connection to east-west
Nora
ina1Rd ..-Ti- high capacity corridor.
nge Grove fid --�
e
v,RudasillI Rd j: /�
I /1Y1
e\\ reti * 1r:*...• Auto :I -7----
/I
_ ..
Jill /If,
, c
ill
Wetmore d Y-_._. °_-- /. Limbed ost R.
Roger d' m o -n. `:
/------- Prince d -
/ -Fort Lowell ° a al/
Miracle Mil - l ' f `
Grant R Prilt—
'_ •
% /
_� \ / mum1111111
m
•_••Ma •
1 M i
SR 77/Oracle Road Multimodal Corridor Profile Study February 2004
Working Paper#2 Page 3-12
MIL
,)3-41,,. a
s �''xe ti
-'',44:itOOPP '''''' '-v Yir-A4
�.,...►1w..r..�.w,'
r
w
0 v I—., SKI
"Ci ° GRIER RUN
I MOORE ������
j w
TANGERINE
ARANJA
UO TANGERINE
V' LEY
~' TWIN AKS 10
Q :(:GEE
MAG E E {�'�'
w INA /Nq v-
P1C7,DR�R t-- \,
SUNSET ,.)'z x 0
RO
,\ ~ Z , W
w U EA ._5,
,
\` GORET C GLENN GLEN Cif Z 0 O`NG1014
ILE WIDE w ikE
SPEEDWAY ILMilli m
GATES PA o 9TH :ROADWAY
SShr ' ENYON
22ND 99TH
�, 29TH
'` /j 36TH
BOPP 1-
w d*, o
.NYDER L z' O4/ to
Q \
__I r y lii
N, 0
w cr
co BILBY O z
V�,
_' 110 ' A (\I 1111111111M. 8
5lY " --1 in <t
LU •a > ..-i h—
J
0
Q
z , (?'
0 i t p CAME
Vz ‘17 COLOSSAL
otU DA sr
< e
E -' PIMA MINE ' _ Occ H G
cn
Cn 7A
Z i
HELMET PEAK --1.1.1
1 SAHUARI , / 0 = w
0 / 0
• , / D 8
0
Y
Figure
2-2
,
_,„4.-
System
Loo p
Candidate C �,\� �
4,�
\\°- 1(_)_. 2.5 5 Miles
Evaluation SegmentsIN
Legend 1 kthin
REGIONAL. 1..1
doe Tanque Verde oe Kolb/Northern 1-10 Loop Road
/TangedneNalencia Loop River/ANemon Corridor Cl Pima County Line
`'*Barrazza-Aviation Corridor 'Southwest Inner Loop
/Oracle Junction/La Cholla Corridor Southwest Outer Loop
/Houghton/Sunrise Corridor 'Houghton/Golf Links/Swan Loop
1111\11k. SR)9 S$ 11 ' 4
1
II tj 1 ___,...,......+.... LOOP STUDY
r.wr.���..+.r�a�rr.��rr.. ,...........o.... ,
M1 1 isi , t
HARD D ti I' .........r, _r
L,
L_lt.7
ti
0I MOORE RD r---s. ~��,. ,
' NGERINE'0CC !~
Lu Q ,•
^ oti
TVVItsiCEAKS RD U ..I _.fir
.r`'. 10 jk 5 HARDY Rt �+
MAGEE RD L, „,
m.
ct
pINA RD .. ..... -_-_�__+O `-+)
PICT •4RD c ORANGE GROVE RD kY��N0 <9.QO _ :
SUNRISEIRD��
MANVILt` 'ETMORE RD �V,RRp DC}
'''. Iii F---,,,....,,,-1/
�- ti TANQUE VERDE
co
z NT RD .
MIL z
'� 1r"
CO
0 r
4, +►♦♦►*4.!I-;'1 . GOLF LINKS RD
=
..+ r IQ 4 a ,
4 . , ,
, IRVINGTON RD t
€ % J o )R
EXEL RD I O _
Z
° "Pek4k. - .
{ v
IP 1
pO floor •
�i�1 VAIL CONNECTION RD 1f'r..,�._
.7/ . r
//if19 y
HILLTOP RD .
CI
C4O
(NERD 2
44011/4/
A., R 4
N SAHUARITA RD
HELMET PEAK RD 1
83
rri—L--- —1li — t
•
Figure 2-3 .�<,.., t ........
kl‘
Justified H
_di ri N
Corridors (based on I 1 l '
0 3 6 Miles
demand analysis only) r
v
Legend
41111110 Western Freeway Loop CAP Park IO think�
Southern Freeway Loop de Freeway Wilderness
40 t ioughton/Golf Links Parkway Proposed or Adopted Park Expansion!Natural Preserve
I MO River/Alvernon I Swan Parkway Other Road
Airport
Kolb!Orange Grove Parkway e.Possible Tangerine Road Connection Alternative
Indian Reservations
La Cholla Parkway ? Existing Tucson Water
Barraza-Aviation Parkway Pascua Yaqui Indian Reservation
Lr Pima County Line ' COT Parcels Tohono O'Odham Nation(San Xavier District)
Proposed Tucson Water 10 Tohono O'Odham Nation(Shuck Tuak District)
:: Print Version :: Page 1 of 2
A:
„.. ..:,...,,„..
E ....,,
Print Page
..,.:.„,:::•:.,
, ,,
„..... : : III
•
. 1111
.;ki.,,,
[ky.
Neighborhood without parks upsets parents ' a k .1, , . ' ,. r.,.--0' -
1. i., .,f...-t.:,',;,,,:, -,s.-tr'-.°,s
ByLeigh Shelton, ExpNews@ExplorerNews.com ' . ,„,,,,;,,-4,407,7"4t's >M :;
V ��Y f1Z�k d"1.:�>•}�4:i*:. v�,$i3��j 7 v:S>': � iR..
7f ?3i'fy�f.si.. . 3<'
x`•;# ;yk vss.imp'''
< €CJS � :BAY.
September 13,2006-Around 5:30 p.m. on any given weekday, as parents trickle home from \\ '``Y"'' moi,,,{t �'� r \h xf ..
work, soccer practice or ballet lessons,the growing subdivision of Eagle Crest Ranch begins to '._ r.'.. ., .,ta..�.'}. \ ,\\ �' \ e:.
come alive. Residents on Melange
Bluff in Eagle Crest take
Boys on skateboards zoom through the streets and red bicycles with training wheels climb up turns monitoring the
the steep hills. Parents gradually begin to mosey outside and chat with one another. neighborhood kids who
play in the street.
One topic dominates much of the conversation these days: no places for their kids to play.
Eagle Crest Ranch residents say their frustration stems from empty promises.Swooned by glorious mountain views and a
sales pitch that called Eagle Crest a"master-planned community,"boasting parks, soccer fields and a school,many buyers
gladly signed over their hearts to the southern Pinal County development off Oracle Road and wedged between Catalina and
SaddleBrooke.
But residents don't see any of those promises fulfilled, and whether they moved in three months ago or three years ago,
some Eagle Crest homeowners feel burned. But a deeper look into the issue reveals that the problem may not lie just with
the subdivision's developer, but also with Pinal County's lack of park and recreation space requirements.
"Most of us love living up here,"said Lee Almond, a resident and mother of two. "Just if the sales pitch actually came to
fruition.”
Almond and her husband bought a D.R. Horton-built home earlier this year.They understood buying farther outside the city
meant longer drives to certain resources like shopping and schools, but she said Eagle Crest Ranch sales associates told
them there would be parks and fields for kids to play.
There aren't.
A few doors down,Anne Mohr said she feels duped.
"When we were sold this-sold living way north of Catalina-it was supposed to be a quality of life, beauty, parks, soccer
fields thing,"said Mohr,a mother of two children ages 8 and 4. "When you're telling people, 'You'll have a park and a soccer
field,'that's a very measurable thing.We don't have a soccer field."
Instead, Mohr and Almond said they have to run their kids to parks and sports practice in Oro Valley. It's not quite what the
women imagined.
"When you buy anything it's buyer beware,"Mohr said,"but the parks and things,you have to go on their word for that. I
guess we all just hoped they would come through."
But D.R. Horton's President David Greenberg said the Eagle Crest Ranch buyers are mistaken.
There was never a park planned, and the buyers weren't told there would be park, Greenberg said.
He said his company had planned a school, but the Oracle School District doesn't want the land, because it wants to build a
school closer to the Biosphere 2,where another housing development is expected. Greenberg said the developer of the land
-a company separate from D.R. Horton-might now build a park on that land.
"I think there's going to be 43 more homes,and we had several homeowners say they wanted a park, and I think it's a good
idea,"Greenberg said."But plans haven't been approved yet."
Almond said she doesn't understand why other D.R. Horton neighborhoods, like a new development on Tangerine Road in
Oro Valley, have parks and hers doesn't.
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2006/09/13/oro_valley/oro_valley0l.prt 9/13/2006
:: Print Version :: Page 2 of 2
The reason actually has nothing to do with D.R. Horton. It has to do with which government sets the rules where the
development is built.
Eagle Crest Ranch is in Pinal County,where growth is booming at a staggering 11.3 percent-that's almost four times what it
was in 2001.The problem is the county's rules haven't caught up with the growth.
Unlike Pima and Maricopa counties,or Oro Valley, Pinal doesn't have an ordinance that requires a certain amount of
recreational space in planned area developments like Eagle Crest,said Kent Taylor,a senior planner for parks,open space
and trails in Pinal County.
Pinal County does have a recently-passed ordinance denoting a necessary amount of open space in residential
developments, said planner Dedrick Denton.The county recommends builders put in parks, but doesn't require it yet.
Eagle Crest was approved in the 1980s,although construction didn't start until almost 20 years later.At that time,the county
had few development and building standards of any kind.
But Taylor said the county is considering a requirement for active recreational areas in its parks and recreation master plan
that's in the works. It will be complete this April.
Taylor said Pinal wants to get up to speed with its neighboring counties, but because they have much larger populations and
budgets, it's tough.
"For Pinal, it's the Catch 22," he said. "We're trying to get ahead of the growth, but sometimes the funding isn't there until
after the growth has already started. We still see a large opportunity to affect some very intelligent growth and design, but we
may have missed some."
In comparison Pima County, has much stricter rules. For every 1,000 residents,the county requires a developer to include
two acres of recreational space.
And for every development with more than 65 houses,the developer must provide 436 square feet of park space and pay
$800 per rooftop to go toward county-built parks, said Steve Anderson,a Pima County planner.
Anderson said the requirements are designed so children will have recreational areas near their homes. But even with the
requirements,Anderson said Pima County is behind on the amount of parks it should have.
The county intended to build a park with lighted ball fields,trails and playgrounds in Catalina after a 2004 bond issue directed
about$2 million for the project. But the county significantly downscaled the plans after Catalina residents objected, saying it
would change the rural character of Catalina.
The scaled-back park will include trails, equestrian paths and wild-life viewing areas.
The town of Oro Valley has tight standards as well, requiring one acre of recreational land per 85 houses.
"Typically we have the developing applicant work very closely with parks and (recreation)and planning,"said Pamela
Pelletier, an Oro Valley planner."We also look at the demographics of the subdivision. If it's going to be a single family
subdivision,you'd want active areas for children like play grounds or basketball courts."
Pelletier said if it's an adult community,the town would recommend passive recreational space like picnic and barbeque
areas,walking trails and mediation paths,which Pelletier said are trails enhanced with benches, shade and native
vegetation.
Nevertheless, Oro Valley's few parks are overstressed and the town is debating how to pay for a massive 200-acre regional
park.
Aimee Belknap, an Eagle Crest Ranch resident and mother of six, said she likes the people in her neighborhood and is
happy with Oracle School District, but there is just that one nagging issue.
"I definitely wish there was a park because there is no where for the kids to go and play," Belknap said.
Meanwhile, kids will likely continue to play in the street, in their small backyards or get trucked into Oro Valley's overcrowded
parks,while their parents hope the developer comes through on plans to put a park where the school would've been.
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2006/09/13/oro_valley/oro_valley0l.prt 9/13/2006