HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1003)L , Jx 55Ed4?,
To: Oro Valley Mayor, Joe Winfield and Oro Valley Council
Members
11000 N La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, AZ 85737
CC: Chuck Huckelberry, Pima County Board of Supervisors,
CountyAdministrator
130 W Congress St, Tucson, AZ 85701
Ally Miller Pima County Supervisor District 1
130 W Congress St, Tucson, AZ 85701
Suzanne Shields, P.E., Director Pima County Flood Control
Dist.
201 N Stone Ave, Tucson, AZ 85701
RE: Urgent Requests from area residents to certain details and
Issues that the oro Valley Town Council will soon address in
the upcoming Annexation and Rezoning vote
December 10, 2018
This letter is being sent to address our serious concerns
surrounding the Oro Valley annexation and rezoning of the 885 acre
State Land Proposed Annexation Project. We, the residents of Orange
Ranch Estates and other concerned neighbors who attended the Camino
del Norte Oro Valley meeting, are a group of residents to the southwest
of the proposed project. The ORE development originated in the 1970s
and 1980s, is located in the upper half of what appears to be a
section/township/range immediately south of Lambert, between Camino
de Oeste and Thornydale. We are depicted on only one or two of your
maps, but are depicted on page 27 of your Arizona State Land
Department Tangerine Road and Thornydale Road Specific Plan
presentation/information packet on your website.
Our major concern is the flooding of our development during the
monsoon season due directly to the changes being made upstream
(Northeast) of us. Our development is roughly 250 acres, and represents
75 home sites. According to current zoning laws, which you are
proposing to change soon, the 885 acres should hold approximately 228
home sites. Instead you may vote to increase that number by 13 to 17
times the current number allowed. The negative consequences to our
properties with increased water run off in making such zoning changes
puts more liability on your shoulders, and we intend to hold you
accountable.
We and the other concerned neighbors were allowed by Pima
County to build our homes according to the County's specific
requirements at the time of our development's conception. Pima County
has made certain flood control changes, notably in 2007, around the time
Fry's Market was built at Tangerine and Thornydale. Since the recent
building of many more homes surrounding the proposed project and
annexation site, to the west and north of the intersection of Tangerine
and Thornydale and the recent completion of the Tangerine Road
improvements, we have threatening floods on our properties throughout
the monsoon season year after year. Several of us have lived here since
the seventies and have seen stronger than normal monsoon seasons
through the years but never have our houses experience actual flooding
as they have these past few years.
In 2018, in the space of four months, beginning in June and ending
just before your 1 st meeting to introduce this proposal to the community
this neighborhood had at least three one-hour "rain bombs", as they are
now referred to, that dropped nearly 3 inches of rain per hour each event.
Two such events were spaced only a few days apart. Many sections of
Thornydale Rd and Linda Vista areas were impassable. Camino de Oeste
and Cortero were impacted by sand heaps making those roads
impassable. Forty railroad cars were blown over right after the bomb
passed through our neighborhood. Our washes were full and homes were
threatened or did receive water inundation. This was referred to as a 200
year event. At the time Orange Ranch Estates was platted and these
homes were built the inundations were calculated at a 50 year event.
Thirty five years later it appears that the 50year event plan is
superfluous. It has been moved to a 100 event schedule. Yet we are
already experiencing 200 year events ... we mention this because the
planning to contain water runoff from the proposed project needs to be
calculated assuming 200 year events not 100.
PLEASE NOTE:
When asked in the first of the four meetings scheduled in
November/December 2018 how many acres of holding basins are
required to hold the run off from the approximate 250 acres of
impervious surface that is expected to be part of this proposal, the WLP
Group's Senior project Manager said that that was just a mathematical
calculation that he did not have. We do not see how that number can
be missing from the proposal. It is a calculation that you need to
consider up front and center as a consequence of what you are
approving. Furthermore, how is today's runoff calculated? Do you, the
voting members, not NEED these numbers BEFORE you vote?
We emphatically insist that you to pay particular attention to the verbal
promise made at the very 1 st aro Valley meeting on the subject and
made by the Applicant: We were told verbally that the run-off from the
885 acres as measured today before any development, is to be reduced
by l0% after all development is completed. However in the printed
material, it is stated that Sections 10 and 11 will be reduced by 10%. We
questioned the speaker at another meeting and he again stated that all of
the property's sections will be reduced by 10%. Do not vote on a
proposal that only covers responsibility for part of the annexed area. Do
not vote before we can see what their calculations are and question them.
- Know the specifics of the method of measuring the current out flow in
its current natural state. You must expect the answer to make sense by
not only today's measuring stick, but by at least a 200 year event
plan, as we are already experiencing such weather patterns in this
area.
- We hereby request that if you change the landscape as proposed, that
you require the Developer to make offsite provisions for run off water
by channelizing and containing the flow until it meets up With other
Pima County channelized Water flows, such CDo or Rillito channels.
We do NOT Want any approval of the project that does not include
ehannefing the runoff to avoid our community. We would request an
outside impartial hydrologist engineering specialist to calculate the
impact our community might expect from this annexation and zoning
change. Clearly this Was not considered When approving the Sky
Ranch and other developments north of us.
IPCC just released the newest report that encourages community
members to approach people like you making decisions like this with
higher expectations of awareness of what may befall us in the normal
course of business. We believe the 100 year measuring stick is likely
already outdated.
We find it odd that Pima County is required to be a neutral party in
this annexation and rezoning process, even though our community is
under its jurisdiction and not that of either Marana or oro Valley. Who
at a government level is Watching out for our community's wellbeing
and safety While these large zoning changes are being considered?
Pine. County is a partner in Flood Control in the proposed annexed area
and all the areas surrounding it. We are asking you to Work in tandem to
contain the offsite Water. Please understand the legal ramifications of
your decisions as they adversely affect surrounding communities.
We look forward to hearing your response to our concerns and
thank you for the opportunity to discuss these matters at the upcoming
meeting.
Jg ie Ymta7yNDxa.nge nch Estates Homeowner
Date /,-J-/,-'e
Date
Jennifer., rehead, Orange Ranch Estates Association President
Date
�' VaA474 diL V/---) Date�O , � —
Richard Yan ow, Orange Ranch Estates Association Vice President
If you have questions you may write to:
OREHOA
PO BOX 91197
Tucson, AZ 85752
Or email:
Julie Rotary, Homeowner :
Jennifer Morehead , HOA President :
Richard Yandow, HOA Vice President:
Diana and Dennis Campbell
�Qy
Tucson, AZ
c'pI8
November 15, 2018
Melanie Barrett, Vice Mayor
Town of Oro Valley
11000 N La Canada Drive
Oro Valley, AZ 85737
Dear Ms. Barrett;
We are writing in regards to the proposed annexation of Tangerine State Land and the specific
re -zoning plan, which I'm sure you are aware of. This is a very unpopular and extremely
disturbing plan. This specific plan is not at all aligned with the GENERAL PLAN.
We have been attending all the neighborhood meetings with regards to the annexation and
rezoning plans. We strongly object to, and PROTEST this plan.
During the meetings, there is never enough time for everyone to voice their concerns.
Also, all of the concerns are not duly noted. Another concern, we feel our "voice" is not heard
to the extent of "our voice". So much is lost in interpretation.
We just built, and moved into our custom home on 4 acres which is directly adjacent to this
State Land. Our property directly borders this land to the south. This plan would destroy our
Property Value, which at our age would be completely devastating.
None of this proposed plan is in line with any of the Oro Valley General Plan or Oro Valley
Street Standards. Special notes:
Traffic / High Density / Special Study Floodplain and Important Riparian Areas
Oro Valley General Plan.. Section 27.6 Landscape Conservation states:
1) Preserving Land Values
2) Preserving Environmental Quality - Contributing to the reduction of Air Pollution
3) Enhancing design — Reducing adverse impacts between potentially incompatible uses
4) Promoting Living Quality —
- by protecting the right of property enjoyment through nuisance reduction
- soften the harsher aspects of urban development
IN KEEPING with the General Plan, we request no access from the development in to Tortolita Acres
Community; no extending our roads into the proposed development.
Furthermore, request that Camino del Norte NOT be extended to Shannon.
Refer to Town Of Oro Valley Subdivision Street Standards and Policies Manual 4.1 Street Layout:
"Residential Lots shall not front on collectors or arterials"
This would be a major Arterial Road running through the FRONT YARDS of some resident's property.
Access to the Proposed Development to be at major roads only, IE: Thornydale and Tangerine.
Refer to Town of Oro Valley Subdivision Street Standards and Policies Manual Appendix H:
Traffic Calming Policy:
"The purpose of these standards is to incorporate traffic calming methods in development standards
in order to discourage cut -through traffic thereby reducing speed -related problems in proposed local
subdivisions. Traffic Calming Development Standards will be incorporated into the Oro Valley
Subdivision Street Standards and all future subdivisions will be subject to these requirements.
POLICY. Local streets should be discontinuous .... Streets generally should be interrupted with jogs and
offsets resulting in an S-curve configuration.... The intent of traffic calming is to minimize the
potential cut -through traffic between major streets. Major streets are defined as arterials and
collectors.
Minimizing the potential cut -through traffic between major streets can be
accomplished by preventing connections between major streets ...
Special Note: If Camino del Norte was extended to connect with Shannon, it would run through our
property, putting our well less than 100 feet from the road. The required setback for our well is to have
a minimum of a 100 foot radius free of any structure or road.
In accordance with Oro Valley's General Plan to:
"promote the compatibility between adjacent and distinct land uses and preserving existing views
and screening from view those uses which may be detrimental to adjacent property values... and
encouraging in-place preservation of native vegetation which is an integral part of the Sonoran Desert
and which contributes to property values, high quality of life, and the unique lifestyle which the
community enjoys".... and to reduce adverse impacts between potentially incompatible uses and zones
by requiring an appropriate level of buffering and screening..."
We respectfully request the buffer unit along Camino del Norte to be larger than 100 feet.
The SP mentions where there are existing roads, there is as much as 150 feet of separation, coupled
with the proposed 100 foot buffer would be a good transition HOWEVER where there is no road, and
properties butt right up to the State Land, the buffer is too small.
General Plan Compliance Analysis
The CRITERIA, in the "General Plan Compliance Analysis" found in the Specific Plan, page 89:
Higher density or intensity developments abutting lower density areas include buffering and shall
substantially mitigate any negative impacts.
Specific Plan Comments:
"The SP proposes a gradual transition from high to medium to low intensity land uses located near the
perimeter areas of the SP."
** Why then, are you including medium high density (R-4) to the far south of the Proposed Project,
when these properties directly adjacent are on 1— 4 acres.
The CRITERIA: The elements of the site plan display a rational relationship between land uses for the
mutual benefit of the community and the neighborhood.... The SP protects, in a manner equal or
superior to existing zoning, existing neighborhoods from harmful encroachment by intrusive or
disruptive development....
Specific Plan Comments:
The SP has been designed with these items in mind. Roads connect to surrounding roads at logical
locations ..... Appropriate buffers are provided within the SP and on the perimeter of the SP .... The SP
provides significant natural bufferyards on its perimeter to provide a transition between the SP and
existing adjacent land uses.
** A buffer of only 100 feet, where property lines are directly adjacent to the Proposed Project, would
be intrusive. This is not a significant buffer and provides little transition.
SPECIFIC FINDINGS: The project is designed so that the additional traffic generated does not have
significant adverse impact on surrounding development, or the development has detailed plans to
mitigate the adverse conditions.
SP Comments: Purchasers/developers of property with the SP will prepare Traffic Impact Analyses to
address the impacts of development on roadways.
** This needs to be addressed prior to the zoning taking place. How can you propose to open up
roads (Shannon, Camino del Norte, Camino Central) WITHOUT having adverse impacts and conditions
to our neighborhood?
How can the development have "detailed plans to mitigate the adverse conditions" when you are
leaving it to the Purchasers/developers of the property to prepare a Traffic Impact Analyses?
When we obtaining our building permit, there are important Riparian areas that were NOT to be
disturbed. There is a special study floodplain area running through our property. These both flow from
your proposed "Unit 10"; yet on your maps you are not even showing these as neither important
Riparian corridors OR special study floodplain areas; They have been completely removed, vanished.
WHERE did they go??
Flood Hazard Map, Pima County Records Fema Zone X, Special Study Area 19.
Floodplain Use Permit -- Record: P17FC00463 – Building Record P17BPO4599
This map shows the special study floodplain area—this runs directly through our property, coming from
the State Land, the proposed project site.
Per Pima County Permit, the subject property is located within a Special Study Floodplain and erosion
hazard area, report #46, Sheet Flood Mapping for Unincorporated Pima County (dated 08-08-2007).
"The SP does not show this area as a floodplain, rather, is constructing Unit 11 in this area
If the SP proposes to have extra detention facilities along the south, where adverse drainage
conditions discharge to the south, where will they be located, if there is only a 100 foot buffer zone?
The SP states that further evaluation of existing conditions and flooding adversely impacting the
adjacent southerly neighborhood will be conducted.
This needs to be conducted prior to rezoning.
Important Riparian Areas:
Floodplain Use Permit -- Record: P17FC00463 – Building Record P17BPO4599
Riparian Habitat Ordinance, Chapter 16.30 of the Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management
Ordinance, Title 16 of the Pima County Code
This parcel contains Important Riparian Areas with underlying Xeroriparian Class C Habitat, as shown on
the 2005 Riparian Classification Maps.
16.08.430
Important Riparian. Area.
"Important Riparian Area," for purposes of this title, means riparian areas designated as
Important Riparian Areas on maps adopted by the Board for their hydrologic, geomorphic, and
biological values. These areas provide a critical function for landscape linkage and connectivity
with other habitats and provide biological corridors. In"rtant Riparian Areas include
hydroriparian, rnesoriparian, and xerariparian class A, B, C, and D habitat areas. (Ord. 2005 FC -
2 § 2 (part). 2005; Ord. 1999 FC- I ti I (part), 1999; Ord. 1994 FC -2 (part), 1994: Ord. 1988 FC -
Art. 10 (B), 19 88)
** The Specific Plan does not show this location as an Important Riparian area, and shows
constructing Unit 11 in this location.
Riparian areas should not be disturbed. They slow the flow of water, which reduces erosion.
By building here, they yet again increase flood potential
Arizona State Museum;
The property should be re -surveyed, per the Arizona State Museum since archaeological sites have
been identified within this property area.
Again, we strongly oppose and object to the proposed Specific Plan. It is not in alignment with
the General Plan.
There is a lot more work that needs to be done before any type of rezoning should even be
considered. (ie Flood plains/flooding issues/Riparian/Archaeological sites/Traffic Issues)
We ask for your help to review this. The current residents in this area ask for a more
"respectful" plan.
Comments from current residents: "Our many concerns; loss of major wildlife and
riparian areas; this development would negatively impact the corridor; unchecked
erosion and water runoff changes in existing surrounding residential areas;
outrageously increased traffic on major roads and throughout the surrounding
neighborhoods; excessive light and noise pollution from over -population and unchecked
residential and commercial growth; and increased crime in local neighborhoods.
Cut backs in police ranks have impacted the lack of police protection and patrols around
this area to the point that crime has increased, and speed limits are all but ignored on
the major roads as well as in and around the residential neighborhoods; how utterly
crappy and congested Thornydale Road is and the impact of adding another
approximately eight thousand vehicles to this area, with no plans to address"
Hope you can help.
With warm regards,
Respectfully,
Diana and Dennis Campbell
Tucson, AZ
January 1, 2019
Dear Mayor and Council Members of Oro Malley,
There is Or was a meeting where you are to consider the Annexation of 885 State
owned acres, and we wish to let you know that we have concerns that you should
be aware of prior to your vote. There was a letter that was delivered to each of
you, dated December 10, 2018 from members of a 250 acre parcel, known as
Orange Ranch Estates to the southwest of the Annex area and we wish to ratify
their sentiments on the water flow issues expected from the developed Annex
area especially since we are in Tortillita Acres and effected more, as follows:
1) Know the specifics of the calculations and the methods used to measure the
run-off waters in its natural state.
2) You must expect the answer to make sense. Ask: if you have 250 acres of
impermeable surfaces, then how many acres of holding basins are required?
What proportions will they be?
3) what is the release rate and how will release rates affect the neighbors? Will
the release of these waters cause already saturated soils to the south and west of
the development to overflew or prolong the saturation time between Monsoon
storms? How can you be sure?
4) Can you really ignore the 1PCC report and not adjust the measurement to the
200 year flood event model, as we are already having 3 inches of rain per hour
frequently in this neighborhood, which is different than the airport
measurements? We believe the 100 year measuring stick is likely already
outdated. us.
S) we hereby request that if you change the landscape as proposed, that you
require the Developer to make offsite previsions for run off water by channelizing
and containing the flog until it Meets up with other Firm County channelized
water flows, such CDo or Rillito channels. we do NOT want any approval of the
project that does not include channeling the runoff to avoid our various
communities to the south and west of this project, we would request an outside
impartial hydrologist engineering specialist to calculate the impact our community
might expect from this annexation and ening change. Clearly this was not
considered when approving the sky Ranch and other developments north of us.
'here are times where we get very little rain, but are highly affected by rains in
the Tortolitas to the North - Northeast of us. The gashes thru our property are
already raging by the time it gets to our property preventing runoff from our
property to exit into the wash.
r C .
0 Ac
Kare6 Merodias Date Address
Frank Weitekamp
Email :Addresses
Date Address
John & Kathleen Mulligan
Tucson A2
December 18, 2018
Bayer Vella: Planning Manager: Planning and Zoning Administrator,
Michael Spaeth: Principal Planner,
Mayor Hiremath and Oro Valley Town Council
11000 N. La Canada Drive
Oro Valley, AZ. 85737
Dear Mr. Vella, Mr. Spaeth, Mayor Hiremath and Oro Valley Town Council,
laa441
a
4N
I am writing to inform you that I PROTEST the rezoning of the Tangerine State Land to a designation
of a Master Planned Community. This property is currently zoned as Suburban Ranch. Although I do not
oppose development of the property in character with the surrounding communities, the planned
development is not compatible with our area!
My neighborhood is comprised of properties with average lots of approximately 1 to 5 acres. Our
neighbors have horses, donkeys, goats, chickens, cows, etc. in our semi rural neighborhood. Neighbors
enjoy walking, running and biking through the peaceful and scenic roads and paths north of Camino del
Norte.
In Tangerine 550, there is extensive natural desert vegetation including many Ironwood trees and
Saguaro Cacti that are hundreds of years old. So many wildlife including coyotes, javelin, bobcats,
mountain lions, Gila monsters and more live in this State Land.
The planned density would equal 3205 homes/units on 5000-5500 square foot lots. This includes 3-5
story apartments proposed. The number of units proposed equates to more than 6,000-10,000 people
moving into our area. This is NOT an acceptable plan for the entir rural area nor is it consistent with
current neighborhoods.
We are very concerned about water drainage issues, added traffic through our neighborhood and
Thornydale's ability to support such a large development.
I respectfully OBJECT to this rezoning application unless a no build buffer zone immediately north of
Camino del Norte is included in the plan.
Thank you,