Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1413)Stine, Michelle From: Randall, Diana Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 8:07 AM To: Stine, Michelle; Standish, Michael Subject: FW: Romspen's request for continuance - General Plan Amendment Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Good morning, See below for resident comments. Sincerely, Diana Randall Executive ,assistant Town Manager, Ma} -or and Council From: Rosa Dailey [mailto: Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 5:50 PM To: Town Council <council@orovalleyaz.gov>; Ask <ask@orovalleyaz.gov>; Jacobs, Mary <mjacobs@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Romspen's request for continuance - General Plan Amendment Town Staff and Members of the Town Council, Four months ago, Tom Stegman and I brought The Conservation Fund to Oro Valley in an attempt to bring about a fair and equitable solution to the property that was once the Vistoso golf course. This solution would require many members of the community to bear significant financial responsibility and place their trust in the capable hands of Mike Ford and other respected members of a nationally recognized land conservation organization to resolve the purchase of the Vistoso golf course property. To date, our community has wholeheartedly risen to this challenge with both enthusiasm and unprecedented financial pledges and donations, which would guarantee along with matching state grant funds that the property could be gifted to the Town of Oro Valley and its citizens to be enjoyed as a nature conservancy in perpetuity. Yet, instead of a well-earned resolution with the property owner after nearly four months of high quality discovery paid for by The Conservation Fund, the citizens who generously offered to partner in a fair solution have been met with the reinstallation of large yellow zoning signs. This gesture could only have been directed by the property owner, to inflict more pain on a community that has already endured too many years of it. And, please note, it has appropriately been received in this manner. There is always a limit to be realized in any negotiation or endeavor to resolve differences. Every single participant in this process, most importantly the property owner, understood that The Conservation Fund, if engaged in the purchase of the Vistoso property, would be bound by the constraint of fair market value. Every citizen who pledged and donated embraced the safety of this constraint because it ensured fairness in exchange for significant financial contributions. At this juncture, one can only assume that Romspen's request for a continuance of their General Plan Amendment and rezoning process is a ploy to circumvent what is fair in their negotiations with The Conservation Fund and to negate the generous efforts put forth by this community to resolve this issue. Any suggestion that the amendment process was favorable to Romspen when it was paused for these negotiations is to negate the vehement and copious spoken and written disapproval submitted by this community in response to Romspen's filing. The lost opportunity with The Conservation Fund, should it become a reality, is not likely to soften our community's outrage with Romspen. Therefore, there is no valid reason to grant Romspen a continuance should they be so brazen as to disregard the desires of this community and bring this matter to your council meeting in December. Further, the council possesses the tools to rid this community of the continual anguish of combatting Romspen's unrealistic desire for large profits at our expense and resolve this matter fairly for the public good. If it becomes necessary, I implore you to use whatever means necessary to honor the herculean efforts of this community and bring about an end to this nightmare once and for all. Respectfully, Rosa Dailey Siena Resident Stine, Michelle From: Randall, Diana Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 8:04 AM To: Stine, Michelle; Standish, Michael Subject: FW: Romspen General Plan Amendment Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Good morning, See below for resident comments. Sincerely, Diana Randall Executive Assistant Town Manager, Mayor and Council From: Tom & Joyce [mailto: Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 9:56 AM To: Town Council <council@orovalleyaz.gov>; Ask <ask@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Romspen General Plan Amendment Town staff and members of the Town Council: Seeing the yellow signs going back up has the community both confused and outraged. We have expressed our indignation about this over and over, and are sick and tired of dealing with this, especially while negotiations with The Conservation Fund are ongoing. Giving Romspen any idea that they have a chance at development will negatively affect the plan to preserve this property for the benefit of the Town rather than someone who wants to make millions and dump it. We are pleading with you to DENY the request by Romspen for continuance on their rezoning request, and DENY the Romspen General Plan Amendment in December. The issue with the former golf course has been going on over 2 years now. They have held the town and its residents hostage long enough, and this greedy foreign owner needs to get the message that we are fed up. Tom and Joyce Stegman Stine, Michelle From: Randall, Diana Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 5:01 PM To: Stine, Michelle; Standish, Michael; Hynd, Jessica Subject: FW: Romspen's request of a continuance on its General Plan Amendment (GPA) application in the October 13th Planning and Zoning (PStZ) meeting Good afternoon, Please see below for resident's comtnents. Sincerely, Diana Randall Executive Assistant Town Manager, Mayor and Council From: Terry Hart (mailto. Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 4:57 PM To: Winfield, Joe <jwinfield@orovalleyaz.gov>; Barrett, Melanie <mbarrett@orovalleyaz.gov>; Jones -Ivey, Joyce <jjones- ivey@orovalleyaz.gov>; Nicolson, Josh <jnicolson@orovalleyaz.gov>; Pina, Rhonda <rpina@orovalleyaz.gov>; Rodman, Bill <brodman@orovalleyaz.gov>; Solomon, Steve <ssolomon@orovalleyaz.gov>; Town Council <council@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: Jacobs, Mary <mjacobs@orovalleyaz.gov>; Johnston, A <jjohnston@orovalleyaz.gov>; Vella, Bayer <bvella@orovalleyaz.gov>; Spaeth, Michael <mspaeth@orovalleyaz.gov>; Simms, Milini <msimms@orovalleyaz.gov>; Oden, Hannah <hoden@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Romspen's request of a continuance on its General Plan Amendment (GPA) application in the October 13th Planning and Zoning (P&Z) meeting My two and a half cents. You (Town Council and Staff), just continue to be played - and steamrolled. It's absolutely amazing how a foreign land owner continues to have more influence and control regarding the operations of this Town than the Town's residents, Council and Staff. Hopefully, someday, soon, you'll actually put Oro Valley's residents, your constituents - First ! Regards, Terry Hart Stine, Michelle From: Randall, Diana Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 2:13 PM To: Hynd, Jessica; Stine, Michelle; Standish, Michael Subject: FW: Sienna / General plan Please see below for constituent comment Sincerely, Diana Randall Executive Assistant Town Manager, Mayor and Council -----Original Message ----- From: Carol Harbaugh [mailto: Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 2:00 PM To: Town Council <council@orovaIleyaz.gov> Subject: Sienna / General plan We join other community members in voicing our disgust and outrage at the Romspen drive to change the general plan. 15 years ago we chose Oro Valley as our permanent residence. This was after much serious consideration of other local areas. We strongly urge you to listen to your residents and vote NOT to allow Romspen development change our quality of life, views, etc we expected moving to Oro Valley. We are retired and desire more public open space rather than housing development. OV has many parks and playground equipment/fields for youth. Give us more open space for ALL to use. We BEG your support in this issue. We appreciate being able to send this request to the entire council rather than personal requests by phone or mail to each of you, like we've done in the past. Each of you accept this plea personally. PLEASE think of residents like us over a developer who wants to profit over our loss. DO NOT ALLOW THE REQUESTED GENERAL PLAN CHANGE. Signed, Dean harbaugh Carol Harbaugh Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 3:24 PM " To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Comments on General Plan Amendment and rezoning for the Westward Look Resort located at the Ina Road and Westward Look Drive intersection From: Mike Myers [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 3:07 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Comments on General Plan Amendment and rezoning for the Westward Look Resort located at the Ina Road and Westward Look Drive intersection Mike: I am writing in regards to the General Plan Amendment and rezoning for the Westward Look Resort located at the Ina Road and Westward Look Drive intersection. My home is at which is directly adjacent to the Westward Look property on Westward Look Drive which is titled Resort Gateway West in the proposed plans that I have reviewed. As I'm sure you know, the current parcel, Resort Gateway West, located next to my home is zoned low density residential. This zoning and its potential development were things that we were aware of when we identified the home and then purchased the home and deemed its price acceptable. Personally, I am concerned, as I believe any parent and homeowner would be, with the proposed zoning changes that are being considered at this time for the Resort Gateway West parcel. The specific concerns that I am asking for you to consider when evaluating the zoning change request include: • The safety and security of my family that will be impacted by people coming and going from virtually every development option that is not low density residential housing. I am specifically concerned about residents and guests of some of the proposed development options wandering into our backyard and onto our property. In the case of my home, it would take less than a minute or two for someone to come onto our property, have some form of impact, and be back to the proposed development area • The value of my home and property being negatively impacted by development which is inconsistent with the current zoning • The privacy of my family that will be impacted by all of the development options outside of low density residential housing • The impact on the threatened and endangered wildlife that have lived and do live in the Resort Gateway West parcel • Although we anticipated that the land next to us could be developed, low density residential development, in line with the current parcel's zoning, would maintain a significant amount of natural desert The staff at Westward look and the Planning Center have been reasonable and accessible in their communications, which is appreciated. With that said, the proposed mitigation measures that I am aware of to date do not adequately address the concerns that I am sharing with you. On a broader level, I support and am aware of the area plan for Oro Valley that favors gradual transitions for land uses. The proposed rezoning for the Gateway West parcel creates an abrupt and significant transition between potential uses which will have a negative impact on my family and others that are adjacent to it. I appreciate the needs of Oro Valley and the Westward Look property owners. The current zoning of the parcel entitled Resort Gateway East is NCO. As this is the much larger parcel of the two and East has been zoned this way for an extended period, I believe that Westward Look and Oro Valley, if the parcels are annexed, have every right to develop it as they see fit. I am requesting, however, that the Resort Gateway West property maintain its low density residential housing designation for the reasons that I've outlined above. Thank you for your consideration. Mike Mike Myers Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 8:35 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: OV/WLR Annex/Gen Pin Amend/Rezoning From: ROBERT HAGEN [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 8:56 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: OV/WLR Annex/Gen Pin Amend/Rezoning Mr. Michael Standish,Town Clerk Town of Oro Valley (OV) mstandish @ orovalleyaz.gov Mr. Standish: I would very much appreciate you forwarding this email to the OV Town Council members ahead of their 6 PM meeting tomorrow. This message is a follow-up to my previous email to them dated Sept 16, 2020.... please let me know that you received it OK and will forward it ......... THXs..... Bob Hagen Dear OV Town Council Members: In my Sept 16th email, I noted a number of substantial concerns many of us have as neighbors regarding the proposed Town of OV Annexation, General Plan Amendment and Rezoning related to the Westward Look Resort (WLR) and the commercial development that it may undertake. They included such issues as significantly increased traffic/safety concerns, strained neighborhood relations with WLR, a likely negative affect on our home values and/or our ability to resale them, unsightly views, substantially increased noise levels and a heightened likelihood that the Town of Oro Valley would once again try to annex our neighborhood. To add to the above concerns, I also believe there will be a considerably elevated leve[ of unhealthy auto exhaust fumes (something that is already a problem in the area), a negative impact on the surrounding desert plants/wildlife (something that is special to us) and a higher likelihood of crime and/or /burglaries in our neighborhood. It is also hard for us to understand how we as close -by neighbors do not appear to have any meaningful input or say in what is taking place. At the present time, there are no WLR buildings that are closer than a few hundred feet to our homes. With the potential WLR commercial development, buildings possibly as tall as three stories could quite literally be a short stone throw from all of the homes on both sides of the street from Ina N on Sonya Way all the way to Michelle PI. In the final analysis, it is hard to envision how any of the three WLR commercial development concepts designs would be anything but negative for our neighborhood. Any help or assistance you could provide to ensure that things proceed from here in a minimally intrusive and negative manner for our neighborhood would be very much appreciated by all concerned. Sincerely, Robert Hagen, Westward Look Heights Email: Cell: Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 11:22 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Westward Look proposed project From: Nadine Pultman [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 10:59 AM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Westward Look proposed project Mr. Standish, Thank you for taking emails from concerned neighbors in The Westward Look area and passing them on to the Oro Valley supervisors. My husband and I have lived in Catalina Village off of for over 30 years and I have been familiar and enjoyed Westward Look for over 50 years. We have had friends stay at Westward Look and they especially appreciated the quiet and bucolic setting. We feel that the new owner is perhaps not familiar with this area and the chaos that overbuilding on the two Parcels along Ina will cause to residents, wildlife, and the environment in general. For example, desert tortoises, which are protected, do live on these parcels, not to mention all the other animals which live and forage in these areas. The traffic situation at the Ina and Oracle intersection is untenable, especially since the left turn lights were put in, against the wishes of the residents in the area. Since Westward Look does not go through to Magee, Village Drive will be used constantly New York City so people can reach Pima Canyon. This will also cause much more noise, air pollution, and unnecessary traffic in our neighborhood. This will be a dangerous situation since many people walk and bicycle on Village Drive, and it will be a danger to wildlife crossing over to the huge wash across from Los Pinos Vista, and to the students at Immaculate Heart. It will also make it even more difficult for people who live in Catalina Village and Suffolk Hills to get onto Ina Road. We are extremely sympathetic to the neighbors who will have non single family or commercial buildings literally in their backyards. There does not seem to be a need for restaurants or bars since Westward Look itself has these amenities. As for shopping, La Encantada is 10 minutes away with many shops, restaurants, coffee bars, Etc. Not only that, apartment buildings will ruin the view of many of the rooms of the hotel itself, devaluing the charm of the resort besides bringing in too many people in such a small area and permanently disrupting the lifestyle of the surrounding residences. We also question why Honeywell is not part of Oro Valley but is still in unincorporated Pima County but completely surrounded by Oro Valley? Also some of the speakers in the last forum were a bit vague. For example, Dr. Tatum, who owns a house on McGee, does not live there, he has been renting it out for the past 15 years since he is a resident of Austin. Mr Sakellar, who is a very nice person, forgot to mention that he's an architect in Tucson and could perhaps end up being involved in this project. Westward Look, having been part of this area for a hundred years, is indeed a much -loved resort by everyone. Please take into consideration that perhaps it should be left as is. Thank you very much for taking our email and passing it on to the Oro Valley council members. Sincerely, Rocco and Nadine Paone (cell) Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 2:45 PM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Westward Look Annexation Attachments: OroValley.WestwardLook.pdf From: James Just [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 2:41 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Westward Look Annexation Please convey this letter (see attachment) to the Mayor and members of the City Council in time for tonight's meeting. Thank you very much. James Just Westward Look Heights HomeOwner Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 2:43 PM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Comment for Town Board From: Ranay Twidwell Guifarro [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 2:37 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Comment for Town Board Mike - I would like to submit the bellow comment for this evening's Town Board meeting. Thank you, Ranay Guifarro Oro Valley Town Board, I am writing as a neighbor who would be impacted by the proposed development at the Westward Look Resort. The impacts that are being proposed offer three options, all of which would negatively impact my property value, in addition to the loss of safety, quiet, and wildlife. This week I sat, late at night in my living room and a movement caught my eye, as I peered out the window, I was able to witness two deer walking through the yard. I understand that this area is described as an interrupted desert, but doesn't this describe most desert around Tucson? The fire this summer has impacted natural habitats, but what is restricting us to provide some areas to these wild animals? In the community development field growth and development are defined as two separate things. development is defined as thoughtful and carefully designed to be sustainable, while growth is unfettered and unsustainable. When looking around Ina and Oracle I can count numerous office buildings that are available for lease, this the same for apartments. This development appears to be a poor idea that falls into the growth category and does not provide improvement to the area. Thank you for your time. Cheers, Ranay Guifarro Tucson, AZ 85704 Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 2:46 PM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Tonight's Council Meeting - Mike, if it is not too late, please include this in the Council package for tonight's meeting From: MIKE ZINKIN [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 2:03 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Tonight's Council Meeting - Mike, if it is not too late, please include this in the Council package for tonight's meeting I am writing you this communication in an effort to convince you to disapprove agenda items 2 and 3. As a prior member of the Board of Adjustment, and former Council liaison to the Board of Adjustment (BOA) I am very familiar on how a variance to our code should be handled. These items were apparently brought forward by staff because an individual had their application disapproved by the BOA and rather than appeal that decision to the Superior Court, as per State Law, they are attempting to get you to change the code. Our Codes are there for a reason. They are there to protect the Citizens and to ensure that everyone is treated equally. For example, if the Code requires that a rear setback be 10', we are all assured that when an area is developed that ALL rear setbacks will be 10'. If an individual desires to be treated differently, and request a variance to the code, their avenue is to go the BOA. The BOA is a Board of fellow citizens whose decision to allow for the requested is based on State Law. Prior 2012 the staff made no recommendations to the BOA. After 2012 staff started to make recommendations, BUT the applicant was told that these were not binding. Input or recommendations from the HOA or neighborhood are also not relevant. The OBJECTIVE requirements for a variance are: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district. 2. That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant. 3. Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ofsubstantial property rights. 4. That any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located. 1 S. That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general. All of the above criteria must be established by the applicant prior to the issuance of a variance. What agenda items 2 and 3 are attempting to do is remove the BOA from this procedure and replace it with staff. This is just ANOTHER attempt by management to infringe on the governing of the Town. There is NO objectivity in allowing staff to decide. Staff work for the Town Manager, not for the Citizens, and, as a result, will be influenced by subjective reasoning. Oro Valley has been working just fine under the existing set of rules since its inception in 1974. There is NO reason to all of a sudden move this responsibility out of the BOA to staff. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO PASS. Thank you, Mike Zinkin N To: Oro Valley Mayor & City Council From: James Just, Westward Look Heights HomeOwner I am writing in regard to the Westward Look Resort annexation proposal. There are several matters of concern to myself and many/most of my neighbors in Westward Look Heights, e.g., negative impact on wildlife, view corridors, dangerous traffic conditions on Ina Road, lighting, noise, to name only a few which immediately come to my mind. I will address the issue which is at the top of my list, i.e., property value. My wifeand I moved here about five years ago and we chose this location carefully after searching all over within and around the city of Tucson and even out into Oro Valley and beyond. As a part of our analysis, as would be the case for any property purchase, we looked at the value of the property and the expected gain or loss of said value. We are not property speculators and we are not snowbirds; this is our home year round and we expect it to be so for years to come. That said, almost all real estate is at some time going to be sold and we expect that our home will be in that category at some time in the future. It is our considered opinion that the expansion plans for Westward Look Resort will have a strong potential to have a significantly negative impact on sale value of our home. This point was raised in the online meeting held last month (September 15) and the Westward Look General Manager stated that their development plans were such as to realize the highest standard for the Westward Look Resort and that would insure that the effect on surrounding homes would be positive, not negative. In my mind, I think he is being short sighted in that there is not a direct correlation with the value of the Westward Look property and the private non- commercial homes next door to Westward Look. I bring some considerable expertise and experience to this discussion as I served for twelve years as a County Planning Commissioner (most of that time as Chair) in Breckenridge, CO. - Many of the proposals we considered dwarfed the Westward Look proposal. Thank you for your consideration of our concern. Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 9:21 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Annexation meeting WLR From: bob barnes [mailto. Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 4:32 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Annexation meeting WLR Dear Mr. Standish, This email is in regard to the proposed annexation of Westward Look Resort (WLR). While my wife Jeannette, and I recognize this process is preliminary to any immediate action,we feel it is not too early to express our concern/comments for what is being proposed. As such,we request that you please pass these comments, along to all seven of the OV council members prior to the October 7th meeting, so they will have them in time to consider them. My wife and I have lived in Westward Look Heights (WLH) since 1993. We live directly across the wash from the main building. WLH is a very quiet subdivision adjoining WLR.We have greatly enjoyed having WLR as a neighbor without any conflicts. That being said, change happens! Sometimes it is for the good, and sometimes for the bad. Before you proceed with the annexation we ask that all of you please consider a few comments we have. 1. A hotel and conference center? With all the new hotels in downtown Tucson (especially the new one adjoining the convention center) would WLR be able to compete with them? Questionable! 2. For many years WLR has been a special resort, due to its quiet atmosphere, exceptional layout, and spacious landscape. In reading WI -Rs comments, from guests, it is apparent that the appeal for staying there, is its quiet, friendly, and a safe place for children. The comments also suggest that WLR has not been able to keep the maintenance of the resort up very well. To be fair, covid 19 has only made things worse. We are sure the manager is doing the best he can with a drastically reduced staff. It is enlightening that the new owner has taken action financially to correct this. 3.The only resort in Tucson, we are aware of, that is comparable to WRL is the smaller Hacienda Del Sol (HDS). If WRL wants to be a 4+ quality resort we suggest they take a look at (HDS) for a model to follow. They do not have a noisy St. Phillips plaza, it is just a quiet , well maintained, and very popular resort. It has a blend of older, and newer rooms which WLR could easily conform to. We personally believe that HDS is the best resort in Tucson. 4. Each year, in early February, mineral madness strikes Tucson. The mineral buyers and sellers flock to WRL. For 4+ days very high end mineral dealers sell from the rooms. It has become so popular with the public there needs to be shuttle service from the overflow parking area. If that overflow parking area is not available, then the public is likely to go elsewhere. Without all the customers, the dealers will likely do so as well. If that happens, OV in general loses big revenue, as will WRL. 5. Boutiques, retail stores, office space? Why? It is clear there are numerous stores and offices sitting empty. Covid 19 has created havoc with many of them. However, the virus is not all to blame. Many of them were empty well before the virus hit. WLR may want to think twice about that!. 6. There are ample, very good restaurants and shopping in the OV/WRL area. In past years, the Gold Room was one of the finest. Now, due to the virus, and lack of tourists, it is only open for breakfast. Fortunately, the bar and grill serves a limited menu in the evenings. Why would you want to compete with the Gold Room on the same property? As tourism returns, so will the guests to utilize it! 7 The neighborhoods surrounding WLR are quiet, well kept, and relatively expensive. Developing a plan which degrades this atmosphere, and results in decreased property values benefits no one, including OV and WLR. In closing, it is our suggestion, as a neighbor to OV and WLR that you take a step back (at least until the pandemic ends), regarding the annexation. Seriously think about the proposed changes. Are they the best plans? Are they really going to benefit OV and WLR? Is there a better use of the land to really make WLR a profitable 4+ resort, or are you going to create something which further degrades its desirability? We would hope that OV recognizes the potential that exists for excellence here. This is prime real estate, and an outstanding location. Please do not waste the opportunity to do it right! With regards to a sensible outcome, Bob and Jeannette Barnes Tucson, AZ 2 Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 8:19 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Westward Look re -zoning (please forward my comments to Town Council) From: Ryan Jones [mailto: Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 1:41 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Westward Look re -zoning (please forward my comments to Town Council) Dear Oro Valley Town Council, My family and I live at i, Tucson, AZ 85704, and our home directly borders the Westward Look property that is potentially being re -zoned. I am not necessarily opposed to the land being developed, but I am very concerned about how the land will be developed. Specifically, how will Oro Valley and the developers address the following issues that may severely affect me and my neighbors? 1) Increased traffic. It is already difficult to leave our neighborhood because there is so much traffic on Ina. Is there a plan to address the increased traffic that will result from this development? 2) Blocked/Unattractive Views. I, and many of my neighbors, can see this property from our yards. The idea of having 3 story buildings and asphalt parking lots next to our properties is not appealing. 3) Noise. We live and like living in a quiet neighborhood. High density housing or retail space will substantially increase the noise here. I'm thinking of car alarms going off. Car doors slamming all the time. How will this be dealt with by the developers. 4) Negative impact on property values. A poorly designed development could severely affect our property values. I hope that before you decide to rezone this property that you consider our neighborhood's concerns seriously. I hope there are ways for our opinions to be considered before any plans are finalized. Thank you for your time, Ryan Jones Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 9:06 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Annexation meeting WLR From: bob Barnes [mailto: Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 7:03 AM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Re: Annexation meeting WLR Michael, It has just come to my attention, that Mayor Winfield, paid a visit to Westward Look Heights a few days ago. Unfortunately, I did not have an opportunity to speak with him. I am delighted that he is interested enough in the annexation process, to take the time to visit our neighborhood. In retrospect, I should have had you forward a copy of my comments (of 6 October) to the council, to the Mayor as well. I would greatly appreciate it if you did so now. I am still trying to sort out how gmail works, and I currently do not see how to get my comments directly to the Mayor. I watched the last OV council meeting with interest. I thought it was very well done. The modification of the plans was a positive step, but I think it has a long way to go. If the Mayor and council have not taken a visit to Hacienda Del Sol, I would encourage them to do so before any action is taken. Respectfully yours, Bob Barnes On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 10:52 AM Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.eov> wrote: You're welcome! Mike From: bob barnes [mailto:. Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 10:44 AM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish(cDorovallevaz.eov> Subject: Re: Annexation meeting WLR Mike, THANK YOU for forwarding my comments. I appreciate it. I was not sure how to do it! Regards, :.I On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 10:11 AM Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> wrote: Good Morning, I have received your comments and they have been forwarded to Council. Thank you. Mike From: bob barnes [mailto:_ Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 4:32 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandishCa)orovallevaz.eov> Subject: Annexation meeting WLR Dear Mr. Standish, This email is in regard to the proposed annexation of Westward Look Resort (WLR). While my wife Jeannette, and I recognize this process is preliminary to any immediate action,we feel it is not too early to express our concern/comments for what is being proposed. As such,we request that you please pass these comments, along to all seven of the OV council members prior to the October 7th meeting, so they will have them in time to consider them. Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 8:52 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Proposed Development of Westward Look Resort From: RICHARD ZIMMERMAN [mailto:: Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 7:39 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Proposed Development of Westward Look Resort Dear Mr. Standish, Please forward my comments below to the Oro Valley town council members in advance of their Oct 21 st meeting. Thank you. Dear Oro Valley Town Council Members, I would like to express my concerns in regard to the proposed development of Westward Look Resort. I have two major objections to the proposed plans and ask that the PAD be modified to accommodate my concerns. First, the building height limit of three stories is totally inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood, which contains buildings of no greater than two stories. It is my understanding that Westward Look Resort would like to blend in and be compatible with the architecture of the surrounding neighborhood, and a height limit change of three stories to two in the PAD is necessary to accomplish this. Second, the density of the proposed structures far exceeds that of the surrounding neighborhood, most of which reside on large lots of almost an acre or more. Again, the proposed plans of Westward Look Resort exceed and are not compatible with neighborhood spacing limits. A third concern is the increased traffic, noise and air pollution that will accompany this development, which could be mitigated somewhat by bringing my first two concerns into compliance with the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Richard Zimmerman Westward Look Heights Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 8:54 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Westward Look Resort Annexation/Rezoning: -----Original Message ----- From: Ralph [mailto: Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 7:49 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: bobhagen@comcast.net Subject: Westward Look Resort Annexation/Rezoning: Dear Mr Standish, We are residents of Westward Look Heights (WLH), very concerned and impacted by the ramifications of the rezoning of Westward Look Resort (WLR). More particularly, we are concerned by, upset by, and opposed to the proposals for development of WLR's property fronting on Ina Road and adjacent to WLH. We have listened to and watched the previous Zoom public meetings on this subject, where neighborhood input identified many significantly adverse affects to WLH and the broader Foothills neighborhood resulting from the three proposals for development on the Ina -fronting and WLH-adjacent property. In those meetings, the response from WLR has been disingenuous; while they claim to want to be a good neighbor, their willingness to make changes is paltry. They agreed, for example, as a concession, to eliminate the fourth floor of potential apartment houses, limiting them to three floors. Are we supposed to be thankful that only three stories of transients would be looking down onto the backyards of our nearby WLH neighbors, instead of four stories of transients? And the westward view from those same WLH houses would only be obstructed by three-story buildings, not four, with set -back provisions still being completely inadequate. This is a significant concession? Are they serious? Not to mention that the various proposed three-story buildings in WLR's three proposals, be they apartment houses or hotels, are totally out of character with existing commercial buildings in the Foothills/Casas Adobes neighborhood. WLR's proposed over -height buildings would loom out -of -character over Ina Road as well as over WLH, completely destroying the "westward look" ambiance of the neighborhood and reducing WLH property values. The impact to Ina traffic/safety resulting from the proposals appears to have be very overly -optimistically appraised, and the resulting noise and light pollution adversely affecting WLH appears to be a totally secondary, underestimated consideration. I think it is time for the Oro Valley Town Council to stop and restart the proposals for developing the WLR property. The present process is moving too fast, as if it is a "done deal." The WLR proposals are not in character with The Foothills environment. The WLR proposals are damaging to the ambiance, quality of life and home values of it's residential neighbors. Real recommendations from neighbors for reducing the scope of WLR proposals must not be brushed aside just because Oro Valley is so eager to reap new tax revenue from WLR's out -of -character and out-of-bounds proposals. Neither should WLR's evidently well-financed development ambitions override the valid concerns of it's immediate neighbors and the broader Foothills neighborhood. Please vote to table further discussions of WLR's development proposals and to start over with something having less impact on the WLH and Foothills environment and character, and for WLR to truly be a good neighbor. Respectfully, Ralph and Loretta Miller Tucson, AZ 85704 Stine, Michelle From: Randall, Diana Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 9:13 AM To: Standish, Michael; Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Action Item: Westward Look Resort: Planning Area Development Attachments: Request not to pass WLR PAD.pdf Good morning, Please see below and attached for resident continents. Sincerely, Diana Randall Executive Assistant Town Manager, Mayor and Council From: jonfrowley@ [mailto:. Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 9:08 AM To: Town Council <council@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: ANGELA S SANCHEZ ; Jon Rowley Subject: Action Item: Westward Look Resort: Planning Area Development Dear Mayor and Council, I'm asking Oro Valley ("OV") not to pass Westward Look Resort's ("WLR") current submitted Planning Area Development ("PAD") this October 21st. As you saw from all the public comments, there are about half dozen or so concerns with the development of the Gateway East/West acres that directly affect the six east side residential homes but I'm only going to request one to be changed: the building height that threatens our views. In section 8.b. View Preservation Plan (pg46) of the PAN, it states: "The development is not located along Tangerine Road or Oracle Road and is not subject to a view preservation plan. Catalina Mountain views from adjacent properties will not be impacted by this development given the shape of the property, location of neighboring homes, and the general north-northeast direction of views." There are no homes running along Ina Road that the Gateway East/West would block looking at the Catalina Mountains BUT notice that they left out our views looking West -Southwest towards the Tucson Mountains. As a point of reference per the attached picture below, we look over the Gateway East/West acres (centered on some horseback riders —80ft from the wall). A little to the right from center, is a Ramada for the horses that is about the height of a single story house so you can imagine any proposed 3 story buildings will completely block any view past the Gateway property. 3 Story buildings 40 ft out from the wall would be the height of the top of the far palm trees. Again, the primary reason not to pass the submitted PAN is WLR's requesting to alter the Development Standard of the Maximum Building Height requirement to 36ft from the Unmodified R -4R Standards of 34ft per the snapshots below from the PAD. Table 11.1.D: Development Standards Development Standards Resort RiR Underlying Zoning Resort Gateway C -N Underlying Zoning Open Space OS Underlying Zoning District Table 11.1.E.ii.a: PAD Development Standards Modification Justification for Resort Land Use Development Standards Unmodified R-411 Standard. Applicable to Site Resort— Modified &4R Underlying Zoning District Justification Note that their justification is based on their event building called The Sonoran Ballroom which they claim is 36 ft but as you can see from the picture below, the building's structure walls are 34ft... they are inaccurately claiming the movable awning on the rooftop observatory level as additional height. The second picture is from the elevator of the Sonoran Ballroom building that shows this is a 2 story building which meets the current zoning 34ft height. I would like to point out that all current WLR's buildings are 1 to 2 stories and therefore, the PAD should reflect no more than 2 stories (34ft) for the Gateway East/West development. And per the submitted PAD, the majority of the surrounding residences are single homes with a few 2 story homes, which are due to houses built on the side of the ridges where the car garage is the lower level. Table I.1.C: Surrounding Context within Y. Mile The six east side residences including my wife and I, hope you hear our voices and help negotiate with the Westward Look Resort and The Planning Center to hold to the current development standard ("Resort — Modified R -4R Underlying Zoning District") back to 34ft from their requested of 36ft where I have shown there is no justification for WLR to make this request and would not hinder their ability to create a commercial plan that generates tax revenue for OV. The PAD also stated examples of existing retail and office plazas like the St. Philip's Plaza and Village on Broadway which are all 2 story complexes and where any 2 story hotel or apartment on the Gateway East/West will allow WLR to maintain their existing corporate branding. We all wish the WLR to prosper and look forward to being able to walk to restaurants and shops but not at the expense of over building the skyline. Thank you for your attention to this request. Regards, Jon and Angela Rowley Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 8:50 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: OV/WLR Annexation From: ROBERT HAGEN [mailto: Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 1:59 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: OV/WLR Annexation Oct 18, 2020 Mr. Michael Standish Town of OV Clerk mstandish @ orovallevaz.gov Mike: I would very much appreciate you forwarding the email below to the Oro Valley (OV) Town Council members ahead of their Oct. 21 st meeting and letting me know you have done so ....... THXs....... Bob Hagen, WLHs, , Tucson, AZ 85704, Cell Subject: Town of OV Annexation of Westward Look Resort (WLR) Dear Town of OV Town Council Members: Based on the feedback provided by twelve of us who live in Westward Look Heights (WLHs) during a recent walk-through visit by OV Mayor Winfield, I have summarized below the top three concerns that came up with regard to the anticipated OV Annexation of WLR ..... the items listed below also echo the top concerns that just about every other WL homeowner I have been in contact with has expressed ....... they are as follows: -much increased traffic volume, safety, noise and exhaust fume concerns...... folks just don't see how problems related to the existing traffic can be effectively dealt with since they are already at an unacceptable level and out of control...... in essence, we only see them getting worse with the additional traffic that will result from the WLR Annexation as now proposed, regardless of what OV and/or PC may try to do to make things better -the now proposed building height, setback, density and location of WLR's anticipated commercial development is plain and simply out of character and inconsistent with the very nature of the WL neighborhood ...... at the present time, WL homes in large measure are on a full acre and are separated by several hundred feet from the the main WLR buildings ......... three story buildings anywhere near our existing homes (like 50 feet as now conceptually planned) are simply unacceptable as they will only create an eye sore and block existing home views...... moreover, the designated building density in the current conceptual designs far exceeds what was stipulated in the 1972 lawsuit settlement (i.e., 132 condominiums with no more than four units to a single building) for which WLR was in agreement -home property values and our ability to resale them in a timely manner are much more likely to be impacted in a very negative manner with what WLR is now anticipating to do ........ people simply are not going to want to purchase homes where their views are blocked, there are unacceptable traffic issues, there are irritating noises and lighting and a commercial development is nearby,. In view of the above concerns (and I believe them to be real and significant ones), it would be very much appreciated if the OV Town Council could assist us in having the Town of OV and WLR more appropriately address the above concerns before proceeding further with the proposed WLR annexation. Any help and/or assistance you could provide in this regard would be much appreciated by all concerned. Sincerely, Bob Hagen, WLHs Tucson, AZ 85704 Cell: Stine, Michelle From: Randall, Diana Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 8:09 AM To: Hynd, Jessica; Standish, Michael; Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Golf is booming Good morning, Please see below for constituent comments. Sincerely, Diana Randall Executive assistant 'Town Manager, Mavor and Council From: budwatson@comcast.net [mailto: Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 2:46 PM To: Town Council <council@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Golf is booming To the Honorable members of the Oro Valley Town Council, The article at the web site shown below is from the Philadelphia Inquirer. It should be proof to you that this is not the time to shut down the Pusch Ridge Golf Course. I respectfully ask each of you to read the article and then to reconsider the decision to close the course. There is still time to complete the reseeding process to make the course playable for the winter season. https•//www inquirer com/sports/golf-increase-business-coronavirus-pandemic-Philadelphia-national-courses ro u n d s -e q u i p m e nt-20200927. h tm I?o ut p u tTyp a=a m p Respectfully, Bud Watson Stine, Michelle From: Randall, Diana Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 10:17 AN To: Standish, Michael; Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Pusch Ridge 9 -Hole Golf Course Good morning, Please see below for resident comments. Sincerely, Diana Randall Executive assistant Town Manager, Mayor and Council From: John Spitler [mailto: Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 10:14 AM To: Winfield, Joe <jwinfield@orovalleyaz.gov>; Town Council <council@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Pusch Ridge 9 -Hole Golf Course Pusch Ridge 9 -Hole Golf Course - General 10/19/2020 Greeting, I am addressing this letter to all OV Council members. My name is John Spitler and I am an EI Con Patio Home owner that overlooks the hole at Pusch Ridge Golf Course. I have tried to keep up with the various discussions that have bounded around as to the disposition of the above lands. I, personally, would rather see the lands stay as a golf course, but, I know there appear to be circumstances here that may not support that continuation. I am aware of the original contractual agreements made between the Town and HSL back in 2015. 1 was, then, vocally against the purchase, but, that is history. Now is the time to deal with what we currently have. As a Patio Home owner, I have concerns about the same things that home owners living around the "36 Holes" had when they organized loudly to maintain status quo. Now, what do we see happening, or not happening: 1- The Pusch Ridge course has been let go to weed, other than some greens. 2- The fairways are brown, yellow, or dirt -patched. 3- The Town of Oro Valley is not living up to the contracted agreement with HSL to maintain the area in a presentable condition. 4- The Town is discriminating against the Patio Homeowners when compared to how the "Green Shirts" were treated. 5- All of us Patio Homeowners pay the same taxes to support the earlier golf decision without all the same privileges as the 36 Hole HOA. I know our HOA leadership is staying at the forefront of this situation. What is it going to take to arrive at an agreement with the Patio Home owners and for the Town of Oro Valley to live up to the Pusch Ridge portion of the golf contract? Is it going to have to revert to a suit situation? I hope not. No one comes away totally happy in that case. Respectfully, John Spitler Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 11:08 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Westward Look Resort Proposed Annexation From: Mo Holthaus [mailto: _ Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 10:16 AM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: Ruth Holthaus ; Robert Hagen Subject: Westward Look Resort Proposed Annexation Mr. Standish: As a home owner in Westward Look Heights for the past 32 years we have enjoyed living in this low density neighborhood. This proposal will result in more traffic on Ina Rd. We currently experience too much traffic on Ina now. We object to this proposal! Maurice Holthaus Tucson, AZ 85704 Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 11:06 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Oro Valley Annexation of WLR and Proposed Development Plans From: Jean Glattke (mailto:._ Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 10:03 AM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: ted glattke q Subject: Oro Valley Annexation of WLR and Proposed Development Plans October 19, 2020 Oro Valley Town Council c/o Michael Standish Oro Valley Town Clerk To the members of the Oro Valley Town Council: We are writing, again, to express our concerns about the proposed annexation and development of the WLR property. We have been neighbors of WLR for 33 years. We are saddened and disheartened by the proposed destruction of open desert spaces and the effect on the fauna and flora, as well as the neighbors, visitors, and residents of northwest Tucson who pass by daily! We have 3 major concerns: 1) Increased traffic congestion, pollution, noise and danger. These factors already exist and the addition of more traffic will only make it worse. The Ina/Oracle intersection is one of the busiest in Tucson. With the recent growth of Oro Valley, Marana, Catalina and beyond, the traffic turning north and south at that intersection has increased significantly. The turn traffic is often backed up to the WL Drive stop light during rush hours and now even mid day. The noise is so Ioudthat it often interrupts conversation on our patio.We also understand that there will be an added development, Pima Canyon Plaza, on the south east corner of First Avenue and Ina Road. This will only add more cars and more congestion to the area. Even with the 'solutions' from a reported traffic study, it is unimaginable that the congestion and danger can be manageable. We have not heard any specifics that address these issues. We feel it is critical for a traffic plan be completed and presented before proceeding further. 2) Building height, density, setback and design. The proposed plans that include 3 story buildings are completely out of character with the charm and history of WLR and the area. WLR is Tucson's oldest. Its charm comes from the western architectural style that blends with the desert and mountain views. High density structures that block views and destroy desert spaces are why there have been previous deed restrictions, lawsuits, and settlements (1972) to prevent this from happening. We are asking Oro Valley to please, honor the intent of these previous agreements. At least limit to one story structures. 3) Destruction of open desert spaces and the effect on the fauna and flora, as well as the neighbors, visitors, and the northwest area. We know this is a moot point since the development is planned. We are especially saddened by this loss of the Sonoran Desert which will be gone forever once it is destroyed. The peace and tranquility of this area has been a unique feature of WLR . Now it will be just like the others. At least there as been attention to preserving the washes, including the 'no name wash' which is on our property. thank you for that. We feel these are very serious issues that need to be addressed indetail before further planning proceeds. Thank you for responding. Thank you for getting feedback from those of us who care. Jean and Ted Glattke cell Thank you Michael for forwarding this to the town council members before the 10/21/20 meeting, and for letting me know it is done. 2 Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 8:12 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Oct 21st OV Town Hall Meeting re: WWL Annexation From: Anne Maxon [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:21 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Fwd: Oct 21st OV Town Hall Meeting re: WWL Annexation Hi Michael ... I addressed this incorrectly... Although from Oct 10, I still have these concerns. See you tomorrow! From: Anne Maxon Date: October 20, 2020 at 10:18:26 AM MST To: mstandish@orovalley.cov ((, _, -,i Subject: Oct 21st OV Town Hall Meeting re: WWL Annexation Hello Michael, In front of the OV Town Council meeting scheduled for Oct 21st, please note that I have attempted to communicate some of my concerns. In front of our Oct 15th zoom meeting I wrote the following to Jessica Hynd, assuming that she was the correct person to contact. .❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.El.[I.p.p.Ll.0.0.El.p.p.0.El.El.0.0.[I.0.EJ October 10, I drafted the following letter to Jessica Hynd, the Oro Valley community liaison, with a request that my questions and the issues noted in the letter, could be addressed on the October 15 zoom call. Unfortunately the process that Oro Valley uses to respond to email correspondence is quite opaque and frankly I was baffled by the intricacies of the platform ... sorta made the IRS website look like an easy breezy tool. I had no response to my letter ... it was assigned a case number(?) I did call Jessica and inquired as to the protocol regarding questions.... she told me "if we spent the whole meeting addressing neighborhood questions, none of the primary people involved would have enough time for their presentations". I then asked if there was an agenda for the meeting. My specific questions were not addressed. on the zoom meeting of October 15th. Jessica did answer her phone twice and she spent quite a period of time, addressing my concerns. I was very appreciative. However, many neighbors asked intelligent, thoughtful questions. I also enjoyed Michael's and Linda Morales Overview presentations. .❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.11.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑.❑ Here is my letter of. Oct 10 I will be attending the Oct 21 meeting Hello Jessica: My name is Anne Maxon. I am a resident of the Westward Look townhomes neighborhood. I have a few questions about the governance, compliance and enforcement of Oro Valley city ordinances, if the annexation is approved. I would like to specifically like to know about -Roads Are there zoning regulations regarding paving, i.e., regulations regarding standards for asphalt, bike lanes , crosswalks? AA who currently has jurisdiction over the Ina and WWLook Drive intersection? Is the intersection governed by the State//City//County? Who will implement changes needed for ingress and egress to the PAD area? AA are there standards that W WL resort must adhere to to conform to for maintenance of the roads? Currently the roads are in deplorable condition. -Lightning Will Westward Look be compelled to abide by dark sky lighting standards? I sat on a task force to enforce dark sky regulations when Steam Pump Village was proposed. Oro Valley is in the vanguard of protecting our Night sky resource. -Protected "wash" open space: Once annexation is concluded, the Pima County ordinance Protection of the open space— we, residents of WWLGR#1, successfully petitioned Pima County to enact in perpetuity, will of course, become null and void. Can you assist me in finding the appropriate people within the City of Oro Valley With whom I can begin the discussion of legally protecting the wash? And legally protecting the wash in perpetuity. Who and what department can I contact to begin this effort. Thanks Jessica. I have enormous appreciation for how you have to juggle all the constituents, the needs of each-- as well as the city, investment group, and Mr. Patel. In 1960, My dad was the original developer of Green Valley ... so I know firsthand, that planning departments, zoning, cities, counties, towns, councils are a juggling challenge. I went to my first Pima County Board of Supervisors meeting in 1963, I was in the seventh grade. Q The good news is, that, in 57 years a lot of good development rules, regulations and overarching, long term benefits have been enacted, by city county and state governments Thanks for your time. And thank you for your efforts in communicating with all of us. Best Regards, Anne Maxon Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:05 PM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Michael, From: bob barnes [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:33 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Re: Michael, Mike, Sorry to bother you again so soon. Could you please forward my latest comments to the Mayor and Council. I decided that if I was going to champion Hacienda Del Sol (HDS) as a possible model for what WLR should be thinking about that I should see how they are doing. Therefore, I drove through WLR first for a reference point. Next, I drove past the SE corner of 1st ave/ Ina where I saw a sign that said Pima Canyon Plaza New class A offices. This means that a new office complex is going to be built just two blocks from where WLR may be planning something similar. There is quite a bit of land available there for who knows what in the future. Next, I drove to (HDS) I was taken by complete surprise at the construction going on. The resort currently only has some 50 guest rooms, but they apparently are doing so well they are adding 40 more 2 story luxury guest rooms, a fitness center, and a 40 foot infinity edge lap pool. I inquired about current food service availability, and was told they are serving 3 meals/day, except their fine dining restaurant is closed on Monday/Tuesday for dinner. Compare this to where WLR is today and ask yourself, where would you stay given the two choices? Please do not get me wrong. I want WLR to be successful. They have been a good neighbor, and hopefully our relationship will continue on a positive note. I do not want them to fail by questionable decision making. I worry that current planning is not thinking far enough outside the box. WLR is a niche resort along with HDS. I would like to see both resorts succeed! Respectfully yours, Bob Barnes Tucson AZ On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:18 AM Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalle�az_gov> wrote: You're welcome. NA From: bob barnes [mailto: Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 11:07 AM To: Standish, Michael <mstandishCcaorovalleyaz.aov> Subject: Michael, Many thanks for your help. I appreciate it. Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 10:50 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Comments about PAD for Westward Look rezone Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Ryan Jones [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 10:35 AM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Comments about PAD for Westward Look rezone Hi Michael, Could you please forward my comments to the Oro Valley Town Council Members prior to tomorrow's meeting? Thank you! I am concerned by the plans that have been submitted as potential developments for the land adjacent to my property. What has been submitted does not fit well with the look and feel of the Westward Look Resort or with my neighborhood. Our property sits on nearly two acres and the nearest homes are over 150 feet away from us. We like living in our quiet, little neighborhood. With the plans submitted, we may have a giant asphalt parking lot or an enormous office building 40 feet from our yard. High density housing does not fit with the character of the neighborhood. There should be a limit to how many housing units are permitted for the space. Something more in line with the resort or the townhomes west of the resort would be much more acceptable. There are no 3 story buildings at the Westward Look Resort and they should not be allowed in the PAD either. I am not opposed to the land being developed, and I think the owners have the right to do so. I think the PAD needs to better reflect what can be permitted based on the current character of the neighborhood and resort. I think the original PAD submitted was purposefully outlandish so that they could say they amended it due to the neighbor's concerns. The new revised PAD does not go far enough in limiting the number of housing units, the height of new buildings, or creating a big enough buffer between our properties and the development. Forty feet is essentially a first down in football -- not that far. Finally, there needs to be more attention to the traffic that this development will cause. There are times when it is extremely difficult for us to leave our neighborhood because of the traffic on Ina. This will only make that worse and some solution needs to be found. Thank you, Ryan Jones Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 10:10 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Comments on Proposed Annexation of Westward Look Resort property for the Oct 21st Council Meeting Attachments: Draft letter to Oro Valley City Council.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged -----Original Message ----- From: Sue Bradley [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:54 AM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Comments on Proposed Annexation of Westward Look Resort property for the Oct 21st Council Meeting Dear Mr Standish — I have attached a letter with our comments on the proposed annexation and rezoning of the Westward Look Property along E Ina Road. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. If you have further questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your consideration. Sue Bradley October 20, 2020 Mr.Michael Standish Town of Oro Valley Clerk mstandish(@orovallevaz.eov Dear Mr. Standish, I am writing this letter in response to a request by Bob Hagen to add our comments concerning the proposed annexation of the Westward Look Property and its subsequent development into a commercial and residential complex. I hope that you can forward this to the Oro Valley Town Council members ahead of their meeting tomorrow. Our family has rented or owned property on East Vista Oeste Drive since the mid -70's. Since 1994 we have lived at which backs onto the Open Space of Westward Look Resort's property. In the past, the Resort has been a good neighbor. Whenever we had significant family events like weddings, funerals or large family vacations, we had our overflow stay at the Resort. My parents entertained their friends regularly at the former Gold Room. Despite these previous positive interactions, we feel that the new development would cause dangerous traffic congestion at a site not suited for this type of development. Our primary concern is that the proposed density of the development will aggravate an already congested traffic pattern. As you are all well aware, the Oracle and Ina Road intersection is a major congested spot because of commuter traffic. The traffic on Ina Road westbound coming through the First Ave intersection, and that from northbound First Ave from downtown turning west onto Ina creates significant volumes throughout the day, particularly during commuting hours. This includes trucks and other large vehicles. There is an apparent lack of speed limit enforcement in that area and speeds of 60 mph and higher are not unusual. The driving pattern west of the First Ave intersection is to speed to get into Ina's right lane for the right turn to head north on Oracle. This routinely causes sudden braking because of this crowding. Cars slowing to turn into a new Westward Look development will likely considerably increase the risk of accident in this high-speed, congested area. By 3 in the afternoon, traffic will often back up from Oracle to the light at Westward Look Resort Road. Many days it is solid traffic back to First Avenue by 5 pm. Putting a retail and recreation complex on one side of Westward Look Drive and an apartment complex on the other is hard to imagine. As our other neighbors have requested, we agree that a traffic and noise study needs to be conducted before any further plans are made. In addition, a previous lawsuit between the Resort, the county and local landowners resulted in deed restrictions placed on the type and density of development that can occur on the Westward Look property involved in the annexation. Those deed restrictions run with the land and cannot be modified by annexation or zoning changes. They were on the deed when the current owner bought the property and he is bound by their restrictions. The description of the proposed development exceeds those restrictions. We do not wish to see the Resort fail. The current owner has made extensive and appropriate improvements to the existing buildings. The main asset of the Resort is the open natural spaces of the desert surrounding it. The choice is not between no development and dense development. There is an intermediate level that would preserve the ambience of the area while still attracting more business. It would be ironic to put in such a dense level of construction to increase usage that it destroyed the very reason for coming to the Resort at all. Thank you for your consideration, Very truly yours, Sue and Scot Bradley Tucson AZ 85704 Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:43 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Westward Look plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Nadine Pultman [mailto: . Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:27 AM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Westward Look plan Mr Standish, Thank you for taking our email and passing it on to the Oro Valley supervisors before the October 21st meeting. We live off of Village Drive in Catalina Village, and the haste with which this rezoning is being put forth, coupled with the Coronavirus distancing, has made it difficult to discuss this with our neighbors, many of whom are not aware that this is happening. We question once again the timing and the haste of these proceedings since Westward Look was purchased several years ago. Putting in any project, other than building single-family residences, in a quiet established residential area is distressing to everyone to whom we have spoken. We would like to remind you that years ago Ina and Oracle roads were not the main thoroughfares of traffic that they have since become due to over building to the west and and north. I shall not repeat all the reasons this is a most misguided plan in this particular spot, because you have already received a great deal of feedback concerning the traffic , noise, pollution, destruction of the desert and animals, and lasting disruption this will have on residents and their homes in quite a large and beautiful area. This email is to address the haste and timing of these meetings. We seem to recall that there would be a meeting outside with social distancing and masks when owners could express their concerns to the supervisors in person before any plan was put in place. We appreciate that the OV mayor took the time to meet with residents of Westward Look Heights. That was extremely professional and thoughtful of him, and it is hoped that he might meet with residents of Catalina Village as well. We ask that this process be tabled until after the holidays since there has been very little time for proper discussion due to the current extraordinary circumstances and the fact that many residents are still not aware of these plans. Thank you very much for being available for comments and passing them on to the supervisors. Sincerely, Rocco and Nadine Paone Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:24 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: WLH property owner concerns on development of the westward look commercial site oct. 21st town council meeting Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged -----Original Message ----- From: Stephanie Garcia F Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 10:09 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: WLH property owner concerns on development of the westward look commercial site oct. 21st town council meeting Hi Mike, I am Stephanie Garcia. I live at . I am an 11 year property owner in the westward look heights neighborhood. I am very concerned about the new plans to build in the now recreational land used for Westward Look resort. Mainly my concerns are: 1. Building height and density. 3 story high building height is highly uncharacteristic of the neighborhoods and surround areas. Our homes are on about one acre lots, as are all the homes around us in this area including neighborhoods to the east ,north, west and south. It would infringe greatly on our neighborhood privacy as home owners with that height and the density has the potential to increase foot traffic/safety through our quiet community as people (especially if they build apartments) look for beautiful wide open spaces to walk and or explore. 2. Traffic from busy parking lots and parking lot/building lights at night. The density that is proposed for buildings will increase traffic noise In Our quiet neighborhood. 3. Decrease in property values affecting all homes in westward look heights neighborhood. When selling homes, comps are pulled for all surrounding properties, so those homes right up against the proposed new build will decrease in value and in turn will decrease all the home values in our community. 11 years ago when we bought our home we specifically chose to buy our home in a location with lots of land (one acre lots), a quiet peaceful neighborhood, and far away from any commercial and or retail and or apartments. If these building were constructed then, we would not have even considered the neighborhood because of the above reasons listed. I understand that the land is zoned commercial but the height of the building seems unreasonable. Please send my comments to the town OV Council members ahead of their oct 21st meeting so that they can hear our concerns about building height (3 stories is very high), traffic concerns with high density housing, and our home depreciating in value. Thank you, Stephanie Garcia Tucson AZ 85704 Sent from my Whone Stine, Michelle From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: From: Matt Smith [mailto: Standish, Michael Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:21 AM Stine, Michelle FW: Oro Valley Town Council Meeting Comments Follow up Flagged Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 8:58 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Oro Valley Town Council Meeting Comments October 19, 2020 Mr. Michael Standish Town of OV Clerk mstandish @ orovalleyaz.gov Mr. Standish: I would appreciate you forwarding the email below to the Oro Valley (OV) Town Council members ahead of their Oct. 21 st meeting and letting me know you have done so. Thank you! Matthew Smith Westward Look Heights Neighborhood Tucson, AZ 85704 Cell: Subject: Annexation and Development of Westward Look Resort (WLR) Dear Town of Oro Valley Town Council Members: My name is Matthew Smith, and I live at in the Westward Look Heights (WLH) neighborhood - adjacent to the Westward Look Resort property - with my wife Katie and our two young children ages 7 and 4. We have concerns regarding the Westward Look Resort (WLR) development plans. The first concern is traffic and the safety issue it presents. The traffic volume in the area is already at a high level. For example, it is not uncommon to wait a minute or more to make a right turn out of our neighborhood onto Ina Road during rush hour due to the volume and the high rates of speed people drive along Ina. Please keep in mind that any traffic studies that may be done will not be 100% accurate due to the number of people who continue to remain home due to the pandemic. Additionally, commercial development adjacent to our neighborhood will increase the traffic in our neighborhood due to people missing their turn. We experienced this during the Big Horn fire when there was an influx of vehicles presumably trying to get better views of the fire. These vehicles often exceeded the residential speed limit once they realized they made a wrong turn, making it unsafe for us, our kids, and our neighbors both when we're driving and walking through our neighborhood. Increased foot traffic is also a concern. We have had multiple instances of trail cameras recording people from outside the neighborhood walking through a wash on our property - the same wash that runs through the WLR property - either in an attempt to go hiking or trying to get back to WLR. It's a concern that commercial buildings next to the neighborhood would only increase the foot traffic from people lost and people with malicious intent entering the neighborhood. Another concern is the building height and setback of the three potential development plans. Not only would the current potential development plans block our city and sunset views, not to mention potentially blocking Westward Look Resort's city views as well, but they are out of place with the surrounding area. Two- and three-story high density buildings would be an eyesore. Had commercial buildings and the unwanted traits (traffic, noise, lights, etc) that accompany them been present adjacent to the WLH neighborhood six years ago when we were looking for a home, we would have reconsidered due to the same concerns presented now. Another concern is home property values. We were excited to purchase our first home here in WLH six years ago to grow and raise our family in this nice quiet neighborhood, but I don't expect future prospective home buyers to feel that way when multi-story commercial buildings exist adjacent to the neighborhood. Home values will be severely impacted, especially for those closer to the WLR property, thereby hurting the values for the surrounding houses as resale prices decline. Lastly, wildlife displacement is a concern. My sister experienced this in Surprise, Arizona, when new development started behind her house on vacant land. Early into the development, millions of ants were displaced and ended up in her backyard, in her house, and even in her bed one night. While I don't expect ants to be an issue for us, there is a high level of animal activity in this area. As evidence, please feel free to view my YouTube channel, named WLH Wildlife, containing video clips captured by trail cameras on my property from the past 3 months. Visit the following link or Google "YouTube WLH Wildlife" if the link is disabled by an email filter. WLH Wildlife link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvNtf is8xansXa5o0oCOPw In closing, we would like to know when and how the issues presented by above and the issues presented by nearly all of our neighbors will be addressed. To my knowledge, there has been a lot of listening to the issues and concerns presented by those surrounding the WLR property, but the issues and concerns have not been addressed yet. My hope is that these issues and concerns will be reviewed and addressed in good faith, and they will not be swept under the rug as this phase of the annexation and rezoning comes to an end and the next phase begins. Sincerely, Matthew Smith Westward Look Heights Tucson, AZ 85704 Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:19 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Action Item: Westward Look Resort: Planning Area Development Attachments: Request not to pass WLR PAD.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From:jonfrowley@ [mailto:. Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 5:11 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Fwd: Action Item: Westward Look Resort: Planning Area Development Hello Mr. Michael Standish, Please distribute my letter to the Mayor and Council. If you have any questions regarding my request, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Jon Rowley Dear Mayor and Council, I'm asking Oro Valley ("OV") not to pass Westward Look Resort's ("WLR") current submitted Planning Area Development ("PAD") this October 21st. As you saw from all the public comments, there are about half dozen or so concerns with the development of the Gateway East/West acres that directly affect the six east side residential homes but I'm only going to request one to be changed: the building height that threatens our views. In section 8.b. View Preservation Plan (pg46) of the PAN, it states: "The development is not located along Tangerine Road or Oracle Road and is not subject to a view preservation plan. Catalina Mountain views from adjacent properties will not be impacted by this development given the shape of the property, location of neighboring homes, and the general north-northeast direction of views." There are no homes running along Ina Road that the Gateway East/West would block looking at the Catalina Mountains BUT notice that they left out our views looking West -Southwest towards the Tucson Mountains. As a point of reference per the attached picture below, we look over the Gateway East/West acres (centered on some horseback riders —80ft from the wall). A little to the right from center, is a Ramada for the horses that is about the height of a single story house so you can imagine any proposed 3 story buildings will completely block any view past the Gateway property. 3 Story buildings 40 ft out from the wall would be the height of the top of the far palm trees. Again, the primary reason not to pass the submitted PAN is WLR's requesting to alter the Development Standard of the Maximum Building Height requirement to 36ft from the Unmodified R -4R Standards of 34ft per the snapshots below from the PAD. Table 11.1.1): Development Standards Development Standards Resort 14R Underlying Zoning Resort Gateway C -N Underlying Zoning Open Space OS Underlying Zoning District Table 11.1.E.ii.a: PAD Development Standards Modification Justification for Resort Land Use Development Standards Unmodified 11-411 Standards Applicable to Site Resort—Modified R -41t Underlying Zoning District Justification Note that their justification is based on their event building called The Sonoran Ballroom which they claim is 36 ft but as you can see from the picture below, the building's structure walls are 34ft... they are inaccurately claiming the movable awning on the rooftop observatory level as additional height. The second picture is from the elevator of the Sonoran Ballroom building that shows this is a 2 story building which meets the current zoning 34ft height. I would like to point out that all current WLR's buildings are 1 to 2 stories and therefore, the PAD should reflect no more than 2 stories (34ft) for the Gateway East/West development. And per the submitted PAD, the majority of the surrounding residences are single homes with a few 2 story homes, which are due to houses built on the side of the ridges where the car garage is the lower level. Table I.1.C: Surrounding Context within Ye Mile The six east side residences including my wife and I, hope you hear our voices and help negotiate with the Westward Look Resort and The Planning Center to hold to the current development standard ("Resort — Modified R -4R Underlying Zoning District") back to 34ft from their requested of 36ft where I have shown there is no justification for WLR to make this request and would not hinder their ability to create a commercial plan that generates tax revenue for OV. The PAD also stated examples of existing retail and office plazas like the St. Philip's Plaza and Village on Broadway which are all 2 story complexes and where any 2 story hotel or apartment on the Gateway East/West will allow WLR to maintain their existing corporate branding. We all wish the WLR to prosper and look forward to being able to walk to restaurants and shops but not at the expense of over building the skyline. Thank you for your attention to this request. Regards, Jon and Angela Rowley Dear Mayor and Council, I'm asking Oro Valley ("OV") not to pass Westward Look Resort's ("WLR") the current submitted Planning Area Development ("PAD") this October 21st. As you seen from all the public comments, there are about half dozen or so concerns with the development of the Gateway East/West acres that directly affect the six east side residential homes but I'm only going to request one to be changed: the building height that threatens our views. In section 8.b. View Preservation Plan (pg46) of the PAN, it states: "The development is not located along Tangerine Road or Oracle Road and is not subject to a view preservation plan. Catalina Mountain views from adjacent properties will not be impacted by this development given the shape of the property, location of neighboring homes, and the general north-northeast direction of views." There are no homes running along Ina Road that the Gateway East/West would block looking at the Catalina Mountains BUT notice that they left out our views looking West -Southwest towards the Tucson Mountains. As a point of reference per the attached picture below, we look over the Gateway East/West acres (centered on some horseback riders —80ft from wall). A little to the right from center, is a Ramada for the horses that is the about the height of a single story house so you can imagine any proposed 3 story buildings will completely block any view past the Gateway property. 3 Story buildings 40 ft out from the wall would be the height of the top of the far palm trees. Again, the primary reason not to pass the submitted PAN is WLR's requesting to alter the Development Standard of the Maximum Building Height requirement to 36ft from the Unmodified R -4R Standards of 34ft per the snapshots below from the PAD. Table II.1.1): Development Standards Development stanEartl3 Resort RAR Underlying Zoning Resort Gateway - Underlying Zoning Open Space OS Underlying Zoning District Minorum 6rridii; 36 eehkhbnotalkrtinedmnf 40 feet j3smries) WA. tkw buidirr 3d feet(2 stufe)w in 50 feet of Property frie Table 11.1.E.ii.a: PAD Development Standards Modification Justification for Resort Land Use Development Standards Unmodified R,4R Standards Applicableto She Resort—Modifed R.4RUndedying Zoning Dlstrlct Justification 6sld'ng Ifetlt Meainun bulSng heist of 34 Meeirum biding height of 36 36 feet is the hall of the tallest feet feat tozbi5reotbdd'ng(ehc So. Sellsmewithin the PAD boundary. Note that their justification is based on their event building called The Sonoran Ballroom which they claim is 36 ft but as you can see from the picture below, the building's structure walls are 34ft... they are inaccurately claiming the movable awning on the roof top observatory level as additional height. The second picture is from the elevator of the Sonoran Ballroom building that shows this is a 2 story building which meets the current zoning 34ft height. I would like to point out that all current WLR's buildings are 1 to 2 stories and therefore, the PAD should reflect no more than 2 stories (34ft) for the Gateway East/West development. And per the submitted PAD, the majority of the surrounding residences are single homes with a few 2 story homes, which are due to houses built on the side of the ridges where the car garage is the lower level. Table 1.1.C: Surrounding Context within Y. Mile CATEOW DMEWION Nardi 5.0 5W Wea Srgk Ind U. Rc'dertml. 5,C]. Fernily SM�eF+^il Readem'eIN Rc:identiel Reski ni.l Cwdwnimv CornmcdN Ew q st� Iswry 15my 1&25w, 1&2Story FMpt Zarirg Ridb(GV) of-1{Aq SA ffq OM1 rpt (1veWrcbon'] CR4[Pq CA -1 PqTRi7 P�ft WA WA WA WA R®rrirr� Carrdumegy Apprvred WA WA WA WA F rmng The six east side residences including my wife and I, hope you hear our voices and help negotiate with the Westward Look Resort and The Planning Center to hold to the current development standard ("Resort — Modified R -4R Underlying Zoning District") back to 34ft from their requested of 36ft where I have shown there is no justification for WLR to make this request and would not hinder their ability to create a commercial plan that generates tax revenue for OV. The PAD also stated examples of existing retail and office plazas like the St. Philips Plaza and Village on Broadway which are all 2 story complexes and where any 2 story hotel or apartment on the Gateway East/West will allow WLR to maintain their existing corporate branding. We all wish the WLR to prosper and look forward to being able to walk to restaurants and shops but not at the expense of over building the sky line. Thank you for your attention to this request. Regards, Jon and Angela Rowley Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:16 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: OV Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Art Gage [mailto: Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 4:03 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: OV Dear Town of OV Town Council Members: Please do not approve this annexation. The traffic off of Ina Road is a nightmare. If you make an additional increased traffic area you will make this untenable. Before the pandemic, at rush hour, the traffic can be backed up to past Avenida De Lisa. If you increase the traffic flow more, you will create a greater problem. If you allow three story buildings on the property, you will destroy the view for all the residents bordering the annexed property. Part of being in this part of Tucson is the sunsets. You are now taking that away, all in the interest of this annexation. This is a nice neighborhood with long term neighbors and a quiet neighborhood. You are decreasing the value by creating a high-density neighborhood of more transient neighbors and greater traffic issues. Please do not approve this annexation. Art Gage Tucson, AZ 85704 Cell: 520-440-8401 Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 8:15 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Westward Look Resort Development Plans -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Villarreal [mailto: "' Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:25 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Westward Look Resort Development Plans Dear Mayor and Council: I am opposed to the development plans for the Westward Look Resort. My wife and I have lived in Westward Look Heights at 1 since we constructed our home here in 1985. We have raised our two children in our house and we are now raising our grandson here. The features that drew us here so long ago continue to keep us here today: the low density neighborhood with space between homes; the mountain views; and the desert and wildlife. We fear that the high density development contemplated by the Westward Look Resort will be inimical to these values and our peaceful enjoyment of our little piece of the desert. Many of our neighbors will have high density, multistory buildings very close to them blocking views and increasing noise. We will all have increases in traffic congestion and noise. We will all suffer decreases in property values. In short, the development will substantially degrade our lives here without any corresponding benefit to our neighborhood. I urge you to deny or severely limit the development plans. Thank you. Stephen C. and Susan C. Villarreal Tucson, Arizona Sent from my iPad Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 8:44 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Westward Look Resort - Proposed Annexaction From: Ruth Holthaus [mailto Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 8:29 AM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: Bob Hagen <bobhagen@comcast.net> Subject: Westward Look Resort - Proposed Annexaction Dear Mr. Standish: I am a longstanding, 32 year resident of Westward Look Heights Subdivision and I believe it is so important that I make it known to the city of Oro Valley and the developers of Westward Look Resort my opposition to the Proposed Annexation. I searched for my "Dream Home" for a year before I located my current home at in the summer of 1988. My husband and I purchased this home as our "forever home"in 1988 and it became the cornerstone of our life raising 5 children, then often hosting 16 grandchildren over the past 32 years. In 2001 we expanded our home with a 40' x 40' expansion and invested another $200,000 to create our perfect home to host and accommodate our growing family. We felt we had overdeveloped at the time, but we loved our treasured little secluded area. We agreed in 1988 that this neighborhood had all the appeal we thought would "last a lifetime". • It was nestled away north of Ina in a small secluded development in 1988... • There was very little traffic (except when cars drove up and down our street looking for Westward Look Resort) • Our children were safe and could walk alone to catch the school bus on Ina Road... • We were in a rural area in Pima County with low density and quick access to mountain trails... • We have so much wildlife in close proximity and counted 21 big horn sheep on Pusch Ridge in 1988... My biggest objection to the expansion of Westward Look is the increased traffic. I have observed and participated in driving in this area for 32 years (working at UofA) with increased stress and traffic risks due to trying to exit our development. There have been traffic accidents and death at our development at Ina Road. Ina Road was a 2 -lane road when we moved here. It was fine when it was expanded to 4 -lanes. It got worse when access from Ina to Oracle was limited to north and south. Now, expanded business development on Ina will create much, much more traffic than this area can safely process. The speed at which traffic travels west past First Avenue downhill on Ina to our development has been unacceptable in the past and will only get worse. Prior to the Covid19 pandemic, the traffic on Ina Road heading west at evening rush hour backs up from Oracle to our development exit.. trying to gain access to northbound Oracle. What do you think will happen with a new business development west of our development? Is there a reason this project was proposed during a pandemic when traffic is so much less? I participated at one of the Zoom meetings and will attend the one October 21. Please voice my concerns to the committee: • I object to a proposal which increases traffic on Ina Road and increases the risk to human life. • I object to the change in zoning from residual to commercial which will devalue our residential property. Thank you for your review and consideration. Ruth Holthaus Tucson, AZ 85704 Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 2:34 PM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Westward Look Resort comments From: Ranay Twidwell Guifarro [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 2:31 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Westward Look Resort comments Mike - I would like to submit the below comment for this evening's council meeting. Thank you, Ranay Guifarro The Town of Oro Valley Mayor and Council - I am writing to voice my concern with the proposed Westward Look Resort and the Planned Area of Development (PAD). This PAD plan creates great burdens to Westward Look (WWL) resort neighbors, and the general area, myself included. Included in this PAD it gives WWL resort the ability to build three-story buildings that are 40 feet from its residential neighbors. This is in stark contrast from all the neighborhoods that surround the resort, which is all low-density residential and on large lots. I moved to this area less than two years ago because it was a safe place for my family, and this planned development does not only not fit into the area, it detracts. This plan would create massive apartment buildings, next to established neighborhoods which will only lead to lower price values and an increase in safety concerns. Traffic would increase on Ina road and people confused entering my neighborhood, as well as people walking from the development as my neighborhood is the most logical place to walk. These are all issues I am very concerned with, and WWL has done little to address them. They are'creating' a wild area that was already legally agreed upon in the ninety seventies. I don't believe the WWL design is taking into consideration the surrounding areas and as the plan stands it would be a detriment to the area. I ask that the town require that WWL resort to create a plan that would assist in creating a more cohesive neighborhood, as the current plans would be a negative addition to the area. cheers, Ranay Guifarro Tucson, AZ Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 1:41 PM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Written Comments to the Town Council for Public Hearing, October 21, 2020 [I W OV-Lega I. FI D849604] Attachments: Declaration of Covenant Restricting Use as Condition of Rezoning - Westward Look Open Space.DOCX From: Matt Bailey _ Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 1:33 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: Andrews, Joe <jandrews@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Written Comments to the Town Council for Public Hearing, October 21, 2020 [IWOV-Legal.FID849604] Dear Mr. Standish and Honorable Town of Oro Valley Mayor and Town Council: My name is Matt Bailey and I am an attorney with the local law firm of Rusing Lopez & Lizardi, PLLC. Our law firm represents Mrs. Elisabeth Dudley, who lives at , which is located in Westward Look Estates. On behalf of Mrs. Dudley, we thank you for the opportunity to participate in this public process regarding the possible annexation of the Westward Look Resort and related General Plan Amendment and rezoning of the Westward Look property. Mrs. Dudley's residence is bordered on two sides by Westward Look property — on the east by the Westward Look Resort and on the north by the 23 -acre parcel. Mrs. Dudley is passionate about the long-term protection of the 23 -acre parcel and has engaged in the public process since day one. Mrs. Dudley has gained some new insights during this public process. Particularly: 1. Westward Look is asking the Town of Oro Valley to make significant zoning changes that will directly affect many homeowners that live adjacent to the Westward Look property. 2. Mrs. Dudley has known since the 1980s that there is an agreement from 1972 that Westward Look is a party to and to which Westward Look agreed to preserve the 23 -acre parcel as open space. Given several factors that have come up in this public process, however, Mrs. Dudley is less certain that the 23 -acre parcel will remain as open space. 3. Westward Look has stated that it does not intend to develop the 23 -acre parcel. These comments are encouraging, but only as certain as long as those intentions do not change. 4. Most of the landowners bordering the Westward Look property are not Town of Oro Valley residents, and, as such, their ability to influence Town of Oro Valley decisions about the Westward Look property will significantly diminish once the Westward Look property is annexed. Taking all of this background into consideration, Mrs. Dudley is asking for the Town's help to ensure the long-term protection of the 23 -acre parcel. Specifically, Mrs. Dudley requests that the Town of Oro Valley require as a condition of any rezoning approval for the Westward Look property, that Westward Look must record a covenant that runs with the land to protect the 23 -acre parcel as natural open space and that gives adjacent homeowners like Mrs. Dudley the ability to ensure that the 23 - acre parcel stays protected. I have attached a draft covenant for your consideration. In making this request, Mrs. Dudley asks that you view the annexation, General Plan Amendment, and rezoning of the Westward Look property as a package deal that includes protection of the 23 -acre parcel. Mrs. Dudley feels that this is a reasonable compromise and would result in a win-win for all parties involved. First, the Town would annex the Westward Look property. Second, Westward Look would have its property rezoned, in particular, the Resort Gateway property fronting Ina Road. And finally, the Town, Westward Look, and general community would get the benefit of protected open space. I also want to note that I spoke earlier this week with Mr. Andrew Stegen and Ms. Linda Morales, each as representatives of Westward Look. I proposed Mrs. Dudley's covenant concept and offered that if Westward Look were amendable to recording such a covenant to protect the 23 -acre parcel, Mrs. Dudley is willing to support the overall Westward Look proposal. Alternatively, if Westward Look is not amendable to recording such a covenant, Mrs. Dudley would continue to earnestly advocate against the Westward Look proposal in hopes of ensuring the long-term protection for the 23 -acre parcel. Mr. Stegen declined Mrs. Dudley's proposal. While Mr. Stegen's response is disappointing and inconsistent with Westward Look's stated intentions for the 23 -acre parcel, Mrs. Dudley is still encouraged that the Town will consider her request and incorporate it as part of the Town's overall decision for the Westward Look property. On behalf of Mrs. Dudley, thank you for your time and consideration of her request. Matthew Bailey Of Counsel Rusing Lopez & Lizardi, P.L.L.C. 151 Tucson, Arizona 85718 Main: Direct: Fax: I ®® RUSJNG LOPEZ M & LIZARDI CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL TRANSMISSION AND ANY DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING IT CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED INFORMATION BELONGING TO THE SENDER. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION OR USE OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ANY OF THE INFORMATION IT CONTAINS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. ANY UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION OF THIS TRANSMISSION IS ILLEGAL. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE ERRONEOUSLY, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY DELETE THIS COMMUNICATION AND ANY ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM AND DESTROY ANY COPIES. PLEASE ALSO NOTIFY THE SENDER THAT YOU HAVE DONE SO BY REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE. THANK YOU. Stine, Michelle From: Randall, Diana Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 11:33 AM To: Stine, Michelle; Standish, Michael Subject: FW: Return Golf to Pusch Ridge Good morning, Please see resident comments below. Sincerely, Diana Randall Executive Assistant Town Manager, Mayor and Council From: Carolyn Weinig [mailto: :om] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 11:30 AM To: Town Council <council@orovalleyaz.gov>; mayor@orovalleyaz.gov; Jacobs, Mary <mjacobs@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Return Golf to Pusch Ridge Dear Mayor Winfield and Council Members: I write today as a very disappointed member of the Oro Valley community. Our home, located on the fourth green of the Pusch Ridge Golf Course, no longer enjoys the beauty and affordable golf opportunity that attracted us here in 2012, and our home value will be diminishing quickly as the current condition of the course continues to deteriorate. I invite you to drive through our El Conquistador Patio Home community to see for yourselves. The "open space" is now an eyesore. We, as Oro Valley residents, supported the 1/2 cent tax increase that was to pay for the continued operation of the Town's acquired 45 holes of golf. Somehow you as a council lobed off our beautiful 9 holes from benefiting from that tax subsidy while the other 36 holes are enjoying record rounds and increased memberships and are being bolstered with capital improvements. It is very fair to say that the Pusch Ridge Course did not get its fair share of the tax subsidy, nor was it given the opportunity to succeed on its own. The course was poorly marketed, was closed 6 months out of the year, was only open for play a few hours of the day and has seen very little in the way of capital improvements. The course's pump house continues to be a huge eye sore in our community and to the Town of Oro Valley as a testament to the Town's lack of interest in helping this gorgeous 9 -hole course prosper. Our HOA Board has been begging the town manager to improve it for many years. All we got was a coat of paint. If you revisit the 2017 study the Town commissioned NGF and WLB to conduct you'll find they stated: "The overall loss on Pusch Ridge was estimated at $175,000 in 2016 with a reduced operation, a small fraction of the over $2.1 million loss on overall Town golf operations." Yet, the Council elected to abandon Pusch Ridge rather than listen to the experts. I have seen the Town Manager's maintenance plan for the "open space" with which we are left. We appreciate acknowledgement that the status quo is totally unacceptable, but it's not enough. This community is begging the Council to reconsider its decision to abandon golf at Pusch Ridge, regardless of what HSL decides to do. Without the potential revenue to be generated by rounds of golf being played on this property, the Town is facing very high maintenance costs and repurposing costs to turn it into anything better than another Town eyesore. Please return golf to Pusch Ridge. Sincerely, Steve and Carolyn Weinig Oro Valley z Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 1:41 PM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Written Comments to the Town Council for Public Hearing, October 21, 2020 [I W OV-Lega I. FI D849604] Attachments: Declaration of Covenant Restricting Use as Condition of Rezoning - Westward Look Open Space.DOCX From: Matt Bailey [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 1:33 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: Andrews, Joe <jandrews@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Written Comments to the Town Council for Public Hearing, October 21, 2020 [IWOV-Legal.FID849604] Dear Mr. Standish and Honorable Town of Oro Valley Mayor and Town Council: My name is Matt Bailey and I am an attorney with the local law firm of Rusing Lopez & Lizardi, PLLC. Our law firm represents Mrs. Elisabeth Dudley, who lives at which is located in Westward Look Estates. On behalf of Mrs. Dudley, we thank you for the opportunity to participate in this public process regarding the possible annexation of the Westward Look Resort and related General Plan Amendment and rezoning of the Westward Look property. Mrs. Dudley's residence is bordered on two sides by Westward Look property — on the east by the Westward Look Resort and on the north by the 23 -acre parcel. Mrs. Dudley is passionate about the long-term protection of the 23 -acre parcel and has engaged in the public process since day one. Mrs. Dudley has gained some new insights during this public process. Particularly: 1. Westward Look is asking the Town of Oro Valley to make significant zoning changes that will directly affect many homeowners that live adjacent to the Westward Look property. 2. Mrs. Dudley has known since the 1980s that there is an agreement from 1972 that Westward Look is a party to and to which Westward Look agreed to preserve the 23 -acre parcel as open space. Given several factors that have come up in this public process, however, Mrs. Dudley is less certain that the 23 -acre parcel will remain as open space. 3. Westward Look has stated that it does not intend to develop the 23 -acre parcel. These comments are encouraging, but only as certain as long as those intentions do not change. 4. Most of the landowners bordering the Westward Look property are not Town of Oro Valley residents, and, as such, their ability to influence Town of Oro Valley decisions about the Westward Look property will significantly diminish once the Westward Look property is annexed. Taking all of this background into consideration, Mrs. Dudley is asking for the Town's help to ensure the long-term protection of the 23 -acre parcel. Specifically, Mrs. Dudley requests that the Town of Oro Valley require as a condition of any rezoning approval for the Westward Look property, that Westward Look must record a covenant that runs with the land to protect the 23 -acre parcel as natural open space and that gives adjacent homeowners like Mrs. Dudley the ability to ensure that the 23 - acre parcel stays protected. I have attached a draft covenant for your consideration. In making this request, Mrs. Dudley asks that you view the annexation, General Plan Amendment, and rezoning of the Westward Look property as a package deal that includes protection of the 23 -acre parcel. Mrs. Dudley feels that this is a reasonable compromise and would result in a win-win for all parties involved. First, the Town would annex the Westward Look property. Second, Westward Look would have its property rezoned, in particular, the Resort Gateway property fronting Ina Road. And finally, the Town, Westward Look, and general community would get the benefit of protected open space. I also want to note that I spoke earlier this week with Mr. Andrew Stegen and Ms. Linda Morales, each as representatives of Westward Look. I proposed Mrs. Dudley's covenant concept and offered that if Westward Look were amendable to recording such a covenant to protect the 23 -acre parcel, Mrs. Dudley is willing to support the overall Westward Look proposal. Alternatively, if Westward Look is not amendable to recording such a covenant, Mrs. Dudley would continue to earnestly advocate against the Westward Look proposal in hopes of ensuring the long-term protection for the 23 -acre parcel. Mr. Stegen declined Mrs. Dudley's proposal. While Mr. Stegen's response is disappointing and inconsistent with Westward Look's stated intentions for the 23 -acre parcel, Mrs. Dudley is still encouraged that the Town will consider her request and incorporate it as part of the Town's overall decision for the Westward Look property. On behalf of Mrs. Dudley, thank you for your time and consideration of her request. Matthew Bailey Of Counsel Rusing Lopez & Lizardi, P.L.L.C. Tucson, Arizona 85718 Main: Direct: Fax: I Ruslm LorEz & LizARDi CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL TRANSMISSION AND ANY DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING IT CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED INFORMATION BELONGING TO THE SENDER. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION OR USE OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ANY OF THE INFORMATION IT CONTAINS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. ANY UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION OF THIS TRANSMISSION IS ILLEGAL. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE ERRONEOUSLY, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY DELETE THIS COMMUNICATION AND ANY ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM AND DESTROY ANY COPIES. PLEASE ALSO NOTIFY THE SENDER THAT YOU HAVE DONE SO BY REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE. THANK YOU. (Space above this line for Recorder's use) DECLARATION OF COVENANT RESTRICTING USE This declaration of covenant restricting use ("Declaration") is made this _ day of 20, by Westward Look Development Company, Inc., an Arizona Corporation ("Westward Look") for the benefit of the real property described on the attached Exhibit B (the "Benefitted Property"). The present and future owners of the Benefited Property, or any potion thereof, are referred to in this Declaration as the "Neighbors." RECITALS A. Westward Look is the owner of the real property described on the attached Exhibit A (the "Open Space Property"). B. Westward Look is an original party to that certain Agreement of Settlement and Compromise, dated April 17, 1972, between Westward Look, A. Dryden Eberhart and Wilhelmina K. Eberhart as husband and wife, Louis Fuhn and Edith Fuhn as husband and wife, Pima County a body politic, and the Board of Supervisors of Pima County (the "1972 Settlement Agreement"). The Neighbors are some of the intended successor beneficiaries of the 1972 Settlement Agreement. C. The 1972 Settlement Agreement resulted in the dismissal of certain litigation in exchange for, among other things, Westward Look promising to keep the Open Space Property as open space. D. In recognition of the 1972 Settlement Agreement and in consideration of resolving certain disputes regarding the annexation and rezoning of property owned by Westward Look and the 1972 Settlement Agreement, Westward look has agreed to execute and record this Declaration. DECLARATION In consideration of the forgoing Recitals, Westward Look hereby declares that the Open Space Property shall remain as natural undisturbed open space in perpetuity. The above restrictions shall run with the Open Space Property and shall be binding on all parties having or acquiring any right, title, or interest in the Open Space Property or any part of the Open Space Property. This Declaration shall be for the benefit of the Benefited Property, or any part thereof. Any owner of all or any part of the Benefited Property may enforce this Declaration. [Signature and acknowledgement page follows] Westward Look has duly executed this Declaration as of the date first written above. Westward Look Development Company, Inc., an Arizona Corporation M [NAME, TITLE] STATE OF ARIZONA COUNTY OF PIMA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this [DATE], by [SIGNATORY NAME, TITLE] of Westward Look Development Company, Inc., an Arizona Corporation, on behalf of the corporation. (SEAL) Notary Public [Signature and acknowledgement page to Declaration of Covenant Restricting Use] EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BENEFITTED PROPERTY (To be inserted) [WESTWARD LOOK GUEST RANCH NO. 1 BK. 24 M&P PG. 22, CATALINA VILLAGE NO. 3 BK. 10 M&P PG. 26, WESTWARD LOOK ESTATES NO. 1 BK. 17 M&P PG. 261