HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1527) AGENDA
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
MARCH 15, 1999
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
STUDY SESSION - AT OR AFTER 5:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING OV9-99-21 TRANSLATIONAL ZONING OF THE
ARIZONA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD PROPERTY
FROM PIMA COUNTY SR TO ORO VALLEY R1-144, WITH CHURCH
DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify
Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk, at 297-2591.
POSTED: 3/12/99
4:30 p.m.
rg
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL STUDY SESSION COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 15th, 1999
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL
FROM: David Marsh, Planner I
SUBJECT: Ordinance NO. (0)99-11 , OV9-99-21, Translational Zoning of the Arizona District Council
of the Assemblies of God Property, From Pima County SR to R1-144, With Church
Development Entitlements—Continued from March 3rd
BACKGROUND:
In August, 1998, pursuant to Section 9-471B of the Arizona Revised Statutes, the Town of Oro Valley Mayor and
Council annexed the area known as La Cholla / Tangerine. The Town is required to change, or "translate", the
zoning on the annexed properties from Pima County zoning designations to the closest comparable Oro Valley
zoning designation. In accordance with State law, the Town must translate the County zoning by May of 1999.
This item was continued from the March 3rd, 1999 Town Council meeting.
The attached map identifies the location of the parcel of land owned by the Arizona District Council of the
Assemblies of God(OV9-99-21 Parcel#219-42-0140).
SUMMARY:
In accordance with State Statutes, the Town should translate Pima County's SR zoning, which allows single family
residential (0.3 Dwelling Units per Acre), to Oro Valley's closest equivalent designation, R1-144, Single Family
Residential (also permits 0.3 DUA).
There was no pre-annexation agreement negotiated between the property owner and the Town; however, the
property owner requested during the annexation process that the Pima County church development entitlements be
maintained, and that they be permitted to apply for a Conditional Use Permit to operate Springboard, a temporary
shelter for abused, adolescent women. Staff has met with the applicant on this issue, and agree with the applicant's
request, with those conditions incorporated into the Ordinance.
On February 18th, 1999, Rev. Seale, representing the applicant, met with Staff to express concern over one of the
Planning & Zoning Commission's conditions of approval. Condition# 5 limited the disturbance on site to 30 % of
the total area, which was placed to meet the intent of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) identified in the General
Plan. The applicant has requested that this condition be removed, or be modified to permit disturbance of 55 % of
the site. The rationale for such a request is outlined in their attached letter. The item was continued from the March
3rd Town Council meeting for further review of this issue.
Upon further review, Staff stands by the earlier recommendation of limiting the site to a development envelope of
30% of the site. Such a constraint would meet the intent of the UGB, and is consistent with the conditions placed
upon the translational zoning of the Diocese of Arizona property (aka the Church of the Apostles), located
immediately adjacent to the east. The applicant would also be able to construct all of Phase I of their project,
including the Springboard residence and the gym proposed in Phase II, within the 30% development envelope.
Please note that this 30% is based on the total current parcel size prior to the dedication of any future rights-of-
way.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL STUDY SESSION COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 3
At the March 3rd Town Council meeting, the issue was raised over whether the driveways and parking areas would
be included in the 30% development envelope under the Pima County Zoning Code, as opposed to the OVZCR.
Staff has researched this issue, and has found that driveways and parking areas are included in the development
envelope under the Pima County zoning code, which is in agreement with the OVZCR (see attached Pima County
Zoning Code excerpt).
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE:
Oro Valley has designated this area as acceptable for rural low-density residential uses (R-LDR). The Plan denotes
"areas of large lot single family development ...desirable in a rural environment". This is the lowest intensity land
use designation category in the General Plan, with density from 0-0.3 dwelling units per acre, and is identified as
an "area where there is a desire to retain a rural lifestyle or where protection of the natural environment is
necessary".
The General Plan also established an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) along the northern edge of the planning
area. The site lies immediately north of the UGB, as shown on the attached map. The General Plan states that:
"...any land north of the [urban growth] line should not receive any increase in density or land use intensity over
what currently exists...the purpose...was to ensure rural character preservation of the land within the area...it is
strongly recommended that the Town Council and other jurisdictions consider and honor the existing resident's
wishes to maintain the rural character of the area. Additionally, increasing the intensity of development of this area
over the next twenty years will continue the trend toward urban sprawl that the Focus 2020: Oro Valley General
Plan is attempting to limit."
Consideration might be given to limiting the density to no more than would be permitted by the R-LDR
designation, meaning that on the site no more than 30% of the site may be developed. This will meet the intent
of the UGB.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All property owners within 600' of the site in question have been notified, by mail, of this public hearing. Notice
of the translational zoning was also published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town and the property
was posted, all in compliance with State Statutes. At the time of submittal of this report, Staff has received a
petition of protest from 32 neighboring property owners protesting the proposed increase of the development
envelope from 30% to 55% of the site, and a separate case (a CUP application to be brought forward to Town
Council in April).
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
On Feburary 2nd, 1999, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the translational
zoning of the Arizona District Council of the Assemblies of God property, with the conditions incorporated into
the Ordinance.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL STUDY SESSION COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 3
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the translation of zoning for the Arizona District Council of the Assemblies of God
property, from Pima County SR to Oro Valley R1-144 and all applicable development standards of the R1-144
zoning district shall apply thereto, with the conditions incorporated into the Ordinance. Staff stands by its earlier
recommendation of a 30%maximum development envelope for this site.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance NO. (0)99- i l .
2. Location Map
3. February 18t Letter from Rev. Seale, representing the Arizona District Council of the Assemblies of God.
4. Pima County Zoning Code excerpt—definition of"Development Envelope"
5. Petition of Protest from surrounding property owners.
6. Reduction of Phased Concept Plan
F:\OV\OV9\1999\9-99-21\TZTCstudy.rpt.doc
Plannin:� d Zoning Administrator
r\e
' , J/
Co I .4 unity Dev- •pment Di'e` tor
Ari Ai
Town Maria,er
ORDINANCE NO. (0)99- 11
-'' AN ORDINANCE TRANSLATING THE ZONING FROM
PIMA COUNTY SR TO ORO VALLEY R1-144, WITH
CONDITIONS, ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
ARIZONA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLY OF
GOD PROPERTY,LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA KNOWN
AS LA CHOLLA / TANGERINE; AND REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH.
WHEREAS, the owners of certain real property known as the Arizona District Council of
the Assembly of God Property, located within the area known as La Cholla / Tangerine, has
requested that their existing entitlements to develop a church be preserved; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, has considered said translational
zoning with added conditions on these properties at a duly noticed Public Hearing, in accordance
with State Statue, and having made its recommendations to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, the Oro Valley Town Council has duly considered the translational zoning
with added conditions at a Public Hearing and finds that it is consistent with the Town's General
Plan, Tangerine Corridor Overlay District, and other Town ordinances,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY:
SECTION 1. That the Arizona District Council of the Assembly of God Property
contained within La Cholla / Tangerine be translationally zoned from Pima County SR to Oro
Valley R1-144, and that all applicable development standards of the R1-144 zoning district shall
apply thereto to said property.
SECTION 2. That the permitted use of a Church and accessory buildings in the Pima
County SR zoning district be maintained for this property.
SECTION 3. That a non-profit, shelter care home as permitted in the Pima County SR
zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), may be permitted on this site. The
applicant shall apply for the CUP under a separate process from a Development Plan.
SECTION 4. That this property shall comply with the setback requirements for Oro
Valley R1-144 zoning district and the Tangerine Road Overlay District.
SECTION 5. That temporary access onto Tangerine Road is granted.
SECTION 6. That no building shall exceed 25 feet in height. Steeples, spires, towers,
and architectural elements may be permitted up to 34 feet in height. Religious symbols placed
atop such structures are not included in the calculation of building height, but are limited to a
maximum height of 5 feet.
SECTION 7. That no more than 30% of the site may be developed, which will meet
the intent of the Urban Growth Boundary, as identified in the Focus 2020 Town of Oro Valley
General Plan.
SECTION 8. That all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the
same are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict;
SECTION 9. That this ordinance and the various parts thereof are hereby declared to be
severable. If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, word or phrase of this ordinance is, for any
reason, held to be unconstitutional, such holdings shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portion of this ordinance.
SECTION 10. Any person found guilty of violating any provision of this code shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed
one thousand dollars or by imprisonment. Each day that a violation continues shall be a separate
offense punishable as hereinabove described.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley,
Arizona this 17th day of March , 1999.
Paul H. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Tobin Sidles, Town Attorney
••, .•-.
........_ ,
• .
on
, ..1.. .
0-)
4 ,,
,,' \
, v. .
s..
i.......__........
J . , ,.
1VI
, 1 i . i : ; i 2.-.....
i Q �\ r , -
•o r- _
.
Cl. ..
(1) :!
E :i
„.......„_,.....,___________
/ , •
�i '
i, , :
., . •
. ,
:--,......„..: ,
, : i , .,_ z
........, , , :
\ : ,
_, . .
c . , .
, , i ,---1, . .......„_,..„,, , , ;
o \\
(3 , .
f,
O .........„,_
\\\•1 I
a)
\\ \\ \
\ \
\ \\ \
CD . \ s ... \ \.,
—_:: , ,. ------,, ----,:,, .
..... . ,,,
C3) \ , \ ‘. \ .
‘. .. \ \ \ ,
C _
_ , . , \ , . \ \ \ \ \ \ , \ ,. \ '• •\ \ \\ \ • ._
\ ' \.' \\ \ \ \ \CIY\ ' \' \ \ \ \•• N \ \ \. ' '. \1 \C
‘... —.......,..................7.7..".=:•"...Z , \.‘ ', \ \
\ , \ \ \ • \
, • \ ‘,. ', \ .,• \• ' ‘ \\\ \ \ '‘. •\ %• ss,. \ s', \\ '.• 4 •
V+\ ‘. ‘• \ \ \ \ \* '• .\ .„ '' • , , ..
s ' \ .• .(1)\ '
'w` `\` \ \ \= • \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ N, \ \ \ \ \ , . . ........................".....,
,`` \ `\ \,\ ` ` \ �\•\ \ \ •• ' ` i
\ \ \ \ \ \ �\• \ , \ • \ '\ .
0 1\ , \ \ \, \\ \ \ . \ \ \ \—rte 04MMI.
. , • ‘. , , \ .. ', •, • • Ca‘,. ‘s.Ct‘ • '‘ \ \ \ \ . '. \ .. s, , -
It
,....)
, , . , .. . \ \'' F--- . \\ ..b '''' \ \'\ \ \ ‘' ..• 's \ \ \ \ " '•-
s.
._CCS \ \ \ \ \ ,\
�1 \ \\ \\ \ ,,'` . \ �^.\ .. , \\ \ \ \\ PA1flOE o
SNI \ \ \ ` \ \ L
CZ
•
1
L C \ , \ \ \ \ _. \ ,, \ \ . e410LC ET '�
o •>i% \\.. \ ' \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ 0 ‘. ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '.
\\ .. • '‘., \ \ \. \ ‘ \ .-, \\..4,.....,, \
. i'• \LC', ••• ‘C \ ''' \\ \ '. \\' \ '',
CM =7 \s, \ .,\ \ \ ,s \ \\.\ \ \\ ,‘ =.\\\,,‘\\,‘ \\\\\\. \. .\\\., ,
= 8 \ \ \ \
\ .. ,., .• , . \ ‘, 4. , .. ,.
, \ \ , .‘ ., scw) ., ‘• a ,., ,. \ , ,\. \\ \: \ .., \\ s
‘ \ ‘ .. \ • • • .\ ‘cy ' \- \ \ \
•.% \ \ ' •
\ \ .
\ • \ \ \ \ Oo `
0
= \\, ., ,.\\ .., \ \.. •‘, \, , . \ • \ \ ., \
, .. \ ,
•
, \ .. ,. .., \\, .. „ ‘. , .. \ ., ,. , „ \\ .. . . , ,
.- * \ ., \ .. ‘, \ .. .. , .‘ %. ,
• \‘. \ ‘ \ , ,. \s. • ., • % s. ... ,. \ , . , , .. . , , \ . , co 1
\ .. .., \. ; , S • , , , . .. .. , .. , . . „, , \. .. ‘. \ , ‘ ,
. ,, . ., , , „ „ . .. ,. .. , • i
.,_„,... ,. . .. .., \ , \. \, ,. \. .. \ ,. \ , \ \ , ,. .. , , ., i
co .‘ ‘.• , . ‘„ \ ,, , .. \\: ,, ., ._ ., .. . •. ., \ ..\ _\\ \ \ .• s., ,„ , ., i
0 _ -I‘' ' ‘' ' \ \- w.. \ \ '' \ \\ \ ' \ ' ' ' ' '
CC5 04
O
0
Ci) . ,
o N
-coc..
CZ i 40
hyo
: ___
ct) . C=1 n ,
c., O
oN MillIMMIr
CI.:
0 . C 1
i
,.,, , . i
0 I s , . .
•
----O .
.
I-,
*•. 0
t
• COPPER MOUNTAIN
,• .. •• •
y::•-•q'..• • . ••• • • •• . ••
•
ASSEMBLY OF GOD
February 18, 1999
Town of Oro Valley
Community Development Department
Planning and Zoning Division
11000 N. La Canada Drive
Oro Valley, Arizona 85737
Subject: 0V9-99-21 Parcel #219-22-0140 Arizona District Council of the Assemblies of Gcd
Property, Translational Zoning from Pima County SR to Oro Valley R1-144 - Urban
Growth Boundary Condition
Mayor Paul Loomis and Members of the Oro Valley Town Council:
On February 2nd, 1999, the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission approved the
translational zoning on Parcel #219-42-0140, the Arizona District Council of the Assemblies
of God Property, from Pima County SR to Oro Valley R1-144 zoning district with five
= conditions listed as Exhibit "A".
The fifth condition reads, "No more than 30% of the site may be developed, which will meet
the intent of the UGB."
Unsure of whether this restriction pertained to buildings only or the entire development, we
sought clarification. ►n a letter dated February 9th, 1999, David Marsh, Planner 1, after
discussion with Bryant Nodine, P & Z Administrator, interpreted the 30% to be applicable to
"all buildings, parking lots, playgrounds, etc.: meaning literally `disturbance of the natural
desert'." This interpretation even takes into account the creation of the retention/detention
basins which are mandated for our development.
This letter of clarification further states that Before construction of the second phase of
development could occur, a General Plan Amendment would have to be approved to move
the UGB limits north of the Copper Mountain Assembly of God property." "...(and that) the
process to update the General Plan will commence some time towards the middle of next
year, and that the movement of the UGB limits northward could be considered during that
process."
William T. Seale, Pastor
P.O. Box 65312
Tucson.AZ 85728-5312
(520) 293-9539 Office
(52O 850-2202 Mobile
Page 2
We are truly thankful the Planning and Zoning Commission approved our request to allow
.�.� that certain Pima County standards relating to the development of a church on site be
permitted as part of the translational zoning of our parcel. But the 30% restriction of the
Urban Growth Boundary is unnecessarily limiting for the scope of our development.
Our first phase development conforms to the 30% restriction, but once all phases are
completed we will be at approximately 55%. If we had a larger parcel than 8.82 acres to
develop and did not have to reserve 1.45 acres of that for future dedication, we would not
have any difficulty meeting the 30% restriction. Nevertheless, we believe that a master plan
that leaves 45% of its total acreage natural desert is environmentally sensitive and maintains
the rural character of the area.
Please bear in mind that the intent of the UGB is to "ensure rural character preservation cf the
land within the area..." and to limit urban sprawl. Churches are low impact upon a community
and the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Staff has already placed limits upon the heights of
our buildings to lessen the visual impact on other properties.
In addition, our master plan has natural buffer yards of dense desert vegetation. The frcntace
land along Tangerine Road alone comprises 1.45 acres!
With these facts before us, it is vital that we have a ruling pertaining to the current and future
development of our land. It is poor stewardship to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in
a property that may not be able to be developed for the purposes for which it was purchased.
Therefore, we, in behalf of the Arizona District Council of the Assemblies of God, Inc. who
holds title to this parcel, respectfully request that condition number five on Exhibit "A" be
deleted, thereby exempting Parcel #219-22-0140 from the present boundary of the UGE OR
modified to read, "No more than 55% of the site may be developed. which will meet the intent
of the UG B."
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
- (/'
Rev. William T. Seale, Pastor , Copper Mountain Assembly of God,
on behalf of The Arizona District Council
of the Assemblies of God, Inc.
2009 N. 7th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85006
• 13.31.030 —
PIMA COUNTY ZONING CODE — CHAPTER 13 . 81 — GRADING STANDARDS
18.81.030 Definitions. walls and other accessory structures, but excluding
A. General usage:The definition and usage of terms individual sewage disposal systems.
in this chapter are as contained within this code, 11. Erosion: The wearing away of the ground sur-
except that the definition and usage of terms describ- face as a result of the movement of wind, water cr
ing drainage are as contained within the county ice.
Floodplain Management Ordinance. 12. Excavation: The artificial (i.e., mechanical.
B. Definitions: For purposes of this chapter only, manual,blasting or other such)means for removal of
the following words and terms shall mean: earth material.
1. Access road:A road within one mile of the grad- 13. Final inspection: Field inspection conducted
ing side, designated on the approved grading plan. by the county engineer prior to project acceptance or
and used,during grading,for the transport of grading release of assurances (if required).
equipment, hauling of fill and other equivalent 14. Grade: The vertical location of the 7.-.round nd sur-
vehicular traffic to and from the grading site. face.
2. Approval:Written notice by the county engineer 15. Grade, existing: The actual. current _round
approving the design. progress or completion of surface as of the date of adoption of the ordinance
work. codified in this chapter.
3. Approved plan:The most current_. ading sketch 16. Grade. finished: The final grade conforming to
or grading plan which bears the authorized sigr:ature the approved grading sketch or plan.
of approval of the county engineer. 17. Grade, rough: The stage at which grid:'.= sub-
. . _ -
4. Approved testing agency: A facility v.-hich is stantially conforms with the approved grading:ketch
equipped to perform and certify the tests required by or plan.
this chapter and whose testing operations are on- 1S. Grading: The clearing,:g, brushing. bbinz.
trolled and monitored by a civil engineer. excavating, or filling of a site.
r v + -
5. Borrow: Earth material acquired from an off- 19. Grading rermit: An ofEcial document i:st.:ed
site location for use in grading a site. by the county engineer authorizing the grad:=_c iv-
6. Brushing: The selective removal of vegetation. ity specified by the grading permit conditions.
7. Building height contour line: A contour eleva- 20. Grading permit conditions: The specifcat ors
tion line set at the existing grade elevation. plus the and requirements of the approved grading sketch or
maximum building height permitted by site rezoning grading plan. gTadi ng statement. soils repo:: or other
conditions or this code and fifty percent of the addi- documents necessary for grading permit approval.
tional height added by permitted fill. Refer to illus- 21. Grabbing: The removal of trees and other lar
tration 13.81-1 (Section 13.3 1.110). plants by their roots.
S. Clearing:The substantial removal of vegetation. +_: Inspector: A person authorized by t e count•.
9. Envelope, building: engineer or building official to perform spectic::
a. A dwelling unit and all attached roofed step- on grading work.
tures. including carports or patio ramadas; 23. Retaining Nall: A wail designed to withstand
b. For nonresidential development, the building lateral and hydrostatic pressures and buil: :c seep
envelope shall be the main building and all attached earth from sliding, and which is two feet crater in
roofed structures. height from the lowest point of earth at the f:unda-
10. Envelope, development: The sum of the areas tion to the top of the wall.
of the permit holder's land to be graded. including 24. Revegetation: Placement of living pia:: mate-
the building envelope,accessory buildings,and areas rial on sites or cut and fill slopes where the natural
of related parking. driveways, swimming pools. vegetation has been removed.
18-17.13_.13 (a=Cru♦. ::-3)
Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members
Oro Valley 711\ 1,c)„.-?) ci•
-- �- 11000 N. La Canada Drive •
Valley, AZ 8 5 7 3 7 - +'' l Tam
Oro ��i�� �.. �
wawa
520-297-2591 entgcn. DE:7MM L• E `
Fax 297-0428 . C•
m.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We are writing to ask that you deny the Assembly of God's proposal for a Springboard Shelter
Care Facility in our neighborhood. Our heart goes out to these girls, but we feel their facility
would be better off in an area acceptable to the neighborhood.
We have canvassed our neighborhood; there are few homes and a lot of vacant land. It is a rural°
low-density residential neighborhood that is protected from over development by an Urban
Growth Boundary. Due to this boundary line. which is Tangerine Rd., all property north of there
is to maintain no more than 30% grading to help maintain the rural character of our
neighborhood. The Church& Springboard are requesting to grade 55%, which is a 25% increase.
In an 8.82 acreP arcel. that is an extra 2 plus acres that will no longer be our beautiful desert. Is it
necessary to have a playground and ,gymnasium as we have these things for our children at the
nearby Wilson School?
Every single neighbor contacted wanted to sign a petition opposing the additional grading and the
shelter care home. Since there are few homes in the neighborhood and some people were not at
�-- home, we feel we have collected a large amount of signatures. The petition is attached hereto.
David Marsh has informed us that there is no zoning existing in Oro Valley that allows, or
addresses a home of this type. Pima County has a category that it fits into, but also requires a
conditional useermit and if neighbors in an area of Pima County objected, maybe the shelter care
P g
home wouldn't be able to locate there either. It is not that you are taking away any rights they
might have had under Pima County, because nothing was automatic there either. Every driveway
and parking area is considered in Pima County, as well as Oro Valley, as far as the percent of
grading allowed. Just because Oro Valley annexed their property does not mean they should
automatically get a zoning, or permit: it just means they can ask for one.
They are proposing, based on their drawing submitted to Oro Valley, to place the shelter care
facility only 57 (fifty-seven) feet from the Klingler's south boundary line. Moving it closer to
Tangerine would not change our feelings and only make it more dangerous and noisy for them
that close to the highway.
They knew when theypurchased the property, or they should have known, that it is not a 10(ten)
P P
acre parcel, but a 8.82 acre parcel. That is due to the setback of Tangerine Rd. and also Como
Drive(their East boundary). Most of the neighbors in our area have all given land up to easements
and have made our homes fit. In towns there are churches on lots that are smaller than an acre.
To say that 8.82 acres is too small for a church and they need to grade the extra 25% is
-2-
unnecessary, especially if the Springboard Home is not part of the proposed development. In ,
Chapter 6, page 6-1 of OroValley's "Single Family Residential District Regulations," it states,
under "Community residences," (b) Such residence contains no more than 6 residents, or 8
residents, including staff." Springboard proposes a 20 bed facility in our rural, low-density,
residential neighborhood.
Under "Definitions," Sec.2-101, page 2-8, Oro Valley defines a Community Residence: A
dwelling unit shared as primary residence by the disabled, or disabled elderly persons, living
together as a single housekeeping unit in which staff provides on-site care, training or support for
the residents. Such residence or services provided therein shall be licensed by, certified by ,
approved by, registered with, funded by or through, or under contract with the State of Arizona.
Community residence does not include a residence which serves persons as an alternative to
incarceration for a criminal offence, or a residence for a criminal offence, or a residence which
provides drug and/or alcohol rehabilitation." The Springboard Home is a rehabilitation home.
Please do not set a precedent for changing the General Plan or the Urban Growth Boundary.
Please listen to the neighbors who will be most affected by the desecration of our desert and an
unwanted shelter care facility.
You may contact us at the following:
Mr. Tim Bennet
12150 N. Camino Del Fiero
Oro Valley, AZ 85742
phone: 797-8501
Larry& Claire Klingler
12151 N. Como Drive
Oro Valley, AZ 85742
phone: 742-5510
We sincerely thank you for your time and consideration in this important matter.
2
- F.7
Tim Bennet date
-
3/6 / 7
. �1f7)(//v_,Z , /c5-7
• Larry I, gler date Claire Klingler date
PETITION -
geference: Case No. OV 8-99-2 (Springboard Facility)
We the undersigned residences of Oro Valley and nearby neighbors o f the referenced property are NOT in favor of:
.. changing the allowable grading from 30 percent to 55 percent.
2. the proposed Shelter Care Facility which requires a conditional use permit for the referenced properry
Allowing the increased grading percentage is a violation of the Urban Growth Boundary, although we
have compassion for the proposed affected residences of the shelter facility we feel this type of"home" should be
located on a more appropriate site, not in a rural residential low density neighborhood.
No. Print Name Address City/County ZIP Signature Date
Ptinrk
1 ri- -.(..14 /7,-,..,,,--rr- i V. ?f7"f Li ‘ 0/:(7- 3-6-7?
- ; ; e _ • C `. / P, „,d---1 ) 0.1 '7' ti 7 , -9 L- • •J
.4-9
, ,,,
, . ,
3 I
U A/ = " ! , � !fy-/p".144 ! $-s-7y-2 1 i r
4 . c,2
/ / / / 4
1 ! k k 1 1 C c "i) - - ‘,. =7 4-, I a; ,,,,Li - ,/ /,• , _a_z,r• " F---Z-7
/ ,i
;-2- c 1
;E‘ e i 11 I a. ( \irl I
PsL ! ``, Zi,- •itzig_ `moi�/
--- -Tic
1
- 1 Af?-7) irtz4tith iL-
Piit, 7(724ZJ ' . `'' /
' 0),---1.. oct2"-.4 -'--
.. lr 1.1� � I f- ..
<.,---_-.1.,
i, 4?,,L ^ ,, _;'�
1 , -442J]_' 1' 4 ' _ 3- -‘/-:1
1 s i (Ic-., A Irinr: h4' :
A (0,/K.,,:,% -; - -_;#7
r A (
16 1 i/ /1 ib ' %
•-!-; 1/' ,i-.1,•-, 15'7 , -_, _.: ‘,,,i_j;173 ‘, -,---
:0 1 i 1
PETITION
Reference: Case No. OV 8-99-2 (Springboard Facility)
We the undersigned residences of Oro Valley and nearby neighbors of the referenced property are NOT in favor of:
. changing the allowable grading from 30 percent to 55 percent.
2. the proposed Shelter Care Facility which requires a conditional use permit for the referenced property
Allowing the increased grading percentage is a violation of the Urban Growth Boundary, Although we
have compassion for the proposed affected residences of the shelter facility we feel this type of"home" should bt
located on a more appropriate site, not in a rural residential low density neighborhood.
No. Print Name Address City/County ZIP Si nature Date
1 6 o [/\ (
lx7/(�' q''Sjic/2_ i - ��� S7-57/
13
14 1 I I
151
16
17 1 I I
18
20 1 i I
----P
\4
NN0 i
q o 40'NATURAL LANDSCAPE
N _ ___i__._._._._ _._._._ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._, 1
NS , I-F-4- , •
\\ 135 SPACES o ci'a*E.A. I'-,
Ib
�' X
�Q
` 1+----c \5'o' 24 SPACES a 4'-0'EA. 0'A g\
\\\\\\\\\e ic,_.•!_ 20-0
..._ o , ti
\
2 %O. 1 '6 \ — \ , .\,,,,..:,...\\;
•
i
\ x� N xD I ;
NN , 13
z 1 6_ O D ,0 '-0' \\\\\\\\\\\\ ➢ __ D
11, ✓'
z `\ -{ i 0 24 SPACES o 4'-0'EA. I
CO --. 16 , )
o i.w ,40'-0' Q
6 ` Z l o
' 0 6 I-1
0(): D Iti'
\� 40'NATURAL LANDSCAPE
;er----__,___ __ 41
li11"lll g \ --EP\� _ _ s I G
p ` 40'NATURAL LANDSCAPE
0 I C _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
\ v
I I !o� K � �� \IN °
55 SPACES•'1-0' A. �0 �\\\\�
O ' ! < X\.„.\\\
--,,---±- C2'-0.. \\t �'\`
+--'- :„._.,.(--rt, 24 SPACES•ill-0"EA. P
N
c i \\\\\\\\\ \\\\ , , L, 6
u► \ \ \ \-' _ „0-,-_-\ \ a �'
_i_or \\‘,
, ). &
. \ *O.)1q \ D
.q,i °S-Itc
i b \ —0 u \ \=c \ -,.
_ \/1 I ' \ \ \ \ b �\\\\\\ .
\ \\\\\\\ ? `� I c
D \ I _ tt � ) % • 6
PI
\ i i > < \ j o 0 24 SPACES a 4'-0"EA.
CD :CI ,r,,16 N 2C' • > (• .-C' 60.-0"1 I 9i 0 r-- �• 1 O ILI
l'''''
l'''.1 k I , > z K I 21 SPACES o 4'--O"EA. b
aaa — %
1 D 21 SPACES a 4'-0"EA. p
i J.25.-c'
1 VI I C7Ti U 6 F b 11�2o FACES•4'-O'E,.b Ti' 1 t 0
L
T,,,—,
::_,
,,
➢„ )1 K . �\\\\\\\\\\ , , 10_,•
\\\ -4-. , ›. 1
r�z z % r-'
\ °k�_ \ u 1 r
1 xT / '\ -5- *
Z 0 `\ 1-4J---„�- 1 11 I
fir 42-.--X25.-v. I UIUI' \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ,. c_o V ._ _._ X.__J > rev
9
`\
- LANDSCAPE 11
I-, Iu• I� \
COPPER MOUNTAIN
ASSEMBLY OF GOD
March 12, 1999
Town of Oro Valley
Community Development Department
Planning and Zoning Division
11000 N. La Canada Drive
Oro Valley, Arizona 85737
Subject: 0V9-99-21 Parcel#219-22-0140 Arizona District Council of the Assemblies of God Property,
Translational Zoning from Pima County SR to Oro Valley R1-144
Mayor Paul Loomis and Members of the Oro Valley Town Council:
The Arizona District Council of the Assemblies of God, Inc. who holds title to this parcel, has instructed me to
withdraw the request for more than 30% use.
As part of our translation,we respectfully request that in addition to the church entitlements and permission to
apply for a Conditional Use Permit to operate Springboard, a temporary shelter for abused, adolescent women,
the following items be added as development entitlements:
1. If the Urban Growth Boundary is adjusted to exclude our cite, the intensity of the
development shall be comparable to the Town of Oro Valley's PS&C Zoning.
2. Any revegetated area, e.g., retention/detention basins and utility easements, be
excluded in calculating the allowable development area as presently dictated by
the Urban Growth Boundary as long as it meets the landscaping requirements
prescribed by the Tangerine Road Corridor Plan.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
,E cfL,
(F(2)J—, v v,
Rev. William T. Seale, Pastor,Copper Mountain
Assembly of God,
on behalf of The Arizona District Council
of the Assemblies of God, Inc.
2009 N. 7th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85006
William T. Seale, Pastor
P.O. Box 65312
Tucson,AZ 85728-5312
(520) 293-9539 Office
(520) 850-2202 Mobile
3 -15-9 .9
I ring board Shelter .Vome
tit6Y'a
Rev. Snow Peabody
Executive Director
March 12, 1999
Mark W. Stone
Center Director
Mr. Tim Bennet
Larry & Claire Klingler
Janet Stone And Signers of the Petition
Head Counselor
To Whom It May Concern:
We became aware of your opposition to Springboard, having received a
copy of your letter to the Mayor and Town Council of Oro Valley dated
March 7, 1999. We regret that you were not aware of the Tuesday,
March 2nd Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commissionat the
Oro Valley Town Hall. At this meeting, the ministry of Springboard
was presented and received a unanimous approval for our Conditional
Use Permit.
We want to speak to a few points of concern and hopefully relieve any
fears you may have regarding the nature and operation of Springboard:
Springboard is not "an alternative to incarcerationfor criminal
offenses"nor"a residence for criminal offenders"
or a"residence
which provides drug and/or alcohol rehabilitation." Springboard is
licensed by the Arizona Department of Economic Securityas an
"Emergency Shelter Home."Any youth arrested for criminal offenses
cannot be accepted by Springboard but are placed in the Juvenile
Detention Center or the Center for Juvenile Alternatives. DES further
requires that Springboard not provide shelter to youth who are a danger
to themselves or others, withdrawing from substance abuse, or those
who are unwilling to sign an agreement to abide by the Shelter's rules.
4/ For the past 23 years, Springboard has an unblemished record with
I DES who re-licenses the facility every year as well as coming
unannounced to inspect any and all activities at the property. Those
youth Springboard does provide shelter care for are those who are
'1 being, or have been, physically, emotionally, and/or sexually abused.
Ninety-five percent of the youth coming to Springboard have been
victimized in one or more of these areas. Springboard was created for
,
and continues to "PREVENT" abuse among at-risk children.
5966
/111 '
• N.Nufer Place
Tucson, Arizona 85705
Phone:(520) 887-8773 Fax:(520) 887-8786
Page 2
The attached letter written by Fred and Sylvia Ruelas speaks for the
success of Springboard. Their house is 25 feet away from the
Springboard Home! They have lived there for 30 years and state that
Springboard has been a trouble-free neighbor that keeps the property
and the home neat and quiet!
Springboard meets the criteria noted under"Definitions", Sec. 2-101,
pages 2-8, of Oro Valley's code pertaining to Community Residence:
Springboard is a dwelling unit shared by adolescent girls
"living together as a single housekeeping unit in which
staff provides on-site 24-hour care, training or support
for the residents."
Springboard is providing a safe, loving environment for adolescent
girls who have suffered physical and emotional abuse. We are looking
forward to expanding our efforts to care for these children. We would
love to meet with you personally to discuss these matters and we would
also welcome your making an appointment to visit the present
Springboard Shelter Home.
Respectfully,
Snow Peabody
Executive Director
SP/aj
Enclosure
Please note: The Town of Oro Valley has agreed to provide an
opportunity for us to meet informally and to further discuss the
Springboard Shelter Home. A Neighborhood Meeting is scheduled on
Thursday, March 25, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Council
Chambers.
1-
ii
, /17 --4‘*-71 - '1- '/
a Z/1---t2- .,2-Lx dek-0---Lj ZO--
r • /
.. , 01 _ Gr..-.a.- / ,
,_,<-. 11.40 j-e-e--rt ,-,-W•
, --"-evz A L.i2.
, - i 1 / 2,cToq,ai--0--,L
_ ._ , , . .
9
_.... .. _ ±,2;`"`"" * "'L ���� __ - _-c_e____-_- y
_ __-__.
'��
_ - - - - �~__..°`°^~= , _ ive
~. � _
--- ^ 1 ^ ' ,a,t
� ���
y th6_,_,-z.-��
,--. ___�__ _-___ ___
_-______ �� I .�� ��--__. ' �
�� ii � ��y�� �»~ ��________ ��-wm.� - �~ '-- ^ ^�� .
�� /7 �
C�r�-7 _~^��Q/� U�
------ ' --- -- ' � ^
-__--___ ______-____-_-_--__-_-___-_-____
______--____-.-
_____
-- -
___ __
-----
__
COPPER MOUNTAIN
ASSEMBLY OF GOD
March 12, 1999
Town of Oro Valley
Community Development Department
Planning and Zoning Division
11000 N. La Canada Drive
Oro Valley, Arizona 85737
Subject: OV9-99-21 Parcel#219-22-0140 Arizona District Council of the Assemblies of God Property,
Translational Zoning from Pima County SR to Oro Valley R1-144
Mayor Paul Loomis and Members of the Oro Valley Town Council:
The Arizona District Council of the Assemblies of God, Inc.who holds title to this parcel, has instructed me to
withdraw the request for more than 30%use.
As part of our translation,we respectfully request that in addition to the church entitlements and permission to
apply for a Conditional Use Permit to operate Springboard, a temporary shelter for abused, adolescent women,
the following items be added as development entitlements:
1. If the Urban Growth Boundary is adjusted to exclude our cite, the intensity of the
development shall be comparable to the Town of Oro Valley's PS&C Zoning.
2. Any revegetated area, e.g., retention/detention basins and utility easements, be
excluded in calculating the allowable development area as presently dictated by
the Urban Growth Boundary as long as it meets the landscaping requirements
prescribed by the Tangerine Road Corridor Plan.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
(7?..Cts C/o—L.
Rev.William T. Seale, Pastor, Copper Mountain
Assembly of God,
on behalf of The Arizona District Council
of the Assemblies of God, Inc.
2009 N. 7th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85006
William T. Seale, Pastor
P.O. Box 65312
Tucson,AZ 85728-5312
(520) 293-9539 Office
(520) 850-2202 Mobile
0
4 $
--- ----EP i
a o ro'o.. SIO 40'NATURAL LANDSCAPE
!
1
I \\p\X:-6 - --- - •- -•-•-.-.-7
o� \ X \ Or 1N ,
I
1 33 SPACES•Q'-0"EA. 62'-0" \\\\�\\�\\\\� 1
,, lJl Q UI 0 �\
o �p
�'�25'-0çd � �4 SPACES o q'-O"E � W�O\
\ )i K2O'-o'
10'-0° k
L, T. \ \
1,,
f
% N \ N 0 \ \ N \ ? Q•
i N _, \ =rt \ \ _,A. \ -.,2 x I;
I o b \ 0 - \ \ Q \ s a 11 .
\.z3 1 -,
T lo'-o° \\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\ • ,25.-0" I D
I
Z ! \ / \ �4 SPACES co 4'-0"EA. I
8 C \-o
' " 60-0"/ r ,
l I I I i i I,I I m u I A O
Z 0 4 40'
70
A
_ ----�-7 94 SPACES®9'-0°EA. 1
\O
O 1' I
40.-0“ I
O r r
r
d I N-o
1 \ 1O
\ 6.� rn
\ I ) I
6
'\ 1 0 o
\
.1x I '
\\ N I I
I
\ 1 I
3 \
1 150'
\ I I
4
\ i --'' L
I o
a 40'NATURAL LANDSCAPE
\... 6.------\\.. ---- •hid• P- -0
'ta,1
aa
11$I$
$ $ 3
a
N
i r 1 MO
,PM o Ill
a a
i
� I
�Iwo
I Irc CO am 0
lal
RP
O g kirl
co g MI w
Isom
—=4_