HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV110808 Shannon Road General Plan Amendment
Oro Valley
June 2008
Mtn.
IVIUN
SCH
IYI�..me••milk R G C
illft
."' IllIllP
C r'
,7
�� � • RLDR
1 V
r`- 1 ;l •.• LDR1 LDR2 '
NCO
,� y; it; r't"
.� ��t
`"". LDR1
a �' LDR1 LDR2
4.
‘.i Vi' , i 6t2.; "
Ite.il‘i ft "411 INIM . -we. ,, . 5,tf, ,
•
I C l ii M Ct
D
JUN 17 ?1)tJ
L
Town, of Drc . :cs '
ETHEPLANNINGCENTER
p 2_ t-Notc -7 g
Shannon Road
General Plan Amendment
Town of Oro Valley
Prepared for:
Town of Oro Valley
Planning and Zoning Department
11,000 North La Canada Drive
Oro Valley, Arizona 85737
Project applicant:
Neil Manning, et al
Shannon Road Partners, LLC
P.O. Box 41207
Tucson, Arizona 85717-1207
Phone (520) 907-2769
Prepared by:
The Planning Center
110 South Church, Suite 6320
Tucson, Arizona 85701
Phone (520) 623-6146
Fax (520) 622-1950
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
SHANNON ROAD, ORO VALLEY
The proposed General Plan Amendment for the property located on the east side of
Shannon Road,just south of Naranja Drive and Ironwood Ridge High School (see
attached location map) will promote the implementation of the Growing Smarter Act.
This proposed plan amendment to Low Density Residential (0.4-1.2 Du/Ac) will allow
the owners to develop the property in a manner which will enhance the surrounding area,
given the site environmental constraints, all within compliance with Town Codes and
Ordinances.
The current Rural Low Density Residential (0-0.3 Du/Ac)is sparsely built-out. The
proposed plan amendment would accommodate a rezoning request to R1-72 or R1-43 on
the 77.72 acres. There are a number of riparian areas crossing the site which will need
preservation. The property is within the Oro Valley Urban Services area, as the Oro
Valley Water Utility has extended water service to Naranja Ranch Estates; therefore, this
amendment proposes moving the Urban Services Boundary to the centerline of Shannon
Road.
The proposed General Plan Amendment and the resulting rezoning, does not diminish the
current rural character of the area. One acre parcels will create sufficient buffers between
residential units and the High School and will allow lots not to be platted into the existing
riparian areas on the site. There are no plans to implement the lot reduction provisions of
the riparian overlay zone in this project.
General Plan Policies
Open Space: Open space will be maintained on site by the following:
1. Preserving the existing riparian areas so that the connectivity north and
south of the site is maintained.
2. That the lot sizes being in the R1-72 or R1-43 category will provide
open space due to the custom grading of the lots.
Viewsheds: Viewsheds in the area will be maintained per the lot sizes and structure
placement. The views are to east toward the Catalina Mountains. Some of
the northerly views of the Tortolita Mountains are obscured by Ironwood
Ridge High School, located just north of the proposed project and some of
the views to the valley south of the site are also obscured by existing
development.
Drainage: The existing drainage ways (Riparian areas) on the site will not be
disturbed and crossing will be kept at a minimum, which will allow the
existing flows from the north continue in there natural courses. The
development will cause some change in flows on site and have to be
detained and metered into the existing channels.
Traffic: It would appear that the maximum number of lots that are possible on the
site is 45, which in turn will product approximately 450 trips per day.
Both Shannon Road and Naranja Drive are under capacity will be able to
accommodate the proposed project. There may be some peak am and pm
slowing of traffic due to traffic entering and exiting the High School along
Naranja Drive.
Findings of Fact
1. The proposed change is necessary because conditions in the community have
changed to the extent that the plan requires amendment or modification.
Since the adoption of the Oro Valley General Plan over three years ago, many
things in the community have changed. Among these changes, sustainability
has become a more prevalent force in development and$4+gasoline has
become reality. The request to allow more flexibility in lot planning directly
relates to these changes. Consumers understand that being closer to amenities
such as schools and places of worship saves them time, money, and leads to an
overall higher quality of life.
2. The proposed change is sustainable by contributing to the socio-economic
betterment of the community, which achieving community and environmental
compatibility.
This neighborhood will prove to be a great example of how the needs of the
community and environment can be met without negative effects on either. The
riparian areas and Significant Resources Areas on the site can be protected
through the General Plan Amendment and rezoning process to the betterment of
the community as a whole and the specific area in particular, in protecting the
Town's environmental goals. By protecting these resources and allowing more
people to enjoy these resources as well as the other amenities they demand, this
neighborhood will contribute greatly to the socio-economic betterment of the
community.
3. The proposed change reflects market demand which leads to viability and
general community acceptance.
As stated above, the market now demands a higher quality of life. Homeowners
want to be close to natural resources and they want to be close to public and
semi-public services. In the past people had to choose between the two when
deciding where to live. Using modern techniques for site design and resource
preservation, communities can now have both.
4. The amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole or a
portion of the community without an acceptable means of mitigating these
impacts through the subsequent zoning and development process.
The proposed neighborhood does not adversely impact the community,in fact,
this amendment argues that the proposed neighborhood provides a net benefit to
the community. For those who still prefer the feel of a more rural setting, there
remains plenty of opportunity for them to find a home that fits their needs.
Development impacts will be mitigated through conditions of rezoning and the
platting process. The existing riparian areas and significant resource areas on
the site will remain intact for both drainage and passive recreation uses. All
development impacts can and will be mitigated per the Town Code.
Location Map
_._ ._.. - ._-.-., ---
12S13E05 12S13E04
I /
- . -1
I
-- l —
Naranja Drive
/
1
_-_— — —_-1 S13E08- -___.
_ -- co 12S13E08..--.___
//r------------
t -- -_.. —._ as
co
I 1 \ _ .. .. �`O
i .
_____T 1
i .i
__,
1 ..
• ••
___
_._..._....
_ _____
____
® _s_c._.
......_
_ t lambert Lane -- T—
V-
____
,,.._
, .. „ii....>„_________
, , ,
1 S13E17 — 12S13E16 Ji
i ,
—_.r....__ I i — -�-- --- __-- ---- __
Assessor's Parcels Identification Number:224-21-0020,224-21-0030,224-21-0040,224-21-0050 R THE
\-J "k'w CENTER
Legend
L 1 Site Boundary 0' 500' 1000'
IMIIIMWMIIII
Township,Range,and Section Source: Pima County DOT
Geographic Information
Services,2008.
. -- rraranJa unve — __.�_ - ...,,... _ --�
r
,y 1ii .i .I`
1:5-4
1; • ,
„....._,.. k, ,kk..,.
, ., . ., . ., 7 . .k.„, ,z...
...,..,„, • ,k . . AL
�F°l•
igh• choo r„ ,,,, , - ,
It, hN N
, k y :: .,4: , 4 Vet' t i
Y sV ; -.T f • °,f 41) y r.
r
r
s.�-r#dlF'�-�+-A-A-w�'r►-�-r.��-a#.r�A A'w+A��w w �'S�' -�iii'�I " ~ �r...� ,
ir
"4
. ,
. . , .
. ,.. ,
ic*1
Y
la
c fr ,
it 1$ 1.
d rf `°,Vacant
i
t
"'P try , +
II
11:4 Y ,
4
« ate. tot `.. Owl Vista Place w.+ - .••-w—
,: z3 •1 ht j', ,�:�tCyft '!d111i� " it 't"t,�' s l:� y.< I"•-
*
�+. ��f;� r r s{z� l�`�[[ �`;.�g � _ � �, i ; � •rid .r
_tt_i411' . :1 1...
' , :
♦,n, ". n 1.x g�# *
It
;. ' 4 a k.5 • .,
(/] 4}4�' y' r t' / t i� l tY1' P �P' /J)J
t -• Y `,J P+ ~15 ry•� y���°J,4" y , • .Oil F 1 1-
, �� ' j ? ;
'' n
' •••*'1 "".!:. .13*-',., . '1 11.:1 VT rifit..F ,'`..‘:".4. 1k fl. l'i,F, ,-
te
,. say Yt ♦ t4'f ?,•+�I. .t @ JII �?81D�E►�?.+4 i"+Fi� c5'
LEGEND
Site Boundary
N WTH p'monlim 2�40'
,� I
FILE NAIVE: SRT-01_aerid_Iocation.mxd
SOURCE: Pima County DOT CIS.2008
•
'.fir , �, • • .+y ; , '' i` w r g,` ' }4. , , r• .
• .lA ••4 •y '.r•• 4, t 1r,• : e ,` t ), .. ♦.' r.r 4 ' f . t..
vt > ' — •+' i rY • »_ 't r•. r t •
�IC,yb � ' r r ��'
e . • > + ► .y St • r
RR..T,,,``ttt
e I.
A °
• ' ° 'F
.
, } _ .t �� • 11 r r ,..
w fi . •° r a ) • t
♦ +• ♦ ♦ �) a 1 - r' F'• Rem x, '� ,
' rta: N.
to ` . 1 �. x
f•
• • . may' `
� - _ r rE�` t . rf F '.S ' .•Lt rY» I�a1 $y•� •,•
•
•
.. ,. . . . . - � ♦ Narana rive ,•
5' 1 ti 'x 3. // . t
f.
t , < P • r •r • t ,♦', t i ''.. rIiJi) �3tiiul r i 1 t e F,
.. a •/ • . ;. Ss '.Z a 'l'4.
1` "
r
•
'�r .1 ` t,' i =3 "Ca as Adobes
i• , ' ' ,cu . f-:-I t i r S .;-�. -'mar
-. •y I •r'.rt� ,� . • •\x r �� Baptist Church
.'a12,... .it cf r
`p t° . Single Famtly ,, , {: ory�: r
•. � . sit.- i ,, !, P� 2•St
Restdenttal ` t y
• .' Oneto,Two Story , •• .
rt `Jp+ ' , ,Owl Vista place , ®. • l c QWest'
SFh . t '! "•
!P. . R ! .' i 'tier C .,ygfil c.c" r : rx •
s: r, ',_? , , ' '. : .., , Wireless
4qj ±- ._�� � F t . C. ± • { .` r :� Irk!."A1 4=
t„ ,1 i
J • attiliativt-
.. • A `N r y• W.
Ranchos de
� •„ ,� �Sueno ft •a s_1-12 ;,
• •, 'r i°t. • • •- `One to�Two Storyi. t n s 9 a"t, • 4:
r ��,{ r• r •
��
tr,
il
r• r' + r 1�,Y,r r r ,,r `• •s G ti' a ,i•
! ' J !. t • 1" ♦d N.T. f' r t .'r . _ r 4r • • .�
.. r ♦ ,,dt�• r t felt ` h *Z r * i{ iy i ��;
tOr1 i �(ry, F .H ,.• 2 /R : v i i ? - S r �rY w" s f.i
,. 1., • 71 St.s:Y-1 , • t ir, -t.r. '�, ., 1{P a° • 1 ' t (' ,' ' -n r y t • w f
r •r 0, i a I, r tl{ t M1 i
f
_ F .. _• ' • J
- . .
') � � - . t ` ,, t ?i-, . ..40 I rat♦•,A r . t -- • ; . G w• rr.•
r + :"" 0:4 t .k ar ., ...,i itw e . 41 y a". '* t ti..•.• , ' a !. 1.11.tLW s C3
•: " 4 Yd�.;;a1,',t:rZ i1f1,.� t:. 14:44 i f _ -„ —.,-;a •;, �' - , ' . t w. . -LambertLae • ._ .,
•r i a r �•t I• c o.
rb � +`"' .•- r` t �ti � ,f1 •r � a:h�.+ r 1. x,Y 1 3
r t 1• NJ I,€ wr ! it, r,71.11 •�' , fv.„; i •►"E'4 .� �r,•f '._ .a ^,. a1 1 t '1.1 `;
1°, •', • ;.• . ,'44:',,41.. l•-1•• '.o .•.� I.'.�Y. 1 xa„0 t1! >z'..• ► • Uli4 rf��_1111�1 �r J�'17tf./rJU':.
It*LEGEND
Site Boundary
Quarter Mile Radius
NORTH 0' 5LiL I' 1000'
(P. ImilmEnimill
11111 Existing Subdivisions \. .1
FILE NAIVE; SRT-01_existinglanduses.mxd
Existing Development Plans SOURCE; Pima County DOT GIS 2008
•
hr
'''
I
-
_
., ' ,g
N a ranj a [hive
- y ,
r n { Svc ,� a r
os. t, ".:� � ,Z '��ryi�ji...1'y� :'rf� I,u`.x'.�:t1�'14i•s `+�
4 i F
w
f I a 3
sr't�,x� �� ,7 -t- ,y :�
F' h'J sr ,.. ,r s�- ri ',, C .5 •y r - ,,_ r'P •
s f rS1 ',a .:.r r ` " -{ ° t 4' . -: ,1'. r -s.„f,. i,,(M4 q -u
yc vc 5.�` t ,x..r •�} ,� r< $ �+,Sea�4,3 t. ysr a;v' a� .j.,y' y"% .' .,,
r � Y
fir' ry 4'it t'r h� 'i"!1 �- -^.., `' fS' f I ,
\ II � t
Lr -`r - ' Cortaro F'arrn' Road
, '
I e � x ���� M r { ���9 '_' 4 lC' �x :M1' S' a c .: a �
'' - . Magee,R9a ' '1 ''','' k 1
%
r .�af �t„yf`# '1 w �Sr��#, $ ! 3 sr-a at j'' a s
.„ r. -, 1... n 'Tr ''I' '"'-'7--j ��F ;�` -s -..� .* _ , sue.. ', �, Je r
' ?'r. :k s�i �.i,..,,�n c-> ��.- i�. �. N ���sa 'r:D , x'�- 1. k ;hi:�=1` �S'�
LEGEND
Site Boundary
Interstate N' 1TH 1
NM
Boundary State Trust Land Exhibit I-A.1 FIB ,arCountyDOTGIS, 2008 Mile
:9 .•gar,
*
I
* A r is az
4 xl = E
y
� � l7angeri ne Road�^. �'—'-'" � -
arts r11. +a A✓ I
: h C°
+ a
441
a '✓�1 k rr a. u µ �'"' �G yam' �3�t iF! ,jam'!;
i V �v //�� ,,, -
E �� .'rtr t . t- ., r � `tom.`,id• '��'` t a';- n'-• -- :_
11
I as•D�+' ) ,
_.: .
Na nJ riveF. F E� e
•
tt, s � ,- 4 , r�r�y ;.. r •
as ,,lq •I try 1 ` �'''41Fr at" ' 3 JS r...A }
•
r ,' - n , 1
t `C ' .�'' " ""
nt Y:�E,# �.? !'$ t . r . _ r 11 k r - '�,, ' �.rw u � t[�, k, .�,•
✓ t )( ru a{ fir�,"i7 , y y + a•
.. Jq� JFa_{t T ', �`
J •• r
0'11' 4±• ' 7• '.''4 ' psi~ 'w �• r )7'r S t +YR . If
-iv. 1
.tk(
t , O F �kl .-t,.'FJ.�!'( vp�t�jl4y t.+ ' if'""{T•1 y y�A ,y - !' a ,; ti _b gc— -,
a /y t416 �+. i7 f' ; s b F♦ iii"' YSY�!ti J, Mw
• i6 ' t x.: Y 1 i v ,•T % Y! - t Yg
� rt �t`�a i� %tJ�°. i'".� ?_•, '"-�' • S r' `h1`ti f.w J�a'd1dS TrNh'T�"a �'G•'� .
0 3 ,� v ---, r 4I{I iv.,,,, �r af� z.Aw s
a pt
��� C ) E� y� , �` riot Y '!'' ,
,Yew S`'�`,` .1 �a t ,Y p -. .. `.r" #• i •i`''d,``*�''�F t '5-...:.• �i iX. _
Lambert Lane $ �:
1 1 _ ti yr� cXy iT' 4f7*it
�9 t Y,; aw'i ^( � r� 1 4 t x -� ,r Q) .1'+t• ��.�� •
•
▪ * w.„rt.,. -, ..r q •4'., t'.•- - - 0,?. .."---i s -s`}.{�'mi h*-O l�. �• ti-' . j.
G , -t C6
•
1 r r^ „ 4 ? �� 'E r •, t tSz- --st 0 t Fir '
▪ . 'st' r7 - f 7 k+. X y. + 1 4 `—'--i c t� } "' 11�� t ,R,� - i t . } $ -' Nye " `;' 4�' '' "'
, t 1.w,...f.4.1.1 T,, '1 �: rp 2 ''r +f ��t t j e > } )4_E 0J +.,!J�4 , S b.{ .
fi T/F y ft ,. , molar k : i Y a .v
,i Fps • a t� , ��+ .
1 u:�a,. � 1L�7. - �e '��[ti���,.✓ �'� y F "S :,� JA ' *k�� 0 Iffi Y�3`i�r t�a�'e�'ir�i #��� .+i� r++�vC�1 J�a-a11,�1�r�,.�i �YY*' ' t4.1 h�'�"t
3j ,•" ., ' ` .1'r`• ' • '.` 'K'3 ja qs+f ``� ,irJ t '?° �'i`-,,y4V�,C•;: ,- 'TF' �-
i [ Sys
: 1� s �(�'q.� r,^. P'4 .t )-*-thf4i a'7;14).eJa/F+r4t:k
r `' '3�3' ,' - 't`'4:1
{b 7
• •11 7�1 C . p ,� , �? t '. 'U�1 °t`q `r�..ti q• ./ ~*'�'
•
$ r .4'• h s' • •T 4� ', ti -'' t S n t$ y.`� ' .. _,:- s t w' • •-y °4
•
T 1l.. a J , Z• f..- �'; ry -'Tv t*, ' t • S f _ ..� '14 R iCIN S4' by "'''',t, ' ▪ -- tl 'Y
a�., 1 #i7 r;`fi+ E � nayery' Landiscor August c
LEGEND
Site BoundaryI Approved Development
f _ ' Jurisdiction Boundary ; Existing Development N;-RTH 0 1/4 1!2 Mile
State Trust Land
Exhibit I-A 2 FILE NAIVE: SRT-0llepionaLdevelopment,mxd
SOURCE: Pima County DOT GIS,2008
INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
PRELIMINARY
I-A Existing Land Uses
Site Location
The 77.72 acre site located in the west half of the northwest quarter of Section 9,
Township 12S, Range 13E within the corporate limits of the Town of Oro Valley.
Exhibit I-A.l shows the site in a regional context and Exhibit I-A.2 shows it in the
context of the residential communities in the area.
Existing Land Use—On Site
The site is vacant and undeveloped. The existing zoning is R1-144 in Oro Valley.
Existing Land Use—Off Site
a. Existing zoning within '/4 mile of the site (see Exhibit I-A.3)
East—R1-144
West—SR (County Suburban Ranch)
South - R1-144
North—R1-144, R1-36
b. Existing land uses within 1/ mile radius of the site (see Exhibit I-A.4)
East—Casa Adobes Church, large lot residential sparsely developed
West—Large lot residential sparsely developed
South—Large lot residential sparsely developed
North —Ironwood Ridge High School, sparsely developed residential
c. Buildings in the area are for the most part single story.
• There are no known pending rezonings in the area.
• There is one conditionally approved rezoning in the area located on the
west side of La Cholla Boulevard north of Naranja Drive the zoning is R1-
20.
• There are no known subdivisions or development plans approved in the
area.
• The architectural style used in the area can best be described as
"contemporary southwest" with either parapet walls or tile roofs and earth
tone colors.
-------
--- a _
__..
-
t -
[ R1-36 .. .
, i I ......
1 t•-- ,-
,
-- ----
` '' • "•••• "MM. "Naranja Drive+ --ft
T- --- \ -------T-- 4,„i--00- 0%,,,,
\ / \
\
/ /
i: I I
/
4
i 0
o-
J.._ L X.
C• __ ___ . ,N1-.1--.1-.1.--... ..-.. - --m--=-17 •----
0 I
C 0
C --
-1. __________...m____
-1—--SR cn•
R1-144
I
-
1 i I
\ .
_i - , __ Owl Vistai ?lacct___,____
1 ‘
--0------I _. >I
w /
—
c > , I b
1 olt
=
0 0 0 /7
•_ <4" •
.)-- - -- - 0 ' 0 0 /
_......_
im
*.air-.....
g21 / \ __.
----
I ..---
Iii i i __
....._
------ -
1
----
7 ,
Lambert Lane
1 1
- 1 1
i 7/
-1 -- ; ! 1
' \' /
, ; 1 I I \ •
1
LEGEND
Site Boundary Pima County Zoning Town of Oro Valley Zoning
MI•
R1-20 0' 50 '
— — Quarter Mile Radius CR-1 NORTH 0' 1000
ir\ 1.1.1 .1m11.11
SR R1-144 Exhibit I-A.3 FILE NAIVE: SRT-Ol_zoning.mxd
SOURCE: Pima County DOT GIS.2008
------ivaranJa unvr _ _
#206572
S Stanley Mitchell
I
II
ri
•
01
#555640
Mark`Cordova
+
f iI VstaPlace
#206095
George Costantini
—�
0
0
eis
U)
LEGEND
Site Boundary
MI MI
N�R7I-I 0' 500'
— 100-Foot Radius (-r� �� 250'�
Q Wells(Registered ID#Labeled) 1
Exhibit I-A.4 FILE NAIVE. STR-01 wells.mxd
SOURCE: Fimo County DOT GIS,2008
Well Sites
There are no wells within 100 feet of the site.
I-B TOPOGRAPHY
1.Topographic Characteristics
1. Exhibit I-B.lis a topographic map of the site showing relatively flat to gently
rolling terrain bisected by a number of washes.
a.There are no "hillside conservation" areas on the site.
b.The site contains no rock outcroppings.
c.There are limited areas exceeding 15 percent slopes associated with the washes.
d.The most significant topographic features are the washes.
2.The pre-development average cross slope (ACS) of the total site is determined
by the formula used in the Hillside District Section of the Town of Oro Valley
Zoning Code Revised and is stated below:
ACS =IxLx .0023 2 x 62,638 x .0023 =3.71%
A 77.72
Where:
I= 1 foot contour intervals
L= contour length
A = 77.72 acres (site)
I-C HYDROLOGY
1. Describe and map (aerial photograph) all off-site watersheds effecting, or
affected by,the site upstream and downstream.
Three off-site watersheds impact the subject property (Watershed 01 —
Watershed 03), from the north. Of these Watershed 01 is the largest extending
into the Tortolita Mountains and encompassing 1267 acres. Watershed 02 and
Watershed 03 are smaller in size encompassing 52.7 and 111.7 acres
respectively. The watersheds extend across Naranja Drive and continue through
the Iron Ridge High School entering the subject property along the northern
boundary.
The watersheds are elongated and somewhat narrow. They have mild slopes
between 1 and 3 percent. These average slopes exclude the upper headwaters of
Watershed 01, which as stated begin with the Tortolita Mountains.
The watersheds were found to contain a variety of soils types, including Cellar-
Lampshire Rock Outcrop,Hayhook-Sahuarita Complex, Palo Verdes Jaynes
Complex, and Palo Verdes- Sahuarita Complex. In terms of their hydrologic
characteristics, the soils are categorized as 100% D, 100% B, 53% C and 47%D
and 50% C and 50% D type soils.
The watersheds are delineated on Exhibit I-C.1 —The Off-site Watershed Map.
The results of the hydrologic analysis are provided in Table C.1. The aerial
photograph that serves as the backdrop for the watershed delineations were
produced as part of the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) Orthodata set.
According to the Critical and Balance Basin Map, the project lies within a
critical basin.
2. Description of significant off-site features, natural or man-made, with the
above watersheds effected by or affecting the site.
The significant man-made features within off-site watersheds include the
presence of Naranja Road, Ironwood Ridge High School and the existing rural
development within the watersheds. These features serve to increase the
impervious cover and subsequently increase the incoming discharge. Outside of
the development there are not any drainage structures within proximity of the
project that will impact the existing drainage patterns or future design.
3. Acreage of upstream off-site watersheds (as mapped in Item 1 above) with
the 100-year discharge greater than 100cfs.
The off-site watersheds were delineated using topography generated as part of
the PAG Orthophoto Data set and supplemented the information from aerial
photography and USGS Quadrangles. The areas off-site watersheds, Watershed
01, Watershed 02 and Watershed 03 are 1267 acres, 52.7 acres and 111.7 acres
respectively.
4. Description of characteristics of on-site hydrology including:
Five watersheds were identified as part of the on-site hydrologic analysis
(Watershed El —Watershed ES). Watershed El-Watershed ES are extensions
of the off-site watersheds. Watershed E4 and Watershed E5 are local on-site
watersheds. Watershed E2—Watershed E5 exit the property along the southern
boundary. Watershed El exits the property along the eastern boundary. The
soils associated with the on-site watersheds are Hayhook—Sahuarita Complex
(100% B) and Palos Verdes—Jaynes Complex (43% C and 57%D). The
watersheds are completely pervious as there is not any development currently
located within the subject property.
• '
'`,....1*•4:1"- -,•?;rt."'.'.5j:1--, -0. . ''';'. .:.- 1 , . --...- •. ,„i• •- „.. „ ,, 1 •
. . .. ,. .
___,' •,..•7-1) - -.- " ..1.. • 0.--t_ '' •('''.1";4 '1 '- - ." .15°° i I' ,:. :.•:'_,:'.--';"'.,''''t,
IPI
I--- a' •-------,--11' •' ', , ' '
'.•so,
,
•5 ' ,:1,.,.3,--'' ''''' ---
1
1:,:•-1,/-°e•Isi
.
.... . ' -,1"v-,.,,:::,, ,,,,,„ , -- .''.. .'', --.-•-.h -,- ---_• ,i,'',%,e..';‘,4•;--(-
1 - .4w0-- .-
- •''‘,,, ''- - -- i ,.:- -• ••-..." o • ,...,...--,,:ir-,,- , ,...•:, k• • _'•--. ..::'•)""• - L.,
, , 4 AI T:j.. ' 'II •--..--'4I '-'--I:. I ' •• '-,')'.1:‘•..•'.:-',iiI'•:1 ,',...--- /';::_,?'" (;:j . ----'-'*
:'' s,?'ir'• - ' s - --/*•- ' •- I-''I''' -l ' , •'.. —• • '• - - -' ,,
', '-- 1 ti •f '-•;,;.*#71' . '-.: -7,- "- ••' -• - ".1JR7 W•Q 4'47-1, .... C\\...P\) 1,1000 FEET
\Z!, U ' 'i''..'1- ' -•:" ' -
0 0 5 1 2
f <.'..7.,,,---. - 4 ',.,''• ,
4
, .. _..1,...::::,-L:7,-•.!Hk,..,,,.r,„,,,,,.-.71 . , k, . , ..
r_ ,-'-. ,
..
_ \ 7 ' • \• .• , 1. `N.)
• • o
\-; -,'•-. -- .. 1„.: i
• -
' 1
_. ,--: -Ni./,•/ .A.: 1 zr....;_,..._...1.--. 't 3130_--.-, . ,. 4WD.... .,..I.'"
"4 "* .--'''''.,,,•-71.--- ' _,___-+ , - .4,...' •.‘ ,‘
.0° 1
1 -.,-)- ; ,'---). , .- ,, • , . ,• 1 •
1 . '''4,, r • , .:1__.___, I .
.3204 ' ' 'r q' ' 6'-"g: .'-'s' ,-.. - • . •• -i: I s
..,-% , • -. ".---""---'''-'• ., • ..
( : . 1 • ..t,*
, , „ eil)-'7 .' •• •i'. 71'r i ''''"7\ .- -'\C . ' \
- / •_,r'P‘7.,'-\/\,,,tas_A ' ,.,
, .- ' t i_f`'''i -. ,..-e ,..( ",-., • - 1 r
. .
"'.
r--,.....,• N----3*,
J- ' 1'- 2• .f. , s ,c) " , „ „.,
j..._.7....j.r.,...
22
.__-..-:....1-17-1 _...4.------sal+-1•••..--I
....
__,_ ..:,./ N ',„ • ..-X.'-i3031• —' ' ;il, - '••
. .,,.. . ; r.,
'1 • f s, • - .- --,', --- -
• '-, -- ' - ••:- .. • 0 — -I
. , .. . ., • „"h1.1,....'..!, ;,,, - :_.....--.,"'•4_,,_-,..-'
.
.. ' ,-`,,,, i•t,er-,0 - i ., -.
;- ',..--/,,-. ,-',' - c,... - - ,•-------_--g---._......-
- t.„,) 4 . . . ,L • t
”`..:(---i%';. '• 1 • ___. ,t7; ..•'f- '.1 —• r . If'''/''' '/I. "t•4,,, - .••'-'-r ,---. - ,--....,.' . . .
_!---- -., -- . . . , -. „. .
• •,••r, ,, -. /„„, , , --42„byrpo% 0 4
c.„....:::-.. ‘,.. ,,to.,•fr.: --,.. - - . ...1, , ', r•ot _- ‘-. - '• ; • J •- . + .
• ,. , .. . „
'./ 's c>.• -J1-,2 --,-1.2-_,--7- 7-':•.-0". --1',... ("""---f,.. :%.) .s: 4„i . - ' ,- . "...-, --, -__` kizi , • , ,:r.
..- • ...........,• . •_,_____ ____4_.__- - ,,29411
-.:/i.t...Y.°• '' '.- . - „
, ')'' 'Ut-j\fl-/,--c4-.)c• " '.,, '. 1,
•"- , - - ;•-•_.- - _ I • , 2,..10.1 2940 • .,‘ i• 7 1,
\ ,=
Q. . ' --- ' ) ,, ,).......1 . •,g- andtng Snip
. ' --, L.,.. .• , ' • • • PJ' i
-- '••••-^'---.•`-i I .. -c.,,,-,j ..0 '. '-'l i
J
i
- ---s 4-----1-''''' l ... 'gt,,,,,,$4e - •I , , i •o I- .4 __.: . :1,P.„n4. '...,k.„:-.--,'..4.•,,,,,/ ',-
- -,:?...' .., •::-..1.,-...4\1•-.j- --y,,- --'-r-:._..,7 -t-.1 ,." :'
• . , ', - ; --/\, • i•P,T,,,)r-s" 1 . , SI ---
(., .• , '' '' ----......
. - 1 , ..,,, ., i 1 ' Vr..>•--,‘
.„ , •• '1 • '
.. , • . t.., ', , ... 1
",' ,''''-'--.r.?.;'-‘5:,-,‘-').' •
i • i 7
----- ---, --- -1. 29 ' . • . 1,„ \Fe , , .
..,__;.-/ g I ' ( 1 - -, . .•
I ....,, , t , . : • 1 . •
. qi 1 • , •
I - /
, . _.
• 4,„“.1. •• ; o t. -
. ll ,_. .. ,'• / .4. , r t • l' •
-
- • 1 • ,
- 1
. , - l' ' • . i ' •. , I ' - MOORE
, -
. RIM() MOW* I .' i ;,..WO , ...,.......:.--.-i-s-o,—2832
• - • . ., t. • -_
, .
. .
J , •
'
- ' - ' I i --, _ , • • , , .
-_ '- • i , '''''- : ,
.,..,
• ‘ i 1 ) '
. . --i '. ' • .
It.' ---- •-- - ' 1 - 9,- \''''''•i•
64; : • i • • , . ,o 1 .
___-, _
..221.w.." .` ...-- ..3 iocut Et., , 21,22 ' _, 34 )1 • 3.,4 i . , . _32i i: • ,'• • i
— ,• ., , ,
. 1 i
, i o
. , .
•
. , .- • ;
1
,
''"( ; •i NI \
/ i '
$., , ....^......--
lt i A 17- • ,. C4egiep
7, • . , MOO
. A ,/
, I) '/
. 1 . .
.., oc0:'..,,:..-... . 3: l„, =' ,, _„,.,
•
, ' ' ( - —•• -, - 0 4;6:
;II /; .- .
•
1 , i f•
- • , 4,--.. ,,,
J ..%.
...
- - - ••-•.--------7----4--- ----,-- .t. . , ...
. , -I- 5 , --, • •,-- , . a, j-. , 1
_. .
'1 ,, . .• .« • ,'_ -.. . ,
, .
, • t
• I
. . ,.. 1 .
. . •
, f; '..-, , '''' 1 • . ' A
• --.G,1 ' .,; / , • _, . . ;11, •
' .
- , 1
. r , ,.
_ --, 2604 70AL '
,. . . ,. . . . ,, • 1-L . I , 131 i.• 1
- ' ', .;7r s,-/\,1•4'
- • • • \-__ 1 - i-.-- •-,.--.:,„.4 cs, ' -r,' r'''.. /
i
. I , ,.: ..•.. .
/ 1
!... --...,„..4.----, i - -- :,..7....•.
• •__,
- • % : - • • " k.: • ..
D I 4'711 1,3% . .- ' ' ) • , - .Ali
• • • -•.•. - i • , I,
- .... ' to . .
:
---,.._ .. . -A -.. .... , .
,
„..„. . .-, ,
..........., % .- .--: -: • - to
2.943 is, ----
1,LANE• . ,, • . . ...',, . 8 . • -:- . . .. ..: *•:, • 11,', + ii
1 1:::%!. •::1 ;I : 1 '
. . .. . .Wig .
t l ••• o.
Summon of Off-nibs I Itrirollonde Anulests
C1Orrotration cenotrilnaling ; Mann. Qs.
Poke Weterrheds Are. text
Ol• I ti INV 4. 'fee LEGEND
al tr.! 52 7er 295
til 07 III./w WI .1 Watershed Boundary
• +sawn...is.1,41.iit.1111.11.1.,lit 11u.I.....CP 1.
.:4_,,,,, Flow Arrow
Soils Boundary
ICKM 8 Sods Clossificatdon
01 Concentration point
.....•'-,,'•:,,
..... .......- ...... A.A. ,
EMM-—1E FULLER Off-site Watershed Map
omiciour ,, ,:itcoma..-.411.,,,
Exhibit I - C.1
a. Approximate 100-year floodplains with discharges greater than or equal
to 50 cfs.
The watercourses associated with Watershed El (Wash 1), Watershed E2 (Wash
2) and Watershed E3 (Wash 3)convey runoff in excess of 50 cfs. The
floodplains and erosion hazard setbacks associated with these watersheds have
been depicted on Exhibit I-C.4.
b. Areas of sheet flooding and average depths
The area designated as Watershed E5 is subjected to sheet flooding. This
watershed generates runoff over 50 cfs, but does not have an incised
watercourse to convey the flow. It should be noted that directly south of the
property the flow regime is conveyed with a natural watercourse. The area of
sheet flow has been designated on Exhibit I-C.4.
c. Federally mapped floodways and floodplains
Wash 1 is designated as FEMA Floodplain (Zone A)in accordance with FIRM
Panel 04019C 1020K. Because the limits were mapped by approximate study, a
hydraulic analysis was necessary to determine the water surface elevations and
define the true limits of the FEMA Floodplain.
d. 100-year peak discharges exceeding 50 cfs
The peak discharge for Watershed 01 was calculated by two separate studies.
First as part of the Tortolita Basin Management Study, prepared by Cella Barr
and Associates (C.P. A6) and second by Kimley-Horn as part of the Town-wide
Drainage Study for Oro Valley (C.P. 862). For this document, the Tortolita
Basin Management Study value was used instead of the Town-wide Drainage
Study value because it was more conservative(1662 cfs versus 1567 cfs) and
generated a broader floodplain and subsequently more conservative water
surface elevations.
The hydrologic analysis of Watershed 02 and Watershed 03 was performed
using the Rational Method. The 100-year on-site peak discharges exiting the
project are provided in Table I-C.2.
5. A qualitative description of existing discharge conditions along the
downstream property boundary.
The runoff exits the site within the natural watercourses at concentration points
C.P. El. C. P. E2, and C.P E3, C. P. E4 and C.P.E5. The combined runoff from
Watershed 01 and Watershed El at C.P.El exits the parcel along the western
boundary,passing over Shannon Road as surface flow. The combined runoff
from Watershed 02 and Watershed E2 at C.P. E2 and the combined runoff from
f A'l' '* 1i } * Y t `,A I J f 11
1111
/itt,t)ill -
r - p r tir pi
+ i s ) .7► / 1 \ ' Ai,7 fit• Z-! 1. t 1 .7 -too Fe 1
it
iiirt''' •ita.a._11.*Ail' tr n miiiammea
�•_ _ - r • t L * a l+ C _ ' ♦ r- '�',i= Y1 � N. '*af ,.
i • y
y
t.. ' /� i. , b .. y °_" fw t •, 44=.
4 of
(. \' fix.! sifif
` ik ,,)' .j r , e
1 4s• i 1 `1
`ter , ' yr 3: 'A 14 ,1 � ; X
• ! 1 * } = f:" k y lsM,; i5�: ,,. tL'ki4
,tilt
SMt k 11 R d y e. / .. r-- 7 -. t • .,
,+ • 1 1 P .0, , j '4 Y` /\\. LEGEND
-� Ar,
-- Watershed Boundary
_� - Erosion Howard Setback
, >{A 1 ,�'a ((I 4 /J tJ
! ; i- '-► Soi!e C,assireotbn
• 5.... c .a a 4 �•°`t {,� 4.
Y e � ;l Sheet Flow Area
,Is ^i 9, iSitir 1 ! FEMA FLDODPtAIN
i 1 i •^ ,'I
%� 2.1 i- Cross-section location
_i 1 * � .*it l:1, 1 j fh
I IF
1 , ,s. i
•
, . - t'+ _' r ' . t. 4 t� , f r
it [ . 1' )' / ,
�ilr'.. r- '.
''i s - ,/ 0.:;,, l.'.1" , .rliF \ - L.
•
1e
i
3
`, c
1 _ _ _ ..,.- _.. _ ly,,,,-...._.iE- - - . ---- --- -•_ '. - "-- - - -- ,;R'S. _ _. _�4 -�
.t,. _• -" - ' tot }.
•
.�..�-Sy, r • JPk p
` ;ui' ��� ""'irl Tiff r"t.7+ti. -' I.... A. ; "�. - `' , •_ , . • i. .' „'" ,., y ."ta� d
S,luunan nl'Oil-nilr 11•411-010•ic Anal%sis 'imams',or it Ater'Ark.Pr Elevolk,n.
CeeecA,r.non - Sbnlrienikle --•,.nntueee -^4 - -IM.. 1 m.reers, tfa CM ELAAri! Yelark)
lel'Sk New. Wecda Am I -wwrtw_.Fn ....%A.A. 1 At --11.-._,-,..let _, (two
111• 01 lb7. me/ - u.a:I {W 4.... -
rL 92 12.7 ac 21$ w,rh I IO2 101 .w Y 2p11Y .040'179
:on 2alk'IS" ASi
OS (22 III 7 rt MI w...L I 101 Iret
26.19.4 , 4.1121s 791
• IMea Irmo Mr L,5411a MSS rim.IIS t°dn-h=.net 4.6I 1{94,1 -1(�i.___ly.J ,_._ y,it bi".L. Ate
114,e 1 IAN 0.2 ;'a'I 11,19177 0941
104. W2112 ___:_a___-..Ali 211112A 1,a
I ¢'umma n•ry of Osite Hvdroloeic Analysis - Rho! .,I 171 _.or ?A1,4,h--_-79r
Riser 7 _21. :1? 2A17.n is1Y312 4.0
. __ 04772 4e 272 �__2a1'A_ 2!.kN20 1.50
(.ImM111rnii0n t'neirikuliag Drelnefe gym RI,a' 210 242 201.1.1 -2A11.F)1 /e5x-
• Point 1A aterxecds Are lnel / '-Ron 1 212 Y72 ,,,r.' y,k,157 Sun
_ 1:1 Ee•01 1267 1662 Roa. 214 14 2AI9i A11L1/1 1.93
F.2 F-2.O2 71.3 242 Roar 2 744 212 2,.r,.5 22621111' 7216--
kl.a 2 21s 212 xt _ 2ASJ.Rn2 117 li3 t3,OJ 137.3 its -
MOMIE FULLER r4 1[5 rr, On-site Hydrology Map r-
hTL`I?C�IOG? JfC'"fJRfll{Ul(U(lT.111C us eo 5.� ;o �H;;ttT is 514 2e=2e ".9
Exhibit I - Ce4 1(ita1 _ 104 1n . M14 _2,1202
2td2. 21.1J.n.i 5.9
Roc.1 lull I13 5,p9
Rho I 110 175 )019.5 _2641 0f.2 •78
14..r:1 ;L• I(S 40104 S41.611 41a
0 4• 0 '' W IUij.biUl
aI 3
u 0
I APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
0
m rQ- 1000 0 1000
o g
Z
O
z
`Q
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
4.
I ZONE X
U •
Z
NORTE NARANJA DRIVE WEST NARANJA g DRIVE
II i
/ .
. . , ,.. �, IVYWaOD PLACE FIRM
a� e
STREET ~ �r O w /
z / mac , o ./—o FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
LYNNE PLACE Q Q�VF p
m CC NORT vmi
a EAGLE PIMA COUNTY,
LANE O OUBLE y ~� PLACE ���~ ARIZONA AND
V AGLE - s `s /cy H PLACEEEK CANYON z INCORPORATED AREAS
�9
ZONE A do - ' u COURT 4'7 o=�
WEST SAHUARO CANADA m Da 4OJ Or'~
DIVIDE IDS SAHUARO
E y ,+ HILLS s ¢ PANEL 1020 OF 4100
` 3 COURT \� m (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
F :.
I Q o
ROAD 8 9 GP�pO �"' 4 0 9��
c o aa, �Q4i CONTAINS:
s p 9 w m S COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
y:' 92� 0rn �T nZj MARANA,TOWN OF 040118 1020 K
5 O �Q w Z ORO VALLEY,TOWN OF 040109 1020 K
.,:,‘
W PIMA COUNTY.
ALTO CYPRESS /I� d _ UNINCORPORATED AREAS 040073 1020 K
CAMINO ALTO PIMA COUNTY HN
IDOECOURT ��z
UNINCORPORATED AREAS POINTS A
0 040073 COURT THREE OA`�. CF ,� -"WIMBLEDON WAY
ROAD I DRIVE
ZONE
`7
CAMINO CHRISTY
ZONE A '
CHRISTY ZONE A MAP NUMBER
04019C1020 K
LAMBERT LANE ,�s F I LAMBERT
EFFECTIVE DATE:
a I -.',-L_ LANE p M.�
`�. FEBRUARY 8 1999
�P Q O 0 :t[
a 2 ZONE X '' D� ,
p W =.,
,, c� GYMKHANA WAY 1 ZONE X TOWN
/ I ORO 04 AL Federal Emergency Management Agency
tt 0 09
r� 1 2
z li o
ZONE X d PLACITA p ThIs Is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood mapIt3 g"
+' , APPALOOSA ROAD N qp ZONE : , v _
2 - :S t x_ r ARANA ,q was extracted using F-MIT On-Line. This map does not reflect changes
,; t ,j. A Q Ill, or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the
z NORTH c s title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance
l s O ianr ,nnrnnn Hi., ;f`,� V Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.gov
L„ v -..,._ _ ..,n_ >. . -
Watershed 03 and Watershed E3 exit the property along the southern boundary.
The runoff from Watershed E4 and Watershed E5 (C.P. E5) and Watershed 03
also exits the property along the southern property boundary. The properties to
the south and west are undeveloped and allow the runoff to continue flow
southwest toward the Hardy Wash.
Table I-C.1
Summary of Off-site Hydrologic Analysis
Concentration Contributing Drainage Q100
Point Watersheds Area (cfs)
01* 01 1561 ac 1662
02 02 52.7 ac 205
03 03 111.7 ac 401
Table I-C.2
Summary of On-site Hydrologic Analysis
Concentration Contributing Drainage Q100
Point Watersheds Area (ac) (cfs)
El El, 01 1267 1662
E2 E2, 02 71.3 242
E3 E3, 03 137.5 445
E4 E5 11.4 60
ES E4 5.4 30
I-D VEGETATION
Vegetation supported in the parcels is classified as Arizona Upland Subdivision,
Sonoran Desert scrub with a Palo Verde-Cacti-Mixed-Scrub association.
Foothills Palo Verde (Cercidium microphyllum)is the dominant tree species with
Velvet Mesquite (Prosopis velutina)and Ironwood commonly found throughout
the parcels. Blue Palo Verde is also present sporadically in and adjacent to the
washes. The dominant shrub is Triangle-leaf Bursage with Creosote bush
commonly found throughout the parcels. Other common shrub species commonly
present in and around the drainages include Whitethorn Acacia, Cat-Claw Acacia
and Bitter Condalia. Desert Zinnia is also common in many of the flat areas.
Cacti are abundant and found throughout the parcels. Exhibit I-D.1 shows the
vegetation on the site.
Vegetative Densities
The vegetative density was determined through aerial photographs and field
observation. Representative sections of the site were measured on the aerial
photo and the percentage of vegetative covers was marked and measured in
AutoCAD. These figures were then applied to the entire site to arrive at two
levels of vegetative density, namely high and medium density. Areas of high
vegetative density occur along and within the washes traversing the site. The
cover here is approximately 15.6% of the surface area. The medium density of
vegetative growth occurs within and adjacent to the minor washes on the property
and cover approximately 12% of the surface area. Exhibit I-D.2 shows the
vegetative densities.
I-E WILDLIFE
Exhibit I-E.1 shows the online results for wildlife in the area.
I-F VIEWSHEDS
The viewsheds from the site are to north and the Tortolita Mountains some of
which are obscured by Ironwood Ridge High School. To the east to views are to
the Santa Catalina Mountains with some obscuring from Casa Adobes Church and
the views to south is the Tucson Valley and is relatively open.
I-G TRAFFIC
Shannon Road provides access to the site. Naranja Drive to the north also
provides access as it intersects with Shannon as does Lambert Lane to the south.
The table below provides information on arterial streets within one mile of the
project site.
Street Names Existing
R/W
La Cholla 75'
Blvd
Lambert 75'
Lane
I-H RECREATION AND TRAILS
There are no parks within one mile of the project. There are; however,playing
fields within the area at Ironwood Ridge High School and Casa Adobes Church,
(see Exhibit I-H.1).
rvaranJa unve
1, ...) 2662
-im NEms,al 01170 rvz_:c:)R61$ tm-assoff)7 , ..7)73:_________",
I ‘? 'Y'V-r-j 1 01 '-,,-6.--- 610 A
Lo
l a N \, N 2
N J �` 6S8
itt.,..._(,
/j \ ems. N ,_.._-_.._._ _,
41,40 !i,
;11
1 , -v" ' (--- .il /)-1//i\ /et-
It_ii fii),,i,/\.) i___ 7.60. ' „.,,c _ ( Z
13
I\Apr I
11I1) 4.1 itki
4P 234 \ e8
I N7 1 \\`�
if-vcIPI ,00 1�.c �- fir q
'"1 ' (-
I — awl�Vista Place
v
0
0
re
c
0
c
c
0
co
LEGEND
1__, Site Boundary The pre-development average
cross-slope of the site is 3.7%. NcT,,TH 0. 250' 500�
2' Elevation Contours !"�-,N ` ��
J
Exhibit i-B.1 FILE NAIVE: SRT-01_topo_slape,mxd
SOURCE: Pima County DOT GIS.2008
Naranja rive'
t e t _ L t :1 T
- 1 .'
t.
P 4 / 7
r g e ` - -. < Ve0
r•
i` � .`i ' /'ter
r
r , r f� t
i
' a` a
ra
< - . a=
. ,;
I f '
< s ,
'.M '.t ' If .1. '4* , •
t } °.
•
• r dt, 1 &
r
t
—_ Owl Vista Place"—
" . �+ a� m .
•
c,+ 4
iiti, . .,,. ..,.,,,,... ,,.4),,
________ 3,..0,Lott.ak.,,tb-
2, a �,/"'fir- +�" $. .�{'" 'i 9 e
4401*
dr
119999iiLL��++
4, ..
''s-.a im aC
LEGEND
r j�
Site Boundary The site contains Ironwood desert scrub
and Paloverde-mixed cacti. Ncvn-i 0• _50 500•
�_ _ , Important Riparian Areas The site lies within the Multiple-Use Exhibit I-D.1 (J.`s ri
Management Areas and the .1
L_1 Xeroriparian Habitat C Important Riparian Areas CLS categories. FILE NAME: SRT-01_vegetation.mxd
SOURCE: Pima County DOT GIS.2008
w rvaranta unve
. g
1
►, ,ice, .> .:# j,
* I/ . WO tlik-lits,
i r r ...
. . . . —L7 . '' 4.,---r}.---. , ,, , e'
' I P a `s e a
4
.,
1. �+
iii_:.ttiiii.` 4,..,." -.• -.' ",,ii'''.- ' ,,...",-. -1,. , , i 4t:',.'...irm'i .
At
_ , ,,,,., , ,, ''', : - ,,,-i-:,, . 12-, ''''4,... , ::',„:,. "'4 "rm:,-.:,''. ,,-4',1 I,,• , ''-1'14'''1#-1:,..'''
k i0'•
a i a'r -';y SFr,.� 1 c R ��Iy.���wr� ,� y',
'`���"� w'�
ryp�f t..r t ° � ff .r. , �. aLitst .
7.. �< ` Y-�• a F i rJr nk ^`i 4 s �4"y M1e+'
.
}r .Tr `ry't /�y ��MjR�r
+f. _.i ', i..
}A1 ' •
�., k '�#! f '4 '4';)Zr" of ;�4�, Y JR.j.,C ,4 f`Y �•:1 Y' '
— r
-$ °` « Owl Vista Place -- ,. ,fir,.
il� y �►
*j
1 ,f.: l'...L,,, ,:.,„,f'..:,,,,,, ,;„,,e: - 1-4-, --' ,,
<
lit yy' Y, Kr i 4D� . t 1•. - .I } } t ,y � _- - ....__ ... .,r
6 if ..Lc a. a,• '
R 4` ; , .ai'S p ,r•` : •' x _
n/ r• x *
�+ 15,E
a
"''' r I J
5!:1
tf ♦u` r 1 t i r^I-,ram G,; all 05
LEGEND
1 Site Boundary
nk-xPTH 0' 45U' 500r
W High Density- 15.6% %J 1 7
`. %
FILE NAME: SRT-01_ve�etatic;n_den�ly.mxd
I Medium Density-12% Exhibit I-D.2
SOURCE: Pima County DOT GIS,2008
Arizona's On-line Environmental Keview To al Exhibit I-F.1
Sean:12 M 20080325005582
Project Name-SRT-01
Date:3e25'2008 9:48:02 AM
Project an"he'jeo -e-1exena w xstheac atybsiccyelr ccmrffeeaaaettrrre■Wren
1 axn;sm!!nit:1 3 errrrtrn meats axwnertasrtcomesaealade
Special Status Species OrcamenceslCritical Habitatfrnbal Lands within 3
smiles of Urcmi Protect ty:
Nam Common Name ESA USES Hilt State
i GletxRGu*n trmr u^+:ac+arUm Ca_L+a=ervd'+ws PF�i 1 S�
r 'it,M7 r . Turesn=1 rneelet Oft 1Jrt0mOc'�CN_7T' SC
/itiELA!ahl NYON■■vrv.
Project Name:SFr;-tl'
Submitted By:Wade 4Ytelyete
On behalf of CONSULT1,
Project Search ID:2080325005582
Date:72.52008 9:47:58 AM
Project Category:Devetpment Y Mi Tdpalities.Reedentia!subdvsicr
a7d associated i>nrastrucbure,New u:acn
Project Coordinates RIM Zone 12-NAD 83):4975987776.35855302.665
meter
Project.Area:72.207 acres
Project Perimeter.2309.399 meter
County:=14A
USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle ID:1893
Quadrangle Name:CLIELAS CANYON
Project locality is not anticipated to change
Location Accuracy Disclaimer
Project locations are assumed to be both precise and
accurate for the purposes of environmental review The
creator/owner of the Project Review Receipt is solely
responsible for the project!ocation and thus the
correctness of the Project Review Receipt content
Page 1 of 6 APPLICATION INITIALS:
Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool
Search ID:20080325005582
Project Name: SRT-01
Date: 3/25/2008 9:48:02 AM
Please review the entire receipt for project type recommendations
and/or species or location information and retain a copy for future Tucson Sub-Office
reference. If any of the information you provided did not accurately 201 North Bonita, Suite 141
reflect this project, or if project plans change, another review should be Tucson, AZ 85745
conducted, as this determination may not be valid. Phone 520-670-6144
Fax 520-670-6154
Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool:
Flagstaff Sub-Office
1.This On-line Environmental Review Tool inquiry has generated 323 N. Leroux Street, Suite 101
recommendations regarding the potential impacts of your project on Flagstaff, AZ 86001
Special Status Species(SSS)and other wildlife of Arizona. SSS Phone 928-226-0614
include all U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service federally listed, U.S. Bureau Fax 928-226-1099
of Land Management sensitive, U.S. Forest Service sensitive, and
Arizona Game and Fish Department(Department) recognized species Disclaimer:
of concern.
2.These recommendations have been made by the Department, under 1. This is a preliminary environmental screening tool. It is not a
authority of Arizona Revised Statutes Title 5 (Amusements and substitute for the potential knowledge gained by having a biologist
Sports), 17 (Game and Fish), and 28 (Transportation). These conduct a field survey of the project area.
recommendations are preliminary in scope, designed to provide early 2. The Department's Heritage Data Management System(HDMS)data
considerations for all species of wildlife, pertinent to the project type is not intended to include potential distribution of special status
you entered. species. Arizona is large and diverse with plants, animals, and
3.This receipt, generated by the automated On-line Environmental environmental conditions that are ever changing. Consequently, many
Review Tool does not constitute an official project review by areas may contain species that biologists do not know about or
Department biologists and planners. Further coordination may be species previously noted in a particular area may no longer occur
necessary as appropriate under the National Environmental Policy Act there.
(NEPA)and/or the Endangered Species Act(ESA). 3. Not all of Arizona has been surveyed for special status species, and
surveys that have been conducted have varied greatly in scope and
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) has regulatory authority intensity. Such surveys may reveal previously undocumented
over all federally listed species under the ESA. Contact USFWS population of species of special concern.
Ecological Services Offices: http://arizonaes.fws.gov/. 4. HDMS data contains information about species occurrences that
have actually been reported to the Department.
Phoenix Main Office
2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Arizona Game and Fish Department Mission
Phoenix, AZ 85021
Phone 602-242-0210 To conserve, enhance,and restore Arizona's diverse wildlife
Fax 602-242-2513 resources and habitats through aggressive protection and
Page 2 of 6 APPLICATION INITIALS:
Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool
Search ID:20080325005582
Project Name: SRT-01
Date: 3/25/2008 9:48:02 AM
management programs, and to provide wildlife resources and During planning and construction, minimize potential introduction or
safe watercraft and off-highway vehicle recreation for the spread of exotic invasive species. Invasive species can be plants,
enjoyment, appreciation, and use by present and future animals (exotic snails), and other organisms (e.g. microbes), which
generations. may cause alteration to ecological functions or compete with or prey
upon native species and can cause social impacts (e.g. livestock
forage reduction, increase wildfire risk). The terms noxious weed or
invasive plants are often used interchangeably. Precautions should be
Project Category. Development taken to wash all equipment utilized in the project activities before
Within Municipalities,Residential leaving the site. Arizona has noxious weed regulations (Arizona
Revised Statutes, Rules R3-4-244 and R3-4-245). See Arizona
subdivision and associated Department of Agriculture website for restricted plants
http://www.azda.gov/PSD/quarantine5.htm. Additionally, the U.S.
infrastructure,New construction Department of Agriculture has information regarding pest and invasive
plant control methods including: pesticide, herbicide, biological control
Project Type Recommendations: agents, and mechanical control:
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome. The Department regulates
Based on the project type entered; coordination with Arizona the importation, purchasing, and transportation of wildlife and fish
Department of Water Resources may be required (Restricted Live Wildlife), please refer to the hunting regulations for
(http://www.water.az.gov/adwr/) further information http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/hunting_rules.shtml.
Based on the project type entered; coordination with County Flood During the planning stages of your project, please consider the local or
Control districts may be required. regional needs of wildlife in regards to movement, connectivity, and
access to habitat needs. Loss of this permeability prevents wildlife from
Based on the project type entered; coordination with State Historic accessing resources, finding mates, reduces gene flow, prevents
Preservation Office may be required wildlife from re-colonizing areas where local extirpations may have
http://www.pr.state.az.us/partnerships/shpo/shpo.html#anchor561695 occurred, and ultimately prevents wildlife from contributing to
ecosystem functions, such as pollination, seed dispersal, control of
Based on the project type entered; coordination with U.S. Army Corps prey numbers, and resistance to invasive species. In many cases,
of Engineers may be required streams and washes provide natural movement corridors for wildlife
(http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/regulatory/phonedir.html) and should be maintained in their natural state. Uplands also support a
large diversity of species, and should be contained within important
Development plans should provide for open natural space for wildlife wildlife movement corridors. In addition, maintaining biodiversity and
movement, while also minimizing the potential for wildlife-human ecosystem functions can be facilitated through improving designs of
interactions through design features. Please contact Project Evaluation structures, fences, roadways, and culverts to promote passage for a
Program for more information on living with urban wildlife. variety of wildlife.
Page 3 of 6 APPLICATION INITIALS:
Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool
Search ID: 20080325005582
Project Name: SRT-01
Date: 3/25/2008 9:48:02 AM
The Department recommends that wildlife surveys are conducted to 1. Potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources may be minimized or
determine if noise-sensitive species occur within the project area. avoided by the recommendations generated from information
Avoidance or minimization measures could include conducting project submitted for your proposed project.
activities outside of breeding seasons. 2. These recommendations are proposed actions or guidelines to be
considered during preliminary project development.
Trenches should be covered or back-filled as soon as possible. 3. Additional site specific recommendations may be proposed during
Incorporate escape ramps in ditches or fencing along the perimeter to further NEPA/ESA analysis or through coordination with affected
deter small mammals and herptefauna(snakes, lizards, tortoise)from agencies.
entering ditches. 4. Making this information directly available does not substitute for the
Department's review of project proposals, and should not decrease our
Vegetation restoration projects (including treatments of invasive or opportunity to review and evaluate additional project information and/or
exotic species)should have a completed site-evaluation plan new project proposals.
(identifying environmental conditions necessary to re-establish native 5. The Department is interested in the conservation of all fish and
vegetation), a revegetation plan (species, density, method of wildlife resources, including those Special Status Species listed on this
establishment), a short and long-term monitoring plan, including receipt, and those that may have not been documented within the
adaptive management guidelines to address needs for replacement project vicinity as well as other game and nongame wildlife.
vegetation. 6. Further coordination requires the submittal of this initialed and
signed Environmental Review Receipt with a cover letter and
project plans or documentation that includes project narrative,
Project Location and/or Species recommendations: acreage to be impacted, how construction or project activity(s)
are to be accomplished, and project locality information
HDMS records indicate that one or more native plants listed on the (including site map).
Arizona Native Plant Law and Antiquities Act have been documented 7. Upon receiving information by AZGFD, please allow 30 days for
within the vicinity of your project area (refer to page 1 of the receipt). completion of project reviews. Mail requests to:
Please contact:
Project Evaluation Program, Habitat Branch
Arizona Department of Agriculture Arizona Game and Fish Department
5000 West Carefree Highway
1688 W Adams Phoenix, Arizona 85086-5000
Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phone Number: (623)236-7600
Phone: 602-542-4373 Fax Number: (623)236-7366
Terms of Use
Recommendations Disclaimer: By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read and
understand the terms of use. Department staff may revise these terms
Page 4 of 6 APPLICATION INITIALS:
Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool
Search ID:20080325005582
Project Name: SRT-01
Date: 3/25/2008 9:48:02 AM
periodically. If you continue to use our website after we post changes system for other than its intended purposes are prohibited.
to these terms, it will mean that you accept such changes. If at any
time you do not wish to accept the Terms,you may choose not to use This website maintains a record of each environmental review search
the website. result as well as all contact information. This information is maintained
for internal tracking purposes. Information collected in this application
1.This Environmental Review and project planning website was will not be shared outside of the purposes of the Department.
developed and intended for the purpose of screening projects for
potential impacts on resources of special concern. By indicating your If the Environmental Review Receipt and supporting material are not
agreement to the terms of use for this website, you warrant that you mailed to the Department or other appropriate agencies within six(6)
will not use this website for any other purpose. months of the Project Review Receipt date,the receipt is considered to
2. Unauthorized attempts to upload information or change information be null and void, and a new review must be initiated.
on this website are strictly prohibited and may be punishable under the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and/or the National
Information Infrastructure Protection Act.
3. The Department reserves the right at any time,without notice,to
enhance, modify, alter, or suspend the website and to terminate or
restrict your access to the website. Print this Environmental Review Receipt using your Internet browser's
4.This Environmental Review is based on the project study area that print function and keep it for your records. Signature of this receipt
was entered.The review must be redone if the project study area, indicates the signer has read and understands the information
location, or the type of project changes. If additional information provided.
becomes available,this review may need to be reconsidered.
5.A signed and initialed copy of the Environmental Review Receipt Signature:
indicates that the entire receipt has been read by the signer of the
Environmental Review Receipt. Date:
Security:
The Environmental Review and project planning web application Proposed Date of Implementation:
operates on a complex State computer system. This system is
monitored to ensure proper operation,to verify the functioning of
applicable security features, and for other like purposes.Anyone using
this system expressly consents to such monitoring and is advised that Please provide point of contact information regarding this
if such monitoring reveals possible evidence of criminal activity, system Environmental Review.
personnel may provide the evidence of such monitoring to law
enforcement officials. Unauthorized attempts to upload or change Application or organization responsible for project implementation
information;to defeat or circumvent security measures; or to utilize this
Page 5 of 6 APPLICATION INITIALS:
Arizona's On-line Environmental Review Tool
Search ID:20080325005582
Project Name: SRT-01
Date:3/25/2008 9:48:02 AM
Agency/organization:
E-mail:
Contact Name:
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Phone:
E-mail:
Person Conducting Search(if not applicant)
Agency/organization:
Contact Name:
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Phone:
Page 6 of 6 APPLICATION INITIALS:
v
Tangerine Road
lir
li i__ ..(__/
r S ' I
/ r \
1
1 , .....
if
-- Naranja Drive ir_
R
o
O-
co
re o--mod . IITJco
cc
›.
0.
.0
L o I P"
_* f W f
`1
~ U '
I
L-ambert Lane
/
♦ /
woo'
)
.4...
41.0 1-7ii
_ / , 1 --) )
t
1 \-
LEGEND
MN Site Boundary --- Bicycle Routes
N--RTH 0' l.lo0 2.2ao
— — One-Mile Radius CII)
Scenic Corridor Streets(PC)
Exhibit I-G.1 FILE NAIVE: SRT-01 traffic.mx•d
SOURCE: Pima County DOT GIS. 2008
I-I CULTURAL,ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
The Arizona State Museum indicates that the potential for cultural resources on
the site is minimal and that a ground survey should be conducted prior to any
ground disturbance.
I-J SCHOOLS
The site is located within the Amphitheater Unified School District. The site will
be served by Wilson K-8 school and Ironwood Ridge High School.
School Current Enrollment Capacity
Wilson K-5 654 750
Wilson 6-8 725 800
Ironwood Ridge HS 1909 2250
I-K WATER
The site is within the Oro Valley Water Utility Service District. In a letter dated
April 10, 2008 from the Tucson Water Department, it states "Our records indicate
the subject project lies within the service area of another water provider.
Therefore Tucson Water cannot commit water service to this project."
I-L SEWERS
There is an existing sewer line just east of the property running the length of the
site. This line serves Ironwood Ridge High School. Pima County Wastewater
has indicated that there is sewer capacity available in existing lines for this project
(see Exhibit I-L.1)
I-M MCHARG COMPOSITE MAP
Exhibit I-M.1 is the required composite map showing the various characteristics
described in previous sections of the Inventory.
•
i .
• •
f
•
• ' I
•
•
•
• Tangerine Road - •• .
fa b •If—
• o • : Q
: •
• ••••••••..,-' ` � •.• 7• /
•
' / L
/ Wilson Richard-B Jr •• �• / K-8 School a,m
a gzi 1 \ j/
C.0,00./ r____ iv
•r: : i
••...
l j1 -'
8 / 4 %
r X
____Ia Naranja Drive C)-aj /../ ,i
C.
o ccj —Ironwood Ridge •
_ High,School -J
• J
70
•
iti •
.s1 —
~I Casas Adobes
1 0 Baptist,School
c
o o
ei
t •
•
era ` Lambert Lane I • /
o
et /
•
Ti c • •a
to
0 f• o./
I- N. • m
•
"••• ._._._.__..._.L.___._L______7._----- le,. co )
i . o
L
•
y o
es
•
I •
•
- I •
•
I I 1 1 •
LEGEND
IIIM Site Boundary 1, Park Private School
— — • One-Mile Radius Amphitheater School District Public School NORTH 1,1
00
T 1-1-1-1
Trail Marana School District
Exhibit I-H.1 FILE NAME: SRT-Ol_recreatlon,mxd
SOURCE: Plma County DOT GIS,2008
Naranja unve __
•
II rn
•
• •
•
�
•
• 0L
ro
tv
Oo co
----- s- ---i- -----m ---g•-t--s-.1--_.-'--- .---.-_--0.--.1-- ---- --......--i---
II
I a)
N
Ii:3
CD
` _,
N
r
10 h
ro
c
O
c •
to
.c
y a)
N
CO ti
C
10"
-M-�—-.��-" —-`IOwl Vista place�"T . G-97-1291
:7-\\\
/ \ A
LEGEND
Site Boundary
.. IVK-RTM 0 2 0'
• Manhole Covers 11 .
Sewer Network with Pipe Diameter "- -1
and As-Built Identification Number Exhibit I-L.1 FILE NAME: SRT-01_sewer.mxd
SOURCE: Pima County DOT GIS.2008
„e- ;, 114ardUJa unve M,.-.7,-.,,;.• ;,, >_ s.; �, ,_ -»: •w.r,
s. jj r ; -� n
,
,. -f -. iSt' it ' r '_ , Y
,,- t om / ' t„e `* �4 e�.1., („. .
•
Y +P
, 4' 1 -4r ,`”` , ,,. ,_moil.
k
ds' i�. ♦ i. "�f 1,4' Sc' Ii
,
i it
1" ,, t 4 " �Fi i r j
J r 1�
1 v x 4 0
cT
-.'° {� %.✓ y 3, • 1 / ;if- �`1 fit ��i'- '1 ••l -
e � 1 1 Vy
'0� s
k A
v
1.► 1 f� „ , ..*, s ib ! 4, ///�� ,./ • - . i "r 1
ti ., g. , , 1,'' tit a k, i r ; ',Ai.'" ,✓" \e% '''.+''".,,•,1 Y F
/..1„)
L t ,�� r
1 t;/` '\ $1..
K ,Y '�. ye, l *.. .`A'' �..
I 7. _ .'.- f' -.d\ � r•.;%.**1.1 k' .* .'" 4! L `.-,.:k,-«. "+,r 4
•
•
-_ �`- ,✓".-1 R'� ' 4�.. t'1"" `'u' sJ� �p �q irN -x ~ :v., , � '
.4":'`..;,,''g t:k\.N'..1,4\.1 IA
t 4 12]
. 1
�T�r!'.F f Add !.w�� 'w .�M !w R• !r Yn!A. -��., �.�
.__ a - w-Ovid;Vista Place,----- - '-
,
af
Fir
it- > " `.fie
s _ r
y }
,V Ck.. , 4A*' 7 4 k - _ It
s }
{ , ; t 1 r ' ,. : . :.
k
*T_e. z ' K m ��ayy
11 f" try, ri y s
10.
Af Y ,{ .r, ? M1 �. ,� °!• +' ry: W; k i
��g yy
1. k
' 1d � : fi t iihi rt �s . ! �vy< an S .�'Y A ea S"x y }� r
r t1) i �T X 'f 4 A Sy t..1.- 7 • 14js 1'+�r" "' Ar ,,` y,
s rit
LEGEND
1 Site Boundary %f High Vegetation Density-15.6%
ni. PTH
D' 250' 500'
2' Elevation Contours 1111 Medium Vegetation Density-12% ' �1'.. ;
�J
Exhibit I-M.I FILE NAIVE: SRT-01_compo ite,mxd
SOURCE: Pima County DOT GIS,2008
aa
THE PLANN
a division of TPC Group,INGCENTER Inc.
J U L 3 1 2008
July 31, 2008
Sarah S. More, Planning and Zoning Director
Town of Oro Valley Community Development
11000 N La Canada Drive
Oro Valley, AZ 85737
Subject: OV11-08-08 General Plan Amendment
Dear Sarah:
The Planning Center on behalf of Shannon Road Partners, LLC, withdraws from further
consideration by the Town of Oro Valley Case OV11-08-08.
Very truly yours,
THE PLANNING CENTER
11
Robert M. Conant, Jr.
Project Manager
a 110 s church ste 6320 tucson az 85701
o 520.623.6146
f 520.622.1950
w azplanningcenter.com
OVI 1 -08-08
Mapexpanded of noticingarea
83 additional parcels
I [1 NTI 1 UV TaNGE i III III IL_ —ii II i i! I g _I III
_ iU
■�`,a� r: ; +i G 1..4 8
INFIll1� MOV—...SR6L
.. ,§ '_
11
,'41..-
•Pff
_ ■ �� ,- ANT- yP ,.c, -i
,_ ��.IIIIIIIIIIIII. 2P LT ,x
i..lmIIIl.111E1
.�_ o,, ORE,
.Y
P4
Q GLOJER
SL ERB
Iamwonstal
s$ , .,,t.
s
�,+.�I�.� . o OENAWIIM
` c.. BRwNNP g" g
.� a�; - RErUMA AJ'
.#41i�. �f' MS TERBEEI^ VEAOWG Qfi/
�` .. { ARIZONA ROSE 0
.�i f g GOLDEN ROSE D i3 w 3
.�- �:� L SILVER ROSE 8
. u o ■M CO u 5 AW,Ei ROSE 4 p gllm oc cARAOLSE P7
■■ ••,•��•,�■■� � n O m 3 R LOST MOON
�� i N t Q O
AIM VMS r, & m PSE
I.. =Mg:,,,,����. rxwEw tr
J - c< uawer
lii: �ll1111a IIil U ■■■RIII BLEEAGLE _ a
L L �nj� FTNIGYANOS 3
114
■■I , I SAROAROORTOE i _ _-- .c I O�
■ MIMI ARODIVI. V/
� AHH{I11 L' •i �� . z g o o
�� li
,,,,, .
e � � e
II F-71. '
J
_in.__
�. W OLENASEEy ¢
cwlNoxro cwnoA HILLS +i
r/AIWO ALTO CAMINO ALTO g +pum p9
2' wweLEcoN
II .�.����, !; (��_j, t ..W�--a THREE OAKS
I I PPPLLJ LLLl C.IINOCNRIs NISEI
■.�
i
.. - LAMBERT _ 2
i Na
ii
. . . . .
___
'� GN oW W Lambert Ln 'tit� 3-
1 liffif ' IP-
0.6 0 0.6 1.2 Miles
N
W \ / E
S
1000' FROM 224210050,224210040,224210030,224210020
96 PARCELS NOTICED
LIGHT COLORED ARE NOTICED
OV11 -08-008
- I.*:,,.;,.*,*‘.**.$l l
11r-NlM.i1-li1ll1iIl1l-11=E11,1E1u11-1111m1.M1l1a.-1m111.11 olg1mo1in1 rij11li1i1r1r OEMI I4il 1iE1Elta:a1i4 riVreJit
ma lar`riV VR•nro ice% ' s
Bpi. ■ �.:��.����rw�!!!►(� wpi n !
i� �' ii ►!rr ate►� i
•*,, 11 � ' mot= E �$ �4
lV -lit:
Vii 'a ,OI �_4 ir.••.i
u�
e I: :
_..._. m VC. rw: ►lid C 4;
�� . CO ,J,,,9' r y iiii. =1
■'�' ,IIIIMIMIIIIII■ *-- w ff �,.f i� z e:
III 11�111 . a.m.. f c ' '� g ,' I a%'•;1, ,,,, g F=
Ill ■1I me mu
im 111111: ammo:mom■ m 0 1,", ►' -
�I♦piiu .1;111I111 _ a:�, • y
� . II.11111,II�;I: cC0 .._ %niu 1:%,:ir �������� <7._ `-^'�i
MINIM' Mill
1111111111111111111 � i . - _�� _• '�f�. "• � , ' 41mil.son iiiimn: Maui ini in , , . ...i ,... :.1,.., , j.-,-.1''',.:.0 it -,...
NEON"u'
_
r ,..o�•■- . 11 . IE- r.I OVUM ' ; .11Lia � iaa V. • 7: ,ma • :11 / I11 :�■ :. i' 'na � "ci
m■. . 11uU11111I11I111I: : ��■
MEN■- 11111 11111111111011 — c:ir� ■■-„■■_� = 11 n.
a le
l• 1I . ..� �:r : irirp
IIIIII■��� i;i�����i‘r4. ,gig._ CIO
....
I_� AI_ pi
ep�:.` rUt .'!!!!!: rnwc_ - ^Inf.=1 •� �a ili �,�� �•iVat
I— y la i .n.. ar� uidr '.w" 'h �ca�nWwMr�� 1• 'r ��mtiow 1�
d J i „....
j- . .b-Yevs 1 ira ':L l "iiAIW.l"" 11111111k
r,
V V7r L'
S
Q°NP��EY gR7c>0'1/
° TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
APJ 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737
(520) 229-4800 Fax (520) 742-1022
%NDED :\g1b'
May 14, 2008
Bob Conant
Planning Center
110 S. Church Suite 6320
Tucson, AZ 85701
Fax: 622-1950
RE: OV11-08-08, Formal Comments, Major General Plan Amendment for the property
located in proximity to the southeast corner of Shannon Road and Naranja Road, Parcel
225-13-003B.
Dear Bob:
Thank you for submitting a formal application for the proposed general plan amendment. Based
on your submittal of March 31, 2008, staff has formally reviewed the application. We look
forward to working with you on this project.
The following items are outstanding:
• As you are aware, the majority of site is designated as a Significant Resource Area
(SRA) in the General Plan. There are several washes that transverse the site from
north to south and establishing the boundaries of the SRA is a key issue. Creating
dedicated open space to preserve existing significant vegetated areas will be an
important consideration. A 15' protective apron is also required. Is this included in
the designated riparian boundaries?
• On the Site Resource Inventory, provide a brief narrative summarizing the vegetation
types found on the property. Identify the pertinent areas that qualify as "significant
vegetation"utilizing the standards of the Native Plant Preservation Code. Describe
what a"unique plant" consists of?
• On the Site Resource Inventory, provide a legend symbol to designate the Significant
Resources Areas of the General Plan. One of the legend symbols specifies, "Oro
Valley General Plan riparian area 50' buffer? Please clarify what this represents. This
should be part of the SRA boundaries.
• The request must include the extension of Urban Services Boundary that would
incorporate project area. Provide justification for extending the boundaries.
Key Issues/concerns:
• Does the proposal result in benefit to community as a whole?
• Does the proposal result in benefit to neighborhoods?
www.orovalleyaz.gov
The Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council will evaluate the proposal and
determine whether it is consistent with the vision, goals and policies of the Town's General Plan.
Key General Plan policies, and relevant project features, are noted below:
Key General Plan policies
• 1.1.3, "The Town shall continue to avoid development encroachment into washes, riparian
areas, designated open space and environmentally sensitive lands."
Determining the boundaries of the Significant Resource Areas will be critical on this site.
• 1.2.1, "The Town shall maintain Oro Valley's predominantly low density character while
considering needs of financial stability and infrastructure efficiency."
This development should provide mitigation measures to minimize impacts with the adjacent
single family homes. The low density character of the area must be maintained..
• 1.4.3, "The Town reasonably wishes to be satisfied that sufficient demand exists before
authorizing a higher land use intensity than present zoning permits."
There are no other residential areas in close proximity that have similar density as to what is
being proposed. How will this request improve the area?
• 2.1.4, "The Town shall continue to require that all developments proposals employ design
strategies that minimize changes to existing topography and the disturbance of existing
vegetation."
There is adequate vegetation throughout the site specifically along the washes and
preservation of these areas will need to be considered.
• 11.1.8, "The Town shall use natural open space preservation as one criterion in considering
land use rezoning proposals. Development shall utilize natural open space to comply with
requirements for landscaped areas and buffer areas,whenever feasible."
The significant resource areas will be further evaluated to determine.the potential for open
space preservation.
• 11.2.1, "The Town shall ensure that development will provide for coordinated and enhanced
protection of key habitat areas."
Other key areas within the SRA designations (not just riparian habitat) may need to be
preserved as significant vegetative areas.
• 11.2.11, "The Town shall protect and enhance contiguous areas of key habitats rather than
small segmented remainder parcels."
Determining the boundaries of the significant resource areas will be important to minimize
segmented areas.
• 11.3.1, "View protection is to be an essential aspect of development review and project
approval."
The layout of the proposed development must consider view shed impacts. Other mitigation
measures should be established to preserve adjacent neighbor views.
• 12.1.1, "The Town shall require that natural washes (defined as riparian habitat and 100 year
floodways) be kept free from development that would adversely impact floodway capacity or
characteristics."
Again,preservation of the significant resource areas within the site is a key issue.
In considering the request for a general plan amendment, the Planning and Zoning Commission
and Town Council will put special emphasis on whether the proposal is consistent with the
criteria in Section 22.2.D.3 of the OVZCR as specified below:
1. The proposed change is necessary because conditions in the community have changed
to the extent that the plan requires amendment or modification.
Revise your previous response accordingly.
2. The proposed change is sustainable by contributing to the socio-economic betterment of
the community, while achieving community and environmental compatibility.
Revise your previous response accordingly.
3. The proposed change reflects market demand which leads to viability and general
community acceptance.
Revise your previous response accordingly.
4. The amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole or a portion of the
community without an acceptable means of mitigating these impacts through the
subsequent zoning and development process.
Revise your previous response accordingly.
Other Agency Comments
Public Works and Water
Summary
The resubmittal must include a response letter addressing all agency comments and necessary
addenduins to the application. The resubmittal must be provided by Friday, May 23, 2008.
Please provide 28 copies, including a response letter addressing all agency comments. In
addition, provide a synopsis of the neighborhood meeting held on Thursday, May 15, 2008.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you should have any further questions.
Cordially,
David Ronquillo
Senior Planner
(520) 229-4817
dronquillo@orovalleyaz.gov
�o�P�1 EY AR/202
V TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
.� ► 11000 N.La Canada Drive, Oro Valley,AZ 85737
(520)229-4800•Fax(520)742-1022
SOUNDED —
April 7, 2008
Bob Conant Neil Manning, et al
The Planning Center Shannon Road Partners, LLC
110 South Church, Suite 6320 P.O. Box 41207
Tucson, AZ 85701 Tucson, AZ 85717
Fax 520-907-2769
RE: Formal Application, OV11-08-08, The Planning Center,
representing Neil Manning & Shannon Road Partners, requests
approval of a General Plan Amendment for a site in proximity to the
southeast intersection of Shannon Rod and Lambert Lane.
Dear Mr. Conant et al,
Thank you for submitting the request for the Major General Plan
Amendment for the aforementioned site. In order to process this General
Plan amendment, additional information is requested for review. Please
keep in mind that these items are a minimum — and during the review
process, we reserve the option to ask for additional information.
The following items must be submittal no later than noon on April 14, 2008:
1. Twelve copies of a Site Resource Inventory Plan as specified per
OVZCR Section 27.4, as well as a narrative addressing what the plan
is to mitigate and/or preserve these areas.
2. Completion of the following Part I — Inventory and Analysis sections:
• Hydrology items (1) — (5)
• Wildlife: Letters from AZ Game and Fish Department &
USFWS.
• Cultural, Archaeological and Historic Resources
• Schools: This item is complete. However - please contact the
Amphitheater School District directly for review of this
application. Comments from the District will have a significant
bearing on this project review — and must be provided prior to
public hearing.
Items may be provided as an addendum. Twelve copies are required.
www.townoforovalley.com
Page 2
OV11-08-08
3. Two copies of all updated digital files on CD (CAD files/GIS shapefiles,
as well as PDF of maps).
Neighborhood Meetings:
The first neighborhood meeting is scheduled to be held May 8, 2008. Staff
requests review of the neighborhood notification letter no later than April 11,
2008. As a reminder, mailings must be sent by the applicant no later than
twenty days prior to the neighborhood meeting (4/17/08). Enclosed with this
letter is the mailing list of all properties within 1,000 feet for the subject
property.
At a minimum, the neighborhood notification letter must include the
following:
o A description of the subject parcels and location.
o The current General Plan designation and what it means.
o The proposed General Plan designation and what it means.
o A map of the subject parcels.
o A request to attend the neighborhood meeting.
o The date, time, and location of the neighborhood meeting. The
meeting will be held in the HOPI Room at Development Services and
the meeting must begin at 6:00 pm.
o The contact information for the project planner for additional
information.
Additionally, twenty-eight copies of the following must be submitted prior to
the Planning and Zoning Commission:
a. A notarized statement from the applicant that the letter for
notification was sent out to all persons identified on the labels
on a specific date.
b. Copy of the letter sent to residents as notification of the public
meetings for the General Plan amendment.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Most Cordially,
Bayer Vella, AICP
OV Principal Planner
520.229.4810
F:\OV\OV11\2008\0V11-08-08\additional items needed 040408.doc
Page 3
OV 11-08-08
Attachment: Mailing List; Public Works comment letter.
F:\OV\OV11\2008\OV11-08-08\additional items needed 040408.doc
MANNING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
OV 11-08-08
Engineering Comments— Submittal Certification
Paul Keesler, P.E.
April 4, 2008
General Comments:
1. The Department of Public Works finds that this submittal contains the requisite
items needed for our review:
a. Topography
b. Traffic
c. Sanitary Sewer
2. This submittal is missing the hydrology portion of the site inventory analysis. The
Department of Public Works will require an exhibit delineating the any Town
regulatory floodplain areas or a statement by the consultant that there is no
floodplain present onsite.
Thus we cannot certify that this submittal is complete for our review to
commence.
•
031:N/2008 11:53 5203822641 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PAGE 01
0C4 /NAN
��/ 0 MARANA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: SHIRLEY GAY,DEVELOPMENT CORDINATOR
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
FAX 520.742.1022 •
FROM: PAUL R POPELKA, RLA/AICP
TOWN OF MARANA LONG A G
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
DATE: 5/30/2008
PAGES TO FOLLOW: 5
I have reviewed the five General Plan Amendment proposals received in April and enclosed your
transmittal sheets. Thank you for the opportunity to review these projects.
Stone Canyon Phase IX GPA
This appears to be a logical extension of Stone Canyon. My only comment refers more to future
rezoning and possible conditions for that rezoning. On the Conceptual Site Plan,some of the proposed
lots that border the existing areas south and west of the subject property are fairly small (compared to
their neighbors)and also occur in areas of significant vegetation. Some level of buffering or
preservation may be appropriate in these areas.
10910 N Shannon Road GPA
No comments.
Oracle & Hardy GPA.
This appears to be an appropriate use for this location and context. I have no comments.
Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5 GPA
This also appears to be an appropriate use for this location and context. I have no comments.
Tangerine& First GPA
This also appears to be an appropriate use for this location and context. I have no comments.
TOWN OF MARANA - PLANNING DP. .1RTMFNT
11555 W. CIVIC CENTER DRIVE. MARANA. ARILONA 85653 ^,
PITONE; (520) 382.2600 - FAX (520) 382.2639
PINAL • COUNTY
Wide open opportunity
Pinal County
Planning & Development P.O.Box 2973
31 North Pinal Street,Bldg F
Florence,Arizona 85232
AIR QUALITY a BUILDING SAFETY a ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT a PUBLIC WORKS
May 22,2008
Town of Oro Valley
Attn: Ms. Shirley Gay
11000 North La Canada Dr.
Oro Valley AZ 85737
Re: Project No. OV 1108-008 (Manning GPA)
Ms. Gay:
Thank you for giving Pinal County the opportunity to review this proposal. The location of the proposal is
outside of the County Planning Area. However, Staff would like to take this opportunity to comment that the
site appears to be striated with three significant wash/riparian areas. Pinal County Planning and Development
Staff would advocate careful planning and attention to these corridors should the site develop in the future.
Sincerely,
gijt
Steve Abraham,AICP
Senior Planner
Pinal County Planning and Development
"Working together to provide quality services,
to enhance the growth and beautification
of Pinal County for a better tomorrow."
Telephone: (520)866-6447 • FAX:520 866-6490 • E-mail:Jerrold.Stabley@co.pinal.az.us
GOLDER RANCH FIRE DISTRICT GOLDS•
Community Services Division
Helping to make our community a better, safer place to live! 4t3Sk•-
International Fire Code 2006 Edition
TO: Town of Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Division
FROM: Chris Kiel, Sr. Plans Examiner
DATE: April 18, 2008
PROJECT: OV11-08-008 Manning General Plan Amendment
PLAN REVIEW: Fire Code Review of General Plan Amendment Documents
Please provide the following Fire Code review comments to the applicant for the above referenced project.
The following items are provided as general information for the applicant for the future development plans.
1. Fire Flow/Hydrants. Fire hydrants connected to an approved water supply of 1000 gpm for fire protection,
either temporary or permanent, shall be installed and in service prior to combustible material delivery to the
site. Temporary construction office trailers are considered combustible material. Submit a Water System
Plan to the Fire Marshal's office for review and approval.
A 3 foot clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of fire hydrants. Where fire hydrants
are subject to impact by a motor vehicle, guard posts or other approved means of protection shall be
provided.
The developer is responsible for blue reflective street markers at each hydrant location.
All out of service hydrants shall be clearly marked or tagged as out of service. While the water lines are
undergoing bacteriological cleansing and testing, the hydrants shall be marked as out of service. Out of
service marking and tags shall remain until the hydrant has been inspected by the developer, approved by
the Water Utility, and is in service. The Water Utility will notify the Fire Marshal when the hydrants are in
service and available for fire flow testing.
*Add the following note to the Development Plan: Fire hydrants connected to an approved water supply
of 1000 qpm for fire protection shall be installed and in service prior to combustible material delivery to the
site. Temporary construction office trailers are considered combustible material.
2. Fire Apparatus Access. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be
accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved all-weather access road with an asphalt,
concrete, or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus
weighing at least 75,000 pounds. The fire apparatus access road shall extend to within 150 feet of all
portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by
an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Fire apparatus access roads shall be
installed and in service prior to combustible material delivery to the site
Gates installed across fire apparatus access roads shall be installed in compliance with Appendix D of the
Fire Code. All electrically operated gates shall include preemption operating equipment compatible with
the fire department's system.
The installation of new traffic control signaling devices on fire apparatus access roads shall include
preemptive control equipment compatible with the fire department's existing system.
Golder Ranch Fire District - Community Services Division 3885 E.Golder Ranch Rd.; Tucson,Arizona 85739
520-818-1017 Fax 520-825-8043 www.golderranchfire.org prevention(d4golderranchfire.org
Proudly Serving Our Community with Strong Hands& Caring Hearts Since 1977.
Serving as the Fire Marshal for the Town of Oro Valley since 1999.
"r
-2-
Residential subdivisions with more than 30 lots with only one fire apparatus access road will require that all
residential structures to be fire sprinklered.
*Add the following note to the Development Plan: Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be
installed and in service prior to combustible material delivery to the site.
3. Automatic Sprinkler Systems Requirement. All new one-and two-family dwellings and townhouses
which exceed 3,600 square feet in fire-flow calculation area shall be protected with an approved automatic
sprinkler system. One- and two-family dwellings and townhouses used as model homes with sales or
construction offices shall be protected with an approved automatic sprinkler system.
*Add the following notes to the Development Plan: Approved automatic sprinkler systems shall be
provided throughout all one-and two-family dwellings and townhouses which exceed 3,600 square feet in
fire-flow calculation area. Approved automatic sprinkler systems shall be provided throughout all one-and
two-family dwellings and townhouses used as model homes with sales or construction offices.
4. Street Signs and Address Posting. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection
when construction of new roadways allows passage of vehicles. All structures under construction shall be
clearly identified with an approved address and building number. Signs shall be of an approved size,
weather resistant, and be maintained until replaced by permanent signs.
*Add the following note to the Development Plan: Temporary street signs shall be installed at each
street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage of vehicles. All structures under
construction shall be clearly identified with an approved address.
5. Building Height. Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height above the
lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads
capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be
located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. Fire apparatus access roads shall have a
minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of the building
more than 30 feet in height. Proximity to the building is defined as having at least one of the required
access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum 15 feet and a maximum 30 feet
from the building and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. See IFC Appendix D
Section D105.
6. Dead-end Fire Apparatus Access Roads. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet
shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions in accordance with locally amended Table 103.5.
"HAMMERHEAD," "Y," OR CUL DE SAC IN ACCORDANCE WITH FIGURES D103.1, D103.2 AT
TERMINAL END.
7. Secured Construction Sites. Gated, secured construction sites shall provide an approved fire
department padlock on the chain securing the site. The approved fire department padlock can be obtained
from the fire inspector
Please email or call me with any questions regarding any of the above Fire Code Review comments.
Chris Kiel, Sr. Plans Examiner
Golder Ranch Fire District&Town of Oro Valley
(520)825-5968 ckiel@golderranchfire.org
Golder Ranch Fire District - Community Services Division 3885 E.Golder Ranch Rd.; Tucson,Arizona 85739
520-818-1017 Fax 520-825-8043 www.golderranchfire.org prevention(a),golderranchfire.org
Proudly Serving Our Community with Strong Hands&Caring Hearts Since 1977.
Serving as the Fire Marshal for the Town of Oro Valley since 1999.
MANNING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
OV 11-08-08
Engineering Comments & Conditions
Paul Keesler, P.E.
May 8, 2008
General Plan Land Use Comments & Conditions:
1. The Department of Public Works approves this submittal with no conditions for
the Town of Oro Valley General Plan land use designation change of RLDR to
LDR 1.
Among all he standard elements set forth for the submission package (site analysis
and TDP), the follow represents minimum detail required by the Department of
Public Works to review any future rezoning:
2. For any future Rezoning of the subject property, the Department of Public Works
shall require at a minimum, the following hydrologic information submitted as a
part of the application/site inventory submission package:
a. Describe and map on an aerial photograph the perimeter of all off-site
watersheds that affect, or are effected by, the site both upstream and
downstream to their logical conclusion and note all balanced and critical
basins.
b. Provide a description of any significant off site natural features and
manmade features located within the above watersheds that may affect or
be affected by the site.
c. Indicate the area in acres for those upstream off-site watersheds with 100
year discharges greater than 100 cubic feet per second (cfs).
• d. Describe and map the characteristics of the existing on-site hydrology.
Include the following:
i. Approximate 100 year flood floodplains with a discharge greater
than or equal to 50 cfs.
ii. Sheet flooding areas with their average depths
iii. Federally mapped floodway and floodplains
iv. Peak discharges both entering and leaving the site for 100 year
events which exceed 50 cfs using approximate methods such as the
regional area versus discharge graphs.
e. Provide a qualitative description of existing drainage conditions along the
downstream property boundary.
f. Describe how the Tentative Development Plan responds to the hydrologic
characteristics described in the Inventory and Analysis for both existing
1
n
and proposed conditions. (Examples include building setbacks, density,
building placement, location of open space and recreation areas).
g. Identify if any features of the development (i.e. structures, roads, lots), as
shown by the Tentative Development Plan overlay, encroach on and/or
modify existing site drainage patterns. Explain why this is necessary and
other alternatives that have been considered.
h. Describe and map potential drainage impacts to off-site land uses both
upstream and down stream due to the proposed development.
i. Describe and map approximate location of engineering and design features
that will be used to mitigate drainage and erosion problems for the
proposed development. (Examples include detention basins, revegetation,
rip-rapping and preservation of channels in their natural state).
j. Describe how the Tentative Development Plan conforms to all applicable
area plans, basin management plans and Town policies.
3. For any future Rezoning of the subject property, the Department of Public Works
shall require at a minimum, the following Traffic information submitted as a part
of the application/site inventory submission package:
a. Map all existing and proposed streets on and between the development site
to, and including, the nearest streets as shown on the Oro Valley
Transportation Plan. Also map all arterial streets within one mile of the
project site. For all streets identified, provide the following general
information:
i. The existing and proposed rights-of-way widths.
ii. Whether these rights-of-way meet minimum Oro Valley width
requirements.
iii. Ownership (public or private)
iv. Whether the rights-of-way are continuous or whether they jog.
v. The number of travel lanes, theoretical capacity and design speed
on existing roads.
vi. The present Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for existing streets
vii. A description of the surface conditions of the existing roadway
which provides access to the site.
viii. When roadway and intersection improvements which are
programmed to be completed by public or private entities.
b. Map existing and proposed intersections on the arterials within one mile of
the site which will likely be used by traffic generated by the development.
2
c. Map any existing bicycle and pedestrian ways adjacent to or on the site to
their connections with arterial streets, parks and schools.
d. Provide a traffic impact statement (attached as an appendix) which shall
include:
i. A description of the proposed internal circulation and access
to/from arterial streets included in the Oro Valley Transportation
Plan for the project, their location and the rationale for their
placement in terms of circulation.
ii. If the tentative Development Plan depends upon future off-site
road improvements for access, state which roads, the projected
time frame for their completion.
iii. Discuss the projected ADT at "build-out" for the internal
circulation system and the level of service to all streets and
intersections as outlined within the study area. Provide a projection
of traffic volumes and capacity analysis, based upon the
development's"build out", on the arterials and at the intersections
within the study area.
iv. Describe the impact to existing development abutting off-site
streets listed above.
v. Provide capacity analysis for proposed internal streets and
proposed off-site streets and describe the right-of-way and
pavement widths, geometrics, design speeds and traffic control
improvements which will be needed.
vi. Describe the types of improvements specified in (iii) above which
will be needed thereat.
vii. A schedule listing who the applicant believes is the responsible
party or agency for making said improvements.
viii. Provide evidence that proposed turning movements will meet
safety standards in relationship to traffic volumes.
e. Describe proposed on-site street right-of-way, indicate their proposed
ownership and show typical roadway sections.
f Describe any proposed bicycle and pedestrian pathways within the
development and indicate whether they are constructed to external
pathways, arterial streets, parks and schools.
g. For proposed developments within 1 mile of a public school, describe and
map safe walk/bike paths for students. Student walk/bike paths should be
designed, with easements between selected lots, as required, to reduce
walk/ride distances.
3
' a
h. For proposed developments greater than 0.5 miles from elementary schools
and greater than 0.8 miles from middle and high schools indicate safe bus
stops and safe bus turnarounds, if required. Bus stops should be designed to
allow residents to monitor the safety of children while at the same time
minimizing the impact of waiting children on the adjacent residents.
i. Provide a letter from the school district indicating review of, and
concurrence with, the proposed student walk paths and school bus
provisions.
4. For any future Rezoning of the subject property, the Department of Public Works
shall require at a minimum, the following Sanitary Sewer information submitted
as a part of the application/site inventory submission package:
a. Map the location of the existing public sewers in relation to the project site.
b. Describe the method of providing sewer service.
c. If Pima County Wastewater is projected to serve the site, provide a
response letter from Pima County Wastewater Management addressing
capacity and ability to serve the site.
4
at SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATIOA
Wq
April 4, 2008
Town of Oro Valley
Planning & Zoning Department
11000 N.La Canada Dr.
Oro Valley, Arizona 85737
OV1107-002 STONE CANYON PH IX
OV1108-008 MANNING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
OV1108-004 RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGH., 5
OV1108-002 ZARIFI GPA
Southwest Gas Corporation has no objection to the platting of the above
mentioned project. However, existing natural gas facilities are located in
adjacent right-of-way which may be affected by construction of this project.
Blue Stake should be notified 48 hours prior to construction.
Further information regarding natural gas facilities on or near this project may
be ac uired by contac 'ng me at 794-6049.
F
RICK BARON/ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN
3401 East Gas Road / Tucson,Arizona 85714-1994
P.O. Box 26500 / Tucson, Arizona 85726-6500 / (520) 889-1888 / 1-800-428-7324
www.swgas.corn
4 "Mana and conserving natural, cultural,aSecreational resources" —
`, April 14, 2008
Shirley Gay, Development Coordinator
`.__ Planning and Zoning Division
`1
Town of Oro Valley
11,000 North La Canada Drive
tisoNtiAri
Oro Valley,AZ 85737
Arizona ®
State Parks RE: OV1107-002, Stone Canyon Phase IX General Plan Amendment
SHPO-2008-0534 (36058)
OV1108-004, Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5 General;Plan Designation
SHPO-2008-0535 (36060)
OV 1108-002,Zarifi General Plan Amendment
SHPO-2008-0536 (36061)
Janet Napolitano OV1108-003, Kai General Plan Amendment
Governor SHPO-2008-0537 (36062)
State Parks OV1-108-008; Manning General Plan Amendment
Board Members SHPO-2008-0538 (36063)
Chair Ms.
William C. Cordasco Dear Gay:
Flagstaff
Arlan Colton Thank you for consulting with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Tucson regarding the above referenced projects. We have reviewed the submitted
materials and offer the following comments.
William C. Scalzo
Phoenix
Three of the submissions contained copies of letters from the Arizona State
Reese Woodling Museum [ASM] noting either that the land in question had not been surveyed and
Tucson should be, or that previous surveys had identified archaeological sites within the
Tracey Westerhausen project area and these sites needed data recovery if disturbed. Our office concurs
Phoenix with these recommendations from ASM. If not already surveyed, we
William C. Porter recommend that a qualified cultural resources specialist inspect the project
Kingman areas to determine the presence or absence of historic properties, and
Mark Winkleman additionally an opportunity for our office to review the survey report. If the areas
State Land have already been inspected and sites identified,we would appreciate an
Commissioner adequate opportunity to review treatment plans developed to mitigate any
Kenneth E.Travous adverse effects prior to any development. The Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood
Executive Director 5 submission on page 19 noted discovery situations, however, the Town of Oro _
Arizona State Parks Valley should have a proactive stance, not a reactive stance, when dealing with
1300 W.Washington known cultural resources within the community. This includes the development
Phoenix,AZ 85007 of treatment plans with known recorded archaeological sites.
Tel&TTY:602.542.4174
www.azstateparks.com If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at(602) 542-7140 or
800.285.3703 from electronically via djacobs@azstateparks.gov.
(520&928)area codes
602.
Gen5era42l Fax:.4180 S'ncerel
Director's Office Fax \ I '
602.542.4188 I . • ' ,,,
\„,„)
David J cobs
Compliance Specialist/Archaeologist •
State Historic Preservation Office
April 2008 �_
r:, Tangerine Road
Dear Neighbor: L
1.1
vI_ II
The Planning Center invites you to attend a cioverRoa� )] J ,
neighborhood meeting regarding the proposed Major 0 i r
m Naranja Dnve
General Plan Amendment Request; to amend the � _ � 1 _ -I
General Plan Map has been submitted to the Town of •i_1, '"L'a _ 1 i e
Oro Valley for a future residential development. The ■:` . i
project is located on approximately 77.72 aces on the I� i I ` -
east side of Shannon Road just south of Ironwood II ;''
Ridge High School in Oro Valley. If the plan ■g' Lambert Lane, 41
:_____
amendment is successful a rezoning application will be �:E �■rip .uw R
filed with the Town. y�gis� ■■. .- '. , ,
Date: Thursday, May 15,2008An ii■l�
Time: 6:00 p.m.
Location: Hopi Room, Oro Valley Development Services Building
The existing land use designation on the property is Rural Low Density (0-0.3 Dwelling
Units per Acre) for single-family residential units. The proposed amendment modifies
the existing land use designation to Low Density Residential (0.4-1.2Dwelling Units per
Acre) for single-family residential units.
Comments on the proposed General Plan Amendment may be submitted to the Planning
and Zoning Department for the Town of Oro Valley prior to the noticed Public Hearing
on the matter and/or at the Public Hearing.
Please contact Bob Conant at the Planning Center with any questions or comments
at (520) 623-6146 or bconant*azplanningcenter.com, or The Town of Oro Valley
Project Planner$ t(520)229-4810 or bvella(a,orovalleyaz.gov.
7
0 a-ki i:e./(' n---t-14
Vt. / l,
ONi I 1 a--66
NOTICE TO RESIDENTS
The Planning & Zoning Department would like to notify you that the applicant recently submitted a formal request
withdrawing the following project:
Shannon Road Properties LLC., represented by The Planning Center, requests approval of a Major General
Plan Amendment and change to include the property in the Town's Urban Services Boundary for the property
located in proximity to the southeast corner of Shannon Road and Naranja Road, OV11-08-08.
The applicant will no longer proceed with the general plan amendment process; however, in the future will be
submitting a subdivision plat to develop lots that are a minimum of 3.3 acre in size as permitted by zoning.
For questions or additional information, please contact David Ronquillo, Senior Planner, at (520) 229-4817 or
donquillo@orovalleyaz.gov.
6;14 '' ...-Mxcr&
David Ronquillo
Senior Planner
Posted: 8-26-08
Time: 9:00 a.m.
By: sg
F:\OV\OV 11\2008\OV 11-08-08\notice\cancellation.notice.doc
APPROVED MINUTES
ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION
June 3, 2008
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
PRESENT:
Chair Doug McKee
Vice Chair Teree Bergman
Commissioner Bill Adler
Commissioner Ray Paolino
Commissioner Clark Reddin
Absent: Commissioner Pete Bistany
Also Present:
Mayor Paul Loomis
Vice Mayor Al Kunisch
Council Member K.C. Carter
Sarah S. More, Planning and Zoning Director
Joe Andrews, Town Attorney
Paul Keesler, Development Review Manager
Matt Michels, Senior Planner
David Ronquillo, Senior Planner
3. Call to the Audience opened and closed with no speakers.
4. Minutes
MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to approve the May 6, 2008, Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting minutes are written. Vice Chair Bergman seconded
the motion. Motion carried 5:0.
5. Appointment of a Planning & Zoning Commission Member to a Landscape
Code Update Committee.
Ms. More said that staff and consultant have started work on a landscape code
amendment. If any commissioners are interested in volunteering to participate in that code
amendment, it would be appreciated.
Commissioner Adler and Vice Chair Bergman would like to participate.
June 3, 2008 Approved Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session
6. OV4-08-04, Mary Stafford, requests approval for a Type II Home Occupation
permit to conduct a counseling and training of mental health professional
business. Located at 9941 N. Placita Papalote.
Dee Widero, Zoning Program Supervisor, gave the staff report.
Applicant Mary Stafford gave a brief report and answered questions.
- Not acupuncture, but use of pressure with finger tips only.
- Certified profession.
- Occasional evening and weekend appointments.
- There is lots of parking space.
- Applicant has read conditions of approval and agrees with them.
PUBLIC HEARING opened at 6:15 p.m.
Richard Almer, resident of Oro Valley was opposed and thinks it is not wise to approve
something like this without more evidence of the professionalism and effectiveness.
PUBLIC HEARING closed at 6:17 p.m.
The Applicant stated there has been a lot of research in this process, and there are
multiple internet sites stating the usefulness of this technique.
Commissioner Adler pointed out that the purpose of this hearing is not to put a stamp of
approval on the profession, but to approve the activity in the home.
MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to approve OVO4-08-04, a request for a home
occupation to conduct a counseling and training of mental health professionals
business at 9941 N. Placita Papalote, subject to conditions in Exhibit A.
Commissioner Reddin seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0.
7. Future Agenda Items
None.
8. Planning Update
None.
9. Adjourn Regular Session
MOTION: Commissioner Paolino MOVED to adjourn the Planning and Zoning
Commission regular session. Commissioner Reddin seconded the motion.
Motion carried 5:0.
1. Call to Order Study Session at or after 6:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
2
June 3, 2008 Approved Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session
PRESENT:
Chair Doug McKee
Vice Chair Teree Bergman
Commissioner Bill Adler
Commissioner Ray Paolino
Commissioner Clark Reddin
Mayor Paul Loomis
Vice Mayor Al Kunisch
Council Member K.C. Carter
Sarah S. More, Planning and Zoning Director
Joe Andrews, Town Attorney
Paul Keesler, Development Review Manager
Matt Michels, Senior Planner
David Ronquillo, Senior Planner
3. Study Session: Capri Co., LLC represented by The WLB Group, requests a
major General Plan amendment for approximately 271 acres south of
Tangerine Road and east of Palisades Road. The request is to change the land
use designation from Neighborhood Commercial Office (NCO) to Master
Planned Community, and modify the Special Area policies to allow future
development of a variety of residential housing types, community commercial
uses, professional technological business park, continuum of care facilities
and open space. The parcels are 220-06-001 F and 220-06-001 G, (OV11-08-03).
Ms. More, Planning and Zoning Director, stated that this item has been withdrawn. A letter
was received from Mr. Felker, representing Kai Capri General Plan (GP) amendment,
asking that the Commission be informed that the request to amend the Oro Valley GP has
been withdrawn as it relates to the property at the southeast corner of First Avenue and
Tangerine, and to remove the matter from all hearings that may be scheduled regarding
this matter. The Kais expressed their appreciation for the courtesies and professional
treatment received from the Oro Valley staff and to all involved in this matter.
4. Study Session: Vistoso Partners, represented by The WLB Group, requests
approval of a General Plan Amendment for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5,
located within Rancho Vistoso on both sides of the Honey Bee Wash (OV11-08-
04).
Applicant, Paul Oland, The WLB Group, representing Vistoso Partners gave a PowerPoint
presentation on a GP Amendment for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5.
Questions and comments from Commissioners and applicant's response:
- What is the comparison in number of dwelling units between the existing plan and the
proposal?
Response: It is a range in the PAD. The MHDR designation in the areas proposed would
be an increase of 64.3 acres. The increase in dwelling units would be 6-8 times that or 328
to 399 units. Neighborhood 5 is entitled to 3,555 units overall; right now we have under
1,000.
3
June 3,2008 Approved Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session
- How is reducing the amount of park space justified?
Response: The proposal is to reduce the amount of golf course and recreation area by 175
acres. 144 of those acres will be recouped as open space. Every development going in
will still be subject to Oro Valley's recreation area requirements. Some commercial area
will also be eliminated. The commercial area was intended to be used for the golf course
clubhouse.
- What are the areas along Rancho Vistoso Blvd., that are indicated as high density built
at?
Response: It is less than the 21 maximum, but didn't know what the densities of those
plats are. He will find out.
- Were the lots already built on in the vicinity marketed as golf course properties?
Response: Did not know how they were marketed? All the lots that currently exist are up
the hill and are 500 to 600 feet away from what is proposed.
- What are you doing about trails through the area?
Response: There are several trails on the Trails Master Plan and we will work with Parks
Department to secure alignments as necessary.
- Who has title to the trails in Rancho Vistoso?
Response: When the trail is within the public dedicated right-of-way, the Town has title;
in common areas trails are under control of the Master HOA. In some cases when a
subdivision is completed, public trail easement is included. In those cases trail
maintenance would be held by the Town. In areas where that doesn't happen then it
would fall to the Rancho Vistoso Master HOA.
- Is there a sewer line issue?
Response: As the PAD developed there was a Master Plan for sewer. The proposal is
to locate a sewer directly behind bank protection alignment to serve this area. There may
be a problem with an ADOT right-of-way which they are working to remedy. The sewer
line will replace a lift station.
- Regarding hydrology and bank protection, will the lower sections be brought up to grade?
Response: Significant fill is not anticipated in those areas. The PAD originally had a
Master Hydrology Study that defined the flood plan limits and maximum encroachment
boundaries that were sustainable for the wash. We don't propose "pinching" that down
anymore. Either bank protection or erosion protection device will be there.
- On page 23 of the packet, explain the conflict existing between the Rancho Vistoso PAD
and SRA designation.
Response: The PAD predates the GP and SRA designation. The SRA was placed on
top of about 125 acres or otherwise developable property. The proposal idea is to pull
disturbance areas out of the SRA zone so the PAD isn't in conflict.
- Is the intent to dedicate the school site?
Response: That dedication has not occurred yet and is tied to approval of the Stone
Canyon 8 final plat.
4
June 3,2008 Approved Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session
- Why can't dedication of the school site happen now? Why is the school site tied to
something that is unrelated?
Response: Ms. More stated establishing an acceptable school site for Amphi School
District was tied to a rezoning case in Pima County that is connected to Stone Canyon 8
subdivision. Pima County required that the developer provide a school site that the school
district would accept. Stone Canyon 8 cannot be approved by the Council until such time
as we get the school site assured for Amphi. In March, Amphi accepted this location as an
appropriate site. Schools, as entities of the State, are not subject to local zoning
ordinances.
- Could the site be dedicated now?
Response: Yes, there is nothing stopping that, except the fact that it was tied to an
approval years ago and they intend to follow through with that. It will be years before the
site is needed.
- Discuss the condition in the proposed area regarding the riparian condition on the
property and how it relates to the habitat protection policies in the GP.
Response: A good deal of the property is designated as SRA, presumably for
environmental reasons as opposed to archaeological or historical. It is tied to the
environmental conditions along the wash. In future PAD amendment phases, a biologist
would be hired to determine truly sensitive habitat. The SRA is overlaid on existing
entitlement, but a development pattern is being proposed that the Town would find
consistent with its goals.
- Where building is planned has riparian conditions on it. Would like to see something that
overlays more clearly where development will occur as it relates to the riparian
designations.
- How will Arrowsmith Loop be configured and managed?
Response: Most comments regarding Arrowsmith Loop related to the school site chosen.
Making the road one-way was not acceptable to the school district.
- Will the proper amount of space be designated for parks and recreation space as
described in the zoning code?
Response: As subdivisions come in for platting they will have to show that they are
providing the property amount of space. This proposal doesn't designate a location for a
larger, centralized park. Oro Valley park requirements would have to be designated by
individual subdivisions as they come in for approval.
Chair McKee told the audience that no decisions will be made this evening. This is a
session only to ask questions and gain information. The audience can submit questions in
writing for discussion.
Matt Michels, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. A map with overlays showing the
encroachments into SRA will be brought back to the next meeting.
Questions and comments from Commissioners and staffs response:
5
June 3, 2008 Approved Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session
- Regarding park space, why can't we take the total density proposed for this area and
allocate recreational space based on that density, as opposed to the densities submitted
with each plat that comes in?
Response: This is being looked at.
- When looking at residential construction adjacent to a sensitive area, is the area
being cramped and damaged even though not being built on? Is there a reasonable
setback that could be applied to do what is intended to preserve the sensitive area? Bring
information on this to the public hearing.
- Deborah Pemberton, Oro Valley Citizen, submitted: Has there been any traffic study
completed on Arrowsmith Road going down to the school to determine how to make it safe
for the children?
Paul Keesler responded: At this point we have stipulated minimum requirements to the
applicant, but it would be confirmed at the time of a PAD amendment. A traffic analysis is
not typically done at this level as there are several unknowns, i.e. densities. Staff wants
a multi-use path on one side of the road and a sidewalk on the other side at a
minimum, separated from the road itself.
Bob Becker, Oro Valley resident, submitted the same issue of traffic flow.
- Detailed traffic studies are not generally part of a GP process, but will be considered at
the PAD.
Ms. More said regarding the loop road, Moore/Arrowsmith Loop, has always been in the
approved Rancho Vistoso Master Plan. This will be addressed at the public hearing.
- The school has preference over the Town on siting the school.
Break: 7:25 to 7:35 p.m.
5. Study Session: Skyline Ridge LLC., represented by The WLB Group, requests
approval of a General Plan Amendment for the property located in proximity to
the southwest corner of Oracle Road and Hardy Road, (OV11-08-02).
Applicant Paul Oland, The WLB Group, representing Skyline Ridge LLC, gave a
PowerPoint presentation. A boutique hotel is envisioned, with a low profile and highly
landscaped.
Questions and comments from Commissioners and applicant's response:
- With the property owner owning adjacent property, why is just this piece being changed?
It appears to be piecemeal planning.
Response: The intent is to avoid piecemeal planning. The rest of ownership already
has Neighborhood Commercial (NCO) designation. He intends to apply for rezoning all of
the pieces that don't have the NCO zoning with the intent to develop the Oracle Road
frontage all at once. The piece of land further to the west would have trouble with access.
- The water utility that serves this area is Tucson?
Response: Correct.
6
June 3,2008 Approved Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session
- Will Oro Valley be taking over water service?
Response: There is an agreement between Tucson and Oro Valley Water, that if Tucson
is unable to provide adequate water for fire flow, then Oro Valley will provide that.
- Is hotel property a use in Neighborhood Commercial?
Response: If looking at the GP as a whole you end up all along Oracle with Neighborhood
Commercial. Service capacity and scale of development would be designed in harmony
with the surrounding area.
- Is the hotel a wish or definite?
Response: It is not definite, but an interest has been expressed.
- If not a hotel, would it be other retail?
Response: That would be decided at the rezoning stage.
- A hotel is not a permitted use in the zoning code. Why not ask for community
commercial at this point as a GP designation, which would be consistent with the ultimate
goals?
Response: The applicant needs feedback whether the proposal he is making would be
allowed.
- Regarding the SRA overlay, increased density is in contradiction to policies in the GP.
Response: If the SRA requires development at the lowest allowable density of the land
use designation, and you are proposing to increase the designation, what then becomes
the lowest allowable? Mr. Vella's answer at last night's meeting was there was no specific
guidance. The proposal would need to demonstrate compliance with the preservation
goals of the SRA policy. In the rezoning stage, the design would: a) be designed around a
more detailed definition, b) beyond those defined constraints, are we in consistency with
the intensity of development that would be appropriate next to those areas, not in them,
but also within the SRA? Either way, we will need to adhere to that policy in rezoning
stage.
- What is a boutique hotel? Does it have a dining room?
Response: A hotel large enough to draw people other that hotel patrons and it would
probably have a dining room, but probably not accommodate business meetings.
- Does this respond to market demand?
Response: He has heard from several brokers that hotel developers are interested in this
area.
- Requested that at the Public Hearing, have information to help understand how market
demand is being analyzed.
- The Commission is not being asked to approve a hotel, just a designation. Of more
concern is the surroundings, extra curb cuts, 100 year flood plain through the middle, etc.
Response: The flood plain does run through the property and would not be filled in.
Washes which exceed a certain cfs require preservation. It is unknown where the northern
edge of the flood plain is. This is to be combined with the property to the north to develop
7
June 3,2008 Approved Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session
together as a whole.
- Is the change of conditions along Oracle Road justification for why the GP amendment
makes sense?
Response: The first finding of fact is difficult to answer for any application. Development
continues to occur along Oracle and available sites are being reduced in number. More
information will be brought back to the next meeting.
- This application falls in general compliance with the goals and objectives with what
we are trying to accomplish in the land use along Oracle Road. Having an SRA along
Oracle is the wrong land use.
- Criteria item 3 is not a convincing argument. Basing a request on the hotel designation is
not a compelling reason for approval. It should be aimed at the range of uses in that
designation rather than on a specific use.
Response: Would addressing it from the stand point that there is greater market demand
for this as a commercial piece rather than an SRA piece be better?
- Yes.
David Ronquillo, Senior Planner, gave the staff report.
Questions and comments from Commissioners and staffs response:
- There is larger lot residential to the rear of this property and adjoining property already
designated NCO. There is an incompatibility with the existing neighborhoods against what
has been proposed. How does staff approach this type of situation trying to use the GP to
mitigate obvious incompatibility of the two adjoining uses?
Response: There is still a lot that has not been evaluated yet. Buffer yards
and/or additional setbacks could be used to mitigate.
- A detailed study of section 7.1 policies should be provided for the next meeting.
- A financial comparison of what this change may mean to the Town and what it means
from the developer's point of view should be provided for the next meeting.
6. Study Session: Shannon Road Properties LLC., represented by the Planning
Center, requests approval of a General Plan Amendment for the property
located in proximity to the southeast corner of Shannon Road and Naranja
Drive, (OV11-08-08).
Applicant Bob Conant, representing Shannon Road Properties LLC, gave a PowerPoint
presentation. Water is currently being served by Tucson Water and doesn't have enough
pressure. Oro Valley could service the area but would have to have a pipeline extended
along Naranja to Shannon and down to the site.
Questions and comments from Commissioners and applicant's response:
- Could the lots be pulled away from the high school ball park light towers?
Response: There are two designs: one is to pull houses away with larger lots, and another
doing a 300' buffer with a cluster development. Other options are being considered.
8
• June 3,2008 Approved Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session
- Regarding the urban service boundary change, what would be involved, what is the
costs, and who would pay?
Response: The applicant is responsible. They will need to install a water main near the
high school, down Naranja to Shannon and down to the property.
- School is served by Tucson Water. Does this proposal have the School changing over to
Oro Valley Water?
Response: No. The school may eventually want Oro Valley water, but it is not part of this
request.
Mr. Keesler said there is a 12" water main along north side of Naranja to serve Naranja
Ranch.
- What is the state of development of the property to the south?
Response: Sporadic, there are 5 or 6 houses along the private street. Some are horse
properties.
- Are there any provisions or discussion of direct trail connectivity to the schools?
Response: Not at the moment. The school doesn't want internal connection. There will
be a multi-use path along Shannon.
- #1 Finding of Fact: How does the proposed amendment provide greater control to protect
home sitting and resources?
Response: They are not changing anything, only adding a little density.
- #2, how does putting higher density in a lower density development achieve
neighborhood compatibility?
Response: Doing a GP amendment and the rezoning process, the Town has control.
Ms. More stated that with the exception of designated riparian areas, that is correct.
- #4, won't the higher density development change the character of the area?
Response: No, it will still have the same rural feeling that is there now. There will be some
slight density, but with proper design it won't change in appearance.
- As currently written the findings of fact are not compelling reasons to change the GP.
Would like more thought to them prior to having to vote on this amendment.
- The school is what changed the character of the area. Getting control over the riparian
areas is more important that a little density.
- Consider a special condition that limits the number of residential units to no more than
the 40 to 45 mentioned.
Response: The final design will probably only have 45, and they don't have a problem with
that. The lot count will be determined prior to voting on this.
- Under the current zoning, how many lots are allowed?
Response: About 22.
9
June 3, 2008 Approved Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session
David Ronquillo, Senior Planner, gave the staff report.
Questions and comments from Commissioners and staffs response:
- Is the parcel to the east owned by the church?
Response: It is within the church property, but it is a separate parcel. Staff will verify this.
Mr. Conant didn't believe it was owned by the church.
- At the Public Hearing could staff's presentation focus on how clustering might service the
property and the adjoining neighbors, and how GP policies 11.1.11 and 11.4 work?
- What are the neighboring resident's comments on the size of the proposed homes?
Response: Neighbors are concerned they are too large.
- Has there been any thought to extending the Urban Service Boundary to include the area
to the south that is developed?
Response: Staff didn't know if Oro Valley Water would be willing to extend service further
south. It is not part of this proposal.
Ms. More said that generally the Town is not going to extend urban services to these large
lot areas unless they come together to form an improvement district to fund services.
- Do we have to go through a GP amendment to expand the Urban Service Boundary?
Does it automatically require us to extend service to those that already have it from
somewhere else?
Response: All of this is negotiated at the rezoning stage. It is a working relationship
between Tucson Water and Oro Valley Water utilities as to when a shift in service occurs.
- Does it make sense to prepare for that now instead of having to go through another GP
amendment to move that boundary a little farther south? Would like to have that answer at
the Public Hearing.
- Would like to have an economic analysis on doing versus not doing this amendment at
the Public Hearing.
Ms. More pointed out that staff is trying to do notification into subdivisions when touched
by the 1000 foot mailing area.
7. Adjourn Study Session
MOTION: Vice Chair Bergman MOVED to adjourn the June 3, 2008, Planning and
Zoning Commission Study Session. Commissioner Reddin seconded the motion.
Motion carried 5:0. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Prepared by:
Diane Chapman
Senior Office Specialist
10
/Fa- 6g I �Uv
MINUTES
ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION
July 15, 2008
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
1 . Call to Order at 4:06 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Present: Chair Doug McKee
Vice Chair Teree Bergman
Commissioner Bill Adler
Commissioner Clark Reddin
Commissioner Joe Hornat
Commissioner Scott Merry (via telephone conference call)
Excused: Commissioner Ray Paolino
Also Present:Vice Mayor Al Kunisch
K.C. Carter Council Member
Sarah More, Planning and Zoning Director
Paul Keesler, Development Review Manager
Joe Andrews, Town Attorney
David Ronquillo, Senior Planner
3. Public Hearing: Skyline Ridge LLC., represented by The WLB Group,
requests approval of a General Plan Amendment for the property located in
proximity to the southwest corner of Oracle Road and Hardy Road, (OV11-
08-02).
David Ronquillo, Senior Planner, gave the staff report.
Questions and comments from Commissioners and staff response:
- A key aspect of this proposal is this parcel would be combined with the parcel to the
north so there would be a unified development on a larger parcel. What assurance do
we have that those two parcels will be combined?
Response: The intent, when dealing with rezoning, is to have the applicant provide a
master plan and concept plan showing how the overall site will look. There are no
assurances, but we can work towards that in the process.
- Does the same owner have both properties?
Response: Applicant indicated yes.
- The General Plan (GP) land use map shows the Significant Resource Area (SRA)
overlay over the entire property, not just the wash. In order to increase the
density some of the SRA would be removed. An environmental analysis of the property
is needed to know if the SRA is accurate and legitimate. By the September
hearing the Commission will be looking for a more complete analysis.
- The staff report talks about the proposal moving property from Rural Low Density
(RLD) to Neighborhood Commercial and Office (NC/Office), but also shows C-1. Will
part of the property be C-1, or a combination of both? Clarify by the September
meeting.
- Is the property behind this parcel and to the west and south the same ownership?
Response: The applicant can answer that, but the property directly behind is not.
- If the amendment is not passed, how many single family residences could be built on
the property?
Response: Per the existing zoning of Low Density Residential and Medium Density
Residential, and depending on how the property would be rezoned, approximately 10 to
25 homes could be built on the entire 5.9 acres.
Ms. More clarified a point that was raised earlier: to distinguish between the GP
designations for NC/Office and the zoning categories of NC and C-1, those 2 zoning
categories are enabled by a GP designation of NC/Office. During the rezoning process
is when it is determined which zoning is appropriate.
Paul Oland, the WLB Group, representing the applicant, gave a brief
presentation. An existing constraint on the property, that will remain regardless of
rezoning, is that it is in the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor Overlay District (ORSCOD).
- Mr. Oland was asked to address the unified planning and zoning of the two parcels.
Response: If the GP amendment is approved the applicant would follow up with a C-1
rezoning request for the remainder of the property on Oracle. The piece behind the
property is under the same ownership. Because of the wash it is difficult to access the
remaining developable property in the back. The property along Oracle is planned to be
developed all together. They are trying to include as much of the upper portion of the
property as a biological study would allow during a future rezoning.
Questions and comments from the Commissioners and applicant's response:
- Would the southern most portion of the property be untouched? How many acres are
developable of the 5.9 acres?
Response: Do not know the answer. A study has not been done yet. Having done a
site resource inventory they believe there is some developable property that could be
lumped in with the rest of the property. The very bottom portion is not covered by SRA
so could be developed, but would be hard to get to.
- Is there a market demand for more hotels and associated retail services?
Response: The stronger case can be made that there is no demand for LDR along
Oracle Road; therefore, there is more demand for commercial. Brokerage firms
consulted have indicated there is demand that will grow for non-residential uses being
proposed. We have confirmed that there is no demand for LDR at that location.
2
- Have the brokerage firms write a letter indicating that there is a demand.
- Given that there are other hotels on drawing boards, it should be taken into
consideration how they would impact the boutique hotel.
- It is not appropriate to look at this request in terms of a use, but to look at the whole
range of uses that might go there.
- Regarding criterion #4, adverse impact on community as a whole, there is a concern
about future traffic planning. Combining these properties may be an opportunity to have
an access from Hardy instead of from Oracle.
Response: To clarify, this is regarding conditions based upon parcels of the
amendment only.
Paul Keesler added that the conditions are based upon the parcels being addressed for
the amendment only. If it were to be combined we would want access off of Hardy as
well to help relieve the access on Oracle. If it is developed as a stand alone piece we
don't want access from the residential street to the south. The conditions could be
modified provided we get the assurance that the parcels be developed together.
- We are permitted to add conditions to specify uses that are appropriate. When we are
considering a commercial use in this property we are taking into consideration the
variety of uses permitted, and those that would achieve environmental as well as
community compatibility and limit our recommendation of approval to those. This would
reduce the scope of permitted uses within the designation approved.
- Can the above decisions be made at a GP amendment or only at a rezoning level?
Ms. More would discourage that as a general rule, because part of the process is at
each level of analysis, i.e. GP, Rezoning, Tentative Development Plan to Development
Plan. It is offered by applicants to assure the community, but typically is done at the
rezoning stage.
Commissioner Merry had no questions via the telephone conference line. He signed off
at 5:05 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING opened at 5:02 p.m.
Alan Binney, resident, encouraged no rezoning in the absence of assurances of what is
going to be done. If upzoning is approved, only approve for businesses for higher
paying jobs. We should preserve some of the areas we have left rather than going to
completely commercial.
Michele Milenaky, resident. Any discussion regarding change should consider
increased setbacks, landscape buffers, loss of views, building heights, and drainage
issues. The property is for sale. Asked whether water access will be coming from
south or through her property on the cul-de-sac. From the south it goes through the
wash and riparian area.
Steve Lampi, resident, was concerned about traffic, as there is one entrance and exit
3
to their development, with 160 cars that go in and out all the time. The development will
add more traffic problems. Access should be off Hardy.
Anne Kashishin, resident, was concerned with the potential of a hotel near an open high
school plan. The traffic situation is a concern. Have received no answer on
the intersection at Hardy and Linda Vista. Suggests doctor's offices or day care center
for senior citizens.
Carmen Trevizo, resident, is opposed to the rezoning. Consider that it is residential to
the west, north and south. Would like to know what is going in there ahead of time,
unless restrictions are added. Opposed to a hotel, which isn't compatible with the area.
Branwen Hall, resident, is opposed to the changes, because it is not in line with
the surroundings. There may be archaeological sites there. As a resident it is
uncomfortable to not know what will be put there.
Jim Spoonamore, resident, is opposed to the change to the GP. A boutique hotel does
not make sense. There are 10 hotels within a 4 mile radius.
Robert Turnbull, resident, is concerned about drainage. The southern part of the
property is not developable because there is not room for access off Oracle Road. The
area to the south and the wash should be taken out of the rezoning.
Stanley Lewin, resident, agreed with Mr. Turnbull. The proposal violates the spirit and
intent of the policy that was adopted in June, 2005. There is no market demand. The
proposal adversely impacts the community by turning Oracle Road into a strip
mall. The traffic problem will be evident coming out of commercial onto Oracle, as
people will be turning onto Greenfield looking for an escape route.
Kevin Harring, resident. Traffic is a huge problem already. If a hotel is built, there will
be a restaurant and more traffic. The applicant is looking for a way to get consistent
zoning to be able to sell it.
Patrick Foley, resident, was undecided, but is now against. Agrees that they are looking
to sell the property. With any develop proposed there needs to be a thorough study on
Hardy, which is currently below standards.
PUBLIC HEARING closed at 5:25 p.m.
Continued questions from Commissioners and response:
- Who provides water behind the property now?
Response: Tucson Water, billed through Oro Valley Water.
- Is it certain that Tucson Water will not be able to provide water for adequate fireflow?
Response: That is the applicant's understanding. The area is with Tucson Water
service. If Tucson can't provide adequate fireflow, Oro Valley Water can.
- Does that mean Oro Valley will also serve the residents to the west?
4
Attorney Andrews stated that Oro Valley Water would not serve them until the Town
made that decision.
Applicant responded that his understanding of the agreement is based strictly upon
Tucson Water being able to provide fireflow. The water line would be extended from the
north down Oracle Rd.
Break from 5:30 to 5:45 p.m.
4. Public Hearing: Shannon Road Properties LLC., represented by The
Planning Center, requests approval of a General Plan Amendment and
change to include the property in the Town's Urban Services Boundary for
the property located in proximity to the southeast corner of Shannon Road
and Naranja Road, (OV11-08-08).
David Ronquillo, Senior Planner, gave the staff report and PowerPoint
presentation.
Questions and comments from Commissioners and staff's response:
- The PowerPoint slide on Environmental Protection showed three blue oblongs as the
buildable area. Is that correct?
Response: Based on a preliminary layout, these were the general areas the applicant is
proposing to develop.
- Years ago the entire property was envisioned to be dedicated as a park by Pima
County. When annexed the closest zoning was adopted. Did the County not zone as a
park?
Response: At the time of annexation the County didn't have a formal plan to build a
park. When annexed zoning was translated to R1-144.
Ms. More stated it is not typical in zoning to have park zoning. Most parks, because
they are government owned and operated, are in any zone. The County did not have a
park zoning.
Attorney Andrews stated the property was zoned SR before it was annexed and then
was translated to R1-144.
- One comment letter talked about an old Oracle stagecoach road. This needs to be
discussed at next hearing.
- Page 6, 1st paragraph, second sentence, explain why the development
would maintain the same low density character of the area by establishing larger lots.
Response: Larger lots would fit more with the surrounding area.
- Page 7 at bottom of page, what does 2:1 or 4:1 land conservation mean?
Response: It is a ratio. There are two categories, multiple use management area or
special species management area. Example: If it falls under the special species
management area, it would be a 4:1 land conservation, so for every acre that would be
developed, 4 acres would have to be preserved.
Ms. More said the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP) is implemented through
the Conservation Land System. Depending on the classification of the land in the plan
5
area, the amount of developable area and open space on the site is recommended. It
should be 66+% open space to 75% open space on this site. This is more restrictive
than what the Town's zoning code would require. Town Council has requested staff
bring the SDCP forward for consideration.
- Has the Town adopted the SDCP or is it an overlay?
Ms. More said the Town has not adopted this. The plan has been sent out to all local
jurisdictions for a 60 day review per State law. The review comments will be provided as
part of the analysis for adoption.
- The SDCP is in the GP, so it is not only adopted, but more will be done to implement
the plan.
Ms. More said in 1999 the Town Council did adopt a resolution supporting most of
SDCP. Town did not incorporate that Conservation Land System, but they did adopt in
principal a resolution of support. The implementation piece was never done.
- Would R1-72 work for clustering in the areas indicated as being developable?
Response: Staff has had preliminary conversation with the applicant and the
applicant submitted a rough draft of what they envision as a good cluster design. Code
doesn't have anything addressing cluster design. The applicant is incorporating it as a
method of environmental preservation and in an attempt to meet the SRA
objective. Staff would support the design layout the applicant submitted.
- The increasing density does not meet the SRA objective.
Response: It would be an attempt to meet, but would not meet, the objective of the
SRA.
- There are no guidelines for clustering in the zoning code, so how can it be considered
at this point?
Response: A design is established with clustering designed away from significant
vegetation, washes, etc.
Ms. More stated the only cluster revisions in the Code are enabled through the riparian
ordinance. There is not a cluster provision with regard to significant stands of non-
riparian vegetation. Clustering could be enabled in zoning (current or future) based on
riparian preservation. The question comes back to the SRA designation and the zoning,
because of the clustering provisions not being there, it is either a choice of not
supporting a GP amendment, or supporting a rezoning that would allow smaller lots with
the intent of providing additional open space preservation.
- To clarify, isn't work being done on ESLO providing a condition for clustering?
Ms. More believes it should.
Bob Conant, The Planning Center, representing the applicant, gave his report.
Questions and comments from Commissioners and Applicant's response:
- How will the washes be crossed?
Response: Box culverts and pipes. A full hydrology study has not been done at this
stage.
6
• July IS,2008 i ived Planning and Zoning Commission minutes
- How will the southern boundary be separated?
Response: Dense vegetation will be left in place.
- Regarding findings of fact #1, changes that have taken place in community, that
sustainability is a more prevalent force and $4 gasoline has become a reality, explain
how this is site specific to the request.
Response: There has been a chance and we are changing with it. This will be
explained at the next meeting.
- Economic viability doesn't support that issue.
Response: This has not looked at it in depth. The market is probably 2 or 3 years out.
- Be more specific to product type.
Response: The trend is to smaller rather than larger lots, and is a price and land driven
issue.
- How many lots are on the conceptual site plan?
Response: 48 lots, which won't go higher, but may go as low as 44-45 lots. Detention
basins have not been dealt with yet. This has not gone to the hydrologist and
engineers.
- Regarding clusters, the size looks larger than what was on staffs slide.
Response: That is a matter of agreeing where the significant vegetation is.
- Would like to see copies of the resident's letters.
- Does this tentative outline work well with .4 units per acre as opposed to 1.2?
Response: No. From an environmental standpoint what we have done in this design is
far superior to what could be achieved under the current code.
- Expand on how and why it is far superior by the next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING opened at 6:40 p.m.
Michel Nelson, resident, representing neighbors Sharon Nelson, Joan Caplan, Bill
Svetlik, and David and Nancy Eischeid. They are not supporting this, and their concerns
were for: maintaining rural lifestyle, proposed zoning is 4 times as dense, environment,
uniqueness of area, and SRA designation which protects saguaro, ironwood, riparian
areas, and wildlife. The rural low density zoning met stringent Oro Valley standards.
Drainage is not consistent with undisturbed drainage patterns now flowing from this
area through our properties in natural washes. The neighborhood consensus is to
retain the rural low density designation consistent with surrounding residential
developments. He asked that the Commission deny this change.
Dr. Peter Mack, non-resident, will be greatly impacted by the development. He pointed
out an inaccuracy in the hydrology report, that the properties to south and west
are indeed highly developed. He was concerned about the number of units to go into
the small area. The sewer at the east of property will require a large amount of
7
July 15,2008 oved Planning and Zoning Commission minutes
excavation and will disrupt the natural vegetation.
Steven Washburn, neighbor to the subject area, was concerned about the major wash
on the northwest corner of the property which affects several properties. There are
drainage problems during rains. The wash should be deeded to Oro Valley so the Town
can control it. He is concerned about safety of children at the bus stops on the west
side because traffic has increased. The number of lots is a little dense. Customer
demand is to custom homes.
James Loughney, resident, pointed out that there is an old stage coach road and adobe
ruins on the property. What type of archaeological studies will be done? Antiquities Act
of 1906 says things like this should be preserved. Also the SRA extends past areas
where lot lines were indicated.
Joseph Flemming, resident, had submitted a letter. He is opposed because there isn't a
good plan in place.
Diane Wood, lives on Shannon Road across from the property. 3.3 is a good size and
should be kept that way.
Nancy !shy, neighbor, does not want to see a detention basin across from her home.
Putting homes in would make more light pollution. Wants it to stay the way it is.
PUBLIC HEARING closed at 7:03 p.m.
5. Adjourn Special Session
MOTION: Vice Chair MOVED to adjourn the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. Commissioner Reddin seconded the motion. Motion
carried 5:0. Meeting closed at 7:05 p.m.
Prepared by:
42t
Diane Chapman L 1
Senior Office Specialist
8
rilPr
PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ''''4,-
[7:. . .. •
Carmine Derlonis•Jr Planting Ci+q_ian ,,.
Cirector Cnmprehensive Plan Section •
_Ai
neologism!in 1,
May 30`r, 2008
Sarah More
Director, Planning and Zoning Department
Town of Oro Valley
11000 N. La Canada Drive
Oro Valley, Arizona 85737
Manabendra Changkakoti
Comprehensive Plan Administrator
Development Services Department
201 N. Stone Avenue, 217° Floor
Tucson, Arizona 85701
RE: 2008 Town of Oro Valley Major Plan Amendments-Comments from Pima County
Dear Sarah,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced. The Pima County Planning Division
offers the following comments on the Town of Oro Valley major plan amendment applications for 2008.
OV1107-002
Introduction
This request from WLB Group on approximately 127 acres, is located in the northwest portion of the
Town and is adjacent to unincorporated Pima County due south and west where County lands are
designated Biological Core and Multiple Use management areas, as identified in Pima County's
Conservation Lands System(for more details on this and other environmental concerns, please refer to
the Pima County Development Services Environmental Planning comments below).
As a major concern for all jurisdictions in the area, ground-water pumping within a five-mile radius of
ground-water dependent ecosystems may result in adverse impacts on the riparian areas. As you are
aware. Pima County recently adopted water policies through an amendment to its Comprehensive Plan,
which we hope you might be able to mirror, in some manner, in the Town's planning efforts.
Other factors that would play a significant role will include(1)plans for the expansion of infrastructure and
public services and related costs: (2) proximity and access to retail and employment opportunities: (3)
transition of uses separating potentially developed from potential conservation areas; and, (4) the
provision of parks and other amenities, among others. The impacts of these on unincorporated Pima
County-environmental, archaeological and social impacts-will be of particular interest to the County.
Please refer to the detailed comments from the various County departments below.
2008 Town of Oro Valley Major Plan Amendments-Comments from Pima County, May 2008
Detailed Comments
Pima County Regional Flood Control District comments
A hydrology report is required by the Town as an addendum to this report and the District would
appreciate the opportunity to review it when it becomes available.
The plan states that natural constraints define building envelopes. Numerous residential lots contain
floodplains. Building envelopes should be determined by the drainage study and included on the concept
plan.
Pima County Department of Transportation comments:
The department does not have any comments on this amendment request.
Pima County Regional Flood Control District (Water) comments:
A Water Supply Impact Analysis has been conducted on proposed General Plan Amendment OV1107-
002, Stone Canyon Phase IX General Plan Amendment in Oro Valley. Pima County conducts a Water
Supply Impact Analysis on its Comprehensive Plan Amendments 4 acres or greater regarding how the
proposal would affect five critical issues.
PIMA COUNTY'S WATER SUPPLY IMPACT ANALYSIS
CRITICAL ISSUE RESPONSE
Water Service and • The proposed plan amendment is in the Oro Valley Water
1. Renewable Water Supply service area
Options • The Oro Valley Water Utility is a supplier that is likely to have a
renewable and potable water source in the near future
• This proposed General Plan Amendment lies outside the
Current and Projected Depth average depth to groundwater as mapped by ADWR
2. to Groundwater and • ADWR modeling shows water level declines in this area to be
Groundwater Trend Data approximately 50 feet from 1945 to 1995, or 1 foot per year
over 50 years
Proximity to Areas of Known • The proposed plan amendment is not located in an area of
3. or Potential Ground known high subsidence.
Subsidence
• This proposed General Plan Amendment lies within five miles
of several areas that have groundwater dependent
Proximity to known ecosystems -Wild Burro Canyon, the Tortolita Mountains,
4. Groundwater-Dependent Honey Bee Canyon and Ruelas Canyon However, if the wells
Ecosystems serving Oro Valley Water are not located within five miles of a
groundwater dependent ecosystem, there should be no
impact.
Location within a • The proposed plan amendment is located in the Tucson
5. Hydrogeologic Basin. Hydrogeologic Basin. a basin not known for being particularly
including Depth to Bedrock sensitive togroundwater removal.
Pima County's Water Supply Impact Analysis finds that this General Plan Amendment is within the
service area of a water provider that is likely to have access to renewable and potable water. and the
proposal is not within an isolated hydrogeologic basin or an area of known subsidence. Although
groundwater levels in Oro Valley are declining, based on the plan's entirety, Pima County would
recommend APPROVAL.
However, Pima County cautions that if the increased water use for the proposed development were to
cause increased groundwater pumping, production wells serving the area located within five miles of
2008 Town of Oro Valley Major Plan Amendments-Comments from Pima County, May 2008
groundwater dependent ecosystems may create an adverse impact on the riparian areas. These impacts
should be explored more fully at the time of rezoning.
Pima County Development Services Department-Specific Plan comments:
There are no specific plans within unincorporated Pima County nearby, therefore I have no direct
comments regarding this amendment request.
One general comment is that there is no transition area or buffering by the proposed development of the
unincorporated RH-zoned area adjacent to the amendment site on the south. To avoid possible
incompatibility issues between rural residents (e.g. with horses. other livestock) and future residents of
the area. some type of buffer or transition area and/or notice to potential homeowners may be useful
Pima County Development Services Department- Environmental Planning comments:
Regional Context
The site is immediately adjacent to unincorporated Pima County areas zoned RH Rural Homestead(4.13-
acre minimum lot size), with large-lot, un-subdivided rural residential development and undeveloped
parcels. The site is in a region of the county covered under the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan
(SDCP)Conservation Lands System.The purpose of the Conservation Lands System(CLS)is to ensure
the long-term survival of diverse Sonoran Desert flora and fauna by preserving habitat and natural
dispersal corridors-this is accomplished through promoting sustainable development,while preserving
functionally intact ecosystems, minimizing invasive non-native species dispersal, maximizing road-less
areas. and minimizing fragmentation.
Under the CLS, the region is designated as Biological Core Management Area and Multiple Use
Management Area. For CLS Conservation Guidelines implemented within unincorporated Pima County,
at least 66-% percent of the total acreage of lands within Multiple Use Management Areas, and 80
percent of the lands within Biological Core Management Areas would be conserved as undisturbed
natural open space, resulting in 2:1 and 4:1 land conservation, respectively(i.e.,two acres and four acres
conserved for every one acre developed). The CLS Guidelines are applied as conditions of the rezoning
that would follow the successful plan amendment process.
Tortolita Mountain Park and surrounding high-quality habitat are designated as Biological Core
Management Area, and have a higher threshold for open space conservation. Multiple Use Management
Areas that buffer Biological Core have a lower conservation threshold, but provide important habitat for a
number of sensitive species. Applied under Pima County's jurisdiction, about 57 acres within Biological
Core and about 37 acres within Multiple Use Management Area would be requested as natural open
space dedication under the CLS Conservation Guideline at the time of rezoning.
Site Resources
The site is characterized as palo verde-mixed cacti habitat under the SDCP MapGuide Special Elements.
No major washes cross the site; a small portion of the site is designated as Xeroriparian 'C' habitat. The
site has saguaro cacti, mesquite and pato verde trees and mixed shrub species. Parts of the site have
been cleared for residences, a network of roads, and materials storage: the remainder is undisturbed
vegetation. Under studies done for the SDCP. the site is characterized as being medium-to high-value
Modeled Habitat, and within a Priority Conservation Area for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The proposed Plan Amendment would increase residential density from 0.3 DU/acre to up to 1.2 DU/ac.
The application site plan shows about 80 parcels across the site,with slightly larger lots along floodplains
and in areas of hillier topography: the plan amendment explains some of the environmentally-sensitive
development techniques that will be used. including lot-specific grading,dedication of open space on lots.
and prohibition of lot perimeter fencing.
2008 Town of Oro Valley Major Plan Amendments-Comments from Pima County, May 2008
4
We would request that Oro Valley planners consider Pima County's CLS Conservation Guidelines during
review for natural open space dedication for this development, and that the open space set-aside areas
be high-quality habitat and functional for the movement of wildlife. In addition to proposed activities to
reduce on-site impacts, clustering lots and graded areas closer together and closer to access roads will
reduce overall grading footprint and may increase the quantity of open space in the development. Besides
on-site preservation, open space elements should be matched with those of adjoining properties. to
create contiguous habitat and corridors for wildlife dispersal.
Pima County Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Office comments:
Cultural Resources Status
A cultural resources records search indicated that no sites are recorded within the development property;
however, no cultural resources survey has been done. The Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP)
sensitivity is low in a small northeast portion of the property, but high elsewhere because of the proximity
of Canada Agua 1 wash.
Stone Canyon IX is outside the previously surveyed Rancho Vistoso and Honey Bee Canyon projects
(Honey Bee Canyon Survey project in 1985[1985-221.ASM]and Rancho Vistoso Survey in 1986 [1986-
220.ASM]). These surveys are more than 20 years old, but they were extensive and systematic, and
numerous archaeological sites were recorded in the area.
Cultural Resources Recommendation
The cultural resources issues of this development property should be addressed, including survey and if
cultural resources are identified, development and implementation of a mitigation treatment plan prior to
ground-disturbing construction.
Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department comments:
The Long Range Planning Division of the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department
(PCRWRD) has provided their comments collectively for all the major plan amendment applications.
Please refer to the collective comments at the end of this report.
Pima County Environmental Quality Department comments:
No comments have been received to date.
Pima County Natural Resources. Parks and Recreation Department comments:
The department does not have any comments on this amendment request.
OV1108-002
Introduction
This is a relatively small request on approximately six acres, from WLB Group, at the intersection of
Oracle and Magee Roads. Traffic capacity on Magee Road might prove to be an issue. Please refer to
the detailed comments from the various County departments below.
Detailed Comments
Pima County Regional Flood Control District comments:
The site analysis indicates the discharge of the main wash is 5200 cfs. Our records indicate it is
substantially lower, 2485 cfs immediately east of Oracle. Although no mapped riparian habitat exists on
this site the main wash crossing the site is mapped as such both up and downstream of the site.
2008 Town of Oro Valley Major Plan Amendments- Comments from Pima County, May 2008
Pima County Department of Transportation comments:
Oracle Road and Hardy Road are not maintained by Pima County. Magee Road is a Pima County
maintained roadway located approximately one mile southwest of the site. Magee Road is operating over
its traffic capacity and is planned to be improved to a four-lane,divided roadway between 2012 and 2016
as part of the Regional Transportation Authority's"planned improvements'between Oracle Road and La
Canada Drive. Impacts to Magee Road should be addressed during review process by Oro Valley. No
additional comments.
Pima County Regional Flood Control District (Water) comments:
A Water Supply Impact Analysis has been conducted on proposed General Plan Amendment OV1108-
002, Zarifi General Plan Amendment in Oro Valley. Pima County conducts a Water Supply Impact
Analysis on its Comprehensive Plan Amendments 4 acres or greater regarding how the proposal would
affect five critical issues.
PIMA COUNTY'S WATER SUPPLY IMPACT ANALYSIS
CRITICAL ISSUE RESPONSE
Water Service and • The proposed plan amendment will be served by Oro Valley
1. Renewable Water Supply Water
Options • The Oro Valley Water Utility is a supplier that is likely to have a
renewable and •otable water source in the near future
• The average depth to groundwater as mapped by ADWR is
Current and Projected Depth 300 to 350 feet
2. to Groundwater and • ADWR modeling shows water level declines in this area to be
Groundwater Trend Data approximately 50 feet from 1945 to 1995. or 1 foot per year
over 50 years _ H
Proximity to Areas of Known
3 or Potential Ground • The proposed plan amendment is not located in an area of
Subsidence known high subsidence.
Proximity to known • The proposed General Plan Amendment lies within five miles
4. Groundwater Dependent of several groundwater dependent ecosystems, including
Ecosystems Sutherland wash and unnamed springs and intermittent
streams.
Location within a • The proposed plan amendment is located in the Tucson
5. Hydrogeologic Basin. Hydrogeologic Basin. a basin not known for being particularly
. includin• Death to Bedrock sensitive to groundwater removal.
Pima County's Water Supply Impact Analysis finds that this General Plan Amendment is within the
service area of a water provider that is likely to have access to renewable and potable water, and the
proposal is not within an isolated hydrogeologic basin or an area of known subsidence. Although
groundwater levels in Oro Valley are declining. based on the plan's entirety. Pima County would
recommend APPROVAL.
However, Pima County cautions that if the increased water use for the proposed development were to
cause increased groundwater pumping. production wells serving the area located within five miles of
groundwater dependent ecosystems may create an adverse impact on the riparian areas. These impacts
should be explored more fully at the time of rezoning.
Pima County Development Services Department- Specific Plan comments:
There are no specific plans within unincorporated Pima County nearby. and we do not have any
comments on this amendment request.
2008 Town of Oro Valley Major Plan Amendments- Comments from Pima County, May 2008
6
Pima County Development Services Department—Environmental Planning comments:
The department does not have any comments on this amendment request.
Pima County Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Office comments:
Cultural Resources Status
The results of a cultural resources records search indicated that no sites have been recorded within the
property; however, no cultural resources survey has been done. The Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan
(SDCP)sensitivity is high because of the proximity of Carmack Wash, and an un-named tributary of this
wash crosses the property. Historic site,AZ FF:8;17(ASM), SR80—Oracle Rd, is on the east side of the
property. The roadway was surveyed for cultural resources in 1996 (1996-325.ASM).
Cultural Resources Recommendation
The cultural resources issues of this development property should be addressed. including survey and if
cultural resources are identified, development and implementation of a mitigation treatment plan prior to
ground-disturbing construction.
Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department comments:
The Long Range Planning Division of the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department
(PCRWRD) has provided their comments collectively for all the major plan amendment applications.
Please refer to the collective comments at the end of this report.
Pima County Environmental Quality Department comments:
No comments have been received to date.
Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Department comments:
The department does not have any comments on this amendment request.
OV1108-003
Introduction
This is a request from WLB Group on approximately 268 acres on two parcels south of Tangerine
Road and west of Oracle Road. The area has a high-sensitivity, as per the Sonoran Desert
Conservation Plan, owing to its proximity to the Canada del Oro and Big washes.
As commented above,on OV 1107-002,other factors that would play a significant role will include(1)any
plans for expansion of infrastructure and public services and related costs,(2)the proximity of and access
to retail and employment opportunities, (3) transition of uses separating potentially-developed from
potential conservation areas; and. (4) the provision of parks and other amenities, among others. The
cumulative spill-over impacts of these on the State park, Oracle Road and areas in unincorporated Pima
County east of Oracle Road will be of interest to the County. Please refer to the detailed comments from
the various County departments below.
Detailed Comments
Pima County Regional Flood Control District comments:
We have no objection and offer the following comment:Floodplains,erosion hazard setbacks and riparian
habitat is to be avoided per the submittal.
Pima County Department of Transportation comments:
The department does not have any comments on this amendment request.
2008 Town of Oro Valley Major Plan Amendments- Comments from Pima County, May 2008
7
Pima County Regional Flood Control District (Water) comments:
A Water Supply Impact Analysis has been conducted on proposed General Plan Amendment OV1108-
003, Kai General Plan Amendment, 1st Avenue and Tangerine Road in Oro Valley. Pima County
conducts a Water Supply Impact Analysis on its Comprehensive Plan Amendments 4 acres or greater
regarding how the proposal would affect five critical issues.
PIMA COUNTY'S WATER SUPPLY IMPACT ANALYSIS
CRITICAL ISSUE RESPONSE
• The proposed plan amendment is in the Oro Valley Water 1
Water Service and service area
1 Renewable Water Supply • The Oro Valley Water Utility is a supplier that is likely to have
Options a renewable and potable water source in the near future
• Average depth to groundwater is 470 feet
• This proposed amendment lies outside the ADWR modeling
Current and Projected Depth area showing water level declines 1940 to 1995
2 to Groundwater and • However, groundwater in Oro Valley has declined by as much
Groundwater Trend Data as 50 feet as charted by ADWR from 1940 to 1995, or
approximately one foot per year.
Proximity to Areas of Known
3 or Potential Ground • The proposed plan amendment is located in an area outside
Subsidence the latest modeling by US Geologic Survey.
• The proposed amendment is within five miles of several
Proximity to known groundwater dependent ecosystems mapped by the Sonoran
4 Groundwater Dependent Desert Conservation plan including Sutherland Wash,
Ecosystems Honeybee Canyon, Tortolita Mountains South, Ruelas
Canyonsprings and two s rin s to the east and east southeast
Location within a
Hydrogeologic Basin, • The proposed plan amendment is located in the Tucson
5 including Depth to Bedrock Hydrogeologic Basin. a basin not known for being particularly
sensitive to groundwater removal.
Pima County's Water Supply Impact Analysis finds that this General Plan Amendment is within the
service area of a water provider that is likely to have access to renewable and potable water, and the
proposal is not within an isolated hydrogeologic basin or an area of known subsidence. Although
groundwater levels in Oro Valley are declining, based on the plan's entirety, Pima County would
recommend APPROVAL.
However. Pima County cautions that if the increased water use for the proposed development were to
cause increased groundwater pumping, production wells serving the area located within five miles of
groundwater dependent ecosystems may create an adverse impact on the riparian areas. These impacts
should be explored more fully at the time of rezoning.
Pima County Development Services Department-Specific Plan comments:
There are no specific plans within unincorporated Pima County nearby, and we do not have any
comments on this amendment request.
Pima County Development Services Department- Environmental Planning comments:
The department does not have any comments on this amendment request.
2008 Town of Oro Valley Major Plan Amendments-Comments from Pima County, May 2008
8
Pima County Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Office comments:
Cultural Resources Status
The results of a cultural resources records search indicated that no sites have been recorded within the
property; however, no cultural resources survey has been done in the southern parcel.220-06-001G.The
northern parcel. 220-06-001F, was surveyed in 1999 (1999-596.ASM) and seven archaeological sites
were recorded entirely or partially within the property. The Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP)
sensitivity is high because of the proximity of Canada del Oro Wash and Big Wash.
Cultural Resources Recommendation
The cultural resources issues of this development property should be addressed, including survey and if
cultural resources are identified, development and implementation of a mitigation treatment plan prior to
ground-disturbing construction. Specifically.the southern parcel.#220-06-001G, should be surveyed.A
mitigation treatment plan should be developed and implemented for the northern parcel.#220-06-001 F. If
cultural resources are identified during survey of the southern parcel,the mitigation treatment plan should
be expanded to include the southern parcel and implemented.The treatment plan implementation should
occur before development construction commences.
Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department comments:
The Long Range Planning Division of the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department
(PCRWRD) has provided their comments collectively for all the major plan amendment applications.
Please refer to the collective comments at the end of this report.
Pima County Environmental Quality Department comments:
No comments have been received to date.
Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Department comments:
The department does not have any comments on this amendment request.
OV1108-004
Introduction
This is a request from WLB Group on over 292 acres. The proposal to amend the General Plan to
Commercial/Offices warrants a preliminary assessment of the types of uses that are likely to occur.
The resulting infrastructure and public services expansion and related costs,the proximity and access to
retail and employment opportunities, and the spill-over transportation impacts on Oracle Road will be of
significant importance.
Please refer to the detailed comments from the various County departments below.
Detailed Comments
Pima County Regional Flood Control District comments:
We have no objection and offer the following comments:
1) The application states the first intent is to abandon plans for a golf course and dedicate this area
as open space. The second intent is to relocate the school site. The third intent is abandon
plans for a road to serve the old school site and therefore no longer require crossing Honey Bee
Canyon and Batamonte Washes. The Regional Flood Control District supports these intentions.
2008 Town of Oro Valley Major Plan Amendments-Comments from Pima County, May 2008
()
2) A Hydrology Report is to be prepared during the PAD Amendment process. Riparian Habitat
impacts are also to be addressed at this time. While the impacts appear to be initially very
positive,the Regional Flood Control District requests the opportunity to review and comment on
the report and amendments.
Pima County Department of Transportation comments:
The department does not have any comments on this amendment request.
Pima County Regional Flood Control District Water) comments:
A Water Supply Impact Analysis has been conducted on proposed General Plan Amendment OV1108-
004, Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5 General Plan Amendment in Oro Valley. Pima County conducts a
Water Supply Impact Analysis on its Comprehensive Plan Amendments 4 acres or greater regarding how
the proposal would affect five critical issues.
PIMA COUNTY'S WATER SUPPLY IMPACT ANALYSIS
CRITICAL ISSUE RESPONSE
• The proposed plan amendment will be served by Oro Valley
Water Service and Water
1 Renewable Water Supply • The Oro Valley Water Utility is a supplier that is likely to have
Options a renewable and potable water source in the near future
• The average depth to groundwater as mapped by ADWR is
Current and Projected Depth 250 feet
2 to Groundwater and • ADWR modeling shows water level declines in this area to be
Groundwater Trend Data approximately 50 feet from 1945 to 1995, or 1 foot per year
over 50 years
Proximity to Areas of Known • The proposed plan amendment is not located in an area of
3 or Potential Ground known high subsidence.
Subsidence_ _
• This proposed General Plan Amendment lies within five miles
of several areas that have groundwater dependent
Proximity to known ecosystems- Honey Bee, Ruelas Canyon. Batamonte and
4 Groundwater-Dependent Big Wash washes springs and the Tortolita Mountains.
Ecosystems • Oro Valley Water wells that will serve this development are
located within five miles of several groundwater dependent
ecosystems and may cause an adverse impact
Location within a • The proposed plan amendment is located in the Tucson
5 Hydrogeologic Basin, Hydrogeologic Basin, a basin not known for being particularly
including Depth to Bedrock sensitive to groundwater removal.
Pima County's Water Supply Impact Analysis finds that this General Plan Amendment is within the
service area of a water provider that is likely to have access to renewable and potable water, and the
proposal is not within an isolated hydrogeologic basin or an area of known subsidence. Although
groundwater levels in Oro Valley are declining, based on the plan's entirety, Pima County would
recommend APPROVAL.
However, Pima County cautions that if the increased water use for the proposed development were to
cause increased groundwater pumping, production wells serving the area located within five miles of
groundwater dependent ecosystems may create an adverse impact on the riparian areas. These impacts
should be explored more fully at the time of rezoning.
2008 Town of Oro Valley Major Plan Amendments-Comments from Pima County,May 2008
I
Pima County Development Services Department-Specific Plan comments:
There are no specific plans within unincorporated Pima County nearby, and we do not have any
comments on this amendment request.
Pima County Development Services Department-Environmental Planning comments:
The department does not have any comments on this amendment request.
Pima County Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Office comments:
Cultural Resources Status
An overall cultural resources survey was conducted within the subject property in 1986(1986-220.ASM)
and three smaller surveys were conducted in the general area (1994-279.ASM, 1999-595.ASM. and
2005-38.ASM). The portions of Neighborhood Five with requested amendments are completely within a
Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan high archaeological sensitivity zone.Over 20 archaeological or historic
sites have been recorded within a one-mile radius of Neighborhood Five. The most significant of which
includes AZ BB:9:88(ASM)—Honey Bee Village. located between the subject portions of Neighborhood
Five and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard. Honey Bee Village is considered a Priority Archaeological Site,and
determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and is an excellent example of a
successful cultural resources mitigation plan that incorporated a large preserved area within the core of
the site. Three archaeological sites border or potentially overlap the amendment subject portions of
Neighborhood Five:AZ BB:9:155(ASM).AZ BB:9:169(ASM).and AZ BB:9:41(ASM).AZ BB:9:155(ASM)
is an archaeological site located on the northern border of the subject property on a ridge that extends out
from the north side of the Honey Bee Basin.AZ BB:9:169(ASM)is an archaeological site located east of a
jeep trail that marks the eastern boundary of the subject property.AZ BB:9:41(ASM)is an archaeological
and historic site recorded at the intersection of Tangerine Road and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard. The AZ
BB:9:41(ASM)site boundary appears to overlap with the southwestern boundary of the subject property.
Cultural Resources Recommendation
The results of a cultural resources records search indicate that the property was last surveyed 22 years
ago (1986-220.ASM). Therefore it is recommended that a new survey be conducted within the subject
portions of Neighborhood Five. This new cultural resources survey would identify the current boundaries
of previously recorded archaeological sites AZ BB:9:155(ASM), AZ BB:9:169(ASM), and AZ
BB:9:41(ASM). If cultural resources are identified, development and implementation of a mitigation
treatment plan prior to ground-disturbing construction.
Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department comments:
The Long Range Planning Division of the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department
(PCRWRD) has provided their comments collectively for all the major plan amendment applications.
Please refer to the collective comments at the end of this report.
Pima County Environmental Quality Department comments:
No comments have been received to date.
Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Department comments:
The department does not have any comments on this amendment request.
OV1108-008
Introduction
This request is from the Planning Center on approximately 77 acres. The subject property is contiguous
to unincorporated Pima County to the west. We feel that the Town should adopt guidelines similar to
those present in the County's Conservation Lands System;for this area, specifically, Important Riparian
2008 Town of Oro Valley Major Plan Amendments-Comments from Pima County, May 2008
11
Areas and Multiple Use Management Areas(for more details on this and other environmental concerns.
please refer to the Pima County Development Services Environmental Planning comments below). There
are also concerns associated with impacts on the areas transportation needs (please refer to the Pima
County Department of Transportation comments below).
Please refer to the detailed comments from the various County departments below.
Detailed Comments
Pima County Regional Flood Control District comments:
We have no objection and offer the following comments:
1. The site is bisected by three washes which have Important Riparian Areas Associated with them,
which have been identified in the application. An engineering consultant has yet to be hired. The
intent is to avoid riparian habitat. As floodplains have yet to be delineated they are not shown on
the composite. Riparian habitat is also not shown on the composite.
2. Pima County abuts the site to the west across Shannon Road.
3. The District would appreciate the opportunity to review the concept plan, completed composite,
and drainage report when it becomes available.
Pima County Regional Flood Control District (Water) comments:
A Water Supply Impact Analysis has been conducted on proposed General Plan Amendment OV1108-
008, Manning General Plan Amendment, Shannon Road in Oro Valley. Pima County conducts a Water
Supply Impact Analysis on its Comprehensive Plan Amendments 4 acres or greater regarding how the
proposal would affect five critical issues.
PIMA COUNTY'S WATER SUPPLY IMPACT ANALYSIS
CRITICAL ISSUE RESPONSE
Water Service and • The proposed General Plan Amendment is in the Oro Valley
1 Renewable Water Supply Water service area.
Options • Applicant does not state their intention to connect to Oro
_ Valley Water.
• Average depth to groundwater is between 440 to 490 feet in
this area.
• There are several wells located in close proximity to this
Current and Projected Depth property and the water level in closest neighboring well is 488
2 to Groundwater and feet
Groundwater Trend Data • ADWR modeling shows water level declines in this area to be
approximately 50 feet from 1945 to 1995. or 1 foot per year
over 50 years.
• If served by a private well serving this proposal could
exacerbate the declining groundwater conditions
Proximity to Areas of Known • The proposed plan amendment is not located in an area of
3 or Potential Ground known high subsidence.
Subsidence
Proximity to known • The proposed amendment is within five miles of Tortolita
4 Groundwater-Dependent Mountains South. an area with shallow groundwater
Ecosystems dependent ecosystems.
Location within a • The proposed plan amendment is located in the Tucson
5 Hydrogeologic Basin, Hydrogeologic Basin, a basin not known for being particularly
including Depth to Bedrock sensitive to groundwater removal.
2008 Town of Oro Valley Major Plan Amendments-Comments from Pima County, May 2008
12
Pima County's Water Supply Impact Analysis finds that this General Plan Amendment is within the
service area of a water provider that is likely to have access to renewable and potable water, and the
proposal is not within an isolated hydrogeologic basin or an area of known subsidence. Although
groundwater levels in Oro Valley are declining. based on the plan's entirety, Pima County would
recommend APPROVAL.
However, Pima County cautions that if the increased water use for the proposed development were to
cause increased groundwater pumping, production wells serving the area located within five miles of
groundwater dependent ecosystems may create an adverse impact on the riparian areas. These impacts
should be explored more fully at the time of rezoning.
Pima County Department of Transportation comments:
Shannon Road is not Pima County-maintained, north of its intersection with Lambert Lane, but the
intersection as well as Lambert Lane and Shannon Road south of Lambert Lane are maintained by the
County. The intersection is not signalized currently. The traffic counts for Lambert Lane are 5,700 ADT
west of Shannon and 7,100 ADT to the east. The traffic counts for Shannon Road 3,000 ADT north of
Lambert and 9,100 ADT to the south. The traffic capacity for all four road segments is 14.600 ADT.
There are no major funded roadway improvements planned in the immediate area. Staff recommends
the following policy for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
The property owner/developer shall evaluate and provide a contribution towards a future signalat
the Lambert Lane and Shannon Road intersection.
Pima County Development Services Department- Specific Plan comments:
There are no specific plans within unincorporated Pima County nearby, and we do not have any
comments on this amendment request.
Pima County Development Services Department- Environmental Planning comments:
Regional Context
The proposed Plan Amendment site is in a region of low-density residential development, larger
developed facilities(Ironwood Ridge High School and Casas Adobes Baptist Church) and undeveloped
desert areas; there are areas of high-density residential development further to the east in Oro Valley.
The site is immediately adjacent to unincorporated Pima County areas zoned SR Suburban Ranch and
CR-1 Single Residence(3.31-acre and 0.83-acre minimum lot sizes,respectively),with medium-to large-
lot rural residential development and undeveloped parcels. The site is in a region of the county covered
under the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP)Conservation Lands System. The purpose of the
Conservation Lands System(CLS)is to ensure the long-term survival of diverse Sonoran Desert flora and
fauna by preserving habitat and natural dispersal corridors - this is accomplished through promoting
sustainable development,while preserving functionally intact ecosystems, minimizing invasive non-native
species dispersal. maximizing road-less areas. and minimizing fragmentation.
Under the CLS,the region is designated as Important Riparian Area and Multiple Use Management Area.
and overlain by Special Species Management Area. The Conservation Guideline for Important Riparian
Areas is applied by the Pima County Regional Flood Control District. For CLS Conservation Guidelines
implemented within unincorporated Pima County, at least 66%percent of the total acreage of lands within
Multiple Use Management Areas, and 80 percent of the lands within Special Species Management Area
would be conserved as undisturbed natural open space. resulting in 2:1 and 4:1 land conservation.
respectively(i.e., two acres and four acres conserved for every one acre developed).The CLS Guidelines
are applied as conditions of the rezoning that would follow the successful plan amendment process.
2008 Town of Oro Valley Major Plan Amendments-Comments from Pima County, May 2008
13
The overlaying Special Species Management Area is designated for conservation of habitat and
landscape connectivity specifically for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl in northwest Tucson-this local
area was a known site for the pygmy-owl, and would carry a higher threshold for open space conservation
compared to areas designated Multiple Use Management Area.Applied under Pima County's jurisdiction,
about 52 acres within Special Species Management Area would be requested as natural open space
dedication under the CLS Conservation Guideline at the time of rezoning.
Site Resources
The site is characterized as ironwood and palo verde-mixed cacti habitat under the SDCP MapGuide
Special Elements. The site is crossed by a number of washes: the surrounding habitat associated with
the washes are designated Important Riparian Areas. The site is currently undeveloped and well-
vegetated with saguaro cacti, ironwood. palo verde and mesquite trees, and other shrub species. Under
studies done for the SDCP, the site is characterized as being high-value Modeled Habitat. and within a
Priority Conservation Area for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl - a known site for the pygmy-owl is
immediately north of this site.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The proposed Plan Amendment would increase residential density from 0.3 DU/acre to up to 1.2 DU/ac.
The plan amendment application proposes about 68 single-family residences on the site, and states that
custom grading will be used on lots, and that riparian areas shall not be disturbed (the submittal we
received did not include a conceptual site plan, it is difficult to fully assess the environmental impacts of
the proposed development).
We would request that Oro Valley planners consider Pima County's CLS Conservation Guidelines during
review for natural open space dedication for this development, and that the open space set-aside areas
be high-quality habitat and functional for the movement of wildlife. In addition to proposed activities to
reduce on-site impacts, clustering lots and graded areas closer together and closer to access roads will
reduce overall grading footprint and may increase the quantity of open space in the development.
Besides on-site preservation,open space elements should be matched with those of adjoining properties.
to create contiguous habitat and corridors for dispersal. As an example, riparian areas and about one-
third of the western end of the Ironwood Ridge High School property were left undeveloped-riparian and
upland open space areas on the site should be contiguous with those on the high school property.
Pima County Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Office comments:
Cultural Resources Status
The results of a cultural resources records search indicated that the four development parcels and
surrounding areas were surveyed in 1981 (1981-174.ASM)and that no sites have been recorded within
the property. Only one archaeological site. designated AZ AA:12:817(ASM), has been recorded within a
one-mile radius of the property that was identified during a 1997 survey (1997-102.ASM) on property
located adjacent to the subject parcels. The Pima County MapGuide 2005 Orthophoto shows the property
as undeveloped with small washes and a dirt road running through the property.
Cultural Resources Recommendation
The cultural resources issues of this development property should be addressed. A cultural resources
survey was conducted on the subject property was 27 years ago. However,Arizona State Museum criteria
indicate that, in most cases, properties that have been surveyed over 10 years ago will require new
cultural resources survey. If cultural resources are identified, development and implementation of a
mitigation treatment plan prior to ground-disturbing construction.
2008 Town of Oro Valley Major Plan Amendments- Comments from Pima County, May 2008
14
Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department comments.
The Long Range Planning Division of the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department
(PCRWRD) has provided their comments collectively for all the major plan amendment applications.
Please refer to the collective comments at the end of this report.
Pima County Environmental Quality Department comments:
No comments have been received to date.
Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Department comments:
We do not have any comments on this amendment request.
Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department comments on all cases:
All of these projects will be tributary to the Ina Road Wastewater Reclamation Facility via the Canada del
Oro Interceptor. These facilities currently have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed land uses. but
this may change with time. There may also be portions of the County's public sewer system between the
sites of these proposed land use changes and the Canada del Oro Interceptor, which may need to be
augmented by the owner(s) / developer(s) of these properties to provide the necessary public sewer
service.
To identify any such capacity constraints,a PCRWRD sewer capacity analysis will need to be requested
by the owner(s) / developer(s) for each of these projects at the time of rezoning, so that appropriate
wastewater related rezoning conditions may be established. And, because considerable amounts of time
can occur between the time of rezoning and the time actual development occurs. a second PCRWRD
sewer capacity analysis will be required at the time of tentative plat or development plan submittal.
This letter is not a reservation or commitment of treatment or conveyance capacity within Pima County's
public sewer system.
Permanent capacity allocation is accomplished by building the sewers necessary to serve the proposed
development, in accordance with terms and conditions of a formal Sewer Service Agreement that is
normally prepared during the development plan or subdivision plat review process. If the conditions within
the public sewer system change between now and the time a development plan or tentative plat is
submitted, the property owner may be required to augment the existing public sewerage system in order
to provide adequate treatment and conveyance capacity for this land use.
Recommended Conditions I Policies
Should the Town of Oro Valley be inclined to approve these major plan amendments, the Pima County
Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department recommends that the Town's approval(s) include the
following conditions/ policies.
No person shall construe any action by Pima County as a commitment to provide sewer service
to any new development within the general plan amendment area until Pima County executes an
agreement with the owner/developer to that effect.
I would also like to take this opportunity to mention the recent attention tendered toward the cactus
ferruginous pygmy ow/and the benefit for all southern Arizona jurisdictions to keep a finger on the pulse
of this matter. To that effect, I am appending a recent press release.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed major plan amendments in the Town of
Oro Valley, and if you have any questions, please call me at (520) 740-6800.
2008 Town of Oro Valley Major Plan Amendments-Comments from Pima County, May 2008
•
I
Sinc ely.
endra Changkakof
'C prehensive Plan A inistrator
cc C. H. Huckelberry, County Administrator
John M. Bernal, Deputy County Administrator for Public Works
Carmine DeBonis, Jr., Director, Development Services Department
Arlan M. Colton, Planning Official, Development Services Department
Diana Durazo, County Administrator's Office
2008 Town of Oro Valley Major Plan Amendments-Comments from Pima County, May 2008