The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPackets - Planning and Zoning Commission (180)AGENDA ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION February 2, 2021 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING Join Zoom Meeting: https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/99748391422 To attend via phone only, dial 1-669-900-6833 then enter Meeting/Webinar ID: 99748391422 The Town recently updated its Zoom capability to allow for increased public attendance and to better facilitate the Town’s virtual meetings. When you log in to the meeting you will be added as an attendee. You will be able to address the Commission during the “Call to Audience,” public hearing and public comment items on the agenda. If you wish to address the Commission during those parts of the agenda, select “Raise your hand” from the Zoom controls and wait until you are called upon to speak by the Chair. Town staff will then unmute your microphone and camera. For additional information about the Town’s Zoom meetings, visit https://www.orovalleyaz.gov/Government/Departments/Town-Clerk/Zoom-meeting-attendance Executive Sessions – Upon a vote of the majority of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission may enter into Executive Sessions pursuant to Arizona Revised Statues §38-431.03 (A)(3) to obtain legal advice on matters listed on the Agenda. REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO AUDIENCE - at this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Commission on any issue not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona open meeting law, individual Commission members may ask Town staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers. However, the Commission may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during "Call to Audience." In order to speak during "Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS REGULAR SESSION AGENDA 1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 5, 2021 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES 2.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THREE ITEMS RELATED TO 2.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THREE ITEMS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTWARD LOOK RESORT PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF INA ROAD AND WESTWARD LOOK ROAD, EXTENDING NORTH TO THE EXISTING TOWN OF ORO VALLEY SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: ITEM A: TRANSLATIONAL ZONING FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY FROM PIMA COUNTY CR-1 (LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL) TO TOWN OF ORO VALLEY R1-36 (LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL), AS REQUIRED BY ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES 9-471.L UPON ANNEXATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (2003182) ITEM B: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-1 TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/OFFICE FOR TWO PARCELS (22550021A AND 225500180) ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 4.84-ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INA ROAD AND WESTWARD LOOK DRIVE INTERSECTION (2002360) ITEM C: REZONING FROM R1-36 (LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL) TRANSLATIONAL ZONING TO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY (2002361) PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) ADJOURNMENT POSTED: 1/26/2021 at 5:00 p.m. by pp When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the Commission meeting in the Town Clerk's Office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk’s Office at least five days prior to the Commission meeting at 229-4700. INSTRUCTIONS TO SPEAKERS Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted public hearing. However, those items not listed as a public hearing are for consideration and action by the Commission during the course of their business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. In accordance with Amendment #2 of the Mayoral Proclamation of Emergency issued on March 27, 2020, the following restrictions have been placed on all public meetings until further notice: 1. In-person attendance by members of the public is prohibited. 2. Members of the public can either watch the public meeting online https://www.orovalleyaz.gov/town/departments/town-clerk/meetings-and-agendas or, if they would like to participate in the meeting (e.g. speak at Call to Audience or speak on a Regular Agenda item), they can attend the meeting and participate via the on-line meeting application Zoom: https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/99748391422 or may participate telephonically only by dialing 1-669-900-6833 and enter meeting ID:99748391422 prior to or during the posted meeting. 3. If a member of the public would like to speak at either Call to Audience or on a Regular Agenda item, it is highly encouraged to email your request to speak to jancona@orovalleyaz.gov and include your name and town/city of residence in order to provide the Mayor/Chair with advance notice so you can be called upon more efficiently during the Zoom meeting. 4. All members of the public who participate in the Zoom meeting either with video or telephonically will enter the meeting with microphones muted. For those participating via computer/tablet/phone device, you may choose whether to turn your video on or not. If you have not provided your name to speak prior to the meeting as specified in #3 above, you will have the opportunity to be recognized when you “raise your hand.” Those participating via computer/tablet/phone device can click the “raise your hand” button during the Call to the Public or Regular Agenda item, and the Chair will call on you in order, following those who submit their names in advance. For those participating by phone, you can press *9, which will show the Chair that your hand is raised. When you are recognized at the meeting by the Chair, your microphone will be unmuted by a member of staff and you will have three minutes to speak before your microphone is again muted. 5. If a member of the public would like to submit written comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration prior to the meeting, please email those comments to jancona@orovalleyaz.gov, no later than sixty minutes before the public meeting. Those comments will then be electronically distributed to the public body prior to the meeting. If you have any questions, please contact the Commission’s recording secretary at jancona@orovalleyaz.gov. Planning & Zoning Commission 1. Meeting Date:02/02/2021 Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development Case Number: N/A SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 5, 2021 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve (approve with changes), the January 5, 2021 meeting minutes. Attachments 1-5-21 Draft Minutes D R A F T MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION January 5, 2021 MEETING HELD VIA ZOOM REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:30 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Gambill callled the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Hal Bergsma, Commissioner Jacob Herrington, Vice Chair Skeet Posey, Commissioner Daniel Sturmon, Commissioner Celeste Gambill, Chair Absent: Bob Henderson, Commissioner Ellen Hong, Commissioner Staff Present:Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner Bayer Vella, Planning Manager Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney EXECUTIVE SESSION - Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03(3) for legal advice regarding zoning conditions Motion by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon, seconded by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington to enter into Executive Session. A roll call vote was taken: Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Chiar Gambill - Aye Vote: 5 - 0 Carried RECONVENE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER CALL TO ORDER Chair Gambill reconvened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present:Hal Bergsma, Commissioner Jacob Herrington, Vice Chair Ellen Hong, Commissioner Skeet Posey, Commissioner Daniel Sturmon, Commissioner Celeste Gambill, Chair Absent:Bob Henderson, Commissioner Staff Present:Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner Bayer Vella, Planning Manager Also Present: Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney Paul Keesler, Public Works Director/Town Engineer Town Council Liaison Melanie Barrett PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Gambill led the Commission and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Melanie Barrett provided and update on the past and upcoming Town Council meetings as related to Planning agenda items. REGULAR SESSION AGENDA 1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 1, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to approve the December 1, 2020 meeting minutes as written. A roll call vote was taken: Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Chair Gambill - Aye Vote: 6 - 0 Carried 2.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION REGARDING THREE ITEMS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTWARD LOOK RESORT PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF INA ROAD AND WESTWARD LOOK ROAD, EXTENDING NORTH TO THE EXISTING TOWN OF ORO VALLEY SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: ITEM A: TRANSLATIONAL ZONING FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY FROM PIMA COUNTY CR-1 (LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL) TO TOWN OF ORO VALLEY R1-36 (LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL), AS REQUIRED BY ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES 9-471.L UPON ANNEXATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (2003182) ITEM B: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-1 TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/OFFICE FOR TWO PARCELS (22550021A AND 225500180) ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 4.84-ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INA ROAD AND WESTWARD LOOK DRIVE INTERSECTION (2002360) ITEM C: REZONING FROM R1-36 (LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL) TRANSLATIONAL ZONING TO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY (2002361) Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Location of property - Annexation - Applicant's request - concept plans - Key considerations - Item A - Translational Zoning - Item A - Your Voice, Our Future General Plan - Item B - General Plan Amendment - Item B - Your Voice, Our Future General Plan - Item B - General Plan Amendment criteria analysis - Item C - Rezoning - Overview of Concept A - Overview of Concept B - Overview of Concept C - Common elements for all concepts Public Works Director and Town Engineer Paul Keesler spoke on traffic concerns: - Congestion of Ina Road, safety and ability to travel east from Sonya Way Mr. Spaeth continued with his presentation: - Public participation - Summary Applicant Linda Morales with The Planning Center, provided a presentation that included the following: - Overview of previous Westward Look Resort annexation efforts - History of the resort - Current Pima County zoning - Proposed zoning - Reviewed potential development options - Highlighted the development transitions to surrounding neighbors - Public outreach and numerous meetings held with neighbors over the past year - Reviewed the main concerns of neighbors and mitigation measures taken Discussion ensued among the Commission, staff and applicant. Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. The following individuals spoke on Agenda Item #2. - Janet Senf - Jon Rowley - John Richardson - Erik Bakken - Matt Bailey (representing client Ms. Elisabeth Dudley) - Jon Rowley - Mike Myers The following individuals spoke in support of Agenda Item #2. - Oro Valley resident and Chamber of Commerce President Dave Perry - Constantine "Dino" Sakellar The following individual spoke in opposition to agenda Item #2: - An unidentified individual Chair Gambill closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued regarding speaker comments/questions among the staff and applicant. Further discussion continued among the Commission, applicant and staff. Chair Gambill reopened the public hearing. The following individuals noted above spoke again on Agenda Item #2: - An unidentified individual - Jon Rowley Chair Gambill closed the public hearing. 3.ELECTION OF THE CHAIR FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EFFECTIVE JANUARY 6, 2021 Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington to nominate Chair Gambill to continue as Chair for the Planning and Zoning Commission. A roll call vote was taken: Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Chair Gambill - Aye Vote: 6 - 0 Carried 4.ELECTION OF THE VICE-CHAIR FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EFFECTIVE 4.ELECTION OF THE VICE-CHAIR FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EFFECTIVE JANUARY 6, 2021 Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to nominate Vice Chair Herrington to continue as Vice Chair for the Planning and Zoning Commission. A roll call vote was taken: Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Chair Gambill - Aye Vote: 6 - 0 Carried PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided updates on the new Commissioner, the upcoming Community Academy, a possible study/training session, and the next Commission meeting on February 2, 2021. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to adjourn the meeting. Chair Gambill adjourned the meeting at 8:51 p.m. I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Town of Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 5th day of January, 2021. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 7th day of January, 2021. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist Planning & Zoning Commission 2. Meeting Date:02/02/2021 Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 2002360 & 2002361 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THREE ITEMS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTWARD LOOK RESORT PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF INA ROAD AND WESTWARD LOOK ROAD, EXTENDING NORTH TO THE EXISTING TOWN OF ORO VALLEY SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: ITEM A: TRANSLATIONAL ZONING FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY FROM PIMA COUNTY CR-1 (LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL) TO TOWN OF ORO VALLEY R1-36 (LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL), AS REQUIRED BY ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES 9-471.L UPON ANNEXATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (2003182) ITEM B: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-1 TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/OFFICE FOR TWO PARCELS (22550021A AND 225500180) ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 4.84-ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INA ROAD AND WESTWARD LOOK DRIVE INTERSECTION (2002360) ITEM C: REZONING FROM R1-36 (LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL) TRANSLATIONAL ZONING TO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY (2002361) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of all three Items. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this request is to consider three items related to the proposed annexation and future development of the Westward L ook Resort property. Those items include: Item A - Translational Zoning (Attachment 1) 1. Item B - General Plan Amendment (Attachment 2)2. Item C - Rezoning (Attachment 3)3. For more detail regarding each item, see the first public hearing staff report in Attachment 4. The property is approximately 75-acres in size and is located on the northwest and northeast corners of Ina Road and Westward Look Drive, extending north on either side of Westward Look Drive to the Town of Oro Valley's existing southern boundary (see picture at right). The Planning and Zoning Commission held the first of two required public hearings on January 5, 2021. No action was taken at that hearing as the items were for discussion only. The draft meeting minutes have been provided in Attachment 5. This report addresses the issues and/or concerns raised at the first public hearing and new information provided by the applicant. As a brief summary, with all three requests the applicant desires to: Assign proper zoning standards that fit the existing resort site and open space areas1. Protect the Open Space area to address neighbor concerns2. Enable future development for the vacant parcels fronting on Ina Road, with a range of commercial, residential and office uses. 3. As discussed in the first public hearing staff report, the applicant has worked with neighbors throughout the project in an extensive public outreach process to identify areas of consensus. Continuing with that effort following the first public hearing, the applicant again met with neighbors to discuss the proposal. These most recent discussions have resulted in several revisions to the plan which are reflected in Attachment 3. They include: Better building height transitions to single-story neighboring properties, including: Reduced building heights near adjacent homes Decreased maximum building height from 34 feet to 28 feet (plus additional 10 feet for architectural detail as allowed by code) for buildings within 85 feet of adjacent residential for both Resort Gateway East and West Increased building setbacks Moved buildings in Concept A (Resort Gateway - East) to increase the setback for neighbors. The distance increased from 60 feet to approximately 120 feet. Moved buildings away from neighbors in Concept C (Resort Gateway - West) to help further minimize impacts. Setbacks have been increased from approximately 40 feet to over 130 feet. Improved privacy Prohibited, in Resort Gateway - East, all 2nd/3rd story decks or patios on buildings facing east and within 85 feet of adjacent residential Increased landscaped bufferyard widths and extent of vegetation near neighbors Increased previously variable landscaped bufferyard widths (10 and 20 feet) so that all are now 20 feet wide. Please note, the total bufferyards in Resort Gateway - East will be a minimum of 50 feet with the existing adjacent TEP easement between the site and neighbors. Increased planting area for an enhanced, continuous tree canopy and associated understory Reduced parking lot lighting near neighbors in strategic locations Limiting parking lot lighting to no more than 5 feet in height within 85 feet of adjacent residential Finally, the applications have been reviewed for conformance with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan and Zoning Code and staff recommends approval of all three items. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The purpose of this request is to consider three items related to the proposed annexation and future developm ent of the Westward Look Resort property. The property is approximately 75-acres in size and is located on the northwest and northeast corners of Ina Road and Westward Look Drive, extending north on either side of Westward Look Drive to the Town of Oro Valley's existing southern boundary. All three items are summarized below and discussed extensively in Attachment 4. Item A - Translational Zoning This item (Attachment 1 - Translational Zoning) is required and is an administrative action to translate the existing zoning from Pima County CR-1 to Town of Oro Valley R1-36. This change does not add new development rights nor does it remove ones currently enabled by Pima County. The requirement is to achieve parity between the two districts. Item B - General Plan Amendment The second item is a request (Attachment 2) to change the General Plan Land Use designation for the two parcels encompassing approximately 4.84-acres near the northwest corner of Ina Road and Westward Look Drive. The request is to change from Low Density Residential-1 (LDR1) to Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO) to accommodate the proposed Planned Area Development (Item C). Item C - Rezoning The final request (Attachment 3) is to rezone the entire Westward Look Resort property from R1-36 Tr anslational Zoning (if approved as part of Item A) to Planned Area Development (PAD). The proposed PAD includes three distinct areas (shown in image at right): Resort - existing resort area1. Open Space - existing open space west of Westward Look Drive2. Resort Gateway Areas - future development fronting on Ina Road3. Additional information is provided in the first Planning and Zoning staff report in Attachment 4. Planning and Zoning Commission questions and concerns As mentioned previously, the Planning and Zoning Commission held the first of two required public hearings on January 5, 2021. Below is a summary of the Commissions questions and concerns (in i talics) followed by a staff response. What are the anticipated traffic impacts to Ina Road from Resort Gateway - West? A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was submitted by the applicant as required for all rezoning applications (see Attachment 6). The TIA used the "worst case scenario" from a traffic generation perspective to determine the anticipated Levels of Service (LOS) once the site is developed. The LOS is at an acceptable level for all proposed concepts. Please note, the TIA is required to be updated as future development occurs on the site. Is the access point, in Resort Gateway - West, onto Ina Road necessary? This access point is necessary to provide better circulation into and within the center. Though the analysis does not call for a right-turn lane for this access point, future developers will again be required to update the TIA as development occurs. At that time, the development may require a turn lane to accommodate traffic. Does the rezoning still apply to the property if the owner is changed and what conditions would be appropriate. When a rezoning is approved, the change in zoning runs with the property in perpetuity. The new zoning designation, if approved, applies to the property, regardless of future ownership. With regard to the second question, all conditions must be directly related to the requested zoning change. If improvements are needed as a result of the proposal (e.g. a new road), they should be included as conditions. The Town cannot legally enforce other conditions not directly related to the project. What is the anticipated Fiscal Impact of the proposed project. A Fiscal Impact Analysis was generated for the Town by Applied Economics. The key points of this analysis include: Positive net impact (resort) of $916,000 annually Increased revenue (future development fronting on Ina Road) of between $61,000 and $562,000 annually, depending on the ultimate build-out One-time revenues (construction related fees) of between $2.1 million and $3.3 million. Ultimately, the Town does stand to benefit financially from the proposed annexation. The Fiscal Impact Analysis has been provided as Attachment 7. Concerns were raised regarding Concept C being 100% residential. The PAD specifically includes language prohibiting both Resort Gateway areas from developing as residential. The applicant has included language in Concept C acknowledging this requirement by enabling multi-family residential in Resort Gateway - East only when commercial is developed on the Resort Gateway - West area. New Information from applicant Following the first public hearing, the applicant again met with neighbors to try and resolve any outstanding issues. These conversations resulted in revisions to the proposed concepts (Attachment 8). Those include: Better building height transitions to all (east and west) abutting neighboring properties The applicant previously proposed 34 feet for all 2-story buildings within 85 feet of surrounding residential. The height has been reduced from 34 feet to 28 feet. This represents an improved solution for both the applicant and neighbors. Neighbors, whose County zoning allows a building height of 34', benefit from the additional reduction in overall building height. 28' is closer to the actual constructed height of the immediately abutting neighbors homes. The applicant retains the ability to build two stories at 28'. Please note, the Zoning Code allows an additional 10 feet for architectural detail (e.g. parapet walls, bell towers, etc.) for buildings within C-N zoning (the underlying zoning district for Resort Gateway East and West). Increased building setbacks The applicant has revised Concept A to provide more of a buffer for neighbors by moving all 2-story buildings along the east side of Resort Gateway - East further west toward the intersection (see graphic at below). The design will result in significantly less visual impact as the buildings we be moved further away from existing homes. Resort Gateway - West (Concept C) has also been revised by moving building locations further away from the nearest neighbors to help provide additional separation. Several "Villas" were moved closer toward the intersection and away from neighbors to provide additional separations (see image below): Improved privacy The applicant has included language in the PAD that prohibits decks or balconies on the 2nd and 3rd level of buildings within 85 of adjacent residential. This was a specific concern for neighbors throughout the process. Increased bufferyards near neighbors that will include enhanced, continuous tree canopies and associated understory The applicant has included language to stipulate all enhanced, continuous tree canopy bufferyards will be a minimum of 20 feet wide (increased from a mix of 10 and 20 foot bufferyards). The applicant has included a graphic below to visually demonstrate the impact of these mitigation measures. Reduced parking lot lighting near neighbors in strategic locations Light trespass was a concern throughout the public outreach process. The applicant has included language in the PAD to limit parking lot lighting to 5 feet in height within 85 feet of surrounding residential (zoning code would allow 10 feet). The applicant will be required to meet all Town lighting standards which include requirements for shielding lights and light curfews during evening hours. A detailed list of all neighborhood agreements, provided by the applicant, is included in Attachment 9. In sum, the applicant has continued to meet with groups of neighbors to try and continue to find solutions to minimize impacts as much as possible. The revised concepts are a reflection of these efforts. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 1 The Planning and Zoning Commission held the first of two required public hearings on January 5, 2021. No action was taken during the meeting as the items were for discussion only. The staff report and draft minutes are included as Attachment 4 and 5, respectively. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The following public notice has been provided for this public hearing: Notification of all property owners within 1,000 feet Notification to additional interested parties who signed in at neighborhood meetings Homeowners Association mailing Advertisement in The Daily Territorial and Arizona Daily Star newspapers Post on property Post at Town Hall and on Town website Outside review agencies Staff has received additional correspondence from neighbors which has been included in Attachment 10. Lastly, an informational video and two neighborhood meetings were conducted as part of the public outreach process (meeting summaries provided in Attachment 11). In addition, the applicant has continued to meet with neighbors to address outstanding issues and concerns. Summary All three items are related to the associated annexation of the Westward Look Resort property into the Town. Town Council is charged with evaluating the merits of the proposed annexation and the Planning and Zoning Commission's focus is the three items included in this report. Ultimately, all three items will be included on one agenda with the proposed annexation before Town Council. Key considerations include: Item A (Translational Zoning) is required, per State Law, upon annexation of an unincorporated area;1. Item B (General Plan Amendment) is needed to accommodate the proposed Planned Area Development (PAD) in Item C. The requested amendment is consistent with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan Vision, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies, specifically those related to open space conservation, neighborhood compatibility and economic development; a. The amendment to Neighborhood Commercial/Office is appropriate for the subject property as it is located along a major arterial roadway (Ina Road) near residential areas; b. 2. Item C (Rezoning) is consistent with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan and the Town Zoning Code by: Resolving long-standing discrepancies between the historical use of the property and Pima County Zoning. The PAD will assign proper zoning to the Resort (eliminating it as a legal, non-conforming use) by establishing site specific zoning standards that "fit" the existing conditions on the site; a. Providing an extra layer of protection for the Open Space area (where homes are currently permitted per the existing zoning) to ensure neighbors the use of this area will not be changed as part of the rezoning; b. Optimizing area design compatibility and working with adjacent homeowners to address concernsc. Supporting a number of economic development related General Plan Goals and Policies regarding the financial stability of the Town; d. Evolving the plans to address a number of neighbor concerns including: Building Height restrictions1. Increased setbacks2. Improved privacy3. Larger bufferyards4. Limiting light impacts5. e. 3. Staff finds the requests are consistent with all applicable Your Voice, Our Future and Zoning Code requirements and recommends approval of all three items. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may wish to consider one of the following motions: Item A I MOVE to recommend APPROVAL of the Translational Zoning from Pima County CR-1 to Town of Oro Valley R1-36, based on a finding the request is in conformance with State Law. OR I MOVE to recommend DENIAL of the Translational Zoning based on a finding the request is ______. Item B I MOVE to recommend APPROVAL of the General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential 1 to Neighborhood Commercial/Office, based on a finding the request is in conformance with Your Voice, Our Future General Plan. OR I MOVE to recommend DENIAL of the General Plan Amendment based on a finding the request is ______. Item C I MOVE to recommend APPROVAL of the rezoning from R1-36 to Planned Area Development, subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 1, based on a finding the request is in conformance with all applicable General Plan and Zoning Code requirements. OR I MOVE to recommend DENIAL of the rezoning based on a finding the request is ______. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 - TRANSLATIONAL ZONING MAP ATTACHMENT 2 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSAL ATTACHMENT 3 - APPLICANT'S REZONING SITE ANALYSIS ATTACHMENT 4 - JANUARY 5, 2021 PZC STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT 5 - DRAFT MEETING MINUTES ATTACHMENT 6 - TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ATTACHMENT 7 - FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ATTACHMENT 8 - REVISED CONCEPTS ATTACHMENT 9 - APPLICANT SUMMARY OF CHANGES ATTACHMENT 10 - NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE ATTACHMENT 11 - NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARIES TRANSLATIONAL ZONING WESTWARD LOOK RESORT REZONING (2003182) Attachment 1 1 WESTWARD LOOK | GPA Narrative Westward Look Type 2 General Plan Amendment Narrative Project Description This Type 2 General Plan Amendment (GPA) request is submitted in conjunction with the Westward Look Resort Planned Area Development (PAD), which proposes a comprehensive framework for the continued operation and future development of the Westward Look Resort property in the Town of Oro Valley. The proposed PAD encompasses approximately 75 acres. The proposed land uses are in full conformance with the existing General Plan except for the 4.84-acre (Resort Gateway (West)) portion of the property along Ina Road. Therefore, this General Plan Amendment request is for only those two parcels (APN 225-50-021A and 225-50-0180) currently designated as LDR Low Density Residential. The requested new designation is Neighborhood Commercial/Office. Conformance with General Plan Evaluation Criteria 7.4.2 1) The request is consistent with the vision, guiding principles, goals, and policies of the General Plan as demonstrated by adherence to all the following criteria. The request shall not: a) Significantly alter existing development character and land use patterns without adequate and appropriate buffers and graduated transitions in density and land use; • The proposed illustrative concepts all provide a forty-foot minimum landscape buffer and a six-foot wall between the proposed uses and adjacent residential properties. Enhanced landscaping will be placed between the six-foot wall and natural landscape, creating a lush, full buffer between existing and proposed development. In addition to the enhanced landscaping, the existing wash will be preserved as open space, significantly widening the northern portion of the buffer in excess of forty feet. • The PAD limits the Neighborhood Commercial/Office uses, eliminating those that are incompatible or undesirable, such as drive-through and drive-in restaurants, large retail establishments, vehicle parts, convenience marts, plant nurseries, storage facilities, and schools. • Building heights in this area are proposed to be up to forty feet and three stories, all of which are concentrated adjacent to Ina Road and the central portion of Resort Gateway (East). The existing CR-1 zoning of both this property and adjacent residences allows up to 34’ and two stories. In recognition of this, we have written the development standards of the PAD to further limit proposed Resort Gateway uses within 85 feet of an existing residential property to the same height limits, 34’ and two stories. 2 WESTWARD LOOK | GPA Narrative • Lighting will be downward directed and designed to be consistent with Oro Valley’s Dark Sky requirements, including the prevention of spillover onto adjacent properties. b) Impact existing uses with increased infrastructure without appropriate improvements to accommodate planned growth; • Development of these two parcels within the Westward Look PAD will not adversely impact existing uses with increased infrastructure needs. Future development along Ina Road can be accommodated with minor changes to the existing roadway and utility infrastructure serving the property. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been submitted that shows the intersection of Ina Road and Westward Look Drive is anticipated to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) upon full buildout. No additional storage is recommended to improve LOS. The TIA recommends a right-turn lane for Resort Gateway (East). c) Impact other public services including police, fire, parks, water and drainage unless careful analysis and explanation of anticipated impacts is provided to the Town for review; or • Development of these two parcels within the Westward Look PAD will not negatively impact other public services; in most cases it will improve upon these services. The overall development will provide recreation areas, public art and a newly improved entry on Ina Road, and it will also maintain drainage conditions on the property by ensuring post-development flows equal or reduce pre-development flows. d) Impact the natural beauty and environmental resources without suitable mitigation. • The wash running along the north side of the amendment area (Resort Gateway (West)) will be open space and maintained as a wildlife corridor. The wash will be preserved to the greatest extent possible and augmented with additional vegetation. 2) The applicant has implemented effective public outreach efforts to identify neighborhood concerns and has responded by incorporating measures to avoid or minimize development impacts to the extent reasonably possible, as well as to mitigate unavoidable adverse impacts. • A full public outreach effort is underway as part of the annexation/general plan amendment/PAD process, additional details of which can be found in the project’s Public Outreach Report. This effort included an informational video, followed by town interactive Zoom meetings on September 15 and October 15. Concerns expressed regarding the plan amendment were generally regarding concern over setbacks, noise, traffic, crime and the potential impact to property values. • In addition to the formal public meeting process, Mr. Andrew Stegen (General Manager, Westward Look Resort) and Ms. Linda Morales (CEO, The Planning Center) have had numerous phone conversations with property owners within the 1,000’ 3 WESTWARD LOOK | GPA Narrative notification area and have held the following meetings since the initial September 15 Zoom meeting: (a) October 6 – phone conversation with a representative for a property owner west of the 20.5-acre open space parcel west of Westward Look Drive. Assurances were provided that the open space would continue to be preserved and no development is proposed on that parcel. (b) October 9 – Mr. Stegen met with an adjacent neighbor to the west of Resort Gateway (West). The neighbor expressed a preference for no development in this area. (c) October 14 – Mr. Stegen and Ms. Morales met with a group of six individual property owners along Sonya Way, directly east of the Resort Gateway (East) parcel. Questions, clarifications, and concerns discussed at the meeting included building heights (which have since been limited from within 50’ of the property line to within 85’ for two-story development), view corridors (which have also been slightly modified), preservation of property values, buffering (which has since been increased), privacy, and lighting. Mitigation measures listed in the response to Criteria 1 above are a result of those meetings and discussions. 3) All non-residential amendment requests will contribute positively to the long-term economic stability of the Town as demonstrated by consistency with goals and policies related to economic development and financial stability. • As this amendment area is part of the larger Westward Look annexation and PAD, the resulting sales and bed tax associated with the resort and future development will be a major economic development contribution to the Town. 4 WESTWARD LOOK | GPA Narrative Existing Your Voice, Our Future Land Use Designations : 5 WESTWARD LOOK | GPA Narrative Proposed Your Voice, Our Future Land Use Designations : Type 2 Amendment Area 6 WESTWARD LOOK | GPA Narrative Conformance with General Plan Goals and Policies The Westward Look PAD and 4.84-acre Type 2 General Plan Amendment are consistent with the following General Plan goals, policies, and elements: a. Community Goals: A community with a wide range of services, amenities, shopping and dining opportunities and housing types that meet the needs of current and future residents. (Community Goal D) The PAD preserves existing services, amenities and dining options currently found at the Westward Look Resort. Future development opportunities have the potential to bring more high-quality commercial and/or residential options to the property. b. Economy Focus: Support annexations that are economically beneficial to the Town while also considering the impacts to residents and the social, aesthetic and environmental quality of the Town. (Policy E.5) An annexation of the property was processed concurrently with the PAD. The annexation brought the entire property into Oro Valley along with the sales and bed tax associated with the resort and future development. Design standards and regulations within the PAD have been crafted to ensure future development is compatible with surrounding residential development and the natural environment, while maintaining the character of the resort. c. Development Goals A built environment that creatively integrates landscape, architecture, open space and conservation elements to increase the sense of place, community interaction and quality of life. (Development Goal D) The property’s location on the southeastern edge of the Town makes it an ideal entrance to demonstrate what makes Oro Valley so unique. The mixture of land uses and open space within the PAD, and a commitment to high-quality design similar to that of Westward Look honors the existing resort and the natural setting that has made it iconic. The PAD’s development standards and regulations along with the illustrative site plans, promote creative flexibility for future development that, when combined with the resort, create a stunning gate way into Oro Valley. d. Land Use and Design Focus Provide diverse land uses that meet the Town’s overall needs and effectively transition in scale and density adjacent to neighborhoods. (Policy LU.5) Three land uses proposed in the PAD blend and strengthen each other. Open Space softens views of the built environment, provides buffering to ensure compatibility between uses, and preserves natural areas while ensuring connection to the Sonoran Desert. The Resort land use benefits from the natural setting while creating a destination for residents and visitors alike. The Resort Gateway land use builds on the attraction from the Westward Look Resort and continues the sense of place by respecting the natural setting as well as adjacent neighbors through the use of landscape buffers, building setbacks, and reductions in building height and massing along the perimeter of the PAD. 7 WESTWARD LOOK | GPA Narrative e. Infrastructure Focus Accommodate community services and utilities that meet the larger community needs and goals. (Policy I.1) The resort is served by existing utilities and community services with capacity for expanding to accommodate future on-site development. Utilizing existing infrastructure and services ensures efficient use of these systems, minimizing the burden on the community. f. Transportation/Circulation Policy Develop a safe, convenient and efficient multimodal transportation network that integrates amenities, provides access to services and destinations, and links places where people live, work, shop and play. (Policy I.7) Future development located along Ina Road will provide convenient access for residents, guests and shoppers while bringing the resort experience closer to a major arterial and its attendant transportation facilities. g. Sonoran Desert Resources Focus Protect and conserve healthy native vegetation during the development process. (Policy SD.4) During the development process, healthy native vegetation will be protected by either setting aside areas of high vegetative value or transplanting protected species on site. Enhance, protect, create and restore native biological habitats, especially along washes, groundwater basins, recharge areas and wildlife corridors, in order to benefit native plant and wildlife habitats and species movement, minimize the negative impacts of invasive species and provide protection from flood risk. (Policy SD.7) The washes present on-site will remain largely in their natural state. The largest wash, the Casas Adobes Wash will be preserved in the Open Space portion of the PAD. WESTWARD LOOK PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT Town of Oro Valley January 2021 i WESTWARD LOOK PAD Westward Look Resort Planned Area Development Ina Road & Westward Look Drive Submitted to: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Planning Division 11000 North La Cañada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Prepared for: WESTWARD LOOK RESORT LLC 245 E. Ina Road Tucson, Arizona 85704 Phone: (520) 917-2460 Prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER 2 East Congress, Suite 600 Tucson, Arizona 85701 With assistance from: Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. 333 E Wetmore Road, Suite 280 Tucson, Arizona 85705 January 2021 OV2002361 ii WESTWARD LOOK PAD Table of Contents Table of Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 Part I – Inventory & Analysis .............................................................................................. 2 1. Existing Land Uses ...................................................................................................... 3 2. Environmentally Sensitive Lands .............................................................................. 15 3. Topography & Slope .................................................................................................. 17 4. Cultural, Archaeological & Historic Resources ......................................................... 21 5. Hydrology ................................................................................................................... 21 6. Vegetation .................................................................................................................. 26 7. Wildlife ........................................................................................................................ 28 8. Viewsheds .................................................................................................................. 41 9. Traffic ......................................................................................................................... 45 10. Recreation & Trails ................................................................................................. 48 11. Schools ................................................................................................................... 50 12. Water ...................................................................................................................... 52 13. Sewer ...................................................................................................................... 52 14. McHarg Composite Map ........................................................................................ 54 Part II – Land Use Proposal .............................................................................................. 56 1. Project Overview ........................................................................................................ 57 2. Existing Land Uses .................................................................................................... 76 3. Environmentally Sensitive Lands .............................................................................. 76 4. Topography ................................................................................................................ 78 5. Cultural/Archaeological/Historic Resources .............................................................. 81 6. Hydrology ................................................................................................................... 81 7. Vegetation .................................................................................................................. 82 8. Wildlife ........................................................................................................................ 82 9. Viewsheds .................................................................................................................. 82 10. Traffic ...................................................................................................................... 86 11. Recreation & Trails ................................................................................................. 86 12. Schools ................................................................................................................... 87 13. Water ...................................................................................................................... 90 14. Sewer ...................................................................................................................... 92 15. Buffer Yards ............................................................................................................ 94 16. Parking Standards .................................................................................................. 97 iii WESTWARD LOOK PAD Table of Contents 17. Water Conservation Standards .............................................................................. 97 18. Architectural Guidelines ......................................................................................... 97 19. Design Review ..................................................................................................... 103 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................... 104 1. Appendix 1 – Class III Cultural Resources Inventory ............................................. 105 2. Appendix 2 - SRI ...................................................................................................... 117 3. General Plan Compliance Table ............................................................................. 119 List of Exhibits Exhibit I.1.A: Regional Context ........................................................................................... 4 Exhibit I.1.A.2: Location Map .............................................................................................. 5 Exhibit I.1.B: Existing On-site Land Use ............................................................................. 7 Exhibit I.1.C.i: Surrounding Land Use ................................................................................. 9 Exhibit I.1.C.ii: Existing Zoning .......................................................................................... 10 Exhibit I.1.C.iii: Subdivisions ............................................................................................. 12 Exhibit I.1.C.iv: Development Plans .................................................................................. 14 Exhibit I.2.A: CRA .............................................................................................................. 16 Exhibit I.6: Vegetation ....................................................................................................... 27 Exhibit I.7.A: AGFD Environmental Online Review .......................................................... 29 Exhibit I.9: Traffic ............................................................................................................... 46 Exhibit I.10: Recreation ..................................................................................................... 49 Exhibit I.11.A: Schools ...................................................................................................... 51 Exhibit I.13: Sewer ............................................................................................................ 53 Exhibit I.14: Composite Map ............................................................................................. 55 Exhibit II: PAD Districts ..................................................................................................... 58 Exhibit II.1.B: Existing General Plan Designations ........................................................... 61 Exhibit II.1.C: Illustrative Site Plan (Alternative A) ............................................................ 65 Exhibit II.1.C: Illustrative Site Plan (Alternative B) ............................................................ 66 Exhibit II.1.C: Illustrative Site Plan (Alternative C) ............................................................ 67 Exhibit II.3.A: CRA ............................................................................................................. 77 Exhibit II.9.A.ii: Massing Study 1 ....................................................................................... 84 Exhibit II.9.A.ii: Massing Study 2 ....................................................................................... 85 Exhibit: School Capacity Letter ......................................................................................... 88 Exhibit: Water Service Capacity Letter ............................................................................. 91 Exhibit: Wastewater Capacity Letter ................................................................................. 93 Exhibit II.15.B: Buffer Yard Cross-Sections ...................................................................... 95 List of Tables Table I.1.B: Parcel Summary .............................................................................................. 6 Table I.1.C: Surrounding Context within ¼ Mile ................................................................. 8 iv WESTWARD LOOK PAD Table of Contents Table I.1.C.iii: Subdivisions within ¼ Mile ......................................................................... 11 Table I.1.C.iv: Development Plans within ¼ Mile ............................................................. 13 Table I.2.C: ESL Conservation Categories ....................................................................... 15 Table I.3.C: Slope Analysis ............................................................................................... 17 Table I.5.D: Peak Discharges ........................................................................................... 22 Table I.7.A: Special Status Species Documented within 2 Miles of Project Vicinity ........ 28 Table I.9.B: Arterial Streets within One Mile ..................................................................... 47 Table I.10.A: Recreation Areas within One Mile ............................................................... 48 Table I.11.A: Schools within 1 Mile ................................................................................... 50 Table II.1.A.i: Underlying Zoning Districts ......................................................................... 57 Table II.1.D: Development Standards ............................................................................... 70 Table II.1.E.ii.a: PAD Development Standards Modification Justification for Resort Land Use .................................................................................................................................... 72 Table II.1.E.ii.b: PAD Development Standards Modification Justification for Resort Gateway Land Use ............................................................................................................ 73 Table II.3.B: ESL Conservation Categories ...................................................................... 76 Table: School Availability .................................................................................................. 87 1 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Introduction INTRODUCTION The Westward Look Resort Planned Area Development (PAD) proposes a comprehensive framework for the continued operation and future development of the Westward Look Resort property in the Town of Oro Valley. The approximately 75-acre property is located north of Ina Road between Oracle Road and 1st Avenue on either side of Westward Look Drive. The PAD proposes a mixture of land uses, maintaining the resort’s continued operation while providing for future resort expansion and development along Ina Road. The PAD governs site development through a set of specific land use regulations and design standards applicable to current and future uses on the property. This plan was developed with consideration to surrounding context of the built and natural environment. Land use regulations ensure that development is compatible with neighboring properties. Design standards ensure an aesthetic quality that enhances community appeal and continues to express the resort’s character. The PAD option was selected to preserve the resort’s existing character and quality while ensuring flexibility for future development. Land uses and development standards are crafted to individual sub-areas within the PAD, allowing for customized solutions to existing site constraints. 2 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis PART I – INVENTORY & ANALYSIS PART I INVENTORY & ANALYSIS 3 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis EXISTING LAND USES A. Regional Context With the Santa Catalina Mountains as a backdrop, the resort maintains the feel of the Old West in the midst of modern amenities. As shown in Exhibit I.1.A: Regional Context, the property is nestled on the western edge of the Catalina Foothills off Westward Look Drive, near the intersection of two major roadways, Ina Road and Oracle Road. Three prominent areas converge around the property, with Oro Valley to the north, Catalina Foothills to the east, and Casas Adobes to the west. With its prominent location and scenic backdrop, the property adds to the surrounding areas. i. Oro Valley Founded in 1974, Oro Valley has quickly become one of the most desirable communities in southern Arizona. Home to many high-quality employers and stunning natural beauty, Oro Valley consistently ranks as one of the most livable communities in the state. Many of the Town’s master planned communities provide connections to open space while creating a cohesive feeling of community. Major commercial areas provide convenient shopping for town residents. Abundant recreational opportunities are found in the Town’s parks, resorts and neighboring mountain ranges, significantly contributing to a high quality of life. ii. Catalina Foothills Located east of the property on the southern slopes of the Santa Catalina Mountains, the Catalina Foothills community overlooks the greater Tucson Valley. The “Foothills” are well known for quality housing, popular dining options, iconic art galleries, world class resorts and high-end shopping. Lifestyle and recreation in this community is among the finest in southern Arizona. iii. Casas Adobes Originally a cattle ranching area on the outskirts of Tucson, Casa Adobes has maintained its connection with the desert while decades of growth have surrounded it. Commercial developments are concentrated along major transportation corridors, and provide a range of dining, shopping and professional services. The crown jewel of which is the Casas Adobes Shopping Center located at the southwest corner of Ina Road and Oracle Road. Homes in many of the residential neighborhoods are situated on large lots surrounded by desert vegetation. This gives the Casas Adobes area of approximately 60,000 people a diffuse, natural feel unlike that of traditional suburbs. 4 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.1.A: Regional Context 5 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.1.A.2: Location Map 6 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis B. Existing Land Uses – On-site The property has hosted guest retreats for over a century, first as a guest ranch and later as the Westward Look Resort. It consists of five parcels, the first of which is the largest and occupies the Westward Look Resort and Spa on the northeast portion of the property, as listed in Table I.1.B: Parcel Summary. Westward Look Drive, a private road owned by Westward Look Resort, provides access to the resort and neighboring homes from Ina Road. The private road passes by three existing homes and three Westward Look parcels before reaching the resort. The largest of those three Westward Look parcels, approximately thirteen acres, is located east of Westward Look Drive. This parcel is mainly used for ancillary gatherings and recreation activities associated with the resort, including basketball, sand volleyball, and horse stables. The other two parcels, west of Westward Look Drive, are currently vacant. The remaining parcel is located west of the resort, and is deeded as open space, though it is traversed by equestrian and walking trails used by resort guests. See Exhibit I.1.B: Existing On-site Land Use. Table I.1.B: Parcel Summary APN: Acreage Existing Use General Location 225-50-0130 35.95 Existing Resort NE portion of PAD 225-50-0120 20.51 Open Space/Recreation NW portion of PAD 225-50-0200 13.38 Recreation & Equestrian Facilities NE corner of Westward Look Drive & Ina Road 225-50-021A 3.59 Vacant NW corner of Westward Look Drive & Ina Road 225-50-0180 1.14 Vacant West of Westward Look Drive Westward Look recently underwent an extensive renovation to ensure its continued success for years to come. Resort activities consist of hospitality accommodations, restaurants, a spa, conference rooms and meeting/event space, and various recreational amenities, including swimming pools, athletic courts, trails, and horseback riding. 7 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.1.B: Existing On-site Land Use 8 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis C. Surrounding Context within ¼ Mile i. Land Use Land use surrounding the property consists of predominantly one-story, single-family homes on larger lots. Architectural styles of these homes are typical of mid-to-late-twentieth century southwestern architecture, consisting of ranch style and Mediterranean Revival homes. Condominiums abut the northwestern portion of the PAD area and are single story with a density of approximately 4.3 dwelling units per acre. Commercial activities occur farther to the west on Oracle Road. See Exhibit I.1.C.i: Surrounding Land Use. ii. Zoning The property is currently zoned CR-1 (Single Residence) by Pima County. Exhibit I.1.C.ii: Existing Zoning , depicts the current zoning for the property and surrounding context. There are no pending or conditionally approved rezonings within ¼ mile of the property. Table I.1.C: Surrounding Context within ¼ Mile CATEGORY DIRECTION North South East West Land Use Single Family Residential, Condominium Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential, Commercial Existing Structures Height 1 Story 1 Story 1 & 2 Story 1 & 2 Story Zoning (Jurisdiction*) R1-36 (OV) CR-4 (PC) CR-1 (PC) SR (PC) CR-1 (PC) CR-1 (PC) TR (PC) Pending Rezoning N/A N/A N/A N/A Conditionally Approved Rezoning N/A N/A N/A N/A *Jurisdiction: OV = Oro Valley; PC = Pima County 9 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.1.C.i: Surrounding Land Use 10 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.1.C.ii: Existing Zoning 11 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis iii. Subdivisions Several approved subdivisions surround the site, and one is located on-site. The Westward Look Resort Condominium Hotel (160 Units Plus 80 Units) subdivision was approved in 1983 for the initial resort development. Surrounding subdivisions accommodate residential or commercial development. Exhibit I.1.C.iii: Subdivisions and the table below identify the surrounding approved subdivisions. Table I.1.C.iii: Subdivisions within ¼ Mile MAP ID SUBDIVISION NAME BOOK PAGE JURISDICTION LOT COUNT RECORD DATE 1 Suffolk Hills (1-44,1a &1b & Blk A&B) 13018 Oro Valley 46 7/9/1958 2 Suffolk Hills (45-107) 13043 Oro Valley 52 12/1/1958 3 Suffolk Hills (108,114-125,133-142 &190-195) 15010 Oro Valley 26 8/15/1960 4 Suffolk Hills (109-113,126-132 &143- 189) 14017 Oro Valley 58 9/29/1959 5 Cobo Catalina Hills (1-51) 12027 Pima County 51 2/21/1957 6 Catalina Village No.2 9079 Pima County 11 10/23/1951 7 Catalina Village No.1 (1-51) 9075 Pima County 51 9/24/1951 8 Catalina Village No.3 (1-77) 10026 Pima County 77 3/30/1953 9 Westward Look Guest Ranch No.1 (1- 61) 24022 Pima County 61 10/15/1972 10 Westward Look Guest Ranch No.1 (2, 5, 9, 22 ,25, 26 & 61) 29062 Pima County 6 5/31/1978 11 Westward Look Estates No.1 (1-6) 17026 Pima County 6 12/24/1963 12 Westward Look Resort Condominium Hotel (160 Units Plus 80 Units) 36082 Pima County 1 12/27/1983 13 Westward Look Heights (1-45) 28063 Pima County 45 5/10/1977 14 La Toscana Village (1-5) 44008 Pima County 5 9/12/1991 15 Casas Adobes No. 3-B 14069 Pima County 17 4/26/1960 16 Casas Adobes Estates No. 3-A 10054 Pima County 70 1/20/1954 17 Westward Look Terrace 12098 Pima County 19 5/1/1958 12 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.1.C.iii: Subdivisions Note: See Table I.1.C.iii for subdivision information. 13 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis iv. Development Plans Six development plans are within ¼ mile of the property, most of which are along the Oracle Road corridor. One development plan pertains to the property. This was for the addition of the resort’s Sonoran Ballroom in 2001. The Development Plan Table and Exhibit identify approved development plans within ¼ mile of the property. Table I.1.C.iv: Development Plans within ¼ Mile MAP ID DEVELOPMENT PLAN NAME BOOK PAGE JURISDICTION APPROVAL DATE PROJECT NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER REZONING 1 Oracle Medical Plaza 30061 Pima County 8/22/2006 P1205069 CO2006001, CO789002 CO997024 2 Northwest Corporate Center 16014 Pima County 10/7/1997 P1297049 CO1284007 CO980202 3 Ballroom Addition at The Westward Look Resort 23021 Pima County 7/2/2001 P1201038 CO1283043 - 4 La Toscana Village 10069 Pima County 10/12/1990 CO1289034 CO1359004, CO1382002 CO959086 5 UPI Satellite Office 10017 Pima County 11/22/1989 CO1289025 CO1358006 CO959086 6 Community Church of The Foothills Revision 3 37031 Pima County 5/24/2012 P1211056 P1205122, P1204036, P1292144, P1299127 - 14 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.1.C.iv: Development Plans Note: See Table I.1.C.iv for development plan information. 15 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS A. Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) Conservation Categories The property is not subject to ESL requirements based on section 27.10.B.1.b.ii of the Oro Valley Zoning Code (OVZC) since over twenty-five percent of it is already developed. However, Westward Look acknowledges the value of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance (ESLO) and has voluntarily considered ESLO Conservation Categories as part of the PAD process. Critical Resource Area (CRA) was identified on the property utilizing aerial photography, wash information, and field verification. 7.47 acres of CRA exist on-site with a significant portion, 5.6 acres, located within preservation areas north and west of the existing resort. The balance of the CRA is located on the southern parcels and follows an unnamed wash. See Exhibit I.2.A: CRA. At least 90 percent (6.7 acres) of CRA will be preserved as natural open space. B. ESL Conservation Categories Additional Characteristics There are no Major Rock Outcrops or Distinct Habitat Resources within the CRA. C. On-site ESL Conservation Categories Acreages Table I.2.C: ESL Conservation Categories Conservation Category Acreage Critical Resource Area 7.47 16 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.2.A: CRA 17 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis TOPOGRAPHY & SLOPE A. Rock Outcrops and Other Significant Topographic Features The topography of the subject property is characterized by hills and ridges that generally run northeast to southwest across the site. Overall, the subject property slopes from north to south towards the Casas Adobes Wash, south of Ina Road. The southwestern corner is the low point of the site at an approximate elevation of 2,592 feet, while the northeastern portion of the site contains the high point lying at an approximate elevation of 2,685 feet. Refer to Exhibit I.3: Topography. There are no rock outcrops on the property. B. Hillside Conservation Areas There are no hillside conservation areas on the property. C. Slope Areas Analysis The property was analyzed using the Hillside Area Category requirements in Section G of the Town’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance (ESLO). See Exhibit I.3.C: ESLO Slope Analysis. The slope categories used for this analysis coincide with the values provided in the Slope Density and Disturbance Limits table (Table 27.10-4 in the ESLO). The results of the slope analysis are below: Table I.3.C: Slope Analysis Slope Categories (ESLO) Area (AC) % of Site % Allowed Disturbance per ESLO Table 27.10-4 Allowed Disturbance Area (AC) Required Preserved Area (AC) 0% - 15% 56.56 82.25 100% 56.56 0 15% - 18% 5.65 8.22 40% 2.26 3.39 18% - 20% 1.87 2.72 30% 0.56 1.31 20% - 25% 2.21 3.21 20% 0.44 1.77 25% - 33% 1.32 1.92 5% 0.07 1.25 33%+ 1.16 1.69 4% 0.05 1.11 TOTALS Approx. 69 AC 100% *Total Allowable Disturbance = Approx. 60 AC Approx. 8.83 AC 18 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis *To determine the Total Allowable Disturbance area of the subject property based only on slopes, the area of each slope category was multiplied by the respective percentage of allowable disturbance using the values listed in the Slope Density and Disturbance Limits Table of the ESLO (Table 27.10-4). The sum of each of the slope categories’ allowable disturbance areas results in the total allowable site disturbance area of approximately 60 acres (based only on regulated slopes and not additional development constraints on-site). Approximately 12.21 acres or approximately 18 percent of the subject property is characterized by slopes of 15 percent and greater. The pre-development average cross-slope for the entirety of the subject property is approximately 11.05 percent. This figure was derived using the formula set forth by the Hillside Development Zone, Section 10- 110 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code (OVZC). Average cross slope was calculated as follows, where L is the sum of the length of all contours within the site, I is the contour interval, and A is the site area: 𝐼𝐼 ∗ 𝐿𝐿 ∗0.0023𝐴𝐴 =5 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∗66,303 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∗0.002369 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 =11.05% 19 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.3.: Topography 20 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.3.C.: ESLO Slope Analysis 21 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis CULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HISTORIC RESOURCES A. Arizona State Museum (ASM) Letter Arizona State Museum (ASM) records were researched as part of the archaeological survey of the property in August of 2020. This research indicated that 51 archaeological sites are present within one mile of the property from studies conducted between 1981 and 2013. Approximately 0.6 acres of the property was surveyed in 2001 as part of the Westward Look ballroom expansion. B. Cultural Resources Survey and Inventory Report See Class III Cultural Resources Inventory submitted under separate cover and included as Appendix A. C. Field Survey Requirements/Results An archaeological survey was conducted by SWCA in August of 2020 for the undeveloped portions of the PAD property. The survey found a total of six (6) isolated occurrences, none of which are recommended eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. D. Significant Resources Treatment Plan Of the six (6) isolated occurrences, only one, a descanso (roadside shrine), warrants additional attention. The shrine is located along Ina Road and consists of a wooden cross with an embossed plaque along with two photos of the deceased. Precaution should be taken to avoid disturbing the descanso in the course of future development. If the shrine cannot be avoided, an attempt should be made to contact the family and develop a relocation plan. No further cultural resource work is recommended except in the instance of undocumented cultural resources identified during development. If this is the case, all work in the immediate vicinity should stop until the discovery can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. HYDROLOGY A. Off-site Watersheds Exhibit I.5.A: Off-site Watersheds shows the off-site, upstream watersheds. Several off-site watersheds flow from the northeast to the southwest through the project site. The off-site watersheds extend into the Coronado National Forest, north of the site, and have watershed areas from 17 acres to 121 acres. The site is located within the foothills of the Santa Catalina Mountains. The off-site flows are conveyed across the northern and eastern property boundaries via a combination of street flow and natural washes. B. Critical Basins The property is located within a critical basin, as designated by the Town. The Town typically manages these basins as “Balanced” and detention facilities are required to reduce post- construction discharges to pre-construction discharges. The southeastern portion of the site will discharge to a segment of Ina Road and more frequent runoff events could affect Ina Road traffic. 22 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis To mitigate roadway impacts, the Watershed 14 2-year and 10-year post-construction discharges will be reduced to ninety percent of the respective pre-development discharges and the 100-year post-construction discharge will match the corresponding pre-construction discharge. All other watersheds will be as administered as “Balanced” basins. C. Natural or Man-made Off-site Features Flows impacting the site are discharged through the subject property as surface flow in well-defined natural washes. D. Off-site Watersheds with Discharges Greater than 50 cfs The Town of Oro Valley requires floodplain delineations for 100-year discharges over 50 cfs. Watersheds that generate discharges over 50 cfs and their associated floodplains are shown in Exhibit I.5.F: Onsite Drainage. Watershed areas and 100-year discharges are summarized below: Table I.5.D: Peak Discharges Watershed Area (ac) Q100 (cfs) Watershed Area (ac) Q100 (cfs) 1 40.6 224 8 176.8 550 2 42.9 237 9 193.5 559 3 25.7 111 10 121.3 378 4 27.1 116 11 115.3 514 5 17.3 87 12 18.2 113 6 32.5 160 13 55.1 264 7 27.1 120 14 5.0 35 E. Wells within 100 feet of the Site According to the the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), the property is not located within 100 feet of any wells. F. On-site Hydrology The on-site drainage is conveyed through the site in a southwesterly direction as naturally concentrated flow at slopes of 3 to 6 percent. On-site drainage facilities have not been inventoried but there appear to be roadway culverts that convey flow through Westward Look Dr at the primary 23 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis wash crossings. The site is located on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 04019C1680L. The site is within an unshaded Zone X, defined by FEMA as areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. G. Downstream Drainage Conditions Flow impacting the site is conveyed by the surface drainage system to a series of culverts at Ina Road, west of Village Avenue. The roadway culverts ultimately outfall to the Casas Adobes Wash, south of Ina Road. 24 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.5.A.: Off-site Watersheds 25 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.5.D.: On-site Hydrology 26 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis VEGETATION A. On-site Vegetation Communities The western portion of the property is mostly undisturbed and covered with Sonoran Desert scrub typical of the area. Foothills palo verde, Creosote, and various prickly pear and cholla species dominate the area. Saguaro and ocotillo are also present in the area, but not in large quantities. Nearly all of the property east of Westward Look Drive has been developed or disturbed as part of the resort operations. Vegetation occurring in these areas is a mix of native and non-native drought- tolerant species maintained by resort staff, and thus, not in a natural state when compared to undisturbed areas. Sonoran Desert scrub comprises the southern three parcels, consisting primarily of Mesquite, Foothills palo verde, and various cacti species. The plant material is generally in a state of decline due to age, pests, and low rainfall. Adjacent to resort amenity areas, the landscape is maintained by resort staff and has been supplemented with additional non-native species such as palms, turf, and eucalyptus. Hackberry and Acacia species can be found adjacent to the unnamed wash. B. Significant Cacti and Trees A Site Resource Inventory (SRI) was conducted to identify significant cacti and trees. Only the southern three parcels were inventoried as the rest of the property is either being preserved or consists of maintained landscape. In total fifty-four cacti and trees meeting the definition of significant were inventoried. Of the sixty-four, eighteen were determined to be non-viable due to health and damage. See Appendix 2 for the full SRI. C. Vegetative Density The vegetative density of native plants on the property is consistent with Upland Sonoran Scrub found in the area. The vegetative density around the existing resort is much higher due to the use of irrigation and maintenance. 27 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.6: Vegetation 28 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis WILDLIFE A. Arizona Game and Fish Department Environmental Review A wildlife review was conducted using the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) Online Environmental Review Tool. The results of the review are shown in Exhibit I.7.A: AGFD Environmental Online Review. The table below identifies special species documented within the project vicinity. Table I.7.A: Special Status Species Documented within 2 Miles of Project Vicinity SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME FWS USFS BLM NPL SGCN Abutilon parishii Pima Indian Mallow SC S S SR Choeronycteris mexicana Mexican Long- tongued Bat SC S S 1C Danaus plexippus Monarch S Gopherus morafkai Sonoran Desert Tortoise CCA S S 1A Heloderma suspectum suspectum Reticulate Gila Monster 1A Heloderma suspectum Gila Monster 1A Lasiurus xanthinus Western Yellow Bat S 1B Leptonycteris yerbabuenae Lesser Long-nosed Bat SC 1A Opuntia versicolor Stag-horn Cholla SR Terrapene ornata luteola Desert Box Turtle S 1A Tumamoca macdougalii Tumamoc Globeberry S S SR Abbreviations: FWS – Federal United States Status USFS – United States Forest Service BLM – United States S Bureau of Land Management NPL – Native Plant Law SGCN – Species of Greatest Conservation Need Status Definitions: SC – Species of Concern CCA – Candidate Conservation Agreement S – Sensitive (USFS & BLM) SR – Salvage Restricted SGCN Tiers 1A – Scored 1 for vulnerability in at least 1 of 8 SGCN categories and matches addition Federal/State Status 1B – Scored 1 for vulnerability in at least 1 of 8 SGCN categories 1C – Unknown Status Source: Arizona Game and Fish Department, Arizona’s Online Environmental Review Tool, ert.azgfd.gov 29 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.7.A: AGFD Environmental Online Review 30 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis 31 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis 32 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis 33 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis 34 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis 35 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis 36 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis 37 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis 38 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis 39 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis 40 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis 41 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis VIEWSHEDS A. Viewshed Analysis i. Off-site Viewsheds The development is not located along Tangerine Road or Oracle Road and is not subject to a viewshed analysis, but considering existing residential adjacency, one has been performed. Views of the property are generally from Ina Road or adjacent properties. The existing landscape in the Ina Road right-of-way blocks most views of the property. There are twelve homes adjacent to the southern parcels where future development is planned. A massing study has been completed from the east and west property boundary and is found in section II.9.A of this PAD. ii. Site Photos Existing site photos have been included for reference. See I.8.A.ii: Site Photos. B. View Preservation Plan The development is not located along Tangerine Road or Oracle Road and is not subject to a view preservation plan. Catalina Mountain views from adjacent properties will not be impacted by this development given the shape of the property, location of neighboring homes, and the general north-northeast direction of views. 42 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Ina Road 1 Westward Look Drive 2 3 4 43 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Ina Road 4 Westward Look Drive 3 1 2 44 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis 1 Ina Road 4 Westward Look Drive 2 3 45 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis TRAFFIC A. Off-site Existing & Proposed Streets Between the Development and the Nearest Arterial Street The development will connect to Westward Look Drive, a private street. Westward Look Drive has a 60’ right of way (R/W) that extends north from Ina Road and is one lane in each direction with a raised median for the first 250 feet from the intersection. The posted speed limit is 20 MPH. It is privately owned by Westward Look Resort LLC and serves as local access to single family residences, town homes, and the resort. No changes to the street width are proposed with the rezoning. Traffic count data conducted on Wednesday, June 24, 2020 shows that Westward Look Drive carries approximately 2,700 vehicles per day. The theoretical capacity of this 2-lane roadway to achieve LOS D is 14,800 vehicles per day. B. Arterial Streets within One Mile Ina Road runs east-west with two lanes in each direction divided by a raised median. The posted speed limit is 45 MPH. According to ADOT’s Statewide Federal Functional System, Ina Road is a Principal Arterial. Ina Road extends west to I-10. Ina Road extends east to connect to Sunrise Drive. There are no plans for improvements on Ina Road within the vicinity of the development. Ina Road existing R/W is 160’ based on information in PimaMaps. No R/W changes are proposed with the rezoning. Ina Road is owned and maintained by Pima County. Traffic count data conducted on Wednesday, June 24, 2020 shows that Ina Road carries 34,500 vehicles per day. The theoretical capacity of this 4-lane divided roadway to achieve LOS D is 39,800 vehicles per day. The existing street network within the study area includes Ina Road and Westward Look Drive as shown in Exhibit I.9: Traffic. The existing intersection lane configuration and traffic control is shown in Figure 3 from the Traffic Impact Analysis submitted under separate cover. 46 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.9: Traffic 47 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Table I.9.B: Arterial Streets within One Mile Inventoried Categories Roadway Ina Road Oracle Road 1st Avenue Orange Grove Road Magee Road Major Routes Classification Major Arterial (Major Scenic Route – PC) Major Arterial (State Scenic Route) Minor Arterial Minor Arterial (Major Scenic Route – PC) Minor Arterial (Major Scenic Route – PC) Road Segment (from/to) La Oeste Avenue - Pima Canyon Drive Orange Grove Road - Catalina Shadows Blvd Orange Grove Road - Ina Road Oracle Road - 1st Avenue Paseo Del Norte - Oracle Road Existing R.O.W (feet) 150 200 150 100-200 145 Future R.O.W (feet) 150 200 150 150 150 R.O.W Conformance to Oro Valley Minimum Requirements Yes Yes No No Yes Ownership Pima County ADOT Pima County Pima County Oro Valley Continuous/ Jogged R.O.W. Continuous Continuous Continuous Jogged Continuous Number of Lanes (Capacity) 4 (39,800) 6 (59,900) 2 (17,700) 2 (17,700) 4 (32,400) Speed Limit (miles per hour) 45 45/50 45 45 35 ADT (Source/Year) 35,217 (PAG - 2013) 55,125 (ADOT – 2018) 16,423 (PAG - 2011) 18,377 (PAG - 2013) 16,452 (PAG - 2013) Surface Condition (PCI Range/ PCI Class*) Paved (27 – Failed) Paved Paved (59 – Poor) Paved (42 – Poor) Paved (68 – Good) Sources: PimaMaps, Pima County Geographic Information Systems, 2020; Circulation Map Classifications and Standards, Town of Oro Valley General Plan, 2016; Roads Functional Classifications, Circulation Map, Town of Oro Valley General Plan, 2016; HPMS Location Report for Year 2018, Arizona Department of Transportation; Pima Association of Governments 48 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis RECREATION & TRAILS A. Trails, Parks and Recreation within One Mile i. Parks Tohono Chul Park, located north of Ina Road and west of Oracle Road, is the only park within one mile of the property. This 48.6-acre park is a botanical garden, nature preserve and cultural museum. Visitors can walk the grounds, learn about native plants and culture, and enjoy art galleries all in one location. The Santa Catalina Mountains lie northeast of the property. Pusch Ridge Wilderness occupies nearly 57,000 acres in the southwestern portion of these mountains. While not an official park, this area of national forest affords many recreational activities including, hiking, biking, horseback riding and camping. Pusch Ridge Wilderness and the Santa Catalina Mountains are both part of the larger Coronado National Forest. ii. Trails As shown in Exhibit I.10: Recreation, Pima Canyon is the nearest trail, located just over a mile northeast of the property. This trail and its corresponding trailhead take hikers and equestrian users into the Pusch Ridge Wilderness portion of the Santa Catalina Mountains. The United State Forest Service maintains the trail. Table I.10.A: Recreation Areas within One Mile RECREATION AREA TYPE AREA Tohono Chul Park Passive 48.6 acres Push Ridge Wilderness Passive 56,974 acres Pima Canyon Trail Passive N/A 49 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.10: Recreation 50 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis SCHOOLS A. Existing and Proposed Public Schools within One Mile Harelson Elementary School is the only public school within one mile of the property. It is located on the northwest corner of Paseo Del Norte and Chapala Drive. Other public schools that may serve the property are Cross Middle School, directly west of Harelson Elementary and Orange Grove Middle School at Orange Grove Road and Skyline Drive. Harelson Elementary and Cross Middle Schools are part of the Amphitheater Unified School District. Orange Grove Middle School is within the Catalina Foothills Unified School District. Several other schools are located within one mile of the property. Refer to Table I.11.A: Schools within 1 Mile and Exhibit I.11.A: Schools for a comprehensive inventory of nearby schools. Table I.11.A: Schools within 1 Mile MAP ID SCHOOL NAME SCHOOL TYPE SCHOOL CLASS 1 Immaculate Heart High School Private High School 2 Immaculate Heart Academy Private Elementary School 3 Harelson Elementary School Public Elementary School 4 Edge High School-Northwest Charter High School 5 Kino School Private Other 51 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.11.A: Schools 52 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis WATER Water to the property is provided by Metropolitan Water Company located at 6265 N. La Cañada Drive, Tucson AZ, 85704. Information regarding water service capacity is provided by Timothy Dinkel of the Metropolitan Water Engineering Department. His email address is tdinkel@metrowater.com. SEWER The property is currently served by Pima County Wastewater. The resort is served by a network of private sewer lines that connect to an eight-inch public sewer line that traverses the site from the subdivision to the north, across the vacant northwest parcel, runs beneath Westward Look Drive and continues south across Ina Road. Many potential connection points exist throughout the site, the most prominent of which is the manhole located at the intersection of Ina Road and Westward Look Drive. See Exhibit I.13: Sewer for the current sewer network configuration. 53 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.13: Sewer 54 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis MCHARG COMPOSITE MAP As depicted in Exhibit I.14, information regarding topography, hydrology, vegetation, wildlife and viewsheds has been combined to form the McHarg Composite Map. The purpose of the Composite Map is to highlight areas that are available for development. 55 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Inventory & Analysis Exhibit I.14: Composite Map 56 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal PART II – LAND USE PROPOSAL PART II Land Use Proposal 57 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal The Westward Look Resort is proud to become part of the Town of Oro Valley and add its rich history to the community. This land use proposal articulates a vision for the existing resort facilities as well as the undeveloped portions of the 75-acre property. The primary goal of this proposal is to continue the resort’s historic operation while respecting the surrounding area and providing flexibility to realize future development potential. Three land use categories are proposed for the property: 1. Resort: Constituting most of the property, this area focuses on continued operation of the existing Westward Look Resort with provisions for minor redevelopment and enhancements; 2. Resort Gateway (East and West): Located in the southern section of the property along Ina Road, this area has the most development/expansion potential; 3. Open Space: This northern area, west of Westward Look Drive, is designated for passive recreation with no plans for development or expansion. See Exhibit II: PAD Districts. Given that the northern portions of the property (Resort and Open Space) will remain largely unchanged, potential for new development is concentrated in the Resort Gateway areas. As such, the illustrative concepts shown herein focus on the southern portion of the property along Ina Road. Currently no end-users have been identified for the Resort Gateway. The illustrative concepts shown herein are for planning purposes only to depict a variety of potential uses. Elements may be interchanged between plans and do not prescribe final site design, but all future development must be in substantial conformance with the approved concepts. PROJECT OVERVIEW This subsection identifies in narrative and tabular form the proposed underlying zoning designations and land uses, including principal and accessory uses, conformity with the Town of Oro Valley General Plan, and development standards for all proposed buildings and structures shown in each of the three illustrative site plans. This PAD provides improved standards that are specific to this site rather than conventional zoning standards. A. Proposed PAD i. Proposed Underlying Zoning Districts Each land use category is tailored to specific portions of the property and based on the Town’s existing zoning districts. The proposed underlying zoning for each land use designation is as follows: Table II.1.A.i: Underlying Zoning Districts PAD Designation Underlying Oro Valley Zone Resort R-4R - Resort District Resort Gateway C-N - Neighborhood Commercial District Open Space POS - Parks and Open Space 58 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Exhibit II: PAD Districts 59 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal ii. PAD Conformance with General Plan and Future Land Use Map Westward Look PAD is in conformance with each General Plan focus element as noted below. Land Use Element Located along the Ina Road arterial roadway, this PAD proposes a variety of land uses, including a mix of housing types and neighborhood-scale commercial development, while protecting environmentally sensitive areas. It will also feature new recreational amenities linked to the resort and preserved open space. Development standards, including enhanced landscaping with a continuous tree canopy along the east side of Resort Gateway (East) and a reduction in height abutting existing homes, have been crafted to ensure there is adequate buffering for adjacent residences and that any potentially negative impacts are mitigated. Transportation Element The Ina Road frontage will be improved with new sidewalk as will the Resort Gateway frontage along Westward Look Drive. Internal sidewalks throughout the Resort Gateway areas will connect to those along Ina and Westward Look Drive, and pedestrian crossings will be carefully planned for maximum safety. Secure bicycle parking will also be conveniently accessed from the existing bike lane along Ina Road. Economic Development Element The addition of Westward Look into the Town of Oro Valley brings with it a significant increase in sales and bed tax revenue. Future development of the Resort Gateway areas will result in more construction sales tax for the Town as well as increased property taxes on the conversion of vacant land into new commercial and residential construction. Additional sales tax revenues from commercial businesses in the Resort Gateway areas, and consumer spending throughout Oro Valley by new residents, is also anticipated. Public Services and Facilities Element As discussed in section II.12 of this PAD, less than one-hundred K-12 students are anticipated, and ample capacity for those students exists within each of the schools serving the PAD. Water, sewer, electric, police, and fire service to the property also exists. Community Design Element Given that Resort Gateway (West) is less than 5 acres and less than one-third the size of Resort Gateway (East), building heights are one- to two-stories, with one-story buildings nearest to the north and west property lines. Building heights in the center of Resort Gateway (East) are limited to a maximum of three-stories and step down to two-stories within eighty-five feet of existing residences to the east and west. The bulk of buildings adjacent to existing homes will also be reduced through required stepbacks in height and articulation of the visible wall plane. All parking areas will be screened from neighboring residences via a six-foot perimeter wall. Screening for parking along Ina Road will also be provided. 60 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Open Space/Recreation Element Westward Look already features pedestrian and equestrian trails that will be reconfigured and improved upon by the resort and in conjunction with future development. These trails link the resort with on-site and off-site open space, including Pima Canyon Trail, and connect to future public recreational/open space amenities in the Resort Gateway areas. Handicap accessibility will play a key role in amenity design. Natural Resources Conservation Element This PAD preserves the 20.5-acre parcel next to the resort as open space for the enjoyment of existing and future residents and resort patrons. The wash through the Resort Gateway areas will also be preserved as open space. Native plant materials and those on the approved Southern Arizona Water Resources Association plant list will be used. As noted on the SRI, viable native plant material will be transplanted on-site, particularly into the buffer yards abutting existing homes. Safety Element Any new bike paths or modifications to the existing bike lane on Ina Road will be designed to safely separate bike traffic from motorized vehicles. New construction will adhere to all applicable fire safety and management policies from the Town and Northwest Fire Department. Cultural/Historic Element A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory was completed for the PAD and is included as Appendix 1. If any archaeological artifacts are discovered during construction, their location will not be shared with the public and all work in the immediate vicinity will stop until a qualified archaeological contractor is contacted and retained. iii. Flexible Development or Conservation Subdivision Design Consistency with Conservation Subdivision Design does not apply to the type of development proposed by this PAD. B. General Plan Future Land Use Designations The Oro Valley General Plan designates the northern portion of the property (the Resort and Open Space areas) as Resort/Golf Course. The southern portion (the Resort Gateway area) is split between Neighborhood Commercial/Office east of Westward Look Drive and Low Density Residential (0.4 – 1.2 DU/AC) to the west as shown in Exhibit II.1.B.i: Existing General Plan Designations. The PAD is consistent with the General Plan land use designations except for the Low Density Residential portion that corresponds to the Resort Gateway (West) area. 61 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Exhibit II.1.B.i: Existing General Plan Designations 62 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal A Type 2 (minor) General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change this designation to Neighborhood Commercial/Office is being pursued concurrently with the PAD process. Upon adoption of the amendment, the entire Resort Gateway portion of the property will be designated as Neighborhood Commercial/Office as shown in Exhibit II.1.B.ii: Type 2 GPA Area . The General Plan encourages this designation along arterial roadways such as Ina Road. Amending the entire Resort Gateway to be Neighborhood Commercial/Office aligns with this goal and provides the opportunity to extend an entry experience for the Resort and the Town farther south. The combination of Resort/Golf Course and Neighborhood Commercial/Office designations positions the Westward Look Resort to continue to operate as a high-quality destination resort while providing the flexibility to accommodate future development and expansion. Flexibility allows the property to respond to future market conditions and maintain the vision of the PAD and Oro Valley. The vision statement from the Oro Valley General Plan, Your Voice, Our Future, states: Oro Valley strives to be a well-managed community that provides all residents with opportunities for quality living. Oro Valley will keep its friendly, small-town, neighborly character, while increasing services, employment and recreation. The Town’s lifestyle continues to be defined by a strong sense of community, a high regard for public safety and an extraordinary natural environment and scenic views. The Westward Look PAD aligns with this vision by providing for continued operation of the Westward Look Resort, preservation of existing open space and creating the framework for future development of services, employment, and housing. It is consistent with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan goals, policies and elements as described in the accompanying Type 2 GPA narrative. 63 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Exhibit II.1.B.ii: Type 2 GPA Area Type 2 Amendment Area 64 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal C.Proposed Land Uses No significant changes are proposed for the Resort or Open Space land uses in the northern portion of the PAD. As such, the following illustrative site plan concepts focus on the Resort Gateway land use areas located along Ina Road at the southern end of the property. These three illustrations demonstrate what potential future development may look like. With no end-user currently identified, the illustrations are for conceptual use only and are not prescriptive. Illustrative Site Plan (Concept A) contemplates opportunities for commercial, office, and retail uses in all buildings, and while not shown, on-street parking is permitted adjacent to Westward Look Drive. Final design and layout within the Resort Gateway will be determined during the Oro Valley Final Site Plan review process. Per the OVZC, development plans submitted within five years of an approved rezoning that are in conformance with the approved Tentative Development Plan (TDP) may proceed directly to final design. The Resort Gateway areas shall be able to pursue this course of action for a period of up to ten years from the date of Mayor and Council approval of this PAD. 65 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Exhibit II.1.C: Illustrative Site Plan (Concept A) 66 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Exhibit II.1.C: Illustrative Site Plan (Concept B) 67 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Exhibit II.1.C: Illustrative Site Plan (Concept C) 68 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal i. Proposed Land Uses, Principal and Accessory Uses Existing and future development within the Westward Look PAD shall conform to the regulations and standards set forth herein. Where these regulations and standards vary from the Oro Valley Zoning Code (OVZC) or other Town standards, the PAD regulations and standards shall supersede Town Code. Development standards not specified in the PAD shall be governed by the existing standards of the OVZC. a. Resort Land Uses Permitted Uses All uses permitted under the R-4R (Resort District) of the OVZC shall be allowed within the Resort land use area except as modified by the following sections. Additional Uses Additional uses permitted under the Resort land use designation include: • Bars (ancillary) • Distillery • Microbrewery • Commercial Stables (ancillary) • Entertainment at Bars or Restaurants • Offices (ancillary) • Retail Sales – General Retail (ancillary) • Daycare (ancillary) • Personal Services (ancillary) • Recreational Buildings and Facilities Prohibited Uses • Restaurant with Drive-in/Drive Thru • Large Retail Establishments (i.e., Big Box stores) • Short-term Rental Properties (e.g., Airbnb and Vrbo rentals) except for Independent Living and Time Shares, which are permitted • Golf Course • Schools, Public or Private including Charter Schools • Home Occupations • Model Homes, Including Temporary Real Estate Office b. Resort Gateway Land Uses Permitted Uses All uses permitted under the C-N (Neighborhood Commercial District) of the OVZC shall be allowed within the Resort Gateway except as modified by the following sections. The Resort Gateway areas are not permitted to be fully built out with only residential development. 69 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Additional Uses Additional uses permitted under the Resort Gateway: • Commercial Stables (ancillary to existing resort) • Hotels/Motels • Resorts • Buildings and Facilities with Outdoor Activities, Private, including Fitness Centers or Health Spas Prohibited Uses The following uses are prohibited in the Resort Gateway: • Plant Nursery • Convenience Market • Vehicle Parts Store • Vehicle Storage Facility except for Parking Garage • Restaurant with Drive-in/Drive Thru • Large Retail Establishments (i.e., Big Box stores) • Short-term Rental Properties (e.g., Airbnb and Vrbo rentals) except for Independent Living and Time Shares, which are permitted • Golf Course • Schools, Public or Private Including Charter Schools • Home Occupations • Model Homes, including Temporary Real Estate Office c. Open Space Land Uses All uses permitted under the POS (Parks and Open Space) of the OVZC shall be allowed within Open Space except as modified by the following sections. Additional Uses Additional uses permitted in Open Space: • Recreational Uses, including Horse Stables and Other Equestrian Facilities (i.e. round pens, etc.) Prohibited Uses The following uses are prohibited in Open Space: • Golf Course • Government Services • Religious Institutions • Schools, Public or Private • Utility Poles and Above Ground Wires, New • Buildings and Facilities, Not-for-Profit Community Service Organizations, such as Boys & Girls Clubs or YMCA 70 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal D. PAD Development Regulations Table II.1.D: Development Standards Development Standards Resort R-4R Underlying Zoning District Resort Gateway *C-N Underlying Zoning District Open Space POS Underlying Zoning District Maximum FAR 0.25 0.25 N/A Maximum Building Height 40 feet, which is no taller than existing buildings 40 feet (3 stories) 28 feet (2 stories) within 85 feet of property line N/A Minimum Building Setback Front 30 feet 20 feet or where adjacent to a residential district, 30 feet N/A Side & Rear 30 feet 25 feet, or 50 feet where the lot abuts a property used or intended for residential purposes N/A Minimum Open Space 25% of Resort area 25% of Resort Gateway areas 100% Minimum Distance Between Buildings Per Current Town-Adopted Building Code Per Current Town-Adopted Building Code N/A Buffer Yards North Existing Natural and Enhanced Landscaping Adjacent to Existing Off-site Residential – 40 feet Adjacent to PAD Property – None None South None 25 feet None East Existing Natural and Enhanced Landscaping Adjacent to Residential –50 feet (minimum 20-foot Enhanced) Adjacent to PAD Property – None None West None Adjacent to Residential – 40 feet Adjacent to PAD Property - None None Screening None Adjacent to Residential – 6 feet None *NOTE: where apartments, townhomes , or villas are proposed in the Resort Gateway areas with underlying C-N zoning , the OVZC zoning district standards more similar to those development types shall be used (e.g., apartments – R-6, townhomes/villas – R-4). 71 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal E.Rationale for Zoning Designation and Requested Modification to Underlying Zoning District Standards and Development Standards i.Rationale for PAD District A wholistic approach with the existing resort and open space instead of piecemeal between separate parcels ensures future development is harmonious with what exists today. The Resort land use designation is intended to bring the existing Westward Look Resort into conformance with Oro Valley standards and provide the opportunity for minor changes, while the Open Space designation solidifies the deed restrictions on the area west of the resort. The Resort Gateway will allow for neighborhood-oriented commercial goods and services along a major arterial gateway into Oro Valley, and will spur reimagining the Westward Look Resort entry on Ina Road. ii.Rationale for Requested Modifications to the PAD Underlaying Zoning District Standards This PAD modifies certain development standards of the R-4R to accommodate existing on- site uses which were constructed under (or in some cases, prior to) Pima County zoning. Modification of the POS zoning creates greater restrictions for this designation over and above the existing POS standards, restricting all structures and requiring the area designated as Open Space in this PAD to remain as open space. In the Resort Gateway designation, modification of the C-N standards restricts a number of unsuitable or undesirable uses and modifies select development standards to increase compatibility with existing neighboring residences. For example, drive-thru restaurants are prohibited per this PAD in response to neighbor concerns. A limit on the size of commercial uses is also proposed to restrict development of large retail establishments. Further details of these modifications and reasoning behind them can be found in the following table. 72 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Table II.1.E.ii.a: PAD Development Standards Modification Justification for Resort Land Use Development Standards Oro Valley Zoning Code R-4R Standards Applicable to Site Resort – Modified R-4R Underlying Zoning District Justification Minimum Property Size 50 acres prior to street modifications 35 acres prior to street modifications Reflective of the existing resort parcel acreage Building Height Maximum building height of 34 feet Maximum building height of 40 feet 40 feet is the height of the tallest existing resort building (the Sonoran Ballroom) within the PAD boundary. Site Perimeter Setbacks and Yards From the property line of any R-1 district: One hundred (100) feet From the property line of any R-1 district: Zero (0) feet Not applicable since the resort is already built on a parcel that does not meet this requirement. From the property line of any district other than R-1: Fifty (50) feet From the property line of any district other than R-1: Zero (0) feet Not applicable since the resort is already built on a parcel that does not meet this requirement. 73 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Table II.1.E.ii.b: PAD Development Standards Modification Justification for Resort Gateway Land Use Development Standards Oro Valley Zoning Code C-N Standards Applicable to Site Resort Gateway - Modified C-N Underlying Zoning District Justification Floor Area Limits Commercial uses shall be no greater than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area per individual business Commercial uses shall be no greater than 7,000 square feet of gross floor area per individual business A small increase in the allowable square footage for individual commercial uses opens the property up to more potential end-users while still preventing larger retailers from locating here. Residential units may comprise no more than 50% of the total gross floor area of the development nor occupy more than 50% of the site by area Residential units may comprise no more than 20% of the area of the entire PAD. Given the commercial nature of the resort, utilizing the PAD boundary rather than the Resort Gateway (East or West) boundary opens up the property to more end-users. Building Height Maximum building height of 25 feet or two (2) stories If a contiguous residential district has a more restrictive height standard, all buildings within eighty-five (85) feet of the property line of contiguous R-1 single- family residentially zoned property shall conform to that more restrictive standard of the contiguous zone. Maximum building height of 40 feet and three (3) stories. Buildings within 85 feet of residential property will be limited to 28 feet and two stories. The proposed uses in the various illustrative concept plans envision a variety of walkable mixed-use developments that are compatible with the site’s location on Ina Road, a major arterial street. With the appropriate buffers and setbacks prescribed herein, the increase in building heights can be mitigated for existing neighbors. Careful attention to design, view corridors and transitions between uses will provide further mitigation for the increase in height. 74 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Yards and Setbacks Side and Rear setbacks: 50 feet or 3:1 (setback to building height) where the lot abuts a property used or intended for residential purposes, whichever is greater. Side and Rear setbacks: 25 feet, or 50 feet where the lot abuts a property used or intended for residential purposes. If the front of a proposed building is adjacent to a residential district, the front setback regulations of the residential district apply. In this case, the front setback would be the same as the front setback regulations of the adjacent residential district (Pima County CR-1), or 30 feet. Therefore, reduced side and rear setbacks should be allowed for buildings adjacent to existing residential that display extensive architectural detail in line with the architecture of the building’s front façade. A step back in building height and articulation of the side or rear façade to break up the wall plane adjacent to existing residential is required. Additionally, the eastern 20-foot enhanced landscape buffer yard provides visual screening, depth to the field of view, and softens remaining structural views. 75 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal F. Landscape Concept Plan Landscape plays an essential role in defining and maintaining the character of the Westward Look Resort. The landscape aesthetic contributes mightily to sense of place and ties the property to the Sonoran Desert setting that attracts visitors from across the globe. The PAD highlights the role of landscape by extending this approach to future development. The primary goal of future landscape treatments is to develop a gateway experience for the resort while blending new development with an established sense of place. This is achieved by creating an arrival experience along the property’s frontage on Ina Road, punctuated by monumentation and enhanced landscape at Westward Look Drive. The enhanced landscape extends the arrival sequence by drawing guests north along Westward Look Drive towards the resort. Parking and pedestrian areas will be treated in a manner that creates inviting spaces while mitigating the urban heat island effect through the use of canopy trees for shade and ground covers that cool the ground plane. Buffer yards will be treated throughout the site with the utmost care and will exceed Town standards in most cases, with enhanced landscaping in the Resort Gateway areas where adjacent to existing residential development. Adjacent to the Resort Gateway (East) eastern property boundary, a continuous tree canopy and twenty-foot enhanced landscape border will be provided for additional screening and aesthetics for existing neighbors. All trees planted or transplanted in the enhanced landscape border adjacent to the eastern property boundary shall be a minimum box size of thirty-six inches or equivalent. A variety of plant sizes for shrubs, accents, and other materials, as well as species diversity convey a well-organized, thoughtful approach expected of high-quality amenities. The Resort Gateway is permitted to utilize all plants recognized as drought tolerant by ADWR. There are no restrictions on where they may be planted, proximity to each other, in what densities, or species. Hydroseed mixes utilized for revegetation and mitigation shall be from the Oro Valley Approved Revegetation Seed Mix (OVZC Addendum D) but there is no minimum number of plant type (shrub, small perennial, etc.) required. At least sixteen species and twenty PLS/Acre are required. G. Permitted and Prohibited Land Uses for each Underlying District See Section II.1.C.i Proposed Land Uses, Principal and Accessory Uses. H. PAD Phasing As the northern portions of the property are either occupied by the exiting Westward Look Resort or designated as open space, future development will be isolated to the southern portion of the property near Ina Road and Westward Look Drive. This portion may develop all at once or over time depending on the end user(s) and market conditions. I. Open Space Natural and functional open spaces constitutes the two (2) forms of open space within the PAD. Section 24.4.C: General Provisions of the OVZC establishes a minimum open space requirement for all PAD districts of twenty (20) percent of the gross acreage of the PAD. The 20.5-acre Open Space land use designation in the northwest portion of the property accounts for 27.5 percent of the 76 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal overall PAD area. This area alone exceeds the Town’s open space requirement. Additional functional open space is found at the Resort in the form of patio, pools, terraces, athletic courts, equestrian facilities and walking paths. Future development will also incorporate functional open space. Functional open space will vary depending on the type of development proposed. Residential development may include pools, parklets, fitness centers, dog parks or ramadas. Commercial development may incorporate patios, plazas, event lawns or other outdoor gathering spaces. EXISTING LAND USES Sections I.C.i and I.C.ii of the Inventory & Analysis describe and illustrate existing land use and zoning surrounding the PAD property. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS A. ESL Conservation Categories and Environmentally Sensitive Open Space (ESOS) This project is not subject to the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance and ESOS is not applicable as the property is already more than 25 percent developed. As stated in Part I, Westward Look has voluntarily established Critical Resource Area around both the Casas Adobes Wash in the Open Space and the Unnamed Wash in Resort Gateway (East and West). 90% of the total CRA on- site will be preserved. These CRA areas ensure that the habitat and wash systems will be preserved to the greatest extent possible. These wash systems create connections through the property in two locations preventing further fragmentation of habitat. The open space area is approximately 20.5 acres which results in twenty-seven percent of the total PAD area being preserved in perpetuity. The project does not contain a Major Wildlife Linkage or Core Resource Areas. See Exhibit II.3.A: CRA. B. ESL Conservation Categories and Environmentally Sensitive Open Space (ESOS) Acreages Table II.3.B: ESL Conservation Categories Conservation Category Total Acreage Minimum ESOS Required Total ESOS Provided Total ESOS Percentage Critical Resource Area 7.47 acres 6.7 acres 6.7 acres 90% Total ESOS Provided 90% 77 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Exhibit II.3.A: CRA 78 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal TOPOGRAPHY A. PAD Response to Site Topography This project compliments the existing topography of the site and conforms to the Hillside Area Category of ESLO. Based on the slope analysis performed, the property is allowed up to 60 acres of disturbance over the full site. The proposed development area is approximately 20 acres with 19 acres being disturbed. Portions of the site exhibiting steeper slopes have been reserved for boundary landscaping. B. Areas of Encroachment onto Slopes There are no zones of encroachment into slope areas greater than 15% other than small areas of landscape along the perimeter. C. “Hillside Conservation” Areas Hillside Conservation Areas are land areas designated as 15% or greater where the sloped area is greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet in length and no less than fifty (50) feet wide and greater than seven and one-half (7 ½) feet vertically. Natural slopes in these areas shall be conserved. See Exhibit II.4.C: Hillside Conservation Areas. D. Percentage to be Graded, Disturbed or Revegetated The disturbed area for this development is 19.0 acres. This equates to 25.7% of the overall site. See Exhibit II.4.D: Proposed Grading Limits. E. Extent of Grading of the Site See Exhibit II.4.D: Proposed Grading Limits. 79 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Exhibit II.4.C.: Hillside Conservation Areas 80 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Exhibit II.4.D.: Proposed Grading Limits 81 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal CULTURAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORIC RESOURCES A. Measures for Protection of all Cultural and Historical Resources Protection of cultural and historical resources will be of paramount importance to the planned area development. Recommendations and requirements from the Town of Oro Valley and the Arizona State Museum will be executed in a manner that is respectful of the valuable cultural and historical resources that exist in this region. Should discoveries be made during construction, all work in the immediate vicinity will stop and a qualified archaeological contractor will be contacted. HYDROLOGY A. PAD Development Plan Response to Hydrology Off-site drainage will be conveyed through the site following the existing drainage patterns and outfall along the western boundary of the site. Drainage improvements will be designed in accordance with Town of Oro Valley (Town) standards. The project is located within a balanced basin which means that detention must be provided to reduce the post-construction discharges to the respective pre-construction discharges. Storm water harvesting will be implemented to comply with the OVZC and can be used to help meet storage requirements. Building finished floor elevations should be elevated a minimum of 1-ft above adjacent water surface elevations and should be located to minimize flow obstructions. B. Encroachments/Modifications to Drainage Patterns The site is not within a special flood hazard area mapped by FEMA but is impacted by local regulatory floodplains. There are currently 3 site development concepts being considered. An exhibit overlaying the 100-year floodplain on Concept B, generally considered the most intensive, is provided. The intent is to maintain existing drainage patterns as much as possible but there are locations where the site will encroach into the 100-yr regulatory floodplains. The Town floodplain ordinance limits water surface elevations increases on the site property and adjacent properties to 1-ft and 0.1-ft, respectively. Due to the proximity of the wash to the property boundary, improvements along the northern site boundary, west of Westward Look Dr, will be closely monitored to mitigate any potential adverse impacts to the adjacent property. Since the regulatory floodplain will be impacted, the project will require a Town Floodplain Use Permit. C. Potential Drainage Impacts to Off-site Land Upstream and Upstream There is a pathway through the wash in Concept C. This pathway will be designed at-grade or as a combination culvert/dip section to minimize backwater effects. The project will not cause impacts to the off-site upstream and downstream land uses. D. Drainage and Erosion Mitigation As described above, the site will be designed to allow runoff to follow the existing site drainage patterns. Drainage improvements will be considered as needed to convey flow generated on-site 82 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal through the development. Erosion and scour protection measures will be evaluated in accordance with Town standards at all locations impacted by the floodplain and at drainage structure outlets. E. Conformance to Applicable Plans The project is not located within any known basin management studies. Site design and drainage infrastructure improvements will adhere to Town requirements. VEGETATION A. Vegetative Response The highest quality vegetation is associated with the washes and Open Space area. The washes have been designated as Critical Resource Area (CRA) and will be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Preserving healthy mature vegetation capable of surviving for more than 5 years will be the preferred alternative to removal from the site. The areas most likely to have additional preservation will be adjacent to the washes. The preferred option for transplanting healthy vegetation capable of surviving the process is direct transplant. If needed, a nursery will be utilized for storage until a final location is determined. Healthy Saguaro and Barrel cacti will be transplanted on-site. The preferred locations for direct transplant are the twenty-foot enhanced landscape buffer adjacent to the utility easement in Resort Gateway (East) and adjacent to the unnamed wash in Resort Gateway (West). Transplanting to this location will result in an instant, mature screen beneficial to neighboring properties and the proposed development. Trees identified in the Site Resource Inventory (SRI) as transplantable will be transplanted to the eastern buffer yard. WILDLIFE The 20.5-acre Open Space area is the largest undisturbed habitat in the area. Its preservation will ensure wildlife is minimally disturbed. Additionally, the Critical Resource Area creates wildlife corridors that connect the property southwest and northeast to the Catalina Mountains. VIEWSHEDS A. Viewshed Mitigation Impacts i. Views and Vistas from Off-site Off-site views and vistas are being preserved to the greatest extent possible. The site is designed in a manner that prevents prominent views of mountains and ridges from being visually impacted. Larger buildings have been strategically placed in the center of the Resort Gateway (East) and adjacent to Ina Road. Building step backs, and bulk reductions will also be utilized to create view corridors and frame views from public spaces when possible. Architectural design elements will be incorporated that aid in the blending of the proposed structures into the scenery behind. This will include, in addition to other measures, items 83 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal such as variable pitches and roof elevations, and the incorporation of natural materials into the façade. ii. Areas of High Visibility The areas of highest visibility are adjacent to Ina Road and from adjacent residential properties to the east. These areas are being screened to the greatest extent feasible by providing 6’ screen walls adjacent to the neighbors and significant landscape buffers with continuous tree canopies and thirty-six inch boxed trees. Additionally, building placement and height will be cognizant of neighbors. The eastern property boundary of Resort Gateway (East) will be the primary receiving location for plants identified as transplantable during the SRI and NPPO process. This twenty-foot enhanced landscape buffer, continuous tree canopy, and corresponding easement will separate the existing and planned uses as well as create an instant mature screen. This PAD does not require a view preservation plan, but a massing study was conducted in its place to illustrate how development in highly visible areas will be mitigated. The massing study incorporated three aspects to help with visualization. The first is a simulated view of what the development may look like. Development was digitally incorporated into a photograph in a side-by-side before and after simulation. The other two aspects are 3D models of the site. One utilizes blocks for building mass and the other incorporates architectural detail into the same mass. Two views were created, one from the east and one from the west. Each view utilizes the concept that was most impactful to neighbors, i.e., where proposed development is closest to the property line. The first massing study was taken from the eastern property boundary and simulates Illustrative Site Plan (Concept A). The second massing study was taken from the western property boundary and simulates Illustrative Site Plan (Concept C). See Exhibit II.9.A.ii: Massing Study 1 & 2. iii. Roadway Construction Compatibility and Post Construction Scarring Mitigation Post-construction scarring will be kept to a minimum and any location that is not receiving a landscape treatment will be hydroseeded for natural revegetation. Any undisturbed areas and ESOS will be protected during grading and construction activities by fencing and flagging. 84 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Exhibit II.9.A.ii: Massing Study 1 85 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Exhibit II.9.A.ii: Massing Study 2 86 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal TRAFFIC A. Traffic Analysis Report A traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and is included under a separate cover. As future development is only conceptual at this stage, Illustrative Plan B was used for traffic analysis since it generates more average daily trips than the other two illustrative site plan concepts. The total average daily traffic is estimated at approximately 2,932 vehicle trips per day. B. Proposed Street Rights-of-Way The existing roadway network has capacity to serve future development in the Resort Gateway portion of the property along Ina Road. The TIA recommends a 150-foot right-turn lane adjacent to the Resort Gateway (East) driveway on Ina Road. Westward Look Drive serves as the primary access point to the Resort and will continue to do so following future development. Westward Look Drive will remain as a private street with its current alignment and width. Future improvements to Westward Look Drive will include additional ingress/egress for future development in the Resort Gateway, landscaping, lighting, signage/monumentation, including an overhead arch sign over Westward Look Drive, and public art. The general dimensions of the overhead arch sign will be about 50 feet wide by 25 feet tall, and it is intended to enhance the entry experience on Westward Look Drive. The specifics of the design will be addressed in a master sign criteria proposal. Each illustrative concept contemplates varying locations for ingress/egress points along Ina Road. The ultimate location of these access points will be determined during the Final Site Plan phase in accordance with Town standards. Future streets or parking area access lanes (PAALs) will also comply with Oro Valley standards. C. Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Bicycle connectivity will remain in the form of the existing Ina Road bicycle lanes. Cyclists coming to and from the site will be accommodated with bicycle parking areas in accordance with Town standards. Pedestrian circulation is a key component to the PAD’s goal of creating and maintaining sense of place. Future development will incorporate sidewalks linking visitors, residents and employees to new buildings and amenities as well as the existing path network circulating in and around the Resort. Sidewalk improvements along Ina Road will connect the property to the larger off-site pedestrian network. RECREATION & TRAILS A. Access to Off-site Trails Pima Canyon Trail is the trail nearest to the property at a little over one-mile to the northeast. Access to this trail will remain as currently configured. 87 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal B. Proposed Ownership of Natural and Modified Open Space The Open Space land use designated by the PAD and located in the northwest portion of the property will be owned and maintained by resort ownership. Resort ownership will also own and maintain open space associated with the Resort land use designation, including paths, trails, recreation and/or natural areas as well as event spaces. Open space incorporated into the Resort Gateway areas as part of future development will be owned and maintained by the property owner or homeowner/management association(s) created as part of said development. This includes landscape buffer yards, recreation areas, and all common areas. SCHOOLS A. Projected School Students Generated by Proposed Development Illustrative Plan C was selected to request school capacity projections from the Amphitheater School District as it contemplates the highest residential potential of the three concepts with a total of 288 residential units possible under this scenario. Amphitheater School District projects the potential 288 multifamily units would generate 31 Elementary, 20 Middle, and 12 High School students. B. Remaining Capacity within the Area Schools Serving the Site The table below identifies the schools serving the PAD property along with total school capacity and current space available. Table: School Availability School Name Capacity Spaces Available Harelson Elementary 600 130 Cross Middle 770 77 Canyon del Oro High 2541 935 C. School District Letter The school projection and capacity letter from the Amphitheater School District is provided below. See Exhibit: School Capacity Letter. 88 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Exhibit: School Capacity Letter 89 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal 90 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal WATER A. Domestic Water Demand The Westward Look Resort will continue to operate under its current water demand for the foreseeable future. With no end-user(s) identified, demand for future development has not been determined and will be established during the Final Site Plan process. B. Water Service Capacity Water service is currently provided by the Metropolitan Water Improvement District (Metro Water). Capacity is available as specified under the conditions in the following capacity letter. Metro Water is designated by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) as having an Assured Water Supply. 91 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Exhibit: Water Service Capacity Letter 92 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal SEWER A. Method for Providing Sewer Service Sewer service for the entire property is provided by the existing public and private sewer network located on-site. Connection to the off-site sewer network will be via an eight-inch public line in Westward Look Drive at manhole 9055-12, located at the intersection of Westward Look Drive and Ina Road. See Exhibit: Sewer B. Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Letter See Exhibit: Wastewater Capacity Letter 93 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Exhibit: Wastewater Capacity Letter 94 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal BUFFER YARDS A. Buffer Yards Requirements Landscape buffer yards will be designed to separate and screen future development from surrounding uses as well as provide visibility along Ina Road. Separation between existing resort buildings and neighboring residents is already established. Resort buildings cover much of the Resort designation’s developable portions, leaving the southern Resort area for future expansion and possibly the northernmost parking lot. Buffer yards in the Resort land use will take the form of existing landscape or natural areas between the resort and neighbors to the north and east. For the Resort Gateway, buffer yards will be utilized to soften the transition between adjacent residential areas and future development as well as enhance the frontage along Ina Road. Where future development abuts existing residential areas, a six-foot screen wall is required. The landscape buffer will be comprised of existing natural vegetation and enhanced landscaping to screen future development. When future development is not separated from existing residential by a wash or roadway, a continuous tree canopy will be provided. Enhanced landscaping is any planting in addition to natural vegetation preserved in place or easements limited to hydroseed. Minimum widths are described in the buffer yard cross sections (see Exhibit II.15.B: Buffer Yard Cross-Sections). Where future development fronts Ina Road, a twenty-five-foot buffer yard is required. Where future development fronts Westward Look Drive, a minimum ten-foot buffer yard is required. A continuous tree canopy and twenty-foot enhanced landscape buffer is required adjacent to the eastern property boundary. The overall width of the eastern buffer yard (natural and enhanced) will be fifty-feet.Additionally, all nursery stock trees in this buffer shall be a minimum box size of thirty-six inches or equivalent. The Open Space land use separates western neighbors from the existing resort. Due to the natural setting and limits on development, the balance of the bufferyard will be enhanced with additional vegetation. No internal buffer yards are required between PAD land uses A. Buffer Yard Cross-Sections See Exhibit II.15.B: Buffer Yard Cross-Sections. 95 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Exhibit II.15.B: Buffer Yard Cross-Sections 96 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal 97 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal PARKING STANDARDS Parking will be determined once end-users for the Resort Gateway areas are known. The Planning & Zoning Administrator shall have the ability to review and administratively approve alternative parking calculations for the Resort Gateway within the Westward Look PAD. Parking lights located within eighty-five feet of existing residential property shall be limited in height to five feet. WATER CONSERVATION STANDARDS A. Low Water Use Plants In accordance with Section 27.6 of the OVZC, the plant palette will consist of predominately low water use, native and regionally adapted plants. The plants will be located relative to their functionality and the uses associated with the development areas within which they are planted. The use of low water use plants in locations appropriate with their species characteristics provides for the conservation of potable water while assuring the survivability and long-term health of such plant material. B. Rainwater Harvesting In accordance with Section 27.6 of the OVZC, a number of passive rainwater harvesting techniques will be employed to direct and capture rainfall for the benefit of the landscape, including curb cuts, flush curbs, recessed planting areas, minimized compaction of planting areas, and semi-pervious pavers. Semi-pervious pavers may be incorporated in areas adjacent to water harvesting basins and as architectural details in the ground plane. Semi-pervious pavers can be incorporated in focal areas like clubhouse amenities, commercial patios, and areas where people will congregate. The design of semi-pervious pavers shall complement the overall aesthetic of the development area they are located in. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES The Westward Look PAD shall be subject to the Town of Oro Valley Addendum “A” Design Standards adopted in July 2011 except as modified herein. The overall design elements shall exhibit a coordinated and unified theme that reinforces the Southwestern theme of the overall project with features including, but not limited to, signage, landscaping, screening, and lighting. Representative imagery and information have been included. See Exhibit II.18: Representative Imagery. 98 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal The following shall be incorporated into the design: •All rooftop or ground mounted electrical or mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view. A combination of vegetative and constructed screens is permitted. •Electrical services shall be screened or painted to match buildings. •The entire PAD shall be designed in an architectural style compatible with existing development in the area. •An integrated design theme shall be employed through the use of similar materials, shapes, details, and colors identified in the representative imagery •All ADWR identified drought tolerant plant material is permitted in courtyards and plazas •The use of water features is permitted within the Resort area. •Contemporary use of traditional materials is permitted to add variation and interest. •Balconies are not permitted on the east side of buildings located within eighty-five feet of the eastern property boundary in Resort Gateway East. 99 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal Exhibit II.18: Representative Imagery 100 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal 101 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal 102 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal 103 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal DESIGN REVIEW The property owner, in collaboration with the project consultant team and a representative of the Westward Look Heights neighborhood, will review and approve all details of project design through a self-certification process prior to Town submittal. A copy of the self-certification will be provided to the Town of Oro Valley at the time of plan submittal, advising whether the design conforms to the project’s guidelines. Town approval of the self-certification process is required. A.Interpretations and Amendments The regulations and guidelines provided within this PAD supersede existing regulations within the OVZC. If an issue arises regarding definitions, conditions, standards and/or situations not addressed in this PAD, those in the OVZC or other Town regulations shall prevail, as interpreted by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. B.Amendments Amendments to this PAD may be necessary over time to respond to changing market demands, or financial conditions, or to respond to the unanticipated needs of new users. Non-substantial changes to the PAD shall be approved by the Town of Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Administrator and may include the following: •Amendments to this PAD may be necessary over time to respond to changing market demands, or financial conditions, or to respond to the unanticipated needs of new users. Non-substantial changes to the PAD shall be approved by the Town of Oro Valley Planning & Zoning Administrator and may include the following: o Modifications to tax code parcel boundaries, including changes to interior boundaries or combining parcels, except that changes to the PAD perimeter boundary may not be considered a minor amendment or non-substantial change to the PAD. o All permitted uses in this PAD may be allowed as substitutes for those depicted in the Illustrative Site Plan concepts, provided that the final site plan is in substantial conformance with the approved illustrative concepts in this PAD and meets the following criteria: No further increases in FAR or approved maximum total square footage; No further increases in approved height; No changes to approved ingress/egress except for along Ina Road; and No further reductions in building setbacks. No modifications to enhanced landscape buffer yards. 104 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Land Use Proposal APPENDICES APPENDICES 105 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 1 APPENDIX 1 – CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY 106 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 1 107 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 1 108 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 1 109 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 1 110 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 1 111 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 1 112 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 1 113 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 1 114 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 1 115 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 1 116 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 1 117 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 2 APPENDIX 2 – SRI 118 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 2 119 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 3 APPENDIX 3 – GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE TABLE Elements Criteria Compliance 1.Land Use Element a.Varied types and intensities of development have been incorporated.Yes b.Site analysis information completely supports the land use proposals contained in the PAD.Yes c.A mix of housing types, such as single-family attached and detached, single- family cluster homes, patio homes, townhouses and apartments, is incorporated in the PAD. Yes d.The PAD promotes clustered (average density) developments to protect environmentally sensitive areas.Yes e.Higher density or intensity developments abutting lower density or intensity areas include buffering and shall substantially mitigate any negative impacts.Yes f.Residential neighborhoods are afforded multi-modal access to, and are in close proximity to, activity centers to minimize travel times.Yes g.Activity centers provide a wide range of appropriate services.Yes h.The PAD protects natural features through transfer of development densities and similar strategies.No i.Office, technical and corporate employment facilities are scaled to the surrounding area.Yes j.Campus-type employment is incorporated.Yes 120 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 3 k. Multi-family residential development, at moderate to higher unit densities, has access to arterial or collector roadways. Yes l. Multi-family (apartment or condominium) developments have planned- in recreational facilities and other amenities. Yes m. Recreational facilities and appropriate links to open space amenities are provided. Yes 2. Transportation Element a. The Oracle Road Corridor is de-emphasized for high intensity development. N/A b. Bike lanes are included in all planned arterial improvements and on collectors deemed appropriate in the development review process. N/A c. Homeowners associations are required to maintain pedestrian-bicycle paths, within approved master-planned communities. N/A d. Bicycle parking facilities are provided. Yes e. Safe pedestrian/bicycle access to schools and parks is provided within the boundaries of the PAD. Yes f. Curvilinear residential streets patterns are incorporated. N/A g. Sidewalks or related pedestrian facilities are incorporated within neighborhoods. Yes h. All new roadway and future pedestrian-bicycle improvements meet public design standards. Yes i. Park-and-ride lots are incorporated with planned facilities. No 121 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 3 j.Projects larger than 100 acres in size provide direct access to an arterial.N/A 3.Economic Development Element a.A favorable fiscal impact analysis.Yes 4. Public Services and Facilities Element a.School site planning has been addressed in large-scale planned communities.N/A b.One elementary school site of at least ten (10) acres has been reserved within developments for every 500 elementary school level students forecasted to live within the development. N/A c.Park/school combination site dedications are incorporated.N/A 5.Community Design Element a.Building height and bulk are moderate to low intensity, in harmony with individual site attributes.Yes b.Parking lots with greater than 20 car capacity are screened from adjacent uses and public thoroughfares.Yes 6.Open Space/ Recreation Element a.Pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle trails are designated including picnic/rest areas.Yes b.Handicapped accessible facilities are provided to users.Yes c.Recreation and open space facilities are linked to the community open space network where appropriate.Yes d.Gateway treatments are incorporated at appropriate locations along the open space network.Yes 122 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 3 e. Neighborhood scale recreation (at a suggested standard of three (3) acres per 1000 population) and appropriate linkages to existing and planned trail systems are provided. N/A 7. Natural Resources Conservation Element a. The floodplains of washes with a discharge greater than 1000 cubic feet per second (cfs) during the 100 year flood event and associated riparian habitats are preserved as natural open space except as stipulated in number 7.b. Yes b. Washes with a discharge greater than 100 cfs during the 100 year flood event and associated riparian habitats are preserved if vegetation and habitat quality are found to be unique by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. Yes c. Hydrologic studies of washes greater than 100 cfs discharge during the 100 year flood event are provided which include effects on riparian habitats Yes d. Only native plant materials and approved Southern Arizona Water Resources Association plants are utilized. No* e. Only floodplain compatible uses are proposed in flood prone areas. Yes f. When erosion protection is required, environmentally sensitive alternatives including geotextiles or gunite containing integral desert colors are utilized as opposed to concrete lining of water courses. Yes g. Indigenous (native desert) vegetation and riparian habitats are maintained and enhanced where possible. Yes h. Select native plant material, which is to be transplanted within the development or to approved sites outside the project limits. Yes 123 WESTWARD LOOK PAD Appendix 3 i. Mass grading techniques are minimized for project development. Yes 8. Safety Element a. Bike paths are constructed, where feasible and appropriate, to separate pedestrian and bike traffic from motorized vehicles in order to provide safe access to schools and parks. No b. The PAD adheres to the “Suggested Policies for Fire Management in the Wildland Urban Interface,” published by the National Forest Service, May 1990. Yes 9. Cultural/Historic Element a. A cultural resource survey has been performed where cultural/archaeological resources are determined likely to occur according to the Arizona State Museum. Yes b. The PAD provides for protection of cultural resources discovered during construction. Yes c. Cultural resources sites are left generally undisturbed and not identified to the public. Yes 35 out of 39 applicable criteria, or 90% *Not in compliance due to the existing historic landscape at the Westward Look Resort Planning & Zoning Commission AGENDA ITEM: 2. Meeting Date:01/05/2021 Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 2002360 & 2002361 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING : DISCUSSION REGARDING THREE ITEMS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTWARD LOOK RESORT PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF INA ROAD AND WESTWARD LOOK ROAD, EXTENDING NORTH TO THE EXISTING TOWN OF ORO VALLEY SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: ITEM A : TRANSLATIONAL ZONING FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY FROM PIMA COUNTY CR-1 (LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL) TO TOWN OF ORO VALLEY R1-36 (LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL), AS REQUIRED BY ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES 9-471.L UPON ANNEXATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (2003182) ITEM B : GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-1 TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/OFFICE FOR TWO PARCELS (22550021A AND 225500180) ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 4.84-ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INA ROAD AND WESTWARD LOOK DRIVE INTERSECTION (2002360) ITEM C: REZONING FROM R1-36 (LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL) TRANSLATIONAL ZONING TO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY (2002361) RECOMMENDATION: Item C requires two public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission. As a result, all of these related items are for discussion only at the first public hearing. A recommendation will be provided during the second public hearing scheduled for February 2, 2021. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this request is to consider three items related to the proposed annexation and future development of the Westward L ook Resort property. Each item is a significant component of the annexation effort. Town Council is charged with reviewing the merits of the annexation, whereas the Planning and Zoning Commissions' focus is the land use applications detailed in this report. Ultimately, since all three items are related to the annexation, they will be presented concurrently, with the annexation, to Town Council on the same agenda. The property is approximately 75-acres in size and is located on the northwest and northeast corners of Ina Road and Westward Look Drive, extending north on either side of Westward Look Drive to the Town of Oro Valley's existing southern boundary (see picture at right). Subject items are presented in more detail below. Item A - Translational Zoning Following the annexation of an unincorporated property into the Town, the existing Pima County zoning must be translated to the nearest equivalent Town of Oro Valley zoning classification, as required by State Law. This item (Attachment 1 - Translational Zoning) is an administrative action to translate the existing zoning from Pima County CR-1 to Town of Oro Valley R1-36, (both of which permit the same number of homes per acre and minimum property size of 36,000 square feet) in accordance with State Law. Item B - General Plan Amendment The applicant's General Plan Amendment proposal (Attachment 2) is to change the General Plan Land Use designation for the t wo parcels encompassing approximately 4.84-acres (shown in yellow on image at right) near the northwest corner of Ina Road and Westward Look Drive. The request is to change from Low Density Residential-1 (LDR1) to Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO) to accommodate the proposed Planned Area Development in Item C. The proposed land use designation (NCO) is intended for "...commercial and office uses with good access to major roadways that are close to residential areas. Residential development may be included on a case-by-case basis. The applicant requests the same NCO designation that is currently applied to the adjoining Westward Look property to the east. This area is located along a major arterial roadway where commercial, office or multi-family residential uses are appropriate with the required buffers and transitions. Item C - Rezoning The applicants proposed rezoning (Attachment 3) is a request to rezone the entire ~75-acre Westward Look Resort property from R1-36 Translational Zoning (if Items A and B are approved) to Planned Area Development (PAD). Planned Area Developments are intended as "Master Planned Community" zoning districts for areas that are customized to fit site specific conditions. In addition, the applicant ultimately desires to assign proper zoning standards that fit the existing resort site and open space areas, thereby affording neighbors the assurance these areas are not going to change as part of the rezoning. As such, the PAD includes three distinctive areas (depicted in graphic at right) which include: three distinctive areas (depicted in graphic at right) which include: Resort - the existing zoning (Pima County CR-1) does not permit the historical use of the property as a resort (it is permitted as a legal, non-conforming use). The applicant seeks to remedy this long-standing issue and assign proper, site specific, zoning standards to the existing resort site to reflect the existing conditions of the property; Open Space - the current Pima County zoning district allows one home per 0.82-acres on the entire property, including the open space, which is counter to the existing deed restriction which may not be enforced as a public zoning matter. As such, the intent is to preserve this area as open space with an extra layer of zoning protection to provide assurance to neighbors that development will not occur in this area and appropriate buffers will be maintained; Resort Gateways (Commercial areas along Ina Road) - enable future development of the vacant parcels with a mix of commercial, retail, restaurant and/or multi-family residential; Tentative Development Plans The applicant's rezoning proposal also includes three Tentative Development Plans, or "Concepts" (Attachment 4 and below), for the Resort Gateway parcels along Ina Road that include a mix of commercial, restaurant, office and multi-family uses. Each concept has been reviewed for compatibility with adjoining neighborhoods and the resort itself. The applicant has worked with neighbors to revise these designs to try and find consensus regarding compatibility and minimizing potential impacts. The revised concepts incorporate a number of efforts to address these concerns, including: Reducing overall building height Incorporating enhanced bufferyards with continuous tree canopies Adjusting building footprints to try and minimize potential visual impacts Prohibiting otherwise permitted or conditional uses (e.g. golf course or drive-thru's) to minimize impacts Addressing potential traffic impacts resulting in the inclusion of turn lanes on Ina Road for decelerating vehicles Commitment to quality development Though the applicant has taken tangible measures to address the above concerns, conversations with the applicant regarding building height restrictions adjacent to neighbors are ongoing. Staff is discussing a building height restriction of 28 feet (rather than 34 feet proposed in the applicant's submittal), only for proposed buildings adjacent to neighbors located east of the property. Although the existing homes are permitted 34 foot building heights by County zoning, each is built within an approximate range of 20 to 28 feet. Conclusion Item A is a required action item for all annexations. Furthermore, both Items B and C are in general conformance with the Vision, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies of the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan. More detail is provided in the Background and Discussion section of this report, however; several key Goals and Policies include: Support annexations that are economically beneficial to the Town while also considering the impacts to residents and the social, aesthetic and environmental quality of the Town (Economic Development Policy E.5) 1. A built environment that creatively integrates landscape, architecture, open space and conservation elements to increase the sense of place, community interaction and quality of life (Goal Q) 2. Effective transitions between differing land uses and intensities in the Community (Goal X)3. A community with a wide range of services, amenities, shopping and dining opportunities and hosing types that meet the needs of current and future residents (Goal D) 4. Long-term financial and economic stability and sustainability (Goal A)5. In summary, all three applications are associated with the corresponding proposed annexation. Item C requires two public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission. As such, each item is for discussion only and a formal recommendation will be provided during the second public hearing scheduled for February 2, 2021. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The purpose of this request is to consider three items related to the proposed annexation and future development of the Westward Look Resort property. The property is approximately 75-acres in size and is located on the northwest and northeast corners of Ina Road and Westward Look Drive, extending north on either side of Westward Look Drive to the Town of Oro Valley's existing southern boundary. All three items are discussed in more detail below. Item A - Translational Zoning Following the annexation of an unincorporated property into the Town, the existing Pima County zoning must be translated to the nearest equivalent Town of Oro Valley zoning classification, as required by State Law (see below): "A city or town annexing an area shall adopt zoning classifications that permit densities and uses not greater than those permitted by the county immediately before annexation." (ARS 9-471.L) The first item (Attachment 1 - Translational Zoning) is required and an administrative action to translate the existing zoning in accordance with State Law, from Pima County CR-1 to Town of Oro Valley R1-36, both of which permit the same number of homes per acre and minimum lot size of 36,000 square feet. This change does not add new development rights nor does it remove ones currently enabled by Pima County. The requirement is to achieve parity between the two districts. Item B - General Plan Amendment The applicant's General Plan Amendment request (Attachment 2) is to change the General Plan Land Use designation for the two parcels encompassing approximately 4.84-acres (shown in yellow on image at right) near the northwest corner of Ina Road and Westward Look Drive. The request is to change from Low Density Residential-1 (LDR1) to Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO) to accommodate the proposed Planned Area Development (Item C). Please note, the General Plan Land Use designations for the remainder of the property will remain the same. The existing land use designation (LDR1) is intended for "...single-family residential with significant preservation of open space areas". Development in this designation is meant to be low-density and is typically located in more rural areas along roadways with less traffic. The proposed land use designation (NCO) is intended for "...commercial and office uses with good access to major roadways that are close to residential areas. Residential development may be included on a case-by-case basis." The applicant is requesting the same NCO designation that is applied to the Westward Look Resort property to the east as shown in the graphic below: This area is located along a major arterial roadway where commercial, office or multi-family residential uses are appropriate with the required buffers and transitions. This request is appropriate considering the subject property's location adjacent to a major arterial roadway. The site is appropriate for the Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO) designation with the appropriate buffers and transitions to nearby residential. General Plan Amendments are reviewed for conformance with the General Plan Amendment criteria. A summary of the applications conformance with each of the criteria is provided below: On balance, the request is consistent with the vision, guiding principles, goals and policies of the General Plan as demonstrated by adherence to all the following criteria. The request shall not: Significantly alter existing development character and land use patterns without adequate and appropriate buffers and graduated transitions in density and land use. The applicant's proposed concepts include graduated transitions by concentrating the bulk of development toward the intersection to help minimize impacts to surrounding neighbors. The concepts incorporate limitations on building height when close to surrounding residential and discussion is ongoing. Furthermore, enhanced bufferyards with continuous tree canopies are utilized for screening to mitigate reduced setbacks. a. Impact existing uses with increased infrastructure without appropriate improvements to accommodate planned growth. The applicant, or future developers, will be responsible for all future construction and infrastructure costs associated with the proposed development, including any impact fees associated with the project. b. Impact other public services including police, fire, parks, water and drainage unless careful analysis and explanation of anticipated impacts is provided to the Town for review. The proposed project is not anticipated to have adverse impacts on police, fire, parks, water or drainage. The applicant has coordinated with both Northwest Fire District and Metro Water during the review process, both of which of given conditional approval pending engineering plan review should the applicant's requests be approved. The site does not have any significant drainage concerns and any future development will be required to be consistent with the c. 1. The site does not have any significant drainage concerns and any future development will be required to be consistent with the Town's drainage ordinance. Impact the natural beauty and environmental resources without suitable mitigation.d. Providing approximately 30% of the entire site as open space. Preserving 100% of the open space area west of Westward Look Drive (immediately adjacent to the Westward Look Townhomes): This area is currently zoned for residential development under the existing Pima County designation. It is worth noting there is a deed restriction on this area limiting the allowed uses to recreational only. However, this is a private agreement that the Town cannot enforce. The proposed PAD open space zoning increases protection. Conserving wash and drainage areas to ensure continuity of open space, wildlife corridors and drainage courses Addressing Significant Vegetation: It will be preserved-in-place, transplanted to open space areas or mitigated per Zoning Code requirements. Incorporating enhanced bufferyards with continuous tree canopies in areas where buildings are proposed near existing homes to help minimize visual impacts The applicant has implemented effective public outreach efforts to identify neighborhood concerns and has responded by incorporating measures to avoid or minimize development impacts to the extent reasonably possible, as well as to mitigate unavoidable adverse impacts. An informational video was published for neighbors prior to neighborhood meetings to introduce the project and address frequently asked questions. Following publication of the video, two neighborhood meetings were conducted. Both meetings were well attended by neighbors and other interested parties and involved extensive discussions regarding project issues and concerns. Some of those concerns included: 2. Open space and wildlife conservation Building heights Buffers Land Use transitions Compatibility Traffic Lighting and noise impacts Commitment to quality development The applicant has revised the plan to address a number of the above concerns including, among other things: Creating a PAD Open Space designation Providing for historic integrity and quality of the overall resort theme Reducing maximum building heights on all concepts Incorporating larger bufferyards, including those with continuous tree canopies, to minimize potential visual impacts Adding turn lanes to help minimize traffic impacts Compliance with Town required lighting and noise ordinances Lastly, the applicant and property owner have conducted a number of individual meetings with neighbors to continue to understand concerns regarding the project and to try and find consensus where possible. A copy of the neighborhood meeting summary notes is provided as Attachment 5. Town Staff has also received a number of letters and correspondence regarding the applicant's proposal which are included in Attachment 6. All non-residential amendment requests will contribute positively to the long-term economic stability of the Town as demonstrated by consistency with goals and policies related to economic development and financial stability. The applicant's request represents an economic development benefit for the Town in a number of ways, including: 3. Providing a continued new source of hotel bed revenues - (Economic Policy E.5 - Support annexations that are economically beneficial to the Town while also considering the impacts to residents and the social, aesthetic, and environmental quality of the Town) Bringing another destination resort into the Town of Oro Valley - (Economic Policy E.3 - Promote Oro Valley as an ideal destination for economic activity, tourism, shopping, cultural attractions, research and development) Including the potential for new sales tax opportunities - (Economic Development Action Item 4 - Evaluate and increase the community's economic opportunities while balancing community needs and desire through planning and analysis) The applicant responses to each of the criteria can be found in Attachment 2. In summary, the applicant's proposal meets the above General Plan Amendment criteria. Additional detail and discussion regarding the amendment's conformance with the General Plan Vision, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies is provided in the General Plan Analysis section of this report. Item C - Rezoning The applicant's proposed rezoning request (Attachment 3) is to rezone the entire Westward Look Resort property from R1-36 Tr anslational Zoning (if approved as part of Item A) to Planned Area Development (PAD). Planned Area Developments are intended as "Master Planned Community" zoning districts for specific areas that are customized (modified) to establish site specific zoning standards. All Planned Area Developments (PAD'S), like Rancho Vistoso, include subcategories defining land uses and development standards to establish site specific zoning requirements. As such, the PAD includes three distinctive areas (depicted in graphic at right), each with their respective underlying zoning district, which include: Resort - The underlying zoning district is R-4R (Resort). The purpose of this area is to assign proper, site specific, zoning standards to the resort site to reflect the existing development conditions of the property. The resort is considered a legal, non-conforming use as it is not expressly permitted in the existing Pima County zoning district (CR-1). The new PAD will rectify this existing deficiency; Open Space - The underlying zoning district is POS (Parks and Open Space). The existing zoning enables homes in this area which is contrary to the deed restrictions between the resort and neighbors (something the Town cannot legally enforce). The purpose of this portion is to preserve the existing open space west of Westward Look Drive to provide assurance to neighbors that development will not occur in this area and appropriate buffers will be maintained; Resort Gateways (Commercial areas along Ina Road) - The underlying zoning district is C-N (Neighborhood Commercial). The purpose of this area is to enable future development of the vacant parcels with a mix of commercial, retail, restaurant and/or multi-family residential vacant parcels with a mix of commercial, retail, restaurant and/or multi-family residential Within those underlying zoning districts, PAD zoning enables customization to establish a better design than enabled by Town Zoning. With that said, the applicant's request includes a number of modified development standards within each PAD land use designation including: Resort : Customized standards to "fit" the existing historic site and buildings. Open Space: Prohibiting recreational uses beyond the equestrian uses that have been historically conducted in the area Resort Gateway: Prohibiting otherwise permitted or conditional uses that are not compatible with the surrounding areas (e.g. drive-thru uses) Increasing the maximum building height from 25 feet to 40 feet (34 feet for buildings within 85 feet of adjacent residential) to accommodate the proposed range of commercial and multi-family residential uses Reduced side and rear setbacks when combined with corresponding enhanced bufferyards to minimize potential impacts to neighbors. The applicant's proposal also includes three Tentative Development Plans, or concepts (Attachment 4), for the approximately 18-acre Resort Gateway parcels along Ina Road. The concepts are limited to these areas only as no development related changes are proposed for the existing Resort and Open Space portions of the subject property. A summary of each of the concepts is provided below: Each of the concepts have access on both Ina Road and Westward Look Drive and include a mix of commercial, restaurant, office and multi-family uses as shown in Attachment 4. Access and Circulation: All concepts provide access points from both Ina Road and Westward Look Drive to ensure multiple points of ingress/egress are available. Moreover, the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has recommended that a turn lane be provided on Ina Road to remove vehicles from travel lanes while decelerating to help minimize impacts to existing traffic patterns. Open Space: The property is not subject to the requirements of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance (ESLO) as it qualifies for an exemption by being more than 25% built-out, as allowed by code. However, the applicant is exceeding this standard by: Preserved much of the wash areas that would qualify as Critical Resource Areas (CRA's) on all concepts. Includes 100% preservation of the open space area west of Westward Look Drive (immediately adjacent to the Westward Look Townhomes) which is approximately 20.5-acres in size or ~28% of the overall PAD area. No disturbance is proposed within the Open Space area and the vacant parcels along Ina Road are relatively flat. As such, no grading issues are anticipated as part of the applicant's proposal. Pedestrian Connectivity: All concepts include sidewalks and walking paths that will connect to the large trail system on the property and throughout the area both north and south. Neighborhood Compatibility: The applicant has worked with staff and neighbors throughout the review process to incorporate a number of mitigation measures to address concerns raised during the community outreach process. Those include: Restricting otherwise permitted or conditional uses: The PAD includes a number of uses that would otherwise be permitted, or could be conditionally permitted, within the underlying zoning districts to increase compatibility. Prohibitions include things like: Drive-thru's Big box stores Golf course Reducing maximum building heights: The applicant has reduced the overall building heights for both 2 and 3-story buildings as the plans have evolved. The initial maximum building height was 54 feet and has been reduced to 40 feet. Furthermore, all concepts require lower building heights (34 feet) for buildings within 85 feet of surrounding residential. Conversations with the applicant regarding Resort Gateway building heights - only for areas adjacent to existing homes -are ongoing. A limitation of 28 feet for those structures would accommodate proposed development and increase compatibility with surrounding homes. The tallest buildings are proposed nearest the Ina Road and Westward Look intersection to provide additional buffer between them and existing neighbors. Incorporating enhanced bufferyards with continuous tree canopies: In areas where buildings are proposed with reduced setbacks, specifically in those areas along the eastern property line where existing vegetation is minimal, the applicant has incorporated enhanced bufferyards that will provide a continuous tree canopy. The intent is to help balance the reduced setbacks and minimize future impacts. The applicant has committed to transplant mature (taller and more full) trees into these areas to attain the effects as soon as possible. Revising building locations: Several buildings have been shifted away from neighboring homes and within view corridors to again, minimize visual impacts as much as possible. The applicant has met with neighbors a number of times to identify areas where these changes would be most beneficial. Furthermore, in combination with the enhanced bufferyards, view impacts will be minimized as much as possible. Architectural and development compatibility with the historic resort: The applicant has included in the PAD a commitment to incorporate architectural and development elements that pull from the historic resort and area neighborhoods (e.g. Casas Adobes Plaza). In sum, the applicant has continued to meet with groups of neighbors to try and continue to find solutions to minimize impacts as much as possible. Items B and C General Plan Analysis Both Items B and Item C are reviewed for conformance with the Vision, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies of the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan. Conformance with each is detailed below: Vision and Guiding Principles Vision "Oro Valley strives to be a well-managed community that provides all residents with opportunities for quality living. Oro Valley will keep its friendly, small-town, neighborly character, while increasing services, employment and recreation. The Town's lifestyle continues to be defined by a strong sense of community, a high regard for public safety and an extraordinary natural environment and scenic views" Guiding Principles Create a complete community with a broad range of shopping, dining and places to gather Keep the unique community identity as a special place Manage how we grow and maintain high design standards The applicant's proposal is consistent with the Your Voice, Our Future Vision and Guiding Principles by, among other things: Preserving and protecting open space areas and wash corridors; Maintaining high quality design aesthetic by drawing from the historic nature of the resort and surrounding areas; Working with neighbors to find consensus regarding compatibility and minimizing impacts; Contributing to the long-term financial sustainability of the Town; Expanding the Town's draw as a tourist destination; Creating a high quality commercial/retail center that continues the existing design aesthetic of the resort and surrounding area, while taking steps to minimize impacts to surrounding development. The applicant's request is generally consistent with the General Plan Vision and Guiding Principles of the General Plan. Discussions with neighbors are ongoing. Goals and Policies A built environment that creatively integrates landscape, architecture, open space and conservation elements to increase the sense of place, community interaction and quality of life (Goal Q) The PAD preserves 100% of the open space area west of Westward Look Drive (adjacent to the Westward Look Townhomes) where homes are allowed under the current zoning. Adding an extra layer of protection to this area provides additional assurance this area will not be developed as part of the rezoning. Furthermore, the wash and riparian areas are preserved on all concepts to maintain connectivity both north and south of the subject property. 1. Effective transitions between differing land uses and intensities in the community (Goal X) The applicant has taken steps to minimize impacts to surrounding neighbors including: Reducing maximum building heightsa. Incorporating enhanced bufferyardsb. Including building height step-downsc. 2. Discussions are ongoing with the applicant regarding building height restrictions for buildings in Resort Gateway - East near existing homes to minimize potential visual impacts to neighbors. Long-term financial and economic stability and sustainability (Goal A)3. A robust local economy and job market that provides opportunities for quality employment, build on Oro Valley's assets and encourage high-quality growth (Goal B) As discussed, the addition of the resort into the Town will enhance the Town's high-quality tourism industry and contribute to the long-term financial stability of the Town through new hotel revenues. 4. A community with a wide range of services, amenities, shopping and dining opportunities and housing types that meet the needs of current and future residents (Goal D) The new commercial/retail/multi-family residential development along Ina Road will contribute to the long-term financial sustainability of the Town through continued sales tax revenues opportunities. 5. Full recovery of the costs of services that serve new development (Goal W) The property owner or future developer will be responsible for bearing the costs of development, including new infrastructure or services related to the proposed project. 6. Support annexations that are economically beneficial to the Town while also considering the impacts to residents and the social, aesthetic, and environmental quality of the Town (Economic Policy E.5) 7. Promote Oro Valley as an ideal destination for economic activity, tourism, shopping, cultural attractions, research and development (Economic Policy E.3) 8. Evaluate and increase the community's economic opportunities while balancing community needs and desire through planning and9. analysis (Economic Policy E.4) The continued revenues from the resort and commercial/retail center will contribute to the ongoing financial sustainability of the Town and provide new economic opportunities for the community. In sum, the applicant's proposal is generally consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan. Conversations with the applicant are continuing regarding additional height restrictions within Resort Gateway - East - in areas adjacent to existing homes. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The following public notice has been provided for this public hearing: Notification of all property owners within 1,000 feet Notification to additional interested parties who signed in at neighborhood meetings Homeowners Association mailing Advertisement in The Daily Territorial and Arizona Daily Star newspapers Post on property Post at Town Hall and on Town website Outside review agencies Summary All three items are related to the associated annexation of the Westward Look Resort property into the Town. Town Council is charged with evaluating the merits of the proposed annexation and the Planning and Zoning Commission's focus is the three items included in this report. Ultimately, all three items will be included on one agenda with the proposed annexation before Town Council. Key considerations include: Item A (Translational Zoning) is required, per State Law, upon annexation of an unincorporated area;1. Item B (General Plan Amendment) is needed to accommodate the proposed Planned Area Development (PAD) in Item C. The requested amendment is consistent with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan Vision, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies, specifically those related to open space conservation, neighborhood compatibility and economic development; a. The amendment to Neighborhood Commercial/Office is appropriate for the subject property as it is located along a major arterial roadway (Ina Road) near residential areas; b. 2. Item C (Rezoning) is consistent with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan and the Town Zoning Code by: Resolving long-standing discrepancies between the historical use of the property and Pima County Zoning. The PAD will assign proper zoning to the Resort (eliminating it as a legal, non-conforming use) by establishing site specific zoning standards that "fit" the existing conditions on the site; a. Providing an extra layer of protection for the Open Space area (where homes are currently permitted per the existing zoning) to ensure neighbors the use of this area will not be changed as part of the rezoning; b. Optimizing area design compatibility and working with adjacent homeowners to address concernsc. Supporting a number of economic development related General Plan Goals and Policies regarding the financial stability of the Town;d. 3. Item C requires two public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and this first one entails discussion only. A formal recommendation will be provided prior to the second public hearing scheduled for February 2, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: This item is for discussion only. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 - TRANSLATIONAL ZONING MAP ATTACHMENT 2 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSAL ATTACHMENT 3 - APPLICANT'S REZONING SITE ANALYSIS ATTACHMENT 4 - CONCEPT PLANS ATTACHMENT 5 - NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARIES ATTACHMENT 6 - NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE D R A F T MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION January 5, 2021 MEETING HELD VIA ZOOM REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:30 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Gambill callled the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Hal Bergsma, Commissioner Jacob Herrington, Vice Chair Skeet Posey, Commissioner Daniel Sturmon, Commissioner Celeste Gambill, Chair Absent: Bob Henderson, Commissioner Ellen Hong, Commissioner Staff Present:Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner Bayer Vella, Planning Manager Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney EXECUTIVE SESSION - Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03(3) for legal advice regarding zoning conditions Motion by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon, seconded by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington to enter into Executive Session. A roll call vote was taken: Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Chiar Gambill - Aye Vote: 5 - 0 Carried RECONVENE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER CALL TO ORDER Chair Gambill reconvened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present:Hal Bergsma, Commissioner Jacob Herrington, Vice Chair Ellen Hong, Commissioner Skeet Posey, Commissioner Daniel Sturmon, Commissioner Celeste Gambill, Chair Absent:Bob Henderson, Commissioner Staff Present:Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner Bayer Vella, Planning Manager Also Present: Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney Paul Keesler, Public Works Director/Town Engineer Town Council Liaison Melanie Barrett PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Gambill led the Commission and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Melanie Barrett provided and update on the past and upcoming Town Council meetings as related to Planning agenda items. REGULAR SESSION AGENDA 1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 1, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to approve the December 1, 2020 meeting minutes as written. A roll call vote was taken: Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Chair Gambill - Aye Vote: 6 - 0 Carried 2.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION REGARDING THREE ITEMS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTWARD LOOK RESORT PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF INA ROAD AND WESTWARD LOOK ROAD, EXTENDING NORTH TO THE EXISTING TOWN OF ORO VALLEY SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: ITEM A: TRANSLATIONAL ZONING FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY FROM PIMA COUNTY CR-1 (LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL) TO TOWN OF ORO VALLEY R1-36 (LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL), AS REQUIRED BY ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES 9-471.L UPON ANNEXATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (2003182) ITEM B: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-1 TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/OFFICE FOR TWO PARCELS (22550021A AND 225500180) ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 4.84-ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INA ROAD AND WESTWARD LOOK DRIVE INTERSECTION (2002360) ITEM C: REZONING FROM R1-36 (LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL) TRANSLATIONAL ZONING TO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY (2002361) Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Location of property - Annexation - Applicant's request - concept plans - Key considerations - Item A - Translational Zoning - Item A - Your Voice, Our Future General Plan - Item B - General Plan Amendment - Item B - Your Voice, Our Future General Plan - Item B - General Plan Amendment criteria analysis - Item C - Rezoning - Overview of Concept A - Overview of Concept B - Overview of Concept C - Common elements for all concepts Public Works Director and Town Engineer Paul Keesler spoke on traffic concerns: - Congestion of Ina Road, safety and ability to travel east from Sonya Way Mr. Spaeth continued with his presentation: - Public participation - Summary Applicant Linda Morales with The Planning Center, provided a presentation that included the following: - Overview of previous Westward Look Resort annexation efforts - History of the resort - Current Pima County zoning - Proposed zoning - Reviewed potential development options - Highlighted the development transitions to surrounding neighbors - Public outreach and numerous meetings held with neighbors over the past year - Reviewed the main concerns of neighbors and mitigation measures taken Discussion ensued among the Commission, staff and applicant. Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. The following individuals spoke on Agenda Item #2. - Janet Senf - Jon Rowley - John Richardson - Erik Bakken - Matt Bailey (representing client Ms. Elisabeth Dudley) - Jon Rowley - Mike Myers The following individuals spoke in support of Agenda Item #2. - Oro Valley resident and Chamber of Commerce President Dave Perry - Constantine "Dino" Sakellar The following individual spoke in opposition to agenda Item #2: - An unidentified individual Chair Gambill closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued regarding speaker comments/questions among the staff and applicant. Further discussion continued among the Commission, applicant and staff. Chair Gambill reopened the public hearing. The following individuals noted above spoke again on Agenda Item #2: - An unidentified individual - Jon Rowley Chair Gambill closed the public hearing. 3.ELECTION OF THE CHAIR FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EFFECTIVE JANUARY 6, 2021 Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington to nominate Chair Gambill to continue as Chair for the Planning and Zoning Commission. A roll call vote was taken: Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Chair Gambill - Aye Vote: 6 - 0 Carried 4.ELECTION OF THE VICE-CHAIR FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EFFECTIVE 4.ELECTION OF THE VICE-CHAIR FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EFFECTIVE JANUARY 6, 2021 Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to nominate Vice Chair Herrington to continue as Vice Chair for the Planning and Zoning Commission. A roll call vote was taken: Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Chair Gambill - Aye Vote: 6 - 0 Carried PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided updates on the new Commissioner, the upcoming Community Academy, a possible study/training session, and the next Commission meeting on February 2, 2021. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to adjourn the meeting. Chair Gambill adjourned the meeting at 8:51 p.m. I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Town of Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 5th day of January, 2021. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 7th day of January, 2021. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Westward Look Planned Area Development at Westward Look and Ina Road Tucson, Arizona October 12, 2020 Prepared for: Wyndham Westward Look Grand Resort and Spa For submittal to: Town of Oro Valley, AZ Prepared by: Economic & Fiscal Impact Demographic Analysis Economic Development FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE WESTWARD LOOK ANNEXATION ON THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY NOVEMBER 2020 PREPARED BY: APPLIED ECONOMICS 11209 N. TATUM BLVD, SUITE 225 PHOENIX, AZ 85028 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3 1.1 General Approach ..................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Report Organization .................................................................................................. 4 2.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Development Characteristics .................................................................................... 5 2.2 Fiscal Assumptions .................................................................................................... 7 3.0 FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS ................................................................................................ 9 3.1 Annual Impacts – Existing Resort .............................................................................. 9 3.2 Annual Impacts – Plan A New Development ............................................................ 12 3.3 Annual Impacts – Plan B New Development ............................................................. 13 3.4 Annual Impacts – Plan C New Development ............................................................. 13 3.5 One‐Time Impacts ..................................................................................................... 14 3.6 Summary ................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A – Revenue and Expenditure Rates ...................................................................... 16 1 Executive Summary This analysis demonstrates the potential socioeconomic and fiscal impacts of the approximately 75‐acre Westward Look annexation, General Plan amendment and rezoning on the Town of Oro Valley. The area includes the existing Westward Look Resort along with about 18 acres of vacant land along Ina Road that could support additional development. The property is currently part of unincorporated Pima County and is restricted to residential development under county zoning. As part of their pre‐application submittal, Westward Look Resort, LLC has submitted three potential development options for the 18 acres along Ina Road. This analysis includes build out fiscal impacts for these three development options, as well as the fiscal impact to the town of annexing the existing Westward Look Resort. This independent analysis is intended to provide the Town with information on projected long term impacts of the proposed annexation on it operations and maintenance funds, as well as address state statutory requirements for any potential incentives. The fiscal results for the annexation and development of Westward Look site show a positive annual net impact of about $916,000 per year for the existing resort and $61,000 to $562,000 per year for the new development alternatives (Figure 1). These impacts include the General Fund and Streets Fund. The results are intended to reflect annual fiscal impacts for 2031, which is an approximation for build out. An annual inflation rate of 2 percent per year is included in the calculations shown in Figure 1. In addition to these on‐going impacts, there would be an estimated $2.1 million to $3.3 million in one‐time revenues related to construction that would be spread over multiple years. One‐ time revenues are expressed in current dollars since the timing is unknown. These one‐time impacts do not include any revenues related to the remodeling of the Westward Look Resort, which is currently underway. Further details on the fiscal impacts of each scenario are provided in this document. In general, this study focuses on operations and maintenance revenues and expenditures. This area may require other infrastructure improvements to bring it up to current town standards. The cost of these improvements is not included in the fiscal impacts. 2 FIGURE 1 WESTWARD LOOK ANNEXATION ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACT AT BUILD OUT The Westward Look property is located on the north side of Ina Road at Westward Look Drive. The existing resort property includes 36 acres with 196,526 square feet of improvements, plus 20.5 acres of undeveloped open space. The parcels along Ina Road that would be rezoned include 4.84 acres on the west side of Westward Look Drive (Gateway West) and 13.15 acres on the east side of Westward Look Drive (Gateway East). Development assumptions for this fiscal impact analysis were taken from the pre‐application submittal illustrative development plans prepared by The Planning Center. The three alternative development scenarios include the following potential uses: Plan A – 30,000 square feet of boutique retail and restaurant space in Gateway West; 184 luxury apartments in Gateway East Plan B – 35,000 square feet of office and retail space in Gateway West; 76,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and office space and a 58,000 square foot business‐class hotel in Gateway East Plan C – 38 one and two bedroom residential villas in Gateway West; 250 luxury apartment units in Gateway East The net fiscal impacts for these alternatives are primarily dependent on the amount of acreage devoted to commercial development and the mix of retail and non‐retail uses within that commercial development. While the residents in the development would generate additional demand for local retail, the model used in this analysis allocates taxable sales exclusively to commercial land uses. Given the location of the property, it is likely that a significant portion of the retail sales not captured within the development would be captured by other surrounding cities. Three of the four corners at the nearest major intersection of Ina Road and Oracle Road are not in Oro Valley. In order to provide the most conservative estimate, this analysis does not assume any additional taxable purchases elsewhere in Oro Valley related to new residential development within the Westward Look annexation. 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION This analysis demonstrates the potential socioeconomic and fiscal impacts of the Westward Look annexation area on the Town of Oro Valley. The 75‐acre property is generally located along the north side of Ina Road, just east of Oracle Road at Westward Look Drive (Figure 2). The property includes the existing Westward Look Resort and adjacent open space, as well as 18 acres along Ina Road that is currently undeveloped but is projected to include a mix of high and medium high density residential, as well as general commercial and office development and potentially a second hotel. The impact analysis shows build out conditions for the 18 acres for three different development scenarios. It is assumed that this annexation would not result in any additional public street lane miles for Oro Valley, with any new internal streets being private. FIGURE 2 PROPOSED WESTWARD LOOK ANNEXATION AREA Source: The Planning Center, September 2020. 4 1.1 General Approach The impact assessment includes revenues and expenditures in the General Fund and Streets Fund associated with existing and future development in the annexation area. It does not specifically include capital costs for new infrastructure since capital funds are not included in this analysis. The basic approach for the analysis is to determine the level and character of future development (measured in non‐residential square footage, employment, housing units, population, etc.), and then to model the operating revenues and expenditures likely to be associated with that development. Current and historical budgets for the town were reviewed to identify revenue and expenditure line items that would be impacted by the annexation. Once identified, each line item in the General Fund and Streets Fund was analyzed to identify a socioeconomic factor that could be used to predict a corresponding impact for the annexation area. For example, the number of new residents is a good indicator of the increase in Parks and Recreation Department expenditures. Therefore, by knowing the number of new residents in the annexation area at any point in time, one could estimate the related costs in the recreation and culture department. Many of the services provided by the town are utilized by both residents and businesses, thus population and employment are drivers for a number of revenue and expenditure items. 1.2 Report Organization The balance of this report is divided into two sections. Section 2.0 details the methodology and assumptions used in calculating the development characteristics and the fiscal assumptions used to develop the model. Section 3.0 describes the results of the fiscal impact analysis for the annexation area. The information and observations contained in this report are based on our present knowledge of the components of development, and of the current physical, socioeconomic and fiscal conditions of the affected areas. Projections made in this report are based on hypothetical assumptions and current public finance policies. However, even if the assumptions outlined in this report were to occur, there will usually be differences between the projections and the actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected. This analysis is based on the best available information and is intended to aid the Town of Oro Valley in making decisions relative to annexation. All dollar figures should be interpreted as order of magnitude estimates only. 5 2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Development Characteristics The socioeconomic impacts of nonresidential development can be described in terms of employment, square footage and taxable sales based on assumptions about the type of development that could be expected to occur in this area. The annual impact of residential development can be described in terms of housing units and population. The assumptions used in this analysis rely on development characteristics presented in the pre‐application document submitted by the developer, as well as budget information provided by the town. The following sections briefly describe the assumptions used to estimate each of the major characteristics of the annexation area. Nonresidential development and employment. The development scenarios for the Westward Look property are projected to include a mix of commercial/retail, office and hotel development, in addition to the existing resort. Projected employment could range from 71 employees under Plan A to 363 employees under Plan B, based on the number of acres by land use, standard assumptions for floor‐area ratios (the ratio of building area to land area), occupancy rates and employment density as shown in Figure 3. FIGURE 3 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS WESTWARD LOOK ANNEXATION Land Use Density Sq Ft/ Units House‐ hold Size Sq Ft per Worker Occupancy Rate Construction Cost per Square Foot Taxable Sales/ ADR Percent Retail Residential Utility Cost Existing Westward Look Resort (241 rooms) na 196,526 na 2,720 60% na $140 na na Future ‐ Plan A Boutique Retail/Restaurant 0.15 30,000 na 400 95% $148 $225 70% na Luxury Apartments (184 units) 17.19 184 1.69 na 94% $161 $0 na $1,202 Future ‐ Plan B Office 0.16 60,000 na 250 92% $162 $0 0% na Retail/Restaurant 0.40 51,000 na 400 95% $148 $225 70% na Hotel (110 rooms) 0.35 58,000 na 2,720 69% $175 $136 na na Future ‐ Plan C Medium High Density Residential 8.28 38 2.20 na 95% $161 $0 0% $2,004 Luxury Apartments (250 units) 23.36 250 1.69 na 94% $161 $0 0% $1,202 Note: Sales per square foot and per unit are expressed in current dollars. Residential utility costs are annual per housing unit costs. ADR = Average daily room rate for hotels. Occupancy rates are based on PICOR Market Beat Reports for Q2 2020, with data for the Oro Valley submarket. A summary of future acreage and square footage for the alternative development scenarios is shown in Figure 4. The following sections describe each nonresidential land use in greater detail with build out estimates for square feet. 6 Neighborhood and Community Commercial – Future commercial development includes 4.59 gross acres in Plan A with 30,000 square feet of built space, and 2.92 total acres with 51,000 square feet in Plan B, assuming a 95% long term occupancy, 400 square feet per employee, $225 sales per square foot (in current dollars) with 70% of the space devoted to tax‐generating businesses. Office – Future office development includes 8.60 gross acres in Plan B with 60,000 square feet, a 92% long term occupancy rate and 250 square feet per employee. Hotel – Future hotel development includes 3.77 gross acres in Plan B with 58,000 new square feet; 110 rooms, 0.3 employees per room, 69 percent hotel occupancy and average daily room rates (ADR) of $136, based on average rates for comparable hotels in the area. The assumptions for the existing resort include 196,526 square feet, 241 rooms, 0.2 employees per room, 60 percent hotel occupancy and an ADR of $140. Since the resort is currently undergoing renovations, it is likely that the ADR will increase by the time the annexation would occur, so this is a conservative estimate. This analysis also includes estimated food and beverage revenues for the existing resort of $83 per occupied room night. FIGURE 4 BUILD OUT LAND USE WESTWARD LOOK ANNEXATION Land Use Gross Acres Units Gross Acres Units Gross Acres Units Gross Acres Units Residential 0.00 0 10.70 184 0.00 0 15.29 288 High Density 0.00 0 10.70 184 0.00 0 10.70 250 Med High Density 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 4.59 38 Medium Density 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Gross Acres Sq Ft Gross Acres Sq Ft Gross Acres Sq Ft Gross Acres Sq Ft Nonresidential 36.08 196,526 4.59 30,000 15.29 169,000 0.00 0 Hotel 36.08 196,526 0.00 0 3.77 58,000 0.00 0 Commercial 0.00 0 4.59 30,000 2.92 51,000 0.00 0 Office 0.00 0 0.00 0 8.60 60,000 0.00 0 Undeveloped 20.51 0 2.68 0 2.68 0 2.68 0 Open Space 20.51 0 2.68 0 2.68 0 2.68 0 Total 57 196,526 18 30,000 18 169,000 18 0 Plan BPlan CPlan AExisting Residential Development and Population. The residential portions the Westward Look annexation are anticipated to include 10.7 acres of high density residential development in Plan A and 15.29 acres of medium high and high density residential development in Plan C (Figure 5). This could result in 184 new multifamily units and 283 residents in Plan A, and 250 new multifamily units along with 38 residential villas in Plan C resulting in an estimated 464 new residents. An occupancy rate of 95 percent was assumed for medium high density residential development and 91 percent for high density multi‐family development. The information below details the assumptions used in the model by residential density level. 7  High Density – 10.7 gross acres with 184 units in Plan A and 10.7 gross acres with 250 units in Plan C; 1.69 persons per unit. The high density land use category also includes taxable annual utility (electric and gas) sales of $1,202 per occupied unit (in current dollars) based on Q1 2020 cost of living data for metro Tucson from the Council for Community and Economic Research.  Medium High Density – 4.59 gross acres with 38 units in Plan C; 2.20 persons per unit; taxable annual utility sales of $2,004 per occupied unit (in current dollars). Other Development. This analysis assumes 20.5 acres of open space adjacent to the existing Westward Look Resort and 2.68 acres of outdoor event space in Plans A, B and C. No new lane miles of public streets or public park acres would be added for maintenance by the town based on the proposed development scenarios. FIGURE 5 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS WESTWARD LOOK ANNEXATION Existing Plan APlan BPlan C Gross Acres 57 17.97 17.97 17.97 Developed Acres 36 15.29 15.29 15.29 Housing Units 0 184 0 288 Population 0 292 0 477 Total Nonresidential Square Feet 196,526 30,000 169,000 0 Employment 72 71 363 0 Emp./Pop Ratio na 0.24 na na Estimated Annual Police Calls 33 122 117 216 Taxable Sales (millions of 2031 dollars) $9.20 $5.90 $14.20 $0.57 Town Maintained Street Lane Miles 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sources: Applied Economics, 2020. 2.2 Fiscal Assumptions The fiscal model created to assess the impacts of the Westward Look property is based on current and historical budgets for the Town of Oro Valley for seven previous fiscal years. Revenue and expenditure line items in the General Fund and Streets Fund are included since these funds will be most impacted by the annexation. The model does not include any construction costs for new infrastructure, but does include relevant maintenance costs for new street miles, although no new street miles are included in this analysis. Various drivers were tested for each of the revenue and expenditure items in the model. In this way, consistent rates were developed that could be applied to socioeconomic projections for the proposed annexation area. In most cases, an average of current and one or two previous years is used in the model to better reflect long term conditions. However, some revenue and expenditure items increased at rates that are less consistent over time, or experienced permanent increases or decreases due to operational or other changes. In these cases, only 8 rates from the current budget year are used to accurately reflect current conditions. The rates and basis for all revenue and expenditure line items are shown in Appendix A. Many of the revenue and expenditure line items are driven by population, or by “service population”, which includes both population and employment. This is because many of the services provided by the town, as well as the various types of revenues that local governments depend on, are proportional to the number of people living and working there. In some cases, population may be weighted more heavily than employment since some services are used proportionally more by residents than businesses. Major line items that are not driven by population or employment include sales tax which is a function of taxable retail sales and taxable residential utilities; building permits, special inspection fees, fire permits and engineering plan check fees that are a function of construction costs; and human resources and information technology that are a function of town staffing increases. The construction‐related revenues do not apply to build out conditions. On the expenditure side, planning and inspection and compliance are a function of construction value and are not assumed to generate additional expenditures once the area is built out. Transportation engineering is based on the number of lane miles added and is a one‐time expenditure, while street maintenance is also a function of lane miles but is an on‐going expenditure. Police services are a function of calls for service by type of land use and implied staffing at that call level based on current staffing levels in Oro Valley. It is estimated that future development in all three scenarios would require less than 1 additional officer at build out at a total annual cost of approximately $159,691 per officer in current dollars.1 The projected number of additional calls varies depending on the land uses included in each scenario. The existing Westward Look Resort generates about 33 police calls per year, which is the basis for police costs in the existing development scenario. Fire services would be provided by the Golder Ranch Fire District and are not part of the fiscal model. It is important to note that market conditions over the next ten years could significantly affect the projected land use and development timing, and hence sales taxes and other revenues resulting from the annexation area. The assumptions used in this analysis are fairly conservative. However, sales taxes may be higher or lower depending on the density of commercial and hotel development and the actual mix of businesses once the area is built out. 1 The cost per officer represents the total general fund expenditures for police and support services (excluding one‐ time costs) divided by the existing number of sworn officers. Vehicle maintenance for police vehicles is included in fleet services, which is a separate line item in the budget. 9 3.0 FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS At build out, the Westward Look annexation could result in a significant positive net impact to the town in all three scenarios ranging from $978,000 to $1.5 million per year (in 2031 dollars) including the existing resort plus new development. The new development anticipated for Gateway East and Gateway West would generate some taxable retail sales from the commercial development as well as state shared revenues from residents. Based on the assumptions used in this analysis, projected revenues are sufficient to cover the cost of providing municipal services to the area at build out for all three of the development scenarios as well as the existing resort. 3.1 Annual Impacts – Existing Resort The impacts reflect build out of the proposed annexation area, estimated at 2031, for the General Fund and Streets Fund. An annual inflation rate of 2 percent per year is included in the calculations. The levels of revenues and expenditures shown here reflect the assumed land use mix described in the previous sections. All revenues and expenditures shown in the annual impact results are expressed in 2031 dollars. The existing resort property could generate an estimated $755,000 in revenues and $20,000 in expenditures in 2021 dollars upon annexation. In 2031 dollars, corresponding to when the new development areas would be built out, the annual impacts of the existing resort are estimated at $939,000 in revenues and $23,000 in expenditures, resulting in an annual net impact of $916,000. Detailed impact results are shown in Figure 6. The existing Westward Look Resort currently generates an estimated $7.4 million in taxable room rentals. There are additional food and beverage sales estimated at $5.0 million in current dollars. Room rentals are subject to a 6 percent bed tax in addition to the normal 2.5 percent local sales tax. Sales and bed taxes make up the majority of revenues from the existing resort. The largest on‐going general fund expenditures for the existing resort property would be public safety, although the property does not generate a large number of calls. Annual police costs are estimated at $22,000 in 2031, based on actual call volumes, the average annual number of calls per officer and the total police services cost per officer in Oro Valley. 10 FIGURE 6 ANNUAL BUILD OUT NET IMPACTS OF WESTWARD LOOK ANNEXATION GENERAL FUND AND STREETS FUND Existing Plan APlan BPlan C REVENUES $938.96 $286.23 $643.01 $235.93 Taxes and Fees Local Sales Tax (2%) $308.89 $121.93 $283.31 $17.65 Dedicated Sales Tax (0.5%)* $77.22 $27.90 $70.83 $0.00 Bed Tax (6%) $551.21 $0.00 $280.65 $0.00 Cable Franchise Fees $0.77 $3.87 $3.86 $5.07 Intergovernmental State Income Tax $0.00 $46.36 $0.00 $75.58 State Sales Tax $0.00 $22.55 $0.00 $35.29 Vehicle License Tax $0.00 $15.39 $0.00 $25.08 Highway Users Revenue $0.00 $27.65 $0.00 $45.08 Federal and State Operating Grants $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Other Intergovernmental $0.00 $9.28 $0.00 $15.13 Licenses and Permits Building Permits $0.40 $1.99 $1.99 $2.61 Sign Permits $0.07 $0.07 $0.35 $0.00 Special Inspection Fees $0.00 $0.01 $0.01 $0.02 Grading Permits $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Fire Permit Fees $0.02 $0.09 $0.09 $0.11 Business License $0.17 $0.17 $0.85 $0.00 Charges for Services Zoning and Subdivision Fees $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Engineering Plan Check $0.02 $0.08 $0.08 $0.10 Financial Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Copies and Publications $0.00 $0.05 $0.00 $0.08 Administrative Fees $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Police Fees $0.00 $0.06 $0.00 $0.10 Rental Income $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Recreation Fees $0.00 $4.52 $0.00 $7.37 Court Fees $0.00 $1.32 $0.00 $2.16 Fare Box $0.00 $0.95 $0.00 $1.55 Fines and Forfeitures Fines $0.10 $0.87 $0.48 $1.26 Other Revenues Misc. Revenue $0.10 $1.14 $0.53 $1.69 *Dedicated sales tax revenues captured in Community Service Fund. Thousands of 2031 Dollars 11 FIGURE 6 (continued) ANNUAL BUILD OUT NET IMPACTS OF WESTWARD LOOK ANNEXATION GENERAL FUND AND STREETS FUND Existing Plan APlan BPlan C EXPENDITURES $22.56 $100.93 $81.28 $174.50 Management & Policy Mayor & Council $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Town Manager $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 General Administration $0.00 $2.26 $0.00 $3.54 Town Clerk $0.02 $0.22 $0.12 $0.31 Legal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Magistrate Court $0.00 $6.96 $0.00 $11.34 Administrative Services Finance $0.04 $0.31 $0.18 $0.45 Human Resources $0.12 $1.05 $0.58 $1.53 Information Technology $0.14 $1.24 $0.69 $1.80 Parks and Recreation Administration $0.00 $0.50 $0.00 $0.82 Park Maintenance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Aquatics $0.00 $1.43 $0.00 $2.33 Recreation Centers & Culture $0.00 $1.63 $0.00 $2.66 Community & Economic Development Administration, Permits $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Planning Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Inspection and Compliance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Economic Development $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Public Safety Police Services $21.84 $80.89 $77.67 $143.13 Public Works Public Works/Streets Admin $0.05 $0.43 $0.24 $0.63 Street Maintenance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Transportation Engineering $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Facilities & Fleet Maintenance $0.36 $3.24 $1.79 $4.71 Transit Services $0.00 $0.76 $0.00 $1.24 OVERALL NET OPERATING IMPACT $916.40 $185.29 $561.73 $61.43 as percent of revenue 98% 65% 87% 26% Thousands of 2031 Dollars 12 3.2 Annual Impacts – Plan A New Development  Plan A, which is a mix of commercial and multifamily development could generate an estimated $286,000 in annual revenues and $101,000 in annual expenditures at build out, resulting in annual net impacts of $185,000 in 2031 dollars.  With the addition of 30,000 square feet of commercial space at a 95 percent occupancy rate, the increase in taxable retail sales is estimated at $5.6 million per year in 2031 dollars, plus $258,000 per year in residential utilities from the 173 new multifamily households (occupied units), resulting in a total of about $150,000 in annual sales tax collections including general and dedicated sales taxes. Utility expenditures are not included for the retail and office development due to lack of information about specific types of tenants, resulting in a more conservative estimate.  Sales taxes from commercial space assume average sales per square foot of $225 (inflated to 2031 dollars) for 30,000 square feet of commercial space at 95 percent occupancy, 70 percent of which would be used for retail. Depending on the mix of tenants and level of taxable sales, these results could vary and could make a significant difference in the net fiscal results. Note that all taxable retail sales in this model are associated with commercial space and not households; however households do generate taxable utility expenditures. No sales tax associated with resident purchases outside the annexation area at other existing establishments in Oro Valley is included.  There would be interim construction sales tax and other construction‐related fee revenues that are included in the one‐time impacts in Section 3.2. The results in Figure 6 are intended to reflect long term annual impacts.  Other major revenues include state shared income and sales taxes, vehicle license tax and highway user revenues that could total about $112,000 per year based on current per capita distribution levels inflated to 2031 dollars, and a projected population of about 292. State shared revenues are important to the town and make up close to one third of current General Fund revenues.  The largest on‐going general fund expenditures for the proposed annexation area under Plan A would be public safety. Annual police costs are estimated at $81,000 to serve the new development, based on the level of calls typically generated by the types of residential and commercial development in the proposed scenario, the average annual number of calls per officer and the total police services cost per officer in Oro Valley.  There would also be a modest increase in other overhead and administrative costs for the town including court operations, fleet maintenance and general administration. All new development adds to these costs in an incremental fashion. It is also important to note that some of these expenditures like the court and transit services also have some off‐setting revenues. 3.3 Annual Impacts – Plan B New Development 13  Plan B, which is a mix of hotel, commercial and office development, could generate an estimated $643,000 in annual revenues and $81,000 in annual expenditures at build out, resulting in annual net impacts of $562,000 in 2031 dollars. This plan yields the highest net impacts given the concentration of tax generating uses, including a second hotel.  With the addition of 51,000 square feet of commercial space at 95 percent occupancy, the increase in taxable retail sales is estimated at $9.5 million per year in 2031 dollars, plus $4.7 million per year in hotel sales from a 110‐room hotel, resulting in a total of about $354,000 in annual sales tax collections and $281,000 in bed tax collections.  This estimate is based on average retail sales per square foot of $225 (inflated to 2031 dollars) for 51,000 square feet of commercial space at 95 percent occupancy, 70 percent of which would be used for retail. Depending on the mix of tenants and level of taxable sales, these results could vary and could make a significant difference in the net fiscal results. In addition, this scenario includes a 110‐room business class hotel with estimated average room rates of $169 (in 2031 dollars) and an occupancy rate of 69 percent, based on 2019 and 2020 data for Oro Valley from Visit Tucson. Sales and bed taxes make up the majority of annual revenues from Plan B.  The largest on‐going general fund expenditures for the proposed annexation area under Plan B would be public safety. Annual police costs are estimated at $78,000 to serve the new development, based on the level of calls typically generated by the types of commercial, office and hotel development in the proposed annexation, the average annual number of calls per officer and the total police services cost per officer in Oro Valley. 3.4 Annual Impacts – Plan C New Development  Plan C, which is a mix of single family and multifamily development could generate an estimated $236,000 in annual revenues and $175,000 in annual expenditures at build out, resulting in annual net impacts of $61,000 in 2031 dollars. This scenario, with no nonresidential development, has the lowest net impact of the three scenarios.  With the addition of 288 housing units at an occupancy rate of 94 to 95 percent, the increase in residential utilities is estimated at $441,000 per year in 2031 dollars, resulting in a total of about $18,000 in annual sales tax collections.  This estimate is based on annual utility costs of $1,202 for occupied multifamily units and $2,004 for occupied single family units. No other sales taxes associated with resident purchases outside the annexation area at other existing establishments in Oro Valley are included.  Other major revenues include state shared income and sales taxes, vehicle license tax and highway user revenues that could total about $181,000 per year based on current per capita distribution levels inflated to 2031 dollars, and a projected population of 477 residents. State shared revenues are important to the town and make up close to one third of current General Fund revenues. 14 The largest on‐going general fund expenditures for the proposed annexation area under Plan C would be public safety. Annual police costs are estimated at $143,000 based on the level of calls typically generated by the types of residential development in the proposed annexation, the average annual number of calls per officer and the total police services cost per officer in Oro Valley. There would also be a modest increase in other overhead and administrative costs for the town including court operations, fleet maintenance and general administration. All new development adds to these costs in an incremental fashion. It is also important to note that some of these expenditures like the court and transit services also have some off‐setting revenues. 3.5 One‐Time Impacts The impact results in the previous section reflect on‐going annual revenues and expenditures at build out. However, there will also be one‐time construction sales tax and other fees associated with new construction for Plans A, B and C estimated at $2.1 million to $3.3 million in current dollars, depending on the scenario (Figure 7). The rate at which this area will develop, and the timing of these one‐time revenues, is unknown. However, it is possible to estimate total construction sales tax, development impact fees and planning and permitting fees in current dollars. The model estimates construction costs based on per square foot costs for different types of development. The proposed annexation area could generate an estimated $1.1 million to $1.9 million in construction sales tax, assuming materials make up 65 percent of total construction costs and that the taxes are paid in Oro Valley. Construction costs would be highest for Plan C which has the highest overall development density, and lowest for Plan B. Applying the town’s new impact fee rates that will take effect in July 2022, the proposed development plans could generate $452,000 to $529,000 in non‐utility development impact fees for transportation, police and parks, which are captured in dedicated funds. Finally, the build out of this area could generate an estimated $509,000 to $865,000 in permit, plan check and other related fees in the General Fund during the construction period, depending on the scenario. Note that these are rough estimates based on the historical relationship between construction value and building‐related fees in the town. Actual results could vary significantly depending on the specific type and intensity of development. There would also be costs to the town associated with planning and permitting activities and infrastructure construction that are not included here. FIGURE 7 ONE‐TIME POTENTIAL TAXES AND FEES TO TOWN OF ORO VALLEY FROM BUILD OUT OF WESTWARD LOOK ANNEXATION AREA 15 Existing Plan APlan BPlan C Construction Sales Tax (4%) $0 $1,244,011 $1,096,720 $1,865,024 Development Impact Fees* Transportation $0 $237,090 $281,887 $250,560 Police $0 $156,948 $95,358 $219,456 Parks $0 $57,936 $75,250 $58,752 Planning/Permitting Fees $0 $577,053 $508,745 $865,098 Total One‐Time Fees and Taxes $0 $2,273,038 $2,057,960 $3,258,890 *Dedicated funds, not part of General Fund. 3.6 Summary At build out, the Westward Look annexation area could generate a moderate to large positive net fiscal impact on the Town of Oro Valley, depending on the development plan and assuming that the projected amount of commercial, hotel and residential development is feasible for this location. The cost of municipal services is generally less for nonresidential development than for residential development, and the ratio of sales tax generating uses to other types of uses is often the key factor in determining the magnitude fiscal impacts. Should future development plans or market conditions change significantly, the projected impact results would be different. Based on the location and mix of projected uses, it is likely this area will build out within the next 10 years. All three of the scenarios, including Plan C which is exclusively residential, are projected to generate positive fiscal impacts at build out. The largest annual impacts would be from Plan B that features hotel, commercial and office development. In addition, the existing Westward Look Resort would generate a sizeable positive annual net impact to the town, starting immediately upon annexation. However, annexations such as this often involve pre‐annexation development agreements and the annexation of the existing Westward Look Resort may become contingent on the zoning changes for the new development areas. Nonetheless, all three of the alternative scenarios for the new development areas are positive, with or without annexation of the existing resort property. 16 APPENDIX A REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE RATES 17 FISCAL IMPACT MODEL DRIVERS AND RATES GENERAL FUND AND STREETS FUND Revenue/Expenditure Item Driver Rate/Basis for Calculation REVENUES Taxes and Fees Local Sales Tax (2%)taxable sales (sales per square foot * retail square feet * occupancy rate * 2%) + (2% * hotel room and food sales) + (4% * residential utilities) Dedicated Sales Tax (0.5%)taxable sales sales per square foot * retail square feet * 0.5% Bed Tax (6%)taxable room sales 6% * average daily room rate * occupancy rate * number of rooms * 365 Cable Franchise Fees service population $8.55 * (population + employment) Intergovernmental State Income Tax population $127.55 * population State Sales Tax population $98.56 * population Vehicle License Tax population $42.33 * population Highway User Fees population $76.09 * population Federal and State Operating Grants not impacted Other Intergovernmental (RTA reimbursement)population $25.54 * population Licenses and Permits Building Permits construction value (80%), service population (20%) ($0.017 * construction value) + ($4.40 * (population + employment) Sign Permits employment $0.77 * employment Special Inspection Fees building permits 0.61% * building permit revenues Grading Permits not impacted Fire Permit Fees building permits 4.33% * building permit revenues Business License employment $1.88 * employment Charges for Services Zoning and Subdivision Fees not impacted Engineering Plan Check building permits 3.92% * building permit revenues Financial Services not impacted Copies and Publications population $0.14 * population Administrative Fees not impacted Police Fees population (25% of normal rate)$0.21 * population Rental Income not impacted Recreation Fees population $12.45 * population Court Fees population (25% of normal rate)$3.64 * population Fair Box population $2.61 * population Fines and Forfeitures Fines service population $1.07 * (population *2 + employment) Other Revenues Misc. Revenue service population $1.16 * (population *2 + employment) EXPENDITURES Management & Policy Mayor & Council not impacted Town Manager not impacted General Administration service population (50% of normal rate) $9.315 * (population*2 + employment) City Clerk service population (10% of normal rate) $0.66 * (population*2 + employment) Magistrate Court population growth (25% of normal rate) $19.15 * population Legal not impacted Administrative Services Finance local revenues 3.3% * local tax and fee revenues Human Resources City FTEs @ 0.0011 per (population*2 + employment)$1,196 * City FTE growth Information Technology City FTEs @ 0.0011 per (population*2 + employment)$1,383 * City FTE growth APPENDIX A 18 FISCAL IMPACT MODEL DRIVERS AND RATES GENERAL FUND AND STREETS FUND Revenue/Expenditure Item Driver Rate/Basis for Calculation Parks and Recreation Administration % of other Parks and Rec expenditures 16.5% * other parks and rec expenditures Park Maintenance park acres $1,627 * park acres Aquatics population $3.94 * population Recreation Centers and Culture population $4.49 * population Community and Economic Development Administration, Permits construction value $0.014 * construction value Planning Services construction value $0.0065 * construction value Inspection and Compliance construction value $0.0094 * construction value Economic Development new jobs created $16.93 * job growth Public Safety Police Services calls for service by land use, 1 officer per 300 calls $159,691 * police staff Public Works Public Works/Streets Administration other public works expenditures 13.4% * other public works expenditures Street Maintenance street lane miles for maintenance $3,500 * new street lane miles (on‐going) Transportation Engineering street lane miles added $16,891 * new street lane miles (one‐time) Facilities & Fleet Maintenance City FTEs @ 0.0024 per (population*2 + employment)$3,685 * City FTEs Transit Services population $2.09 * population Note: service population = population + employment. APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN 'A'WESTWARD LOOKTHEPLGCEANNNINERTadiviiIsooonfnTPCGrup,c.escrconegtetuosnaz857012600ssNORTHPROJECT:DATE:WWL-0101.19.21FILE NAME:WWL-01_ILLUSTRATIVE A 1.11.21.DWG0'60'SCALE: 1"-120'-0"120'INA ROAD(150' ROW, MS&R)SINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYNOTESPARCELS: 225-50-021A, 225-50-0180, 225-50-0200JURISDICTION: PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONAEXISTING ZONING: CR-1PARCELS AREA: 18.0 ACRESRESORT GATEWAY WEST - BOUTIQUE RETAIL /RESTAURANTGROSS FLOOR AREA: APPROX 30,000 SFBUILDING HEIGHT: 2 STORIES (MAX 34') (28' WITHIN 85' OF EXISTINGRESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)PARKING REQUIRED: TBD THROUGH INDIVIDUAL PARKING PLANRESORT GATEWAY EAST - LUXURY GATED APARTMENTCOMPLEX & POTENTIAL INTEGRATED COMMERCIALUNIT QUANTITY: APPROX 184BUILDING HEIGHT: 2-3 STORIES (MAX 40') (2 STORIES AND 28' WITHIN85' OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)PARKING REQUIRED: TBD THROUGH INDIVIDUAL PARKING PLANALL BUILDINGS MAY INCORPORATE COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, ANDRETAIL OPPORTUNITIESRESORT GATEWAY EAST - RESORT EQUESTRIAN ANDEVENT SPACEUSE: RESORT EQUESTRIAN STABLES AND EVENT AREADOG PARKSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYRESORT(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYRAMADA, PLAZA, EVENT LAWNSTABLES AND PASTUREENTRY MONUMENT / GATEWAYLEASING CENTER50'LANDSCAPE25' BLDG.SETBACK40' BLDG. SETBACKSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYPIMA COUNTYROWSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTY40' BLDG. SETBACK40' BLDG. SETBACKWASHWASHELECTRICEASEMENTCENTRALAMENITY(POOL)FITNESSCENTERLUXURYAPARTMENTCOMPLEXBOUTIQUERETAIL/RESTAURANTRESORTEQUESTRIAN/EVENTSPLAZASIGNAGELOCAL PRECEDENTSBOUTIQUE RETAIL / RESTAURANT: BROADWAY VILLAGELUXURY APARTMENTS: VILLAS AT SAN DORADOTHIS EXHIBIT WAS CREATED USING THE MOST RECENT AVAILABLE BOUNDARIES, ROAD ALIGNMENT,AND EASEMENT DATA PROVIDED BY THE DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES AND ENGINEERINGFIRMS AND IS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL AREA TOTALS BASED ON ENGINEERED DATAMAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT.REVITALIZED LANDSCAPE ALONG WESTWARD LOOK DRIVERESORT GATEWAY WEST4.84 ACRESORT GATEWAY EAST13.15 ACWESTWARD LOOK DR.TRASH ENCLOSURE(TYP)LOADINGEXISTING PEDESTRIANCROSSING TO REMAINLANDSCAPEWALL 6'LANDSCAPEWALL 6'(PRIVAT E R O A D )INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT PER DKT 1274, PG 419TO REMAINRIGHT TURN LANE360' SEPARATIONFROM SONYA LN20' ENHANCEDLANDSCAPE ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN 'B'WESTWARD LOOKTHEPLGCEANNNINERTadiviiIsooonfnTPCGrup,c.escrconegtetuosnaz857012600ssNORTHPROJECT:DATE:WWL-011.19.21FILE NAME:WWL-01_ILLUSTRATIVE B 1.19.21.DWG0'60'SCALE: 1"-120'-0"120'INA ROAD(150' ROW, MS&R)SINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYNOTESPARCELS: 225-50-021A, 225-50-0180, 225-50-0200JURISDICTION: PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONAEXISTING ZONING: CR-1PARCELS AREA: 18.0 ACRESRESORT GATEWAY WEST - OFFICE PLAZA/ RETAILGROSS FLOOR AREA: APPROX 35,000 SFBUILDING HEIGHT: 2 STORIES (MAX 34') (28' WITHIN 85' OF EXISTINGRESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)PARKING REQUIRED: TBD THROUGH INDIVIDUAL PARKING PLANRESORT GATEWAY EAST - MIXED USE COMMERCIALCENTER, RESTAURANT, OFFICE/CASITASGROSS FLOOR AREA: APPROX 76,000 SFBUILDING HEIGHT: 2-3 STORIES (MAX 40') (2 STORIES AND 28' WITHIN85' OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)PARKING REQUIRED: TBD THROUGH INDIVIDUAL PARKING PLANRESORT GATEWAY EAST - HOSPITALITYGROSS FLOOR AREA: APPROX 58,000 SFBUILDING HEIGHT: 3 STORIES (MAX 40')PARKING REQUIRED: TBD THROUGH INDIVIDUAL PARKING PLANSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYRESORT(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTY40' BLDG. SETBACKSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTY40' BLDG. SETBACKWASHWASHRESORTEQUESTRIANLOCAL PRECEDENTSOFFICE PLAZA: SAM HUGHES PLACEMIXED USE COMMERCIAL CENTER: ST PHILIP'S PLAZATHIS EXHIBIT WAS CREATED USING THE MOST RECENT AVAILABLE BOUNDARIES, ROAD ALIGNMENT,AND EASEMENT DATA PROVIDED BY THE DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES AND ENGINEERINGFIRMS AND IS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL AREA TOTALS BASED ON ENGINEERED DATAMAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT.FIRE PIT AND PLAZASTABLES AND PASTUREENTRY MONUMENTSEVENT LAWN AND DRAINAGEMIXED USE COMMERCIALCENTER(~45,000 SF)HOSPITALITY(~58,000 SF)RESTAURANT(~6,000 SF)MIXED USEOFFICE/CASITAS(~ 25,000 SF)EVENTANDDININGPLAZAPOOLCOURTYARDCOURTYARDREVITALIZED LANDSCAPE ALONG WESTWARD LOOK DRIVERESORT GATEWAY WEST4.84 ACRESORT GATEWAY EAST13.15 AC OFFICE/COMMERCIALPLAZALOADING LOADINGLOADINGLANDSCAPEWALL 6'LANDSCAPEWALL 6'EXISTING PEDESTRIANCROSSING TO REMAIN40' BLDG.SETBACK25' BLDG.SETBACKPIMA COUNTYROW40' BLDG. SETBACKELECTRICEASEMENTWESTWARD LOOK DR. (PRIVAT E R O A D )INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT PER DKT 1274, PG 419TO REMAINRIGHT TURN LANE300' MIN SEPARATIONFROM SONYA LNPOTENTIAL DRAINAGEPOTENTIAL DRAINAGE20' ENHANCEDLANDSCAPE ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN 'C'WESTWARD LOOKTHEPLGCEANNNINERTadiviiIsooonfnTPCGrup,c.escrconegtetuosnaz857012600ssNORTHPROJECT:DATE:WWL-0101.16.2021FILE NAME:WWL-01_ILLUSTRATIVE C 1.16.2021.DWG0'60'SCALE: 1"-120'-0"120'INA ROAD(150' ROW, MS&R)SINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYNOTESPARCELS: 225-50-021A, 225-50-0180, 225-50-0200JURISDICTION: PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONAEXISTING ZONING: CR-1PARCELS AREA: 18.0 ACRESRESORT GATEWAY WEST - RESIDENTIAL VILLASTOTAL UNITS: 38 (16 - 1 BEDROOM, 22 - 2 BEDROOM)BUILDING HEIGHT:2 STORIES (MAX 28')PARKING REQUIRED: TBD THROUGH INDIVIDUAL PARKING PLANRESORT GATEWAY EAST -LUXURY APARTMENT COMPLEX/HOTELGROSS FLOOR AREA: APPROX 400,000 SF OR 250 UNITSBUILDING HEIGHT: 3 STORIES (MAX 40') (2 STORIES AND 28' WITHIN 85'OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)PARKING REQUIRED: TBD THROUGH INDIVIDUAL PARKING PLANRESORT GATEWAY EAST - RESORT EQUESTRIAN AND EVENTSPACEUSE: RESORT PARK AND EVENT AREASINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYRESORT(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSPLASH PADPAVILIONENTRY MONUMENT / GATEWAY40' BLDG. SETBACKSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTY40' BLDG. SETBACKWASHWASHPOOLLUXURY APARTMENTS(ONLY IF WEST IS COMMERCIAL)/ HOTELRESIDENTIALVILLASRESORTPARKSIGNAGELOCAL PRECEDENTS HACIENDA AT THE CANYONRESIDENTIAL VILLAS: MIRAMONTE AT THE RIVERTHIS EXHIBIT WAS CREATED USING THE MOST RECENT AVAILABLE BOUNDARIES, ROAD ALIGNMENT,AND EASEMENT DATA PROVIDED BY THE DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES AND ENGINEERINGFIRMS AND IS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL AREA TOTALS BASED ON ENGINEERED DATAMAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT.REVITALIZED LANDSCAPE ALONG WESTWARD LOOK DRIVERESORT GATEWAY WEST4.84 ACRESORT GATEWAY EAST13.15 ACRAMADA, PLAYGROUNDEVENT LAWNEXIT ONLYLANDSCAPEWALL 6'LANDSCAPEWALL 6'TRASH ENCLOSURE(TYP)40' BLDG.SETBACK25' BLDG.SETBACKPIMA COUNTYROW40' BLDG. SETBACKELECTRICEASEMENTWESTWARD LOOK DR. (PRIVAT E R O A D )INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT PER DKT 1274, PG 419TO REMAINRIGHT TURN LANE300' MIN SEPARATIONFROM SONYA LNPOTENTIAL DRAINAGEPOTENTIAL DRAINAGE20' ENHANCEDLANDSCAPE January 20, 2021 Community Development and Public Works Town of Oro Valley Oro Valley, Arizona Subject: Westward Look PAD Modifications Dear Mr. Spaeth: The following is a summary of changes and PAD modifications that are a result of continued public outreach with neighbors. Following the January 5, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, The Planning Center hosted a Zoom meeting on January 6, 2021 with neighbors in Westward Look Heights and Westward Look Estates. The meeting was productive and led to significant changes to Illustrative Site Plan Concepts A and C to further mitigate privacy concerns. Additional coordination and discussions since those two meetings has resulted in PAD modifications as described below related to limitations on lighting, balcony restrictions, increased buffer yard width, and minimum nursery stock tree sizes. It was also agreed upon that a resident representative will be included on the Design Review Committee established as part of the PAD. Height- Building height within eighty-five feet of adjacent residential property has been reduced from thirty-four feet and two stories to twenty-eight feet and two stories. Landscape Buffer Yards- Landscape buffer yards adjacent to residential property in Resort Gateway East will be fifty feet. Nursery stock utilized to create a continuous tree canopy will be a minimum thirty-six-inch box (or equal) size to facilitate a more mature vegetative buffer at the time of planting. Balconies- Balconies are not permitted on the east side of a building when proposed development is within eighty-five feet of eastern property boundary. Lighting- Parking lot security lighting shall be limited to five feet in height when located within eighty-five feet of adjacent residential property. Illustrative Concept A- Proposed multi-family buildings were relocated to the center of Resort Gateway (East) to be further away from neighboring homes. The distance from the eastern property line doubled from approximately sixty feet to one hundred twenty feet. Page 2 Westward Look PAD Modifications January 20, 2021 Illustrative Concept C- Residential villas proposed in Resort Gateway (West) were reconfigured to reduce the number of buildings along the west boundary from four to one. These changes are also reflected in the latest revised PAD document. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, THE PLANNING CENTER Linda S. Morales, AICP CEO From: ROBERT HAGEN Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 1:01 PM To: Stegen, Andrew - Wyndham Westward Look Grand Resort and Spa <AStegen@wyndham.com> Subject: WLR Annex/Dev Plans This e-mail is from an external source. Use caution when opening attachments or clicking on links. Andrew Stegen, General Manager (GM) Westward Look Resort (WLR) 245 E Ina Rd, Tucson, AZ 86704 Email: AStegen@wyndham.com Direct Phone: 520.917.2460 Andrew: I am a Westward Look Heights' (WLHs') home owner whose property borders on the NE corner of the land that may be annexed by Oro Valley (OV) and commercially developed by WLR. My residency dates back to 1984. To date, I have heard from quite a few of my fellow neighbors about the annexation/development notification letter you recently sent to me and five of my neighbors (BTW, in a spirit of openness, I thought you should have sent the letter to all WLHs' residents since it will impact the entire neighborhood). I thought it was important to let you know what my feelings are as well as most everyone else I have heard from. For starters, WLR has generally been deemed to be a pretty good neighbor despite some of the issues we have faced over the years such as: fireworks and debris from them, live bands playing music in the evenings, WL Resort guests routinely walking thru WLHs (even trespassing on our property and swimming in our pools), landscaped debris deposited on our property, people frequently driving their cars into WLHs looking for WLR, etc. Also, my wife returned home from lunch one day and found a burglar in our home (when he departed, he left a trail of dropped items as he headed towards the WLR property where he may have parked his car). To date, we have generally dealt with such issues in a friendly and respectful manner. I think it is important for WLR to be aware that your latest annexation and development plans take relationship issues and concerns to a new level. For starters, OV attempted to annex WLHs quite a few years ago and the effort failed. Residents here simply didn't want to be annexed by OV. I am personally concerned that they would try to do it again as a follow-on effort to the WLR annexation. Commercially developing the designated piece of WLR property simply doesn't make a lot of sense to those of us who have lived here for a long time. Not only do we deem it too close to WLHs' homeowners backyards and too small to handle buildings of any size and adequate parking, but the amount of traffic and the high rate of driver speed in front of it already poses a significant safety risk. Most of us here in WLHs won't even walk in front of the area due to safety concerns. As you are probably aware, there have been a number of auto accidents (and even some serious injuries and deaths) along the Ina Rd area in front of WLR and the area just before it and right after it. It is also important to mention that WLR proceeding with its annexation and development plans is quite likely to create a very hostile/unfriendly relationship between WLR and WLHs. Such a relationship would not only not be in the best interests of WLR, its employees, its guests and any visitors to its newly developed commercial facilities, but WLHs and the surrounding neighbors as well. Significant conflicts are almost certain to arise. A number of us in WLHs are also quite concerned that any further commercial development in WLR would also have a negative impact on the value of our homes and ability to resale them. Many people are simply uneasy buying a home that that is very close to a commercial development. Should WLR proceed with its plans in spite of the above concerns (and I do believe them to be real and significant ones), it is essential that every effort be made to implement things in as viewer friendly and nonintrusive manner as is possible. In other words, no WLHs' neighbor should see something like dumpsters, loading docks, back doors or flood lights from their back or front yards or experience unpleasant smells and/or noises. I would appreciate you letting me know that you received this email OK as well as if you have any comments you would like to make in response to it. Also, pleased be advised that you likely to receive a number of similar comments from existing WLHs' residents. Sincerely, Bob Hagen, WLHs From: Ralph Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 3:07 PM To: Jhynd@orovalleyaz.gov; Stegen, Andrew - Wyndham Westward Look Grand Resort and Spa <AStegen@wyndham.com> Cc: Subject: Proposed Annexation of Westward Look Resort and subsequent rezoning This e-mail is from an external source. Use caution when opening attachments or clicking on links. Thank you for inviting input from neighbors regarding the proposed annexation and rezoning prospects at Westward Look Resort (WLR.) We herein address the annexation, proposed rezoning, and provided potential “improvements” adjacent to Westward Look Heights (WLH,) because all these appear to be part and parcel of one grand plan. As residents of Westward Look Heights (WLH), we have enjoyed having the western-oriented, open space oriented resort as a neighbor. We believe that is the charm that has long attracted clients to WLH. However, we believe the proposed annexation and rezoning by OV would rapidly erode those characteristics, and we do not favor Oro Valley’s (OV) proposed annexation of WLR, which directly impinges on our neighborhood. And with WLR being just the next step in OV's documented plan of creeping property annexation, WLH would likely be it’s subsequent target for annexation: we strongly oppose that. There appears be only one reason WLR would favorably view OV annexation, since, contrarily, it’s taxes would surely increase after the annexation. The rationale for annexation must be that WLR could not obtain Pima County's approval of it’s rezoning proposal, and OV offered WLR rezoning as a form of quid pro quo, in exchange for it's being annexed. Otherwise, what benefits would accrue to WLR from annexation by OV? We would like both OV and WLR to provide clarity on that relationship, and how it developed without public input from potentially affected neighbors, and what objections Pima County had to the rezoning, if that were the case. We would definitely oppose any future annexation of WLH into OV because we believe it would increase WLH property tax rates, reduce our property values, sever our long, good association with nearby Rural Metro Fire Department, and provide no evident benefit to our neighborhood. We also oppose WLR's contemplated “improvements” to to their property that would follow annexation. Any of their provided proposals would increase traffic, congestion, noise, and the likelihood of crime which would spillover into WLH. In spite of it's claims to the contrary, none of WLR's proposals provide adequate physical separation from WLH property to adequately minimize impact. All the proposals appear over-populated with buildings and parking lots, leaving a very un-westward look.The proposed multi-story apartments and multi-story convention hotel heights are completely out of character with the entire neighborhood, not to mention destroying the westward-looking views from neighboring WLH homes. Also, drainage into the unnamed wash would be greatly affected, and practically all native wildlife displaced. Any and all of these out-of-character, environmentally destructive “improvements” would be detrimental to home values throughout WLH, reduce homeowner's ability to sell their property, and diminish homeowner's quality of life. We therefore recommend against annexation of WLR, and, should the annexation go forward anyway, major down-scaling revisions to any WLR plan for “improvements” adjacent to WLH. Keep Westward Look western looking! Respectfully, Ralph and Loretta Miller September 11, 2020 Jessica Hynd Constituent Services Coordinator/Management Assistant Town of Oro Valley 11000 N LaCanada Drive Oro Valley AZ 85737 Andrew Stegen General Manager Westward Look Resort 245 E. Ina Road Tucson AZ85704 We have been supporters of Westward Look Resort (WLR) since moving to Tucson in 1975. We have been a direct neighbor since 1987. We are very troubled to learn about the proposed annexation to OroValley with subsequent development of 26 WLR acres. We are in opposition to the annexation and these plans. Our reasons, and questions for the Zoom meeting, are as follows: 1) Destruction of the open desert spaces and subsequent effect on the environment, wildlife corridors, washes, and views . Much of the attraction of living in this area has been the open desert and beautiful surroundings. I would think that is also an attraction for guests of the resort . The unobstructed views of the mountains and the city have always been a significant feature of WLR and the area. We are greatly concerned about the environmental impact of pollution, water use, and noise. Destruction of this natural environment will have long lasting effects on the fauna and flora of this part of the Sonoran Desert. Once it is destroyed, it will never return. QUESTION: How do the developers plan to preserve and protect the washes, wildlife corridors, desert flora, and views? 2) Protection provided by the 100 year deed restriction of 1986 that prohibits destruction of the open desert spaces. We are aware of the 100 year deed restriction that was recorded as Docket 7408, p. 1316, with the Pima County Clerk and Recorder on 11/13/1986. This deed includes the entire WLR property and limits it to recreational use only. QUESTION: How can this development proceed consistent with the 100 year deed restriction, filed on 11/13/1986, that limits the entire WLR property to recreational use only? 3) Added Dangerous traffic congestion and noise to an area that is already dangerous and congested. There have already been numerous accidents at the WLook/Ina Road intersection, including a death. During late afternoon rush hours, there is usually a back up of cars (turning north on Ina ) up to the stoplight at WLook Drive. This situation already presents a treacherous obstacle for us to turn onto/off of WLook Drive. i cannot imagine the congestion with the addition of this development. QUESTION: How do the developers plan to mitigate the adverse effects of added congestion and danger to residents, guests, and Ina Road traffic? 4) Concern for maintaining the history, ambience, and southwest architectural design of the resort and the area. WLR is the oldest resort in Tucson, built in 1912. Its charm has always been the western lodging in beautiful open desert spaces with spectacular views of the mountains and the city. This has also been the attraction for the neighbors and visitors to the area. Construction of 3 story buildings for one, will take away views and desert spaces that are forever lost. QUESTION: How will the developers maintain the southwest charm of WLR and control architectural design, including limiting the height of buildings? We will be attending the zoom and are in touch with our neighbors and other interested parties regarding legalities of this development. We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Jean and Ted Glattke “Hello Jessica: My name is Anne Maxon. I am a resident the Westward look townhomes neighborhood. I’m Looking forward to the next meeting on October 15 at 6 PM. I have a few questions about the governance and compliance of basic looking forward to the next meeting on October 15 at 6 PM. I have a few questions about the governance and compliance of Oro Valley city ordinances, once the annexation has been approved. I would like to specifically like to know about •Roads what entity is (and who will be) responsible for Westward Look Drive maintenance, once annexation is completed? Are there zoning regulations regarding paving, i.e., regulations regarding standards for asphalt, bike lanes , crosswalks? What are maintenance agreements? •Lightning Will Westward Look be compelled to abide by dark sky lighting standards? I sat on a task force to enforce dark sky regulations when Steam Pump Village was proposed. Oro Valley is in the vanguard of protecting our Night sky resource. •Protected “wash” open space: Once annexation is concluded, the Pima County ordinance Protection of the open space~ we, residents of WWLGR#1, successfully petitioned Pima County to enact in perpetuity, will of course, become null and void. Can you assist me in finding the appropriate people within the City of Oro Valley With whom I can begin the discussion of legally protecting the wash? Thanks Jessica. I have enormous appreciation for how you have to juggle all the constituents, the needs of each~~ as well as the city, investment group, and Mr. Patel. In 1960, My dad was the original developer of Green Valley...so I know firsthand, that planning departments, zoning, cities, counties, towns, councils are a juggling challenge. I went to my first County master plan, Pima County board of supervisors meeting in the seventh grade!! The good news is, that, in 57 years a lot of good development rules, regulations and overarching, long term benefits have been enacted. Thanks for your time. And thank you for your efforts in communicating with all of us. Best Regards, Anne Maxon From: bob barnes Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 4:32 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Annexation meeting WLR Dear Mr. Standish, This email is in regard to the proposed annexation of Westward Look Resort (WLR). While my wife Jeannette, and I recognize this process is preliminary to any immediate action,we feel it is not too early to express our concern/comments for what is being proposed. As such,we request that you please pass these comments, along to all seven of the OV council members prior to the October 7th meeting, so they will have them in time to consider them. My wife and I have lived in Westward Look Heights (WLH) since 1993. We live directly across the wash from the main building. WLH is a very quiet subdivision adjoining WLR.We have greatly enjoyed having WLR as a neighbor without any conflicts. That being said, change happens! Sometimes it is for the good, and sometimes for the bad. Before you proceed with the annexation we ask that all of you please consider a few comments we have. 1. A hotel and conference center? With all the new hotels in downtown Tucson (especially the new one adjoining the convention center) would WLR be able to compete with them? Questionable! 2. For many years WLR has been a special resort, due to its quiet atmosphere, exceptional layout, and spacious landscape. In reading WLRs comments, from guests, it is apparent that the appeal for staying there, is its quiet, friendly, and a safe place for children. The comments also suggest that WLR has not been able to keep the maintenance of the resort up very well. To be fair, covid 19 has only made things worse. We are sure the manager is doing the best he can with a drastically reduced staff. It is enlightening that the new owner has taken action financially to correct this. 3.The only resort in Tucson, we are aware of, that is comparable to WRL is the smaller Hacienda Del Sol (HDS). If WRL wants to be a 4+ quality resort we suggest they take a look at (HDS) for a model to follow. They do not have a noisy St. Phillips plaza, it is just a quiet , well maintained, and very popular resort. It has a blend of older, and newer rooms which WLR could easily conform to. We personally believe that HDS is the best resort in Tucson. 4. Each year, in early February, mineral madness strikes Tucson. The mineral buyers and sellers flock to WRL. For 4+ days very high end mineral dealers sell from the rooms. It has become so popular with the public there needs to be shuttle service from the overflow parking area. If that overflow parking area is not available, then the public is likely to go elsewhere. Without all the customers, the dealers will likely do so as well. If that happens, OV in general loses big revenue, as will WRL. 5. Boutiques, retail stores, office space? Why? It is clear there are numerous stores and offices sitting empty. Covid 19 has created havoc with many of them. However, the virus is not all to blame. Many of them were empty well before the virus hit. WLR may want to think twice about that!. 6. There are ample, very good restaurants and shopping in the OV/WRL area. In past years, the Gold Room was one of the finest. Now, due to the virus, and lack of tourists, it is only open for breakfast. Fortunately, the bar and grill serves a limited menu in the evenings. Why would you want to compete with the Gold Room on the same property? As tourism returns, so will the guests to utilize it! 7 The neighborhoods surrounding WLR are quiet, well kept, and relatively expensive. Developing a plan which degrades this atmosphere, and results in decreased property values benefits no one, including OV and WLR. In closing, it is our suggestion, as a neighbor to OV and WLR that you take a step back (at least until the pandemic ends), regarding the annexation. Seriously think about the proposed changes. Are they the best plans? Are they really going to benefit OV and WLR? Is there a better use of the land to really make WLR a profitable 4+ resort, or are you going to create something which further degrades its desirability? We would hope that OV recognizes the potential that exists for excellence here. This is prime real estate, and an outstanding location. Please do not waste the opportunity to do it right! With regards to a sensible outcome, Bob and Jeannette Barnes From: ROBERT HAGEN Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 8:56 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: OV/WLR Annex/Gen Pln Amend/Rezoning Mr. Michael Standish,Town Clerk Town of Oro Valley (OV) mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov Mr. Standish: I would very much appreciate you forwarding this email to the OV Town Council members ahead of their 6 PM meeting tomorrow. This message is a follow-up to my previous email to them dated Sept 16, 2020…. please let me know that you received it OK and will forward it.........THXs.....Bob Hagen Dear OV Town Council Members: In my Sept 16th email, I noted a number of substantial concerns many of us have as neighbors regarding the proposed Town of OV Annexation, General Plan Amendment and Rezoning related to the Westward Look Resort (WLR) and the commercial development that it may undertake. They included such issues as significantly increased traffic/safety concerns, strained neighborhood relations with WLR, a likely negative affect on our home values and/or our ability to resale them, unsightly views, substantially increased noise levels and a heightened likelihood that the Town of Oro Valley would once again try to annex our neighborhood. To add to the above concerns, I also believe there will be a considerably elevated level of unhealthy auto exhaust fumes (something that is already a problem in the area), a negative impact on the surrounding desert plants/wildlife (something that is special to us) and a higher likelihood of crime and/or /burglaries in our neighborhood. It is also hard for us to understand how we as close-by neighbors do not appear to have any meaningful input or say in what is taking place. At the present time, there are no WLR buildings that are closer than a few hundred feet to our homes. With the potential WLR commercial development, buildings possibly as tall as three stories could quite literally be a short stone throw from all of the homes on both sides of the street from Ina N on Sonya Way all the way to Michelle Pl. In the final analysis, it is hard to envision how any of the three WLR commercial development concepts designs would be anything but negative for our neighborhood. Any help or assistance you could provide to ensure that things proceed from here in a minimally intrusive and negative manner for our neighborhood would be very much appreciated by all concerned. Sincerely, Robert Hagen, Westward Look Heights From: Mike Myers Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 3:07 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Comments on General Plan Amendment and rezoning for the Westward Look Resort located at the Ina Road and Westward Look Drive intersection Mike: I am writing in regards to the General Plan Amendment and rezoning for the Westward Look Resort located at the Ina Road and Westward Look Drive intersection. My home is at 3 E. Old Ina Road which is directly adjacent to the Westward Look property on Westward Look Drive which is titled Resort Gateway West in the proposed plans that I have reviewed. As I’m sure you know, the current parcel, Resort Gateway West, located next to my home is zoned low density residential. This zoning and its potential development were things that we were aware of when we identified the home and then purchased the home and deemed its price acceptable. Personally, I am concerned, as I believe any parent and homeowner would be, with the proposed zoning changes that are being considered at this time for the Resort Gateway West parcel. The specific concerns that I am asking for you to consider when evaluating the zoning change request include: The safety and security of my family that will be impacted by people coming and going from virtually every development option that is not low density residential housing. I am specifically concerned about residents and guests of some of the proposed development options wandering into our backyard and onto our property. In the case of my home, it would take less than a minute or two for someone to come onto our property, have some form of impact, and be back to the proposed development area The value of my home and property being negatively impacted by development which is inconsistent with the current zoning The privacy of my family that will be impacted by all of the development options outside of low density residential housing The impact on the threatened and endangered wildlife that have lived and do live in the Resort Gateway West parcel Although we anticipated that the land next to us could be developed, low density residential development, in line with the current parcel’s zoning, would maintain a significant amount of natural desert The staff at Westward look and the Planning Center have been reasonable and accessible in their communications, which is appreciated. With that said, the proposed mitigation measures that I am aware of to date do not adequately address the concerns that I am sharing with you. On a broader level, I support and am aware of the area plan for Oro Valley that favors gradual transitions for land uses. The proposed rezoning for the Gateway West parcel creates an abrupt and significant transition between potential uses which will have a negative impact on my family and others that are adjacent to it. I appreciate the needs of Oro Valley and the Westward Look property owners. The current zoning of the parcel entitled Resort Gateway East is NCO. As this is the much larger parcel of the two and East has been zoned this way for an extended period, I believe that Westward Look and Oro Valley, if the parcels are annexed, have every right to develop it as they see fit. I am requesting, however, that the Resort Gateway West property maintain its low density residential housing designation for the reasons that I’ve outlined above. Thank you for your consideration. Mike ____________________ Mike Myers From: Ranay Twidwell Guifarro Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 2:37 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Comment for Town Board Mike- I would like to submit the bellow comment for this evening's Town Board meeting. Thank you, Ranay Guifarro Oro Valley Town Board, I am writing as a neighbor who would be impacted by the proposed development at the Westward Look Resort. The impacts that are being proposed offer three options, all of which would negatively impact my property value, in addition to the loss of safety, quiet, and wildlife. This week I sat, late at night in my living room and a movement caught my eye, as I peered out the window, I was able to witness two deer walking through the yard. I understand that this area is described as an interrupted desert, but doesn't this describe most desert around Tucson? The fire this summer has impacted natural habitats, but what is restricting us to provide some areas to these wild animals? In the community development field growth and development are defined as two separate things. development is defined as thoughtful and carefully designed to be sustainable, while growth is unfettered and unsustainable. When looking around Ina and Oracle I can count numerous office buildings that are available for lease, this the same for apartments. This development appears to be a poor idea that falls into the growth category and does not provide improvement to the area. Thank you for your time. Cheers, Ranay Guifarro _____________________________________________________________________________________ From: Matt Bailey Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 4:46 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Written Comments to the Town Council for October 7, 2020 [IWOV-Legal.FID849604] Dear Mr. Standish and Town of Oro Valley Mayor and Town Council: My name is Matt Bailey and I am an attorney with the local law firm of Rusing Lopez & Lizardi. Our law firm represents Mrs. Elisabeth Dudley, who lives at . Mrs. Dudley would like to provide the following comments about the potential annexation by the Town of Oro Valley of the Westward Look Resort, as well as the Town’s consideration of a General Plan Amendment and rezoning of the Westward Look property. Mrs. Dudley’s residence is located immediately adjacent to the Westward Look Resort. Mrs. Dudley has owned her residence for almost 40 years and she cares very deeply about it and the surrounding area. In particular, Mrs. Dudley cares immensely about the 23-acre parcel that is located immediately north of her residence. As the Town noted in its public meeting on September 15, 2020, this 23-acre parcel is subject to a settlement agreement from 1972, in which Westward Look agreed to use this property only as open space for the subsequent 99 years. Mrs. Dudley purchased her residence in reliance on the fact that the 23-acre parcel will remain open space until the year 2071. As such, we offer these comments to express Mrs. Dudley’s expectation that both the Town of Oro Valley and Westward Look will honor the 1972 settlement agreement as the Town goes through the process of annexing the Westward Look Resort and considering a General Plan Amendment and rezoning of the Westward Look property. As I hope is evident from Mrs. Dudley’s engagement with this matter, she feels very strongly about how essential open space is for mankind, as well as wildlife, which is no less important. She also feels that planning for open space in urban communities has increasing importance as the populations expand. This is a case of protecting an oasis we are fortunate enough to already have. I also wish to acknowledge that I had the opportunity to speak just yesterday (October 6, 2020) with Mr. Andrew Stegan and Ms. Linda Morales, each as representatives of Westward Look. Both Andrew and Linda were attentive to my questions and open to discussion. We are appreciative for their time and will look forward to working with them and the Town of Oro Valley as the Town considers integrating the Westward Look Resort into the Town’s jurisdiction. Thank you. Matthew Bailey From: ROBERT HAGEN Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 12:03 PM To: Stegen, Andrew - Wyndham Westward Look Grand Resort and Spa <AStegen@wyndham.com> Subject: OV/WLR Annex/Gen Pln Amend/Rezoning This e-mail is from an external source. Use caution when opening attachments or clicking on links. Andrew.......wanted to let you know that thanks to the efforts of neighbor Ranay Twidell- Guifarro ), Town of OV Mayor Joe Winfield was able to make a short visit to WLHs this morning........during his visit, he was able to familiarize himself with WLHs and meet briefly with several of the neighbors whose property is closest to the land WLR would like to commercially develop......he also walked up Sonya Way N of Michelle Pl and was able to speak with a couple of neighbors there as well. All of the neighbors that Mayor Winfield briefly spoke this am with expressed concerns with what is being proposed with regard to WLR......the top concerns were: -Much increased auto traffic, safety, emission fumes & noise -Anticipated three and four story building heights, building density & improper buffering from the WLHs neighbors (what WLR wants to do is simply not consistent with its surrounding neighborhood and will significantly change the very nature of it for the worse) -Likelihood of decreased property values and more difficulty in our ability to resale our homes in a timely manner Other issues less frequently mentioned dealt with an expected negative environmental impact regarding air quality, desert plants and animal wildlife Thought you should be aware of the above ahead of tonight's OV Public Zoom Meeting.........if you have anything new to report ahead of this evening's meeting, please let me know.......THXs......Bob Hagen, From: RICHARD ZIMMERMAN Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 7:39 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Proposed Development of Westward Look Resort Dear Mr. Standish, Please forward my comments below to the Oro Valley town council members in advance of their Oct 21st meeting. Thank you. Dear Oro Valley Town Council Members, I would like to express my concerns in regard to the proposed development of Westward Look Resort. I have two major objections to the proposed plans and ask that the PAD be modified to accommodate my concerns. First, the building height limit of three stories is totally inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood, which contains buildings of no greater than two stories. It is my understanding that Westward Look Resort would like to blend in and be compatible with the architecture of the surrounding neighborhood, and a height limit change of three stories to two in the PAD is necessary to accomplish this. Second, the density of the proposed structures far exceeds that of the surrounding neighborhood, most of which reside on large lots of almost an acre or more. Again, the proposed plans of Westward Look Resort exceed and are not compatible with neighborhood spacing limits. A third concern is the increased traffic, noise and air pollution that will accompany this development, which could be mitigated somewhat by bringing my first two concerns into compliance with the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Richard Zimmerman From: bob barnes Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 7:03 AM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Re: Annexation meeting WLR Michael, It has just come to my attention, that Mayor Winfield, paid a visit to Westward Look Heights a few days ago. Unfortunately, I did not have an opportunity to speak with him. I am delighted that he is interested enough in the annexation process, to take the time to visit our neighborhood. In retrospect, I should have had you forward a copy of my comments (of 6 October) to the council, to the Mayor as well. I would greatly appreciate it if you did so now. I am still trying to sort out how gmail works, and I currently do not see how to get my comments directly to the Mayor. I watched the last OV council meeting with interest. I thought it was very well done. The modification of the plans was a positive step, but I think it has a long way to go. If the Mayor and council have not taken a visit to Hacienda Del Sol, I would encourage them to do so before any action is taken. Respectfully yours, Bob Barnes From: Jean Glattke Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 10:03 AM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: ted glattke Subject: Oro Valley Annexation of WLR and Proposed Development Plans October 19, 2020 Oro Valley Town Council c/o Michael Standish Oro Valley Town Clerk To the members of the Oro Valley Town Council: We are writing, again, to express our concerns about the proposed annexation and development of the WLR property. We have been neighbors of WLR for 33 years. We are saddened and disheartened by the proposed destruction of open desert spaces and the effect on the fauna and flora, as well as the neighbors, visitors, and residents of northwest Tucson who pass by daily! We have 3 major concerns: 1) Increased traffic congestion, pollution, noise and danger. These factors already exist and the addition of more traffic will only make it worse. The Ina/Oracle intersection is one of the busiest in Tucson. With the recent growth of Oro Valley, Marana, Catalina and beyond, the traffic turning north and south at that intersection has increased significantly. The turn traffic is often backed up to the WL Drive stop light during rush hours and now even mid day. The noise is so loudthat it often interrupts conversation on our patio.We also understand that there will be an added development, Pima Canyon Plaza, on the south east corner of First Avenue and Ina Road. This will only add more cars and more congestion to the area. Even with the 'solutions' from a reported traffic study, it is unimaginable that the congestion and danger can be manageable. We have not heard any specifics that address these issues. We feel it is critical for a traffic plan be completed and presented before proceeding further. 2) Building height, density, setback and design. The proposed plans that include 3 story buildings are completely out of character with the charm and history of WLR and the area. WLR is Tucson's oldest. Its charm comes from the western architectural style that blends with the desert and mountain views. High density structures that block views and destroy desert spaces are why there have been previous deed restrictions, lawsuits, and settlements (1972) to prevent this from happening. We are asking Oro Valley to please, honor the intent of these previous agreements. At least limit to one story structures. 3) Destruction of open desert spaces and the effect on the fauna and flora, as well as the neighbors, visitors, and the northwest area. We know this is a moot point since the development is planned. We are especially saddened by this loss of the Sonoran Desert which will be gone forever once it is destroyed. The peace and tranquility of this area has been a unique feature of WLR . Now it will be just like the others. At least there as been attention to preserving the washes, including the 'no name wash' which is on our property. thank you for that. We feel these are very serious issues that need to be addressed indetail before further planning proceeds. Thank you for responding. Thank you for getting feedback from those of us who care. Jean and Ted Glattke From: Mo Holthaus Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 10:16 AM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: Ruth Holthaus ; Robert Hagen Subject: Westward Look Resort Proposed Annexation Mr. Standish: As a home owner in Westward Look Heights for the past 32 years we have enjoyed living in this low density neighborhood. This proposal will result in more traffic on Ina Rd. We currently experience too much traffic on Ina now. We object to this proposal! Maurice Holthaus From: Stephanie Garcia Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 10:09 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: WLH property owner concerns on development of the westward look commercial site oct. 21st town council meeting Hi Mike, I am Stephanie Garcia. I live at . I am an 11 year property owner in the westward look heights neighborhood. I am very concerned about the new plans to build in the now recreational land used for Westward Look resort. Mainly my concerns are: 1. Building height and density. 3 story high building height is highly uncharacteristic of the neighborhoods and surround areas. Our homes are on about one acre lots, as are all the homes around us in this area including neighborhoods to the east ,north, west and south. It would infringe greatly on our neighborhood privacy as home owners with that height and the density has the potential to increase foot traffic/safety through our quiet community as people (especially if they build apartments) look for beautiful wide open spaces to walk and or explore. 2. Traffic from busy parking lots and parking lot/building lights at night. The density that is proposed for buildings will increase traffic noise In Our quiet neighborhood. 3. Decrease in property values affecting all homes in westward look heights neighborhood. When selling homes, comps are pulled for all surrounding properties, so those homes right up against the proposed new build will decrease in value and in turn will decrease all the home values in our community. 11 years ago when we bought our home we specifically chose to buy our home in a location with lots of land (one acre lots), a quiet peaceful neighborhood, and far away from any commercial and or retail and or apartments. If these building were constructed then, we would not have even considered the neighborhood because of the above reasons listed. I understand that the land is zoned commercial but the height of the building seems unreasonable. Please send my comments to the town OV Council members ahead of their oct 21st meeting so that they can hear our concerns about building height (3 stories is very high), traffic concerns with high density housing, and our home depreciating in value. Thank you, Stephanie Garcia Matthew Smith Westward Look Heights Neighborhood -- Subject: Annexation and Development of Westward Look Resort (WLR) Dear Town of Oro Valley Town Council Members: My name is Matthew Smith, and I live at in the Westward Look Heights (WLH) neighborhood - adjacent to the Westward Look Resort property - with my wife Katie and our two young children ages 7 and 4. We have concerns regarding the Westward Look Resort (WLR) development plans. The first concern is traffic and the safety issue it presents. The traffic volume in the area is already at a high level. For example, it is not uncommon to wait a minute or more to make a right turn out of our neighborhood onto Ina Road during rush hour due to the volume and the high rates of speed people drive along Ina. Please keep in mind that any traffic studies that may be done will not be 100% accurate due to the number of people who continue to remain home due to the pandemic. Additionally, commercial development adjacent to our neighborhood will increase the traffic in our neighborhood due to people missing their turn. We experienced this during the Big Horn fire when there was an influx of vehicles presumably trying to get better views of the fire. These vehicles often exceeded the residential speed limit once they realized they made a wrong turn, making it unsafe for us, our kids, and our neighbors both when we're driving and walking through our neighborhood. Increased foot traffic is also a concern. We have had multiple instances of trail cameras recording people from outside the neighborhood walking through a wash on our property - the same wash that runs through the WLR property - either in an attempt to go hiking or trying to get back to WLR. It's a concern that commercial buildings next to the neighborhood would only increase the foot traffic from people lost and people with malicious intent entering the neighborhood. Another concern is the building height and setback of the three potential development plans. Not only would the current potential development plans block our city and sunset views, not to mention potentially blocking Westward Look Resort's city views as well, but they are out of place with the surrounding area. Two- and three-story high density buildings would be an eyesore. Had commercial buildings and the unwanted traits (traffic, noise, lights, etc) that accompany them been present adjacent to the WLH neighborhood six years ago when we were looking for a home, we would have reconsidered due to the same concerns presented now. Another concern is home property values. We were excited to purchase our first home here in WLH six years ago to grow and raise our family in this nice quiet neighborhood, but I don't expect future prospective home buyers to feel that way when multi-story commercial buildings exist adjacent to the neighborhood. Home values will be severely impacted, especially for those closer to the WLR property, thereby hurting the values for the surrounding houses as resale prices decline. Lastly, wildlife displacement is a concern. My sister experienced this in Surprise, Arizona, when new development started behind her house on vacant land. Early into the development, millions of ants were displaced and ended up in her backyard, in her house, and even in her bed one night. While I don't expect ants to be an issue for us, there is a high level of animal activity in this area. As evidence, please feel free to view my YouTube channel, named WLH Wildlife, containing video clips captured by trail cameras on my property from the past 3 months. Visit the following link or Google "YouTube WLH Wildlife" if the link is disabled by an email filter. WLH Wildlife link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvNtf_js8xansXa5o0qC0Pw In closing, we would like to know when and how the issues presented by above and the issues presented by nearly all of our neighbors will be addressed. To my knowledge, there has been a lot of listening to the issues and concerns presented by those surrounding the WLR property, but the issues and concerns have not been addressed yet. My hope is that these issues and concerns will be reviewed and addressed in good faith, and they will not be swept under the rug as this phase of the annexation and rezoning comes to an end and the next phase begins. Sincerely, Matthew Smith Westward Look Heights From: Art Gage Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 4:03 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: OV Dear Town of OV Town Council Members: Please do not approve this annexation. The traffic off of Ina Road is a nightmare. If you make an additional increased traffic area you will make this untenable. Before the pandemic, at rush hour, the traffic can be backed up to past Avenida De Lisa. If you increase the traffic flow more, you will create a greater problem. If you allow three story buildings on the property, you will destroy the view for all the residents bordering the annexed property. Part of being in this part of Tucson is the sunsets. You are now taking that away, all in the interest of this annexation. This is a nice neighborhood with long term neighbors and a quiet neighborhood. You are decreasing the value by creating a high-density neighborhood of more transient neighbors and greater traffic issues. Please do not approve this annexation. Art Gage From: Nadine Pultman Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:27 AM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Westward Look plan Mr Standish, Thank you for taking our email and passing it on to the Oro Valley supervisors before the October 21st meeting. We live off of Village Drive in Catalina Village, and the haste with which this rezoning is being put forth, coupled with the Coronavirus distancing, has made it difficult to discuss this with our neighbors, many of whom are not aware that this is happening. We question once again the timing and the haste of these proceedings since Westward Look was purchased several years ago. Putting in any project, other than building single-family residences, in a quiet established residential area is distressing to everyone to whom we have spoken. We would like to remind you that years ago Ina and Oracle roads were not the main thoroughfares of traffic that they have since become due to over building to the west and and north. I shall not repeat all the reasons this is a most misguided plan in this particular spot, because you have already received a great deal of feedback concerning the traffic , noise, pollution, destruction of the desert and animals, and lasting disruption this will have on residents and their homes in quite a large and beautiful area. This email is to address the haste and timing of these meetings. We seem to recall that there would be a meeting outside with social distancing and masks when owners could express their concerns to the supervisors in person before any plan was put in place. We appreciate that the OV mayor took the time to meet with residents of Westward Look Heights. That was extremely professional and thoughtful of him, and it is hoped that he might meet with residents of Catalina Village as well. We ask that this process be tabled until after the holidays since there has been very little time for proper discussion due to the current extraordinary circumstances and the fact that many residents are still not aware of these plans. Thank you very much for being available for comments and passing them on to the supervisors. Sincerely, Rocco and Nadine Paone October 20, 2020 Mr.Michael Standish Town of Oro Valley Clerk mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov Dear Mr. Standish, I am writing this letter in response to a request by Bob Hagen to add our comments concerning the proposed annexation of the Westward Look Property and its subsequent development into a commercial and residential complex. I hope that you can forward this to the Oro Valley Town Council members ahead of their meeting tomorrow. Our family has rented or owned property on East Vista Oeste Drive since the mid-70’s. Since 1994 we have lived at , which backs onto the Open Space of Westward Look Resort’s property. In the past, the Resort has been a good neighbor. Whenever we had significant family events like weddings, funerals or large family vacations, we had our overflow stay at the Resort. My parents entertained their friends regularly at the former Gold Room. Despite these previous positive interactions, we feel that the new development would cause dangerous traffic congestion at a site not suited for this type of development. Our primary concern is that the proposed density of the development will aggravate an already congested traffic pattern. As you are all well aware, the Oracle and Ina Road intersection is a major congested spot because of commuter traffic. The traffic on Ina Road westbound coming through the First Ave intersection, and that from northbound First Ave from downtown turning west onto Ina creates significant volumes throughout the day, particularly during commuting hours. This includes trucks and other large vehicles. There is an apparent lack of speed limit enforcement in that area and speeds of 60 mph and higher are not unusual. The driving pattern west of the First Ave intersection is to speed to get into Ina’s right lane for the right turn to head north on Oracle. This routinely causes sudden braking because of this crowding. Cars slowing to turn into a new Westward Look development will likely considerably increase the risk of accident in this high-speed, congested area. By 3 in the afternoon, traffic will often back up from Oracle to the light at Westward Look Resort Road. Many days it is solid traffic back to First Avenue by 5 pm. Putting a retail and recreation complex on one side of Westward Look Drive and an apartment complex on the other is hard to imagine. As our other neighbors have requested, we agree that a traffic and noise study needs to be conducted before any further plans are made. In addition, a previous lawsuit between the Resort, the county and local landowners resulted in deed restrictions placed on the type and density of development that can occur on the Westward Look property involved in the annexation. Those deed restrictions run with the land and cannot be modified by annexation or zoning changes. They were on the deed when the current owner bought the property and he is bound by their restrictions. The description of the proposed development exceeds those restrictions. We do not wish to see the Resort fail. The current owner has made extensive and appropriate improvements to the existing buildings. The main asset of the Resort is the open natural spaces of the desert surrounding it. The choice is not between no development and dense development. There is an intermediate level that would preserve the ambience of the area while still attracting more business. It would be ironic to put in such a dense level of construction to increase usage that it destroyed the very reason for coming to the Resort at all. Thank you for your consideration, Very truly yours, Sue and Scot Bradley From: bob barnes Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:33 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Re: Michael, Mike, Sorry to bother you again so soon. Could you please forward my latest comments to the Mayor and Council. I decided that if I was going to champion Hacienda Del Sol (HDS) as a possible model for what WLR should be thinking about that I should see how they are doing. Therefore, I drove through WLR first for a reference point. Next, I drove past the SE corner of 1st ave/ Ina where I saw a sign that said Pima Canyon Plaza New class A offices. This means that a new office complex is going to be built just two blocks from where WLR may be planning something similar. There is quite a bit of land available there for who knows what in the future. Next, I drove to (HDS) I was taken by complete surprise at the construction going on. The resort currently only has some 50 guest rooms, but they apparently are doing so well they are adding 40 more 2 story luxury guest rooms, a fitness center, and a 40 foot infinity edge lap pool. I inquired about current food service availability, and was told they are serving 3 meals/day, except their fine dining restaurant is closed on Monday/Tuesday for dinner. Compare this to where WLR is today and ask yourself, where would you stay given the two choices? Please do not get me wrong. I want WLR to be successful. They have been a good neighbor, and hopefully our relationship will continue on a positive note. I do not want them to fail by questionable decision making. I worry that current planning is not thinking far enough outside the box. WLR is a niche resort along with HDS. I would like to see both resorts succeed! Respectfully yours, Bob Barnes From: Stephen Villarreal Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:25 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Westward Look Resort Development Plans Dear Mayor and Council: I am opposed to the development plans for the Westward Look Resort. My wife and I have lived in Westward Look Heights at since we constructed our home here in 1985. We have raised our two children in our house and we are now raising our grandson here. The features that drew us here so long ago continue to keep us here today: the low density neighborhood with space between homes; the mountain views; and the desert and wildlife. We fear that the high density development contemplated by the Westward Look Resort will be inimical to these values and our peaceful enjoyment of our little piece of the desert. Many of our neighbors will have high density, multistory buildings very close to them blocking views and increasing noise. We will all have increases in traffic congestion and noise. We will all suffer decreases in property values. In short, the development will substantially degrade our lives here without any corresponding benefit to our neighborhood. I urge you to deny or severely limit the development plans. Thank you. Stephen C. and Susan C. Villarreal From: Matt Bailey Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 1:33 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: Andrews, Joe <jandrews@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Written Comments to the Town Council for Public Hearing, October 21, 2020 [IWOV- Legal.FID849604] Dear Mr. Standish and Honorable Town of Oro Valley Mayor and Town Council: My name is Matt Bailey and I am an attorney with the local law firm of Rusing Lopez & Lizardi, PLLC. Our law firm represents Mrs. Elisabeth Dudley, who lives at , which is located in Westward Look Estates. On behalf of Mrs. Dudley, we thank you for the opportunity to participate in this public process regarding the possible annexation of the Westward Look Resort and related General Plan Amendment and rezoning of the Westward Look property. Mrs. Dudley’s residence is bordered on two sides by Westward Look property – on the east by the Westward Look Resort and on the north by the 23-acre parcel. Mrs. Dudley is passionate about the long-term protection of the 23-acre parcel and has engaged in the public process since day one. Mrs. Dudley has gained some new insights during this public process. Particularly: 1. Westward Look is asking the Town of Oro Valley to make significant zoning changes that will directly affect many homeowners that live adjacent to the Westward Look property. 2. Mrs. Dudley has known since the 1980s that there is an agreement from 1972 that Westward Look is a party to and to which Westward Look agreed to preserve the 23-acre parcel as open space. Given several factors that have come up in this public process, however, Mrs. Dudley is less certain that the 23-acre parcel will remain as open space. 3. Westward Look has stated that it does not intend to develop the 23-acre parcel. These comments are encouraging, but only as certain as long as those intentions do not change. 4. Most of the landowners bordering the Westward Look property are not Town of Oro Valley residents, and, as such, their ability to influence Town of Oro Valley decisions about the Westward Look property will significantly diminish once the Westward Look property is annexed. Taking all of this background into consideration, Mrs. Dudley is asking for the Town’s help to ensure the long-term protection of the 23-acre parcel. Specifically, Mrs. Dudley requests that the Town of Oro Valley require as a condition of any rezoning approval for the Westward Look property, that Westward Look must record a covenant that runs with the land to protect the 23-acre parcel as natural open space and that gives adjacent homeowners like Mrs. Dudley the ability to ensure that the 23-acre parcel stays protected. I have attached a draft covenant for your consideration. In making this request, Mrs. Dudley asks that you view the annexation, General Plan Amendment, and rezoning of the Westward Look property as a package deal that includes protection of the 23-acre parcel. Mrs. Dudley feels that this is a reasonable compromise and would result in a win-win for all parties involved. First, the Town would annex the Westward Look property. Second, Westward Look would have its property rezoned, in particular, the Resort Gateway property fronting Ina Road. And finally, the Town, Westward Look, and general community would get the benefit of protected open space. I also want to note that I spoke earlier this week with Mr. Andrew Stegen and Ms. Linda Morales, each as representatives of Westward Look. I proposed Mrs. Dudley’s covenant concept and offered that if Westward Look were amendable to recording such a covenant to protect the 23-acre parcel, Mrs. Dudley is willing to support the overall Westward Look proposal. Alternatively, if Westward Look is not amendable to recording such a covenant, Mrs. Dudley would continue to earnestly advocate against the Westward Look proposal in hopes of ensuring the long-term protection for the 23-acre parcel. Mr. Stegen declined Mrs. Dudley’s proposal. While Mr. Stegen’s response is disappointing and inconsistent with Westward Look’s stated intentions for the 23-acre parcel, Mrs. Dudley is still encouraged that the Town will consider her request and incorporate it as part of the Town’s overall decision for the Westward Look property. On behalf of Mrs. Dudley, thank you for your time and consideration of her request. Matthew Bailey Nov 4, 2020 OV Town Council Members: Subject: Oro Valley (OR)/Westward Look Resort (WLR) Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Commercial Development Dear Town Council Members: As a concerned resident of Westward Look Heights (WLHs) whose property is adjacent to the subject proposed undertaking, I have read through in detail both the April 17, 1972 Pima County Superior Court Eberhart/Fuhn lawsuit settlement with WLR and the OV General Plan dated September 21, 2016. While I do not have a legal background, I did find it hard to believe that the Town of OV and the WLR would move forward with subject effort as it is now envisioned. Not only is it inconsistent with the 1972 lawsuit settlement (WLR was a party to it), but it is also contrary to a good many of the statements made in OV's own General Plan. With regard to the 1972 lawsuit settlement agreement, it (in essence) states that: -WLR may construct 132 condo units on the 37.1 acres rezoned CR-4 -WLRs' condo units may not exceed 4 units per single structure -WLR may construct not more than 200 hotel units on the land presently zoned CR-1 -WLR agrees to keep 23 acres open space for 99 years I do not believe what OV/WLR are now planning to do is consistent with the above. Moreover, it does not appear to me that what WLR has done in the past is consistent with Item 3 above. With regard to the OV General Plan, it states (just to highlight a few of its provisions) that: -OV's Vision for the Future is to: -Focus on Community Safety (low crime, safe streets and neighborhoods); -Preserve the Scenic Beauty and Environment (i.e., Desert and Mountain Views, Desert Climate and Environment; Wildlife and Vegetation; and Open Space): -Keep the Unique Community ID as a Special Place (Small Town, Neighborly Feel, Nice Place to Live, Quiet, Laid Back, Delightful and Peaceful): -Minimize Traffic: -Manage How We Grow (Keep Small-Town, Neighborly Feel); -Keep OV a Family Friendly Community (Low Crime, Safe); - Chapter 3: Community States: -Having increased opportunities for residents to provide meaningful input on Town decisions and planning; -Supporting annexations that are economically beneficial to the Town while also considering the impacts to residents and the social, aesthetic and environmental quality of the Town. It is hard to envision how what OV/WLR are now planning to do in any manner, shape or form would: promote low crime and safe streets; preserve desert/mountain views; keep the unique community of WLHs' nature; retain our neighborly feel, quietness and peacefulness; minimize traffic and keep WLHs a family-friendly community. In fact, what OV/WLR plan to do would only make the above items much worse. In view of the above, it would very much be appreciated if the OV Town Council would request that the Town of Oro Valley and WLR would go back and appropriately address both the 1972 lawsuit settlement and the OV General Plan i nconsistencies before taking any further action. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide with the above request. Sincerely, Bob Hagen, WLHs, Michael Standish, Town Clerk, Oro Valley, AZ Dear Mr. Standish; Per Mayor Winfield's request, I am sending you my written comments from a meeting today with Mayor Winfield Council Member Jones-Ivey Town Attorney Tobin Sidles Attorney Joe Andrew and Matt Bailey, my attorney. Elisabeth C. Dudley, as a resident at ., Tucson, 85704 My comments follow: My connection with the Tucson area covers decades, 8 and still going, with countless family and friends and involvements . It continues with my children and grandchildren , one of whom has written the Planning Center and Westward Look Manager, expressing his dismay and questioning WWL's judgment turning this wonderful open desert land into more pavement, parking lots, shopping and commercial buildings. Before going any further, I should like to address the issue of the 99-YEAR DEED RESTRICTION OF 1972 and ask that AS A CONDITION OF ANY REZONING, WESTWARD LOOK RESORT OWNERS MUST UPHOLD THEIR OBLIGATION TO HONOR AND RECORD THAT DEED AND ENTER IT INTO THE COVENANT THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND. I BOUGHT MY LAND, AS DID THE OTHER HOME OWNERS WHO ABUT THE 23 DEED-RESTRICTED ACRES, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE 23 ACRES ARE TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED AS NATURAL OPEN DESERT LAND. I NEED THE ASSURANCE THAT THIS IS PROPERLY RECORDED IN WRITING AND ENTERED INTO THE COVENANT THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND, AND REQUIRE WESTWARD LOOK RESORT OWNERS TO BE HELD TO THAT COMMITMENT. I have known this area since long before it was broken up, when these were beautiful unfettered desert foothills. Later as Westward Look Resort was established, there were lovely, appropriate desert plantings, labeled so guests could enjoy and learn what grows in the desert. I talk with the guests out walking and know how positively they react to that quiet beauty, it is restorative. They forget Ina Road traffic is roaring hell-bent 1/2 mile away. IT IS A UNIQUE SETTING, I'D LIKE TO ASK THAT IT BE KEPT GENUINE, NOT HUGE (no need for Olympic-size swimming pools) AND OVERBUILT, LOW KEY IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, PLEASE. EMPHASIZE THE SETTING AND NATURAL BEAUTY AND SOUTHWESTERN HOSPITALITY. It could become a very sought-after desert retreat. With good management and a staff that delivers quality service, it could produce plenty of revenue if it is recognized as special. Another version of the Arizona Inn, perhaps! I DO NOT OPPOSE THE "IMPROVEMENT" of Westward Look Resort facilities and guest quarters, IF, and only IF, IT IS IN KEEPING WITH THE ORIGINAL RANCH HOUSE AND THE SURROUNDING ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY, ONLY IF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND OWNERS OF WESTWARD LOOK RESORT LISTEN TO AND ARE SENSITIVE TO THOSE WHOSE HOMES AND LIVES ARE TO BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY ANY CHANGES. I IMPLORE THOSE OF YOU GIVEN THE RESPONSIBILITY TO GOVERN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY, YOU WHO ARE IN A POSITION TO ACTIVELY PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT AND STOP THE RECKLESS OVERDEVELOPMENT IN FAVOR OF MORE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FOR RESIDENTS AND VISITORS. LOOK AT THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE THAT FLOCK TO TOHONO CHUL TO BE OUT IN THE DESERT. IT HAS NEVER BEEN MORE EVIDENT THAN WITH THIS COVID PANDEMIC HOW BADLY WE NEED MORE OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL AREAS FOR PEOPLE CRAVING THE OUTDOORS. I CANNOT SAY STRONGLY ENOUGH THAT WE MUST STOP SPLITTING UP IMPORTANT REMNANT NATURAL AREAS AND CONNECTORS FOR WILDLIFE, WHERE A BIT OF GREEN SPACE IS SO IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE AND NATURE! THIS IS THE ECOSYSTEM THAT SUSTAINS US ALL. THANK YOU ALL FOR LISTENING AND ALLOWING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS MY SENTIMENTS! WE ARE SO FORTUNATE TO HAVE THIS LANDSCAPE OF MOUNTAINS AND DESERT AND THE WILDLIFE THAT HAS SURVIVED SO FAR. I HOPE IT WILL BECOME AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR VALUE SYSTEM. Elisabeth Dudley NOVEMBER 12, 2020 From: ROBERT HAGEN Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 7:52 PM To: Ancona, Jeanna <jancona@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: WLR Annex/GPA/Rezon/Com Dev Jan 11, 2021 Jeanna M. Ancona Senior Office Specialist – Planning Division Town of Oro Valley Community and Economic Development 11000 North La Cañada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Direct: 520-229-5062 Jeanna........I would appreciate you forwarding the email below to the OV P/Z Com members as much in advance of their upcoming Feb 2nd hearing re WLR as you can and also letting me know you received this OK.......thank you.......Bob Hagen, WLHs, --------------------------------------------- OV Planning/Zoning Commission Member.........I am sending this email to specifically highlight certain aspects of the proposed OV/WLR Annex/Gen Pln Amend/Rezon/Com Dev that are not only inconsistent with the long-standing history, nature and character of the Westward Look (WL) neighborhood (as well as WLR per se), but are unacceptable to us as WL neighbors as well as not being in conformance with what is stated in the Town of Oro Valley's own 2016 General Plan at the link below. https://www.orovalleyaz.gov/files/assets/public/documents/community-and- economic-development/planning-division/general- plan/yourvoiceourfuturegeneralplan.pdf For starters, the OV General Plan (see pages 8 & 9) states that OV's Vision for the Future is to: Focus on Community Safety and Maintain Low Crime (pls note a recent NW Explorer article states that police calls are expected to dramatically increase with the WLR com dev); Preserve the Scenic Beauty & Environment; Keep the Unique Community Identity as a Special Place; Minimize Traffic (it is already out of control); Manage How We Grow & Maintain High Design Standards; Keep Oro Valley a Family-Friendly Community; and Promote Conservation of Natural Resources. It is hard for us as WL neighbors to envision how the WLR Annex/GPA/Rezon/Com Dev undertaking now meets any of the above General Plan Vision of the Future statements. In fact, we see it only making all of them much worse for us. We would also like to make you aware that WLR, after telling us an earlier planned Conference Hotel had been removed from its plans, now shows a hotel in both Concept Plans B & C drawings & their narrative summary (pls see Item C under the Background/Detailed section at the link below from the recent OV P/Z Com web posting).......when we asked WLR about it, we were advised that the Town of OV had requested that a hotel be included in the concept plans........we consider a hotel so close to our existing homes to be unacceptable to us. https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&get_month=1 2&get_year=2020&dsp=agm&seq=3738&rev=0&ag=553&ln=12218&nseq=&nrev=& pseq=3730&prev=0#ReturnTo12218 I also think it is very important for you to note that the Dec 2020 WLR Planned Area Development document (pls see page 84 of it at the link below under the section titled WLR Massing Study: Eastern Property Boundary Looking West) shows an existing WL neighbor backyard picture before the development and a simulated backyard picture below it after the development.......the simulation picture with the proposed building on it clearly shows how existing WLHs' neighbor privacy and view concerns will not be dealt with in an acceptable manner under the current WLR development plans.....it is hard for me to comprehend how anyone wishing to live an enjoyable, pleasant and peaceful life would find the building shown in the simulation to be acceptable......moreover, it is also hard to understand how WLR would view it as being OK as well. https://gis.orovalleyaz.gov/storyimages/Planning/GPA%20Westward%20Look/PA D1.pdf I would appreciate you trying to find the time to look through the above documents if you can........I have tried to make it easier for you to do so with page numbers or headings since they are quite lengthy ones While we do understand that the WLR Annex/Gen Pln Amend/Rezon/Com Dev will, in all likelihood, go forward in some manner, shape or form, we believe it is very important to us (more like esential to us) that it does so in the least neighbor-unfriendly manner that it can. As a last comment, we simply do not believe that what WLR is now planning to do is in any way representative of what one would expect from a good, cooperative and responsible neighbor (I know none of the more than two dozen WL neighbors I am in regular contact with would do something that would create a problem for another neighbor). Do believe that Westward Look Heights (WLHs) neighbors of 40 years (as well as WL neighbors to the S and W of WLR who have been here even longer) have tried to maintain a good relationship with the WLR.......would have expected WLR to continue doing the same with us.......it is very disheartening that they now seem to be embarking on a different course.......having an unfriendly relationship with the WL neighbors is not only considered to be undesirable for us, but it will not be good for the WLR guests, commercial vendors and those electing to possibly live there in any apartments built. THXs in advance for any time you can devote to reading through the above information.....it would be much appreciated by all concerned.....Sincerely........Bob Hagen, WLHs, -- -------------------------------------------------- Another letter from Mr. Hagen. Jeanna M. Ancona Senior Office Specialist – Planning Division Town of Oro Valley Community and Economic Development 11000 North La Cañada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Direct: 520-229-5062 www.OVprojects.com All messages created in this system should be considered public record subject to disclosure under the Arizona Public Records Law (A.R.S. 39-121) with no expectation of privacy related to the use of this technology. From: ROBERT HAGEN Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 1:06 PM To: Ancona, Jeanna <jancona@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: WLR Proposed Com Dev Jan 16, 2021 Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist – Planning Division Town of Oro Valley Community and Economic Development 11000 North La Cañada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Direct: 520-229-5062 www.OVprojects.com ------------------------------------ Jeanna........I would appreciate you making the following information available to the OV Planning/Zoning Commission members as much in advance of their upcoming Feb 2nd Westward Look Resort (WLR) hearing as you can......please let me know you received this OK as well as that you will forward it to the OV Planning/Zoning Commission members.........THXs.......Bob Hagen, WLHs, --------------------------------------- Jan 20, 2021 OV Planning/Zoning Commission Members As you are aware, while we ere able to directly communicate with OV Town Council members, the contact information for you is not available to us.......moreover, it is our understanding that any information we believe is important for you to have well in advance of a meeting is only provided to you a short time before a meeting. We find the above to be a frustrating situation along with the fact that we are at somewhat of an impasse with WLR and communications with it and the Planning Center have been nonexistent the past week or so. I'm passing along the information below (hopefully, you will receive it sometime soon)......it pictorially illustrates what we are so concerned about with regard to the proposed WLR development as it now stands Page 84 of the OV Westward Look PAD at the link below depicts several images which are of great concern to us as WLHs' neighbors. https://gis.orovalleyaz.gov/storyimages/Planning/GPA%20Westward%20Look/PA D1.pdf Please note the first photo image (see Attachment 1) shows a WLHs' neighbor backyard as it is now (there are virtually no view restrictions or privacy issues)......the second photo image (see Attachment 2) is a simulation of how the WLHs' neighbor backyard would look after the proposed WLR development (it depicts not only how views would be eliminated, but it also brings into play some serious privacy concerns as well)........the third plot image (see Attachment 3) shows just how close the WLR development would be to existing WLHs' neighbor property lines. While I recognize that WLR believes it can build two story buildings under the existing Pima County CR-1 Zoning, such zoning states the following: Single- Family Residence with a Minimum Lot Size of 36,000 SF and a Height Not to Exceed 34' In my mind, not only is what WLR wants to do not in accord with existing WLHs' and WLR zoning as delineated under Parcel ID # 225500130 at the Pima County zoning website at the link below, but it would hamper the views and invade the privacy of existing WLHs' neighbors......moreover, it would be totally out of character with how WLHs' and WLR have been developed to date. https://gis.pima.gov/apps/pczoning/ While WLHs' has a small number of two-story homes, none of them have been built whereby a neighbor's views or privacy has been infringed upon.....moreover, none of the existing WLR buildings developed to date are three stories as now planned. With all due respect, I am asking of the OV P/Z Com and OV TC members a simple question: If you lived in WLHs, would you find the backyard building depicted in the second simulated photo at Attachment 2 to be acceptable? We believe that WLR not only can, but should further address our concerns as what it is proposing, as depicted in the Westward Look PAD, is deemed to be unacceptable to us (as well as, in all likelihood, any other neighbor in Tucson for that matter) In the final analysis, we recognize that the only way WLR could proceed with its proposed development plans as now stipulated is if the OV Planning/Zoning Commission and the OV Town Council approve them.....we would respectfully urge you and your fellow members not to do so w/o WLR further addressing our ongoing concerns.....Sincerely........Bob Hagen, WLHs, Neighborhood Meeting Summary Proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Westward Look Resort September 15,, 2020 6 – 8 pm Interactive Zoom Meeting 1.Introduction and Welcome Meeting facilitator Michael Spaeth, Town of Oro Valley Principal Planner, summarized the purpose and structure of the meeting including the mechanics of Zoom. The purpose of the meeting was to build on the information provided in the informational video posted on August 31, 2020. Approximately 100 residents and other interested parties were in attendance. 2.Staff Presentation Michael Spaeth, the project manager for the Town, provided a presentation that included: Annexations Where the applicant was in the process and an overview of the entire process An overview of the meeting structure and agenda Project location Brief overview of the site history and applicant’s requests How to participate via Zoom Opportunities for future public participation 3.Applicant Presentation The applicant, Linda Morales of The Planning Center, provided a presentation detailing the proposal, including: Project location and area information Site history Proposal for the site Outreach efforts 4.Questions Following the presentations, meeting facilitator Michael Spaeth opened the meeting to questions and comments. A list of the questions or comments is provided below: Public participation, Zoom meetings not adequate Is this purposefully being done during a pandemic to benefit the applicant? Property values Amount of traffic with proposed development, traffic mitigation Who will be responsible for possible road improvements and accommodating the traffic? Compatibility, could uses be limited based if applicant agrees? How will developers reduce light/noise pollution? Building height, what can be done to limit it? What will be done to accommodate wildlife and mitigate negative impacts? What amenities will be provided to neighbors? Access to luxury condo concept, how does that work? Town of Catalina Foothills, incorporation of property into the proposed Town Annexation to do things County won’t allow Sales tax revenue for the Town of Oro Valley, nothing good for community, only good for government. Would future incorporation of Town of Catalina Foothills be contested by Oro Valley? La Encantada next? Assurance that proposal is not meant to defeat zoning regulations Views and privacy Impacts from visitors How are threatened and endangered species being addressed? Protection of wash Rush hour traffic is dangerous Community input and project quality in Oro Valley Look at this as a good opportunity Density of proposal, compatibility Impact to natural resources Safety Pima County residents did not vote to increase resort style development Public relation method lacking Access to neighborhood Visibility Why does Westward Look think they will be more successful with their proposal? Why is this being classified as a Type II and not a Type I GPA? How closely will concept plans need to be followed? Future neighbor participation? Where can OV expand? Values of OV vs. Pima County residents Value the desert Ms. Morales and Town staff provided more detail and answered questions related to the proposal and process. Mr. Spaeth closed the meeting, thanked everyone for their attendance and encouraged everyone to email ask@orovalleyaz.gov with any additional thoughts, comments or questions and to visit OVprojects.com for additional information. He also announced a second neighborhood meeting scheduled for October 15th following the formal submittal. 2nd Neighborhood Meeting Summary Proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Westward Look Resort October 15, 2020 6 – 8 pm Interactive Zoom Meeting 5.Introduction and Welcome Meeting facilitator Michael Spaeth, Town of Oro Valley Principal Planner, summarized the purpose and structure of the meeting including the mechanics of Zoom. The purpose of the meeting was to build on the information provided in the informational video posted on August 31, 2020. Approximately 65 residents and other interested parties were in attendance. 6.Staff Presentation Michael Spaeth, the project manager for the Town, provided a presentation that included: Where the applicant was in the process An overview of the meeting structure and agenda Brief overview of the applicant’s formal submittal How to participate via Zoom Opportunities for future public participation 7.Applicant Presentation The applicant, Linda Morales of The Planning Center, provided a presentation detailing the proposal, including: Formal submittal Efforts to address concerns from the 1st neighborhood meeting 8.Questions Following the presentations, meeting facilitator Michael Spaeth opened the meeting to questions and comments. A list of the questions or comments is provided below: Why is TIS being presented years before the development Former proposal online in not enough time Noticing Where is meeting info posted? Confusion on time meeting was supposed to start. Meeting was supposed to be held on 10/22 and the date changed, why? Site history, zoning in Pima County zoning not broken, 1-acre SFR use the most appropriate Height and open space Can open space be changed? Changes consistent with existing laws Development should coincide with open character of neighborhood such as setback restrictions, height limitations, and traffic control measures Would a PAD supersede zoning? Not a gradual land use transition Setbacks not adequate Privacy, safety, and security Property values Wildlife and desert impacts Density and building height inconsistent with area Not a cohesive plan, high density housing Traffic impacts with increased traffic Height limit for residential homes on concept C Shielding and height of lights Where is wall for resort gateway west located in regards to the wash What is the public process for site plan process? Has there been conversations with apartment/condo developers? Timeframe for it to be built? Like idea of things being 1 story Wants WWL to consider 1-story high end retirement complex Chose to live in area because of low density development and nature Safety of apartment development, transient community Not what they thought would happen when they purchased their property Do not allow 3-stories Why property owner has not been participating in meetings? Appropriate concessions have not been made Would WWL want to seek historic designation? When/if could developer change plans if approved with Town Council? Apartments create more traffic Would rather see offices and restaurants Will pandemic affect proposal/WWL? What would that process look like? Will renovations pay for road repair? Can the deed restriction be read aloud and explained? Can WWL state in writing that entryway monument will be preserved? Ms. Morales and Town staff provided more detail and answered questions related to the proposal and process. Mr. Spaeth closed the meeting, thanked everyone for their attendance and encouraged everyone to email ask@orovalleyaz.gov with any additional thoughts, comments or questions and to visit OVprojects.com for additional information. He also announced the applications were expected to be scheduled for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council in the new year. Notices would be sent out in advance of each meeting. 1 Ancona, Jeanna From:Ralph Sent:Saturday, January 30, 2021 12:40 PM To:Ancona, Jeanna Subject:Westward Look Resort annexation/expansion plans Hi, Jeanna, I am a resident of Westward Look Heights, where our neighborhood environment is threatened by Westward Look Resort's plans to expand it’s facilities. It’s plans for multistory apartments adjacent to it’s eastern border (border with The Westward Look Heights), possibly a multistory hotel, commercial shopping/dining complex, etc., all are out of character with the county residential character of all it’s neighbors, east, south and west. All of the Resort’s plans include new ingress/egress openings that would be dangerously detrimental to the already heavy traffic on Ina Road, particularly the proposed new opening very close to the existing opening turn into/out of Sonya Way. The transitory population in their proposed hotel/apartments/commercial center would undoubtedly increase crime in the area, and provide convenient access for criminal activity from the commercial area into the residences of adjacent Westward Look Heights. The privacy of the nearest neighbors would also be particularly compromised. The adverse impact on the environment, wildlife habitat, and the blockage of the natural westward views of nearest neighbors are obvious. I completely agree with Mr Hagen's letter you recently received, which also correctly highlights the token responses the Resort has so far made in response to many of our neighbors' objections to the Resort’s Plans, and requests for Plan modifications. Oro Valley's annexation of the Resort should not proceed without an independent review of the Resort's plans, the impact on the broader neighborhood, and neighbor's concerns, resulting in significant changes to the Resort's expansion plans. Sincerely, Ralph and Loretta Miller 1 Ancona, Jeanna From:RICHARD ZIMMERMAN Sent:Sunday, January 31, 2021 12:25 PM To:Ancona, Jeanna Subject:Upcoming OV P/Z Com Mtg Jeanna, Please pass my concerns outlined below to OV P/Z Com members in advance of the 6 PM, Feb 2nd meeting. Thank you. Dear OV P/Z Committee members, 1/31/2021 I would like to express my concerns in regard to the proposed development of Westward Look Resort. I have two major objections to the proposed plans and ask that the PAD be modified to accommodate my concerns. First, the building height limit of three stories is totally inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood, which contains buildings of no greater than two stories. It is my understanding that Westward Look Resort would like to blend in and be compatible with the architecture of the surrounding neighborhood, and a height limit change of three stories to two in the PAD is necessary to accomplish this. Second, the density of the proposed structures far exceeds that of the surrounding neighborhood, most of which reside on large lots of almost an acre or more. Again, the proposed plans of Westward Look Resort exceed and are not compatible with neighborhood spacing limits. A third concern is the increased traffic, noise and air pollution that will accompany this development, which could be mitigated somewhat by bringing my first two concerns into compliance with the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Richard Zimmerman 1 Ancona, Jeanna From:Ryan Jones Sent:Sunday, January 31, 2021 1:13 PM To:Ancona, Jeanna Subject:Westward Look Resort expansion Hi Jeanna, My family lives on and our property shares a border with the land proposed for annexation/development. Unfortunately, I will unlikely be able to join the meeting tomorrow night due to my kids' sports schedules. I wanted to let you know that I am in agreement with the sentiment shared by my neighbors with regards to the development. While I understand Westward Look Resort's desire to develop the property and support their right to do so, what they have proposed does not fit within the character of the resort or our neighborhood. The proposed density, height, and set-back are the primary issues that need to be addressed to be more in line with the neighborhoods surrounding the resort and the resort itself. Thank you for your time and I hope that the Oro Valley Planning & Zoning Commission takes our concerns seriously. Take care, Ryan Jones 1 Ancona, Jeanna From:Jean Glattke Sent:Monday, February 1, 2021 8:46 AM To:Ancona, Jeanna Subject:Re: Objections to Westward Look Development Plans ...and here is the corrected address. thank you!! Ms. Ancona. Thank you for including the attached in the materials for the public zoom meeting on 2/2/2021. I also would like to be listed on the agenda as a speaker. Please let me know that you received this memo. Thank you for your assistance. jean Glattke, WL neighbor To: OroValley Planning/Zoning Commission c/0 Jeanna Ancona From: Jean and Ted Glattke Re: Objections to Westward Look Development Plans Date: 2/1/2021 We have been Tucson residents since 1975 and Westward Look neighbors since 1987. We moved to this neighborhood to be close to the Sonoran desert fauna and flora ,the peace, the space and the quiet. We are distressed that the proposal for OV to annex the Westward Look property will lead to the destruction of unique assets associated with the property. WLR is among a handful of the original resorts that drew visitors to Tucson. Much of its charm, history , and success has been its private and secluded location surrounded by open desert spaces. We are firmly opposed to any destruction of the last remaining of the unique sonoran desert spaces. Our opposition reflects advocacy for the wildlife corridors, the fauna and flora of the desert, the history, and concern over the noise and pollution, traffic congestion, the safety of guests, neighbors and passers by. We hope that the OV council members will understand that once this space is destroyed it will never return. The uniqueness of Westward Look Resort will be gone. It will be just like all the rest. The quality of life and true value of all neighboring homes are determined in no small measure by the low-density residential zoning of the land that fronts Ina Road to the West and East/Northeast of the Westward Look entrance drive. The proposal for Oro Valley to annex the WL Resort property, leapfrogging over private residences that will remain in the county, is a form of gerrymandering that will allow the resort owner to vacate the current zoning. Nothing that we have seen addresses issues related to services such as law enforcement, emergency responses, or potential conflicts between county and OV regulations. The stragegy of presenting three plans makes it impossible to know what we are really dealing with. It is confusing and misleading. 2 For all the reasons that you have heard and for the pleas for accomodation to scaled back setbacks, density, building height and style, we ask you to please reject this proposal until there has been further discussion and confirmed adjustments to the requests of neighbors who care. thank you for your consideration. 1 Ancona, Jeanna From:Art Gage Sent:Monday, February 1, 2021 2:26 PM To:Ancona, Jeanna Subject:Westward Look Heights aquisition Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged We have looked at the plans and modifications proposed by Westward Look and we believe they should do more for the neighborhood. We agree with Bob about the changes. Art Gage Resident Westward Look Heights 1 Ancona, Jeanna From:Sue Bradley Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 9:21 AM To:Ancona, Jeanna Subject:Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Dear Jeanna - My husband Scot and I live at , adjacent to the Westward Look Resort. We would like to attend the meeting tonight at 6 pm and I would like to speak. Thank you for your consideration. Sue Bradley 1 Ancona, Jeanna From:Michael Davis Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 9:24 AM To:Ancona, Jeanna Subject:meeting To OV Planning & zoning Commission Members Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Michael Davis dahrockshop@aol.com I am a long time resident of WLH at - the backyard of my house atbuts the property WLR would like to commenrially develop please be advised I am strongly opposed to the development as it is now stands and I agree with the comments that neighbor Mr Bob Hagen sent to you. Mike Davis 1 Ancona, Jeanna From:Ancona, Jeanna Sent:Monday, January 25, 2021 7:55 AM To:Spaeth, Michael Cc:Vella, Bayer Subject:FW: Proposed WLR Com Dev Attachments:WWL-01 1st P&Z Summary of Changes.pdf; WWL-01_ILLUSTRATIVE C 1.20.2021.pdf; WWL-01_ILLUSTRATIVE A 1.20.21.pdf Jeanna M. Ancona Senior Office Specialist – Planning Division Town of Oro Valley Community and Economic Development 11000 North La Cañada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Direct: 520-229-5062 www.OVprojects.com All messages created in this system should be considered public record subject to disclosure under the Arizona Public Records Law (A.R.S. 39-121) with no expectation of privacy related to the use of this technology. From: ROBERT HAGEN Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 12:13 AM To: Ancona, Jeanna <jancona@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Proposed WLR Com Dev Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist – Planning Division Town of Oro Valley Community and Economic Development 11000 North La Cañada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Jeanna........I would appreciate you forwarding the two letters below to the OV Planning & Zoning Commission members as much in advance of their upcoming Feb 2nd hearing regarding the WLR commercial development as you can.......please also let me know that you received this request OK....thank you......Bob Hagen, WLHs, ------------------------------------------------ Jan 22, 2021 Linda Morales, CEO, The Planning Center & Andrew Stegen, GM, Westward Look Resort (WLR) 2 Linda/Andrew.......have had a chance to review the information we received from you today.......w hile I appreciate that you were willing to take another look at things, I'm really struggling to see how what you came up with further addressed our ongoing concerns in a meaningful or significant manner. I was hopeful that, at a minimum, you would have given serious consideration and taken appropriate action to better deal with such things as reducing building heights nearest our properties to one story and/or setting buildings back further than 84' from our property and/or reducing the maximum building height in Gateway E from three stories to two stories as it now is in Gateway W.......in retrospect, think that may have been wishful thinking based on my understanding of your response today. At this point, I plan to actively speak up at the upcoming Feb 2nd Planning & Zoning Commission hearing as well as the Mar 3rd OV Town Council meeting.......I will also encourage others in the WL neighborhood that have ongoing concerns with what WLR is planning to also attend and speak up at them. While I recognize that WLR believes (as mentioned at our Jan 6th meeting) it can now build two story buildings under the existing Pima County CR-1 Zoning, such zoning states the following: Single-Family Residence with a Minimum Lot Size of 36,000 SF and a Height Not to Exceed 34' In my mind, not only is what WLR wants to do not in accord with existing WLHs' and WLR zoning as delineated under Parcel ID # 225500130 at the Pima County zoning website at the link below, but it would hamper the views and invade the privacy of existing WLHs' neighbors in an unacceptable manner......moreover, it would be totally out of character with how WLHs and WLR have been developed to date. https://gis.pima.gov/apps/pczoning/ While WLHs has a small number of two-story homes, none of them have been built whereby a neighbor's views or privacy has been infringed upon.....moreover, none of the existing WLR buildings developed to date are three stories as now planned in the WLR development proposal. It is now pretty clear to us that you have no real willingness, interest or intent to further address our concerns in a manner we deem to be acceptable to us.......I will close by stating that having an unfriendly (or hostile) relationship with its neighbors simply is not in the best interests (at least in my mind) of us, you, your guests and any new residents or businesses that may result from your proposed development as well as the Town of OV itself........sincerely stated........Bob Hagen, ------------------------------------------------. Jan 22, 2021 WL Neighbor......here (pls see three attachments to this email) are a letter to the Town of OV and revised Concept Plans C and A we received today from Linda Morales in response to the Jan 6th Zoom meeting we had with the Planning Center and WLR. While I appreciate that the Planning Center & WLR were willing to take another look at things, I'm really struggling to see how what they came up with made any meaningful or significant change insofar as further scaling back WLR's proposed commercial development plans. 3 I was hopeful that, at a minimum, they would have given serious consideration to such issues as reducing building heights nearest our properties to one story and/or setting buildings back further than 84' from our property and/or reducing the maximum building height in Gateway E from three stories to two stories as it now is in Gateway W.......in retrospect, think that was wishful thinking on my part based on what they actually have sent to us today. At this point, I plan to actively speak up at the upcoming Feb 2nd Planning & Zoning Commission hearing as well as the Mar 3rd OV Town Council meeting (more details will be provided on them when they are available).......I would encourage others in the WL neighborhood that have ongoing concerns with what WLR is planning to do to also attend and speak up at them. If you have any further comments or thoughts on things after reviewing the three attachments to this email, I would appreciate you sharing them with me......in the final analysis, I believe that the upcoming Feb 2nd and Mar 3rd meetings may well be our last opportunity to have any further input into the proposed WLR commercial development review and approval process. One additional thought that occurred to me today in looking over attachments 2 and 3 is the much increased risk of an auto accident by having a new driveway into WLR just W of Sonya Way......in my mind, that entry/exit point (which is used by most everyone in the neighborhood) is already a dangerous one......anymore, it seems like every time I take a closer look at what WLR would like to do, I come up with a new concern. I recognize that those of us who have homes closest to the proposed WLR commercial development will be impacted most.......however, I also believe that all WL homeowners (i.e., neighbors with residences W, S and E of WLR) will be negatively impacted by what WLR is now planning to do.......will stay in touch........will look for you to let me know any additional thoughts you may have............THXs.......Bob Hagen, ------------------------------------------------. January 20, 2021 Community Development and Public Works Town of Oro Valley Oro Valley, Arizona Subject: Westward Look PAD Modifications Dear Mr. Spaeth: The following is a summary of changes and PAD modifications that are a result of continued public outreach with neighbors. Following the January 5, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, The Planning Center hosted a Zoom meeting on January 6, 2021 with neighbors in Westward Look Heights and Westward Look Estates. The meeting was productive and led to significant changes to Illustrative Site Plan Concepts A and C to further mitigate privacy concerns. Additional coordination and discussions since those two meetings has resulted in PAD modifications as described below related to limitations on lighting, balcony restrictions, increased buffer yard width, and minimum nursery stock tree sizes. It was also agreed upon that a resident representative will be included on the Design Review Committee established as part of the PAD. Height- Building height within eighty-five feet of adjacent residential property has been reduced from thirty-four feet and two stories to twenty-eight feet and two stories. Landscape Buffer Yards- Landscape buffer yards adjacent to residential property in Resort Gateway East will be fifty feet. Nursery stock utilized to create a continuous tree canopy will be a minimum thirty-six-inch box (or equal) size to facilitate a more mature vegetative buffer at the time of planting. Balconies- Balconies are not permitted on the east side of a building when proposed development is within eighty-five feet of eastern property boundary. Lighting- Parking lot security lighting shall be limited to five feet in height when located within eighty-five feet of adjacent residential property. Illustrative Concept A- Proposed multi-family buildings were relocated to the center of Resort Gateway (East) to be further away from neighboring homes. The distance from the eastern property line doubled from approximately sixty feet to one hundred twenty feet. Page 2 Westward Look PAD Modifications January 20, 2021 Illustrative Concept C- Residential villas proposed in Resort Gateway (West) were reconfigured to reduce the number of buildings along the west boundary from four to one. These changes are also reflected in the latest revised PAD document. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, THE PLANNING CENTER Linda S. Morales, AICP CEO ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN 'A'WESTWARD LOOKTHEPLGCEANNNINERTadiviiIsooonfnTPCGrup,c.escrconegtetuosnaz857012600ssNORTHPROJECT:DATE:WWL-0101.19.21FILE NAME:WWL-01_ILLUSTRATIVE A 1.11.21.DWG0'60'SCALE: 1"-120'-0"120'INA ROAD(150' ROW, MS&R)SINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYNOTESPARCELS: 225-50-021A, 225-50-0180, 225-50-0200JURISDICTION: PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONAEXISTING ZONING: CR-1PARCELS AREA: 18.0 ACRESRESORT GATEWAY WEST - BOUTIQUE RETAIL /RESTAURANTGROSS FLOOR AREA: APPROX 30,000 SFBUILDING HEIGHT: 2 STORIES (MAX 34') (28' WITHIN 85' OF EXISTINGRESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)PARKING REQUIRED: TBD THROUGH INDIVIDUAL PARKING PLANRESORT GATEWAY EAST - LUXURY GATED APARTMENTCOMPLEX & POTENTIAL INTEGRATED COMMERCIALUNIT QUANTITY: APPROX 184BUILDING HEIGHT: 2-3 STORIES (MAX 40') (2 STORIES AND 28' WITHIN85' OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)PARKING REQUIRED: TBD THROUGH INDIVIDUAL PARKING PLANALL BUILDINGS MAY INCORPORATE COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, ANDRETAIL OPPORTUNITIESRESORT GATEWAY EAST - RESORT EQUESTRIAN ANDEVENT SPACEUSE: RESORT EQUESTRIAN STABLES AND EVENT AREADOG PARKSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYRESORT(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYRAMADA, PLAZA, EVENT LAWNSTABLES AND PASTUREENTRY MONUMENT / GATEWAYLEASING CENTER50'LANDSCAPE25' BLDG.SETBACK40' BLDG. SETBACKSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYPIMA COUNTYROWSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTY40' BLDG. SETBACK40' BLDG. SETBACKWASHWASHELECTRICEASEMENTCENTRALAMENITY(POOL)FITNESSCENTERLUXURYAPARTMENTCOMPLEXBOUTIQUERETAIL/RESTAURANTRESORTEQUESTRIAN/EVENTSPLAZASIGNAGELOCAL PRECEDENTSBOUTIQUE RETAIL / RESTAURANT: BROADWAY VILLAGELUXURY APARTMENTS: VILLAS AT SAN DORADOTHIS EXHIBIT WAS CREATED USING THE MOST RECENT AVAILABLE BOUNDARIES, ROAD ALIGNMENT,AND EASEMENT DATA PROVIDED BY THE DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES AND ENGINEERINGFIRMS AND IS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL AREA TOTALS BASED ON ENGINEERED DATAMAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT.REVITALIZED LANDSCAPE ALONG WESTWARD LOOK DRIVERESORT GATEWAY WEST4.84 ACRESORT GATEWAY EAST13.15 ACWESTWARD LOOK DR.TRASH ENCLOSURE(TYP)LOADINGEXISTING PEDESTRIANCROSSING TO REMAINLANDSCAPEWALL 6'LANDSCAPEWALL 6'(PRIVAT E R O A D )INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT PER DKT 1274, PG 419TO REMAINRIGHT TURN LANE360' SEPARATIONFROM SONYA LN20' ENHANCEDLANDSCAPE ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN 'C'WESTWARD LOOKTHEPLGCEANNNINERTadiviiIsooonfnTPCGrup,c.escrconegtetuosnaz857012600ssNORTHPROJECT:DATE:WWL-0101.16.2021FILE NAME:WWL-01_ILLUSTRATIVE C 1.16.2021.DWG0'60'SCALE: 1"-120'-0"120'INA ROAD(150' ROW, MS&R)SINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYNOTESPARCELS: 225-50-021A, 225-50-0180, 225-50-0200JURISDICTION: PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONAEXISTING ZONING: CR-1PARCELS AREA: 18.0 ACRESRESORT GATEWAY WEST - RESIDENTIAL VILLASTOTAL UNITS: 38 (16 - 1 BEDROOM, 22 - 2 BEDROOM)BUILDING HEIGHT:2 STORIES (MAX 28')PARKING REQUIRED: TBD THROUGH INDIVIDUAL PARKING PLANRESORT GATEWAY EAST -LUXURY APARTMENT COMPLEX/HOTELGROSS FLOOR AREA: APPROX 400,000 SF OR 250 UNITSBUILDING HEIGHT: 3 STORIES (MAX 40') (2 STORIES AND 28' WITHIN 85'OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)PARKING REQUIRED: TBD THROUGH INDIVIDUAL PARKING PLANRESORT GATEWAY EAST - RESORT EQUESTRIAN AND EVENTSPACEUSE: RESORT PARK AND EVENT AREASINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYRESORT(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSPLASH PADPAVILIONENTRY MONUMENT / GATEWAY40' BLDG. SETBACKSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTYSINGLEFAMILYRES.(CR-1 ZONE)PIMA COUNTY40' BLDG. SETBACKWASHWASHPOOLLUXURY APARTMENTS(ONLY IF WEST IS COMMERCIAL)/ HOTELRESIDENTIALVILLASRESORTPARKSIGNAGELOCAL PRECEDENTS HACIENDA AT THE CANYONRESIDENTIAL VILLAS: MIRAMONTE AT THE RIVERTHIS EXHIBIT WAS CREATED USING THE MOST RECENT AVAILABLE BOUNDARIES, ROAD ALIGNMENT,AND EASEMENT DATA PROVIDED BY THE DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES AND ENGINEERINGFIRMS AND IS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL AREA TOTALS BASED ON ENGINEERED DATAMAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT.REVITALIZED LANDSCAPE ALONG WESTWARD LOOK DRIVERESORT GATEWAY WEST4.84 ACRESORT GATEWAY EAST13.15 ACRAMADA, PLAYGROUNDEVENT LAWNEXIT ONLYLANDSCAPEWALL 6'LANDSCAPEWALL 6'TRASH ENCLOSURE(TYP)40' BLDG.SETBACK25' BLDG.SETBACKPIMA COUNTYROW40' BLDG. SETBACKELECTRICEASEMENTWESTWARD LOOK DR. (PRIVAT E R O A D )INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT PER DKT 1274, PG 419TO REMAINRIGHT TURN LANE300' MIN SEPARATIONFROM SONYA LNPOTENTIAL DRAINAGEPOTENTIAL DRAINAGE20' ENHANCEDLANDSCAPE 1 Ancona, Jeanna From:Ancona, Jeanna Sent:Monday, January 25, 2021 7:55 AM To:Spaeth, Michael Cc:Vella, Bayer Subject:FW: Proposed WLR Com Dev Jeanna M. Ancona Senior Office Specialist – Planning Division Town of Oro Valley Community and Economic Development 11000 North La Cañada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Direct: 520-229-5062 www.OVprojects.com All messages created in this system should be considered public record subject to disclosure under the Arizona Public Records Law (A.R.S. 39-121) with no expectation of privacy related to the use of this technology. From: ROBERT HAGEN Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2021 3:59 PM To: Ancona, Jeanna <jancona@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Proposed WLR Com Dev Jan 24, 2021 Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist – Planning Division Town of Oro Valley Community and Economic Development 11000 North La Cañada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Jeanna......I would appreciate you providing the information below to the OV Planning & Zoning Commission members as much in advance of their upcoming Feb. 2nd hearing as you can......would also appreciate you letting me know you received this email OK and will do so......THXs......Bob Hagen, Westward Look Heights, ----------------------------------------------------------- Jan 24, 2021 OV Planning & Zoning Commission Members I wanted to let you know that, based on more than 40 of the Westward Look (WL) neighbors on the W, S & E side of Westward Look Resort (WLR) I have reached out to for comment (pls see list of them below), an overwhelming majority of the feedback I have received to date from them indicates they are not only opposed to WLR's commercial development as now proposed, but they are not pleased with the outreach that has taken place to date as 2 well........moreover, they are not inclined to favor being annexed by OV should it decide to pursue such an undertaking. In view of the above, I have let Austin Counts know that I do not believe the fourth paragraph from the bottom of his recent NW Explorer article (pls see link below) is an accurate depiction of how WL neighbors now view the proposed WLR Annexation, General Plan Change, Rezoning & Commercial Development https://www.tucsonlocalmedia.com/news/oro_valley/article_7c7d7e4c-5774-11eb-a50b- 23b588269a0d.html Please also be advised that we have submitted upwards of fifty pages (if not more) of comments to the Town of OV indicating that we do not believe the proposed WLR development is acceptable to us as now envisioned........during your three-hour hearing on Jan 5th, I found it surprising not a single mention was made to the comments we have been submitting.....I would respectfully ask that you take the time to read through them ahead of your upcoming Feb 2nd hearing at which several of us will also voice our ongoing concerns. Sincerely........Bob Hagen, Westward Look Heights, -------------------------------------------------- List of WL Neighbors Reached Out to for Comments/Concerns with the Proposed WLR Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning & Commercial Development --------------------------------------------------------- Deb McGee Art Gage ) Jean Gage () Jenifer Bennett ) Suzi Nomiyama Jeff Labeff ) Maurice Holthaus Ruth Holthaus ) Gerald Roth Bion Smalley ) Carol Smalley ) Pat Schuler Katie Smith Matt Smith Ryan Jones ) R J Morehouse Lisa McClellen ) Jim Just () Kathryn Just Bob Barnes ) 3 Jeannette Barnes John Richardson Mike Myers Mike Davis () Jeannine Appel ) Erik Bakken Ranay Twidwell Guifarro ) Angela Rowley Jon Rowley Bern Velasco ) Cecil Sterling ) Dick Zimmerman ) Rose Zimmerman ) Paul Burson ) Desseree Burson ) Steve Villarreal ) Susan Villarreal ) Stephanie Pagac Garcia Loretta Miller Ralph Miller Jean Glattke ) Ted Glattke ( Susan Bradley Elisabeth Dudley -------------------------------------------------- 1 Ancona, Jeanna From:ROBERT HAGEN Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2021 7:08 PM To:Ancona, Jeanna Subject:WLR Annex/GPA/Rezoning/Com Dev Concerns Jan 27, 2021 Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist Planning Division Town of OV Jeanna: I would appreciate you making the following letter of our current summary comments/concerns available to the OV Planning/Zoning Commission as much n advance of their upcoming Feb 2nd hearing re WLR as you can.......please let me know you received this OK and have gotten it to the Commission members......THXs......Bob Hagen, WLHs, --------------------------------------------------- Jan 27, 2021 Town of OV Planning/Zoning Commission Member As a long-time resident of Westward Look Heights (WLHs) at 7311 N Sonya Way, Tucson, AZ, I am taking this opportunity to summarize my concerns and those I have heard back from the more than 40 WL neighbors I have reached out to with regard to the proposed Westward Look Resort (WLR) Annexation, GPA, Rezoning & Commercial Development......I am also making a special request of you as noted below. For starters, I believe the process we (as neighbors) have gone through to date has been something of a flawed one from its outset (i.e., poor outreach, misleading/difficult communications, hard time staying informed on things, etc.)....the fact that you were just given a 300 page document in small print to review a week before your Feb 2nd hearing, and WL neighbor comments were located on page 265 of it, was also something I found disturbing.......hard for me to understand how a group of commissioners volunteering their time could be expected to thoroughly review things in such a short time period. I realize that if you were to mention the above to WLR or the Town of OV, they would tell you about the wonderful job they have been doing in this regard......I personally (and honestly) don't see it that way and have been actively involved since we were first notified of what was taking place in late August of 2020 In looking back on things, I also now perceive that WLR goals may have been more oriented along the lines to: overwhelm us with information (i.e., studies, plans, concept 2 plots, etc.); put forth an unacceptable plan at the outset; make a few changes (not all that significant of ones) to it in an effort to try and appease us; and then move forward with things from there w/o really addressing our primary concerns. With regard to the current (and unfortunate) situation we are now in, I see it as follows: At the present time, WL neighbors still have very substantial, building height, setback & density concerns......m oreover, we also have ongoing concerns of significance in such areas as privacy, views, traffic, crime, desert/wildlife protection, property values/resale-ability, air pollution, noise, etc An impasse has been reached with WLR insofar as having further productive discussions The "bottom line" for me is now multifaceted as follows: Where things currently stand is deemed to me to be neighbor- unfriendly & unacceptable WLR not only can, but should do more to better address our ongoing concerns In spite of the above, I do believe an easy-to-adopt & straight-forward path (more like something of a win/win scenario for all concerned) is still available to the Town of OV, WLR & us Such a path would quite simply entail WLR further addressing our ongoing building height, setback & density concerns in a more meaningful manner.....b y satisfactorily doing so, WLR would also help alleviate many of our other ongoing concerns mentioned earlier above. I would therefore respectfully request (as well as strongly urge) that the OV Planning/Zoning Commission not vote to approve the WLR project as now depicted w/o our ongoing concerns being more fully addressed in an acceptable manner ahead of time To do otherwise, would only worsen what is well on its way now to becoming an unfriendly (if not hostile) relationship between WLR and its close-by neighbors now numbering well over a 100 residences Having an unfriendly (or eventually hostile) relationship with its neighbors is not deemed to be in the best interests of us, WLR, the Town of OV or any other involved party for obvious reasons Furthermore, for WLR and/or the Town of OV to become widely known under a "great disruptor of neighborhoods" epithet, can't be a good thing for either one of them as well.....in other words, it really is a lose/lose type of scenario for all concerned. 3 Thank you in advance for any favorable consideration you can give to this request.......it would be very much appreciated by all concerned who live nearby WLR Sincerely Bob Hagen, WLHs, --------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Ancona, Jeanna From:Ancona, Jeanna Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 4:47 PM To:Ancona, Jeanna Subject:FW: Westward Look Type 2 GPA opposition From: The Egans Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 3:21 PM To: Ask <ask@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Westward Look Type 2 GPA opposition Hi Jessica, Sorry for the late hour of this submission. Please do what you can to get this into the hands of the members of the Board before they vote to recommend approval. Thanks ! RE: Westward Look Annexation, GPA, and Rezoning Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission, I fear that the most serious change is not getting considered properly, and its impact is not being analyzed separately. A Type 2 General Plan Amendment is sought for the lowest, western portion, being the 4.6 acres west of Westward Look Drive. If this area were left low density residential (as is) rather than commercial, Oro Valley planners would be lauded for being sensitive to the existing homeowners in Westward Look and Catalina Village, as well as not over-taxing the capacity of Westward Look Drive, and reducing the impact on Ina Road The existing planning appears to be good planning. I feel this issue is not getting separate treatment but instead is getting combined into an analysis of the proposed development "as a whole." I feel that this Type 2 GPA is not a necessary piece of the puzzle in order for Westward Look to accomplish most of their goals, and its denial would be a welcome concession that the owners on the west side of the resort property would appreciate. It would be difficult to find an example of a more drastic change for the neighbors on the west side of Westward Look Drive: a comprehensive plan amendment of a small area immediately adjoining their houses from low density residential to commercial. Put yourselves in the position of these homeowners. Sincerely, Chris Egan 1 Ancona, Jeanna From:Matt Bailey Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 4:50 PM To:Ancona, Jeanna Subject:Town of Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, February 2, 2021, Written Comments [IWOV-Legal.FID849604] Honorable Commission Members: My name is Matt Bailey and I am an attorney with the local law firm of Rusing Lopez & Lizardi. Our law firm represents Mrs. Elisabeth Dudley, who lives at , which is located in Westward Look Estates. On Mrs. Dudley’s behalf, I am submitting her following written comments for the Town of Oro Valley’s February 2, 2021, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: l think we’ve identified that the burden of defending Pima County’s open spaces rests on the shoulders of Pima County government. Restrictive covenants don’t mean a thing unless and until county government—on behalf of its current and future citizens—is willing to enforce them. Town councils and land development professionals know this and count on it to advance their interests. If even one representative of Pima County DEQ or PZC was to attend tonight’s virtual meeting, the county’s interest would be well served…that is their job. Canadian singer and songwriter, Joni Mitchell, put it so well in the lyrics of her 1970 hit song, Big Yellow Taxi: “They paved paradise, put up a parking lot With a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swinging hot spot Don’t it always seem to go That you don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone…” ******** Intelligent people nowadays realize there is a loud call to do whatever is possible to protect the natural world for our own good and for those who come after us. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of our ELECTED OFFICIALS-Oro Valley Township and Pima County, that I am referring to, to do what they know is right; SO -SUMMON THE COURAGE- STAND UP AND BE COUNTED AS RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC OFFICIALS PROTECT THIS NATURAL ASSET OF DESERT AND THE WILDLIFE THAT TRIES TO SURVIVE THOUGHTLESS HABITAT DESTRUCTION. PROTECT OUR EARTH! STOP RECKLESS DEVELOPMENT ! STAND FIRM! STOP PAVING GREEN SPACE! Respectfully, 2 Matthew Bailey Of Counsel Rusing Lopez & Lizardi, P.L.L.C. 6363 North Swan Road, Suite 151 Tucson, Arizona 85718 Main: 520-792-4800 Direct: 520-529-4281 Fax: (520) 529-4262 mbailey@rllaz.com www.rllaz.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL TRANSMISSION AND ANY DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING IT CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED INFORMATION BELONGING TO THE SENDER. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION OR USE OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ANY OF THE INFORMATION IT CONTAINS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. ANY UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION OF THIS TRANSMISSION IS ILLEGAL. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE ERRONEOUSLY, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY DELETE THIS COMMUNICATION AND ANY ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM AND DESTROY ANY COPIES. PLEASE ALSO NOTIFY THE SENDER THAT YOU HAVE DONE SO BY REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE. THANK YOU.