It Seems Not All Residents Around Miller Ranch Proposed Development Are Happy

Contrary to what one of our bloggers has stated, it appears not all the residents in close proximity to the Miller Ranch proposed development are all that happy.

Below is an email from one resident sent today to council & staff. Note: I deleted the resident's name as I did not request permission to publish it.

Art
*************************************************************************************

Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 6:47:21 AM
Subject: Re: Miller Ranch Consideration at 7/21 Mtg


Dear Council Member;


Next Tuesday, July 21, you will represent the community as the proposed development of Miller Ranch is considered for final approval.


Residents in neighborhoods adjacent to Miller Ranch have objected that the proposed Tech Park phases of the plan, as the plan now stands, violate provisions in the zoning code meant to protect us (see three references each to OV zoning code and Town Plan, below). At hastily-called official neighborhood meetings held June 15 and 22 at town hall and via emails and letters, residents have attempted to express concern about building heights and also about increased traffic noise and safety, and the possibility of other-than business-hour traffic noise/lighting on the site.


We residents believe that the proposed heights of the project's two-story buildings are not compatible with adjacent/neighboring residences (Vistoso Gateway and Vistoso Highlands across La Canada to the east are composed solely of one-story residences, the western half of the Miller Ranch parcel is zoned low-density residential, land to the north and south are residential subdivisions).

We asked that a pole study be conducted on the property to approximate the placement and height of the several two-story buildings proposed for the Tech Park in order to gauge the impact of this project upon adjacent neighborhoods and upon views along the La Canada and Tangerine scenic corridors.

Last week Oro Valley P&Z officials confirmed that "At the second neighborhood meeting on June 22, the applicant Desco Southwest, agreed to provide the poles on the property to simulate the building heights and mass of buildings. The Town notified them after the neighborhood meeting that this would need to be completed prior to the Council meeting." (underlining is added to email of 7/9, see below).

Now we learn that only two poles will be placed, and for July 16-19 only, in the approximate center of two of the proposed building locations (email of 7/15, see below).

How does a single pole represent any fair approximation of the mass of northernmost Building 13 (closest to Sunkist), a commercial office building 32-34 ft high with a gross floor area of 12,274 SF on the first floor and 10,508 SF on the second floor?

How hard would it have been to place poles in the corners of all the proposed two-story buildings to demonstrate fairly the true mass of these buildings -- and to leave these poles in place for a week or more -- so that residents and town council members might judge for themselves the visual impact of the applicant's proposed development plan?


Might I suggest that the manner in which an applicant deals with neighbors' concerns prior to approval of a project might be an indication of the manner in which this same applicant might deal with the Town after approval?

We residents adjacent to this project count on you to determine if the plan submitted by the applicant has such overriding merit and value for our town and if time is so short in the approval process that neighborhood concerns be dealt with in such a superficial manner. We believe that there are hard questions still to be asked of the developer and we hope you will ask these.


Thank You for Your Time and Consideration,
Resident's name deleted
Vistoso Gateway Resident


Back-Up Documents:
Zoning Code (ZC) 22.6. B-4, "The height, area, setbacks and overall mass… shall be appropriate to…the neighborhood and the community."

ZC 22.6 B-6, "The character proposed design shall be in harmony with and compatible to those structures in the neighboring environment and design character adopted for any given areas….

ZC 23.1.B-18, "All uses shall be of a non-nuisance type and minimal scale having a low silhouette … and compatible to adjacent residential uses …."

General Plan (GP) 2.1.4, "The Town shall require… proposals… to minimize impact on views from adjacent properties and streets... providing privacy for residents."

GP 2.1.7, "The Town shall require…proposals to incorporate means of reducing the apparent size and bulk of the buildings."

GP 7.1.1 "The Town shall strive…. to protect the integrity and aesthetic context of existing neighborhoods…"

GP 11.3.1 and 2 "View protection is to be essential" along … "scenic corridors" … of which La Canada Drive" is included. Additionally, "… new developments are to"…. maintain and/enhance the character and quality of views…. along scenic corridors" … "and especially "…discourage visually intrusive structures."