Guest View-Kathryn Cehand: In No Way Does The Rancho Vistoso PAD Allow Apartments On Parcel 7-1

----
Kathryn Cehand sent a letter to Oro Valley Town Council discussing her disapproval of the proposed PAD "Clarification" To Parcel 7-1 (Tangerine and Rancho Vistoso Blvd).  The letter, dated October 24, presents clear PAD document and the Oro Valley Zoning Code support for why apartments should not be allowed on this parcel.

The following is the letter:
----
Dear Mayor Hlremath and Members of the Town Council:

I am writing to ask that you deny the zoning change requested for Parcel 7-l in Rancho Vistoso  Neighborhood 7. Along with my neighbors, I am concerned about the impact that allowing conitruction of an apartment complex would have on our quiet residential neighborhood. Further, I have spent some time reading the Rancho Visfoso PAD document and the Oro Va1ley Zoning Code Revised and Amendments (July 2011) and offer the following arguments against the approval of multifamily residential construction on Parcel 7-1, which is currently zoned C-1:

The issue has been the use of the word "may" in the Rancho Vistoso PAD document:

1. COMMUNTTY COMMERCIAL (C-1)
a. Purpose: This district is intended to provide both for neighborhood and community shopping. The district provides for retail and service establishments which supply commodities or perform services to meet the daily needs of the neighborhood and shall be in locations where analysis of residential population demonstrates that such facilities are justified. In addition, this district is intended to provide commercial activities designed to serve the community. It may include uses associated with the central business district.

The Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission was asked to make a recommendation to Town Council regarding interpretation of the PAD wording. Per Section 20.2 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, in the case of a conflict where the Code imposes a greater restriction, the Zoning Code controls. The Zoning Code is not ambiguous in delineating permitted uses of C-1 zoned property.

Development of C-1 properties is meant to satisfy the needs of nearby neighborhoods, not nearby, or potentially nearby employers, per Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Section 23.1. In no way can an apartment complex be construed as having any benefit for the nearby neighborhood. Permitted uses are things that would benefit the neighborhood: private schools, community buildings, post office, religious institutions,retail sales and service related businesses. Contrary to concerns expressed it the October 19th Town Council meeting, we would not be opening the site up to potentially undesirable businesses such as bars or cocktail lounges. Bars and cocktail lounges are expressly prohibited; a restaurant that serves alcohol would need to be reviewed and approved per Section 23.3 of the Zoning Code

The Code further states that building height on C-1 parcels is limited to 25 feet, so a
commercial building on the site would not be 34 feet in height and would not have the same
impact on views as the proposed 34 foot height of the apartment project.

I understand the reasons outlined by Mayor Hiremath as to why Oro Valley may need
apartments. However, I don't believe there is any justification for making an exception to the
zoning code just because the property owner wants to sell the parcel. There currently are
vacant parcels in Oro Valley that are zoned for multifamily residential development.


Sincerely,
Kathryn Cehand
---

Obviously, Kathryn has done her homework.

Are you ready to stand with your neighbors?

---

Coyote Run: Follow The Money

---
This past Monday, a task for four, which includes Council Person Lou Waters and Appointed Council Person Steve Solomon, presented their recommendation that Coyote Run be turned over to the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) starting in 2013.  Though the meeting was held on short notice to get public input, it was clear to all that this decision has been made.

One thing we did note was that there was no discussion of the financial implications of this decision for the Town of Oro Valley.  Generally, all financial aspects of the transaction must be analyzed and considered before making this decision.

So, our friend John Musolf sent of a quick message to Council Person Waters:

"Dear Lou:

I attended the Coyote Run Service Update on Monday, October 24, 2011. What I heard and saw was that the Town of Oro Valley will continue to support Coyote Run until June 2013. Then the Transit Task Force is recommending a Proposed Transportation Regional Solution for continuing Coyote Run Service.


You most certainly must have prepared a financial due diligence, which would include an analysis of what monies will be exchanged for the capital assets (buses, bus shelters/land and easements), personal property (furniture, fixtures, computers, printers, phone, copiers, and related equipment, etc.). What will happen to the current Coyote Run employees in June 2013? What will happen to the pensions of current Coyote Run employees in June 2013?"

Here's the response:

""such" information will be available when details of an Intergovernmental Agreement have been designed."

Not only do we find this response to be terse, we also find that it is insufficient.

Apparently, according to the response of Council Person Waters, the task force has not done its financial due dilligence even though it has made its decision.

So, let me get this right:  The decision to not fund Coyote Run is a financial decision; but the decision to  turn it over to the RTA is not?

Be sure to keep an eye on this one folks: Follow the money.
---