---
[Our neighbors have labored diligently to uncover and develop factual information relevant to the now "defunct" PAD Amendment on property F-I. One such effort is presented here. It is a very detailed, thorough study of the traffic impact of apartments on this property. This study was sent to every Oro Valley Town Council member on January 17, 2012]
---
Dear Council Member:
Please find attached a traffic report with information and traffic volume projections for the Rancho Vistoso roadway which will be most impacted by the proposed apartment complex at Parcel 7-I.
This report was prepared by a group of Rancho Vistoso neighbors who conducted research and traffic observations over the last two months.
Our projections indicate that the proposed apartment complex will have the effect of adding at least 10% more traffic volume to an already congested area.
Our intent is to respectfully request that you consider our recommendation to not vote for a rezoning of Parcel 7-I which would permit construction of the proposed apartment complex.
Thank you for your consideration.
All the best,
M. LaSala
---
9 comments:
Kudos to the team that took hours of their own time to prepare this factual & incredibly professional document! RV is extremely grateful for all your hard work. Thanks.
Kudos to the team that took hours of their own time to prepare this factual & incredibly professional document! RV is extremely grateful for all your hard work. Thanks.
Thank you people for that effort. I fear it is an effort in futility, however.
Apparently, the PAD allows for this "minor" change (Tobin Rosen gave a positive opinion and believes it is legal) is a legal change to the PAD....Just a vote of The Town Council.
I hope it will give the Voters/Homeonwners/Citizens of OV input if we elect Garner, Zinkin, and Burns.
But, that only gives us (3) members of The Town Council that we as Homeowners can trust......
What I fear is that the "rules/requirements" for MU will be veeeeery lax.....
I want NO apartments next to existing residentially zoned and built single-family homes.
AND, Mr David Williams said the concept of the "village" MU plan could be for as little as (1) acre.
That does not seem to me to support his "village" suggestion.....how about at least (20) acres, minimum?
i must confess that i am a bit confused. was it withdrawn from the agenda because the council thinks they can pass with a 4-3 vote because of the town attorney opinion.
Not certain as to why that it was withdrawn....suspect that MU will be easy and they have been told so.
Venture West and Rodger Ford can reapply.
The Council noticed the "We Are Oro Valley" people in the audience and speakers were allowed to fill out the blue cards and speak...since it had been withdrawn from the agenda.
Interesting to note that The Council inter-acted with the speakers....replied :)
Made it perfectly clear :) that they were operating within the laws/PAD, etc. and Tobin reinforced that.
Ferlin-Just want to clarify the
7-I issue VS MU as they are entwined but separate.
7-I was initially proposed as a text amendment to the RV PAD to "clarify" that apts were already allowed on this parcel. This was based on some circular logic that C-1 "may include uses associated w/ the central business district." Since RV doesn't have a central busines district, Town Staff decided to equate the undeveloped Town Center at RV & Moore Rd the "central bus district" & then say if Town Center has HDR then C-1 can have HDR. Wrong. There is a reference in the PAD that states: Commercial C-1 means non-residential. There are other references supporting that. So the logic that Venture West already had this land use right & this was simply a clarification was debunked. It is my understanding that Rosen considered it a rezoning from C-1 to HDR - not that it stayed C-1 & apartments were allowed on C-1 property.
Also, because we had more than 25% of signatures from the area deemed to be the protest zone (we actually had 100%,) a super majority vote of TC was required to pass the amendment. (6 out of 7 votes) I don't think they had the votes to pass it & I think Venture West knew that.
So, coincidentally (ha!) then the Zoning Staff decided to recommend a Mixed Use land element be added to the Gen Plan (not PAD) via a minor amendment. Since this was passed by the Zoning Commission but has NOT gone to TC for review, I'm not sure whether Rosin said this was legal or not. If he did, it was not in public. Perhaps you have spoken w/ him personally & I am not aware of that?
In any case, I do agree that this is a plan/backroom deal & once Mixed Use is approved for the Gen Plan, Venture West & Ford will re-apply for their parcels to be rezoned to MU. Zoning said as much in their agenda packet & at the Zoning mtg 1/3.
In my opinion, Mixed Use based on New Urbanism principals is probably not the best fit for a suburban town. Zoning staff doesn't even know what properties are not developed in OV so why are they so sure this code is needed? Just because a few developers asked for rezoning this yr?
Thank you for clarifying....(2) actions (that I consider a bit contrary) to the PAD.
One does wonder why we are a "planned" community. It seems to me it was (planned) but not planned the way.... which I felt was. I thought the over- riding document was the PAD. WOW one learns a lot.
As for Mr. Rosen, I was at the meeting on January 18, and I thought Stevie, the APPOINTED ONE, ask him specifically about the legaility of MU and its being passed rightfully/legally by P
& Z and is in the purview of THE TOWN COUNCIL to do this IF they wish.
Reiterating here, but the Stakeholders/voters/Citizens would seem to have different priorities than The Council.
You must consider the candidates for Town Council on their wishes/connections to the Citizens/Stakeholders/voters.
Mr Garner has been the most involved, single-family man, homeowner that we have ever had in OV....Barry Gillaspie will be missed.....so you know we must try to elect people with our wishes.
Burns, Garner, Zinkin, fulfill my requirements for representing me.
Ferlin- I guess I had too many late nites filled w/ stress as I don't remember the Solomon conversation w/ Tobin. I'll go back to the tape assuming they didn't have technical difficulties this time. :-)
Some believe that MU should not be added until the Gen Plan is redone & then the people could vote on it. But P&Z say they can recommend it be added to the GP as a minor amendment so I hope they checked w/ Tobin. Once it's added, the developers can come back & apply for it tho & that scares me.
No problem. I am old and hear what I want to hear. :)
Post a Comment