Those living in Rancho Vistoso and, in fact, all of us who live in Oro Valley, should be interested in a rezoning request for Ford property in Rancho Vistoso.
The property is located on the Northwest Corner of Rancho Vistoso Blvd and Vistoso Commerce Loop. It is directly across from "The Crematorium". It is diagonally across from Sanofi-Aventis.
The property is currently zoned for commercial office park use, it being located in the Innovation Park area.
The intent of designating Innovation Park for commercial use was to provide space to attract viable employers to Oro Valley. This was the intent of the General Plan, a plan in which so many of you participated in creating.
The General Plan represents a serious agreement among the residents of Oro Valley. Any changes to it should be made under only extraordinary circumstances.
Thus, we are alerting you to this possible major change in zoning.
A developer, Beztek Land Company, is seeking a general plan amendment from commercial Office Park (COP) to High Density Residential (HDR) zoning. The developer wants to build approximately 256 apartments on 15.23 acres. Beztek currently owns Golf Villa Apartments and Oro Valley Luxury Apartments. Per information posted on their web site, rental costs on these properties is approximately $100 per square foot per month.
Based on information provided by the Town ("General Plan Amendment Evaluation Criteria"), changes to the General Plan require compliance with four criteria. One of these criteria (item c) is that:"The proposed change reflects market demand which leads to viability and general community acceptance." Another (item d) is that "the amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole or a portion of the community without acceptable means of mitigating these impacts..."
Here's our thinking:
- The impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood will be substantial. The neighborhood has almost 500 single family homes. There are but two entrances in and out of their area, one of which is on to Ranch Vistoso Blvd. The impact of 256 rental units adding an additional 400 plus cars to the roadway daily will be enormous in terms of road traffic and, of course, additional polution.
- High Density Residential property is supposed to be located "close to arterial access and shopping and employment opportunities." This location may not to fit all of these criteria.
- There is no guarantee that can be given regarding whether the apartments will be residential upscale, which would suit the adjacent neighborhood, or low income housing, which will not. This is true regardless of what the developer may say.
- What will be the impact on crime in the area? Generally, there is more crime attendant with rental units than with single family residencies.
- We are a bit hard pressed to see how, in this dismal economy, a major new apartment complex, no matter how pretty, has any economic viability (item c). So, as a minimum, the Developer should be asked to provide an Economic Feasibility Study, prepared by an independent third party, that verifies that this project is economically feasible. Otherwise, we could wind up with bladed land with no properties on it or empty units subject to degrading. Either way, the Town should investigate this aspect of the request.
- We also fail to see how, given its impact on the "neighborhood" (item d), it would have any community acceptance by those who live in the neighborhood. It will likely reduce their property values since it could possibly block their view of the Catalina's, views for which many of them were charged extra when they purchased their homes.
- What is the impact on our town's infrastructure? For example, what is the impact on our water system? What is the impact on our Police Department? What will the town need to do to accommodate the increased traffic: Widen the roadways of Innovation Drive/Commerce Loop, add traffic controls, or increase speed limits?
Here's the "kicker." You need to act quickly if you want your voice heard. The town has stated that it must make a decision on this request by December 31. That said, your involvement now is very critical.
It is the responsibility of those living in this area, and there are, literally, thousands impacted,to become knowledgeable of the situation and to let their opinions be known.
With this in mind, we urge those impacted by this decision to attend the next hearing on this request which is October 10 at 6PM at Town Hall.
If you are not involved in understanding and actively participating in this General Plan Amendment request, you will simply "get what you get". And this might not be what you want.
---
17 comments:
Good job on informing the community Zeeman.
Some readers may recall that the Beztak property at Lambert & La Canada was developed after the company sued Oro Valley, as well as the Council Members back in late 2004.
The lawsuit was settled in early 2005 behind closed doors but cost the town (insurance paid for much of the cost,) after Beztak couldn't find a retail anchor store and opted to go with mixed use, including the existing apartment complex.
Moral of the story:
Hopefully, THIS Council will concern itself with the thousands of homeowners, but, at the same time, do it in a way that avoids another costly lawsuit.
Zeeman,
Thanks for keeping your readers aware. What can happen in one subdivision can happen anywhere.
What a surprise in this economy! Another luxury apartment complex!
Wonder how full Oro Vistas is.
In conversation yesterday a hydrologist stated that Tucson's water is used 2 to 3 to 4 to 5 times faster than rain replenishes it. He also added that California by law has first dibs on CAP water. In a real drought where does that leave Old Pueblo? After the deepfry heat and local fires this summer, that is one scarey fact. "No water, no brainer."
Did TOV provide a water study for this development yet?
Art,
One wonders why TOV would do business with a developer who sued them. Has this ever happened before in OV?
One of our bloggers has informed me as follows:
"Actually, there are five criteria all of which have to be met in order to approve a General Plan Amendment. The first is within the initial text of the section: That the Amendment is consistent with the Vision, Goals and Policies of the General Plan. The Vision part is easy; that's on the first page of the Plan. Goals and Policies, of course, are spread out within all elements, and a person would have to read those, and judge "consistency", which is probably an unfortunate word. There's lots of subjectivity with General Plan goals and policies. When the Plan was ratified in 2005, the word "shall" was used to introduce nearly all policies in order to give the appearance of a commitment. However, interpretation is still largely how decisions are made, and so each citizen needs to provide theirs, which has equal value to staff, Commissioners and Council."
---
Ford Development General Plan Amendment
History
About 4 years ago Monterey HOA and neighborhood went through a similar problem. There was 3 acres outside our front main entrance that was originally zoned medium density housing, got changed to a potential church building (really an investment property flip for the church), and subsequently to a developer for 36 "luxury condos'. The only egress was on our community morning vista entrance street to this monster development because the Town would not allow an entrance off Rancho Vistoso Boulevard. About half of our morning vista street entrance was public so they used the Monterey entrance on Morning Vista for the development entrance. Only about half the property was usable since much of the property was a wash. No problem for the developer since they planned two stories and the town was very helpful to the developers. The only thing that saved us was the developer went into bankruptcy.
Thoughts on Ford Development
One thing our Monterey HOA did first was to get the Fire Department involved concerning the emergency ingress and egress to the condo complex they were building. I believe you have to have two entrances for emergency equipment. They had a turnaround inside the condo complex which allowed them to have only one entrance. I don't know if that applies to this Ford situation but it might be worth checking out. We also looked at any original easement issues on the property. Also, we tried to raise the privacy issue since we are a gated community. I doubt it applies to the Ford situation but might be worth a look. Dropping 500+ new neighbors in your area will certainly be a privacy invasion issue. I am sure others can contribute comments on this general plan amendment.
John Musolf
Good Evening....
Yes, art. That was the suit created in part by Conny Culver. In fact she was named personally because she totally disregarded the advice from the Town Attorney as I recall. Thanks for reminding us. Somethimes we forget these things.
Presently, according to an apartment survey conducted by the Town the occupancy rate for apartments is 93%. That's pretty high.
I have also been told that the management of Sanofi and Ventana are indicating that the feedback from their folks is that in this housing market, upscale apartments are a better option than buying. So it is possible that many of these will be occupied bu those employees, thereby lowering the traffic impact greatly.
Just some stuff I thought I would share.
Zee,
Very interesting thought about consistency. Yes, subjective interpretations are tricky to prove.
John,
Access for the Fire Department sounds like a substantive issue and clear to document. With 256 units on such a small piece of property, where would the fire trucks turn around? Besides the corner of Vistoso Commerce Loop and RV Bvld is an increasingly busy intersection. Wonder what the frequency of fire calls in apartments are versus private houses.
OVOT,
How candid is the apt. vacancy rate when complexes won't tell the public?
OVOT,
"Luxury" apartments across the street from a crematory sounds like an oxymoron...unless, of course, they are amont the "some that like it hot!"
Desert Voice...I can't speak to the accuracy of the apartment survey. However it would seem to me that if an apartment manager received a request for numbers from a local planning department and you were inclined to fudge the numbers, you would deflate the numbers to indicate lack of need. But then I ASSUME the apartment folks would understand the meaning of the survey.
Good point about the funeral services.
There are multiple applications currently being reviewed by town staff for apartment complexes. All are a direct reflection of the negativity in the housing market according to the application.
---
It is good news that developers are again looking to build in Oro Valley. It is good that multi-family occupancy rates are over 95%. Building High-Density multi-family units in areas for which there are zoned works fine for me. We all agreed to it when we approved the General Plan.
This is not the case with the Beztek request.
Beztek wants to use the amendment process to change our agreement. Beztek wants to change the agreement we have among all residents of Oro Valley regarding our vision of the town.
The decision on this amendment request should not be based on discussion of the merits of multi-family units.
The fact that Apartment housing is or is not economically feasible is not the main issue.
The decision on this amendment request should be based on whether this request fulfills the five criteria for approval of an amendment to the general plan.
---
Desert Voice sez:
"Luxury" apartments across the street from a crematory sounds like an oxymoron...unless, of course, they are amont the "some that like it hot!"
I say:
Smokestack Lightning Garden Apartments.
The crematorium spews clouds of black smoke filled with killer Mercury and many other dangerous pollutants.
The traffic from this complex of apartments onto a two-land street (Vistoso Commerce Loop as it intersects RV Blvd)would be a giant clog.
The crime that occurs in apartments will comee to this area undoubtedly. Ask OVPD.
The neighborhood of Vistoso Vistas has two exits/entrances for over 415 homes.
Many of the folks in Vistoso Vistas bought their homes for the views which will be impaired drastically.
How much negativity could one development present???
Zee,
"proposed change reflects the market demand...and "will not adversely impact the community" are criteria for General Plan Amendments.
High density residential is not the goal but the need for affordable rentals is. V Vistas has modestly priced rentals. Owners who need rent to pay the mortgage on the property are happy to rent to reliable occupants. Add to VVistas vacancies, all of similarly vacant in RV's Planned Community and you have a minimum of 256 affordable rentals in a luxury community. A high density apartment complex is not needed to achieve this goal!
Therefore, there is no need to amend the Gen Plan but to encourage housing rentals which will maintain the quality of RV, keep the same water and traffic usage, control crime, save the stability of the community.
Renting a house in V Vistas gives more value for its rental dollar in square footage, privacy, community than Oro Vistas where rentals range from $799-1274 and "are subject to change without notice."
John, loved the name Lightning Smokestack Garden Apts.
D. Voice:
Not john, but all credit to Mr. Howl'n Wolf. He recorded in Smokestack in 1956, but it had been performed in one form or another since the 1930's
"Smokestack Lightning, don't you hear me call'n."
Also a brilliant version by the Yardbirds. Recorded in 1964. The live version has an amazing harmonica solo by Keith Reif.
Regards: Nombe
OV Planning & Zoning is having a public hearing at Town Hall on 10/4at 6 pm on Planned Area Development amendment to Parcel 7-1(NW corner of Tangerine & Rancho Vistoso Blvd) to clarify that apartments are permitted on this land.
How many new apartment complexes are needed in this single family home residential community?? Let's hope the town council adheres to the General Plan requirements (& does not blatantly ignore the rules as the Independent Redistricting Commission is doing.) Alert your neighbors & attend the mtg to voice your concerns.
Don, Don, Don,
AKA OV Objective Thinker
While the facts may not influence the content of many of your postings I think you should consider it was a vote of the majority of the Council to deny Bestak in 2004.
We voted to protect the Town of Oro Valley. The project was then, and in reality now, a poorly designed and unwanted addition for the neighboring residents.
Conny, Conny, Conny.
The fact is that the Town of Oro Valley oversteped it's authority and lawsuit resulted which was settled out of court and beztek was allowed to go forward with a project that has had very little impact on the surrounding community. I do believe those facts are accurate. And I do believe that some councilpersons were personally named in the suit....but not all.
I do believe that this is also the project there the infamous, designer Culver Hill was razed....which may be one of the sources of your irritation. ;-)Somehow I still miss the electric box hanging on the pole with the door flapping and clanging in the wind. Ahhh.....the good ole days.
Beztek's rental schedule is not $100./sf/month, it is just over $1.00/sf/month. Thus, the $900. monthly rent on the smallest unit, which is between 700-800 sf. This is information given by Beztek's marketing people at the Oct. 10th meeting. With a rental range of $900.-$1295. for small apartments, one cannot reasonably label them "luxury."
Post a Comment