Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter of Protest regarding Twin Peaks Oasis Annexation 09/03/2013 Council MeetingBlue Bonnet Homeowners Group Letter of Protest August 27, 2013 On August 26, 2013, some members of the Blue Bonnet Homeowners Group had a meeting with Gilbert Davidson, the Marana Town Manager, Keith Brann, the Marana Town Engineer, Del Post, the Marana Deputy Town Manager, and a number of p�ople from the Marana Planning Department. The Marana group presented Marana's Strategic Vision. The homeowners listened more or less attentively for an hour. I have a clear understanding of the Vision. Each homeowner in our group lives on 3.3 or more acres and has a unique vision of the good life. We relish living among Sonoran wildlife—rattlesnakes, gila monsters, bobcats, javalina— and vegetation--cholla, prickly pear, ironwood trees, saguaro, and more. We have invested money and effort to establish our individual visions. It should surprise no one that we are up in arms at the thought of more high density projects similar to Oasis Hills, where the lot sizes are smaller than the sizes of some of our homes. Marana is contemplating annexing and rezoning the northeast corner of Twin Peaks and Oasis Road to allow subdividing into lots of 6,000 square feet. The Blue Bonnet Homeowners Group does not want this piece of property annexed or rezoned. If Marana is inviting us to live it's vision, we cordially decline. If it's a hostile takeover, we will fight with every legal means available. r� Marana's plan to develop the northeast corner of Twin Peaks and Oasis Road threatens our lifestyle and property values. I say, "No," to annexation and rezoning. Sincerely, � � �� / Susan D. Parrish, Ph.D. 2 � The following people are in agreement with the Blue Bonnet Homeowners Group Letter of Protest of August 27, 2013: Name Address . . - / ��'��--- " � ..c l�--- -�-�J-w�-��t_ - l /Ji `� c° � , � i ; - . i� r � - r �k-�ti��j.----A-�-_-�-����----- -��. `� �_._ (�:.. Oc;�s ���-r`�-��-------------------------- ��� N L . �`�l-�} - ,- ? ._ vc s � v� � � Z- � �� 7 `� 2- - , . -�" - -- --���------ - ------------- � ---- ��!_.�� _��-�� --------------------- � ------- �,�� s � _�_. r_____.___:___�4_�-______________��_�_�-___________ � � i /�' L �.1_� ' � C.+ �n � L,c� C./J�-C' i C t_n --��?�,�.� ��__�e�✓�.�.......------ ---------- � l � � KJ ��!�,.e. � �, � ) ����� w� �_- Z�C�u;�--- - , ; � , . ' - �--- - ----- --- ---------- ----------------- --- - - - - --=--- ---- - � �. ���Ss �.�. D� � � . ✓ s��a _ J �p� �?��2� --S�S'..S---C�'__C�C��'/_5....- -�-�-��------�-f-�-`�--�-`�-�--�- I ��GC� �.S S �G' 7 7. c+d' -C �-F a--C C IC� . �� �"I Z, �' �ri- � � -*' ------------------ �-�� ---(�/--��vJiS_.���--- �.�7�L� �/`1 l `'� _ 7 _ _�, . - - � — -, - - - .-.. _ _ � , :, -..._ '� -- - , �t �`►� --------- ��_`_/Z.. .........--- -- -� ---�----�:- -------------- --- _ . _ �- � .., r . � �- n ,, i � _ . . � �--..� -� �l=9���.�S��s�.�•�•�7'a�'�i�wL��Ti.1�����iil�l�rrw�lt-_•� �*u��r� ��r.�I � �) ' � ` ' �� - .<, r, I � t a� . � I , � � � �. � _��.•� �_ ,�r �i �/' . , , �=? ' �-- �z� �� � -,�-------------- - ����'' �'Lt,��-1__.L_,� � Q , L�.,. �'s � . �� -------------- - �=-�---�- --'--�:�=-_C<<�= �� .�.� ��d W. C)�.�:;� i�� R���cz 3 �i The following people are in agreement with the Blue Bonnet Homeowners �-- / _ Group Letter of Protest of August 27, 2013: The following people are in agreement with the Blue Bonnet Homeowners � ��� Group Letter af Protest of August 27, 2013: Comment Letters in Opposition of the Twin Peaks & Oasis Road Annexation (ANX-1306-001) Tvesday, September 3, 2013 1. John Holly 2. Rick Amdahl 3. Keith Arnold 4. Dr. Lauri Larwood 5. Susan Parrish & Ron Isaacson Cynthia Ross From: John Holley <jholley26@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September Q2, 2013 6:50 PM To: David Bowen; Ed Honea; Herb Kai; Jon Post; Patti Comerford; Carol McGorray; Roxanne Ziegler, Cynthia Ross Subject: Twin Peaks and Dasis Road Annexation - OPPOSITION September 2, 2013 Mayor and Council Town of Marana Subject: Twin Peaks and Oasis Road Annexation Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed annexation and the proposed rezoning of the subject parceL The intent of the owner is to re-zone and either develop or sell this property at a profit at the expense of the surrounding community and our lifestyles. This is not a minor re-zoning. The developer will be asking for an increase from l O lots currently entitled under SR zoning to an excess of 90 lots. The parcel is surrounded by large lot development. The only exception is the Oasis Hills development that borders for several hundred feet along the southern border. The parcel is very small (+/- 36 acres) and cannot provide suitable buffering for such a steep density change. The small lot sizes are extremely inappropriate for the area. I understand that the Town wants to see development in the Twin Peaks corridor. I am willing to provide constructive input to the planning process and I have played a role in helping to improve communications between the developers, the Town and the area home owners. I am sure we will see development and certainly want a win-win for all involved. The Oasis Hilis development, that is currently under construction, is a problem and will be a detriment to our community now and in the future. It was approved with the Cascada Plan and under the radar of the homeowners in the area. Our neighbor now has six 6000 square foot lots right in front of their home with only a 20 foot buffer. It is an embarrassment to see this type of development. A visit by the council members to the Oasis Hills subdivision is encouraged by the writer. The subject re-zoning is attempting to continue the same poor practice into more visible areas. The subject parcel in not part of Cascada. It is a sea of rooftops right next to 33 acre home sites. It is ugly and entirely inappropriate. There is an established community of 3.3 acre large lot existing development in the area. This style of development evolved during the issues with the Pygmy Owl under Pima County jurisdiction.The existing development of large lot home sites was allowed to minimize impacts and that style has become the standard in the area. Just because the Pygmy Owl is de-listed does not change the fact that development has occurred with large lots and horse properties. This existing development must be respected as much or more so than the Pygmy OwL Many of the existing homes in the area are show pieces, well in excess of $1 million in value. Not to mention that many of the home structures are larger than the 6,000 square foot lots proposed. Even the more modest ones represent a significant portion of their owners life savings and a lot of sweat equity and pride. Myself and ALL of the neighbors (I have yet to hear of one who supports this} are very concerned that this re-zoning wilf SIGNfFICANTLY DE-VALUE their property. [ want to re-iterate that t am not anti-growth. I worked in the industry and with Marana in the development arena for many years in a previous career. It appears to me that this area may not be suitable or provide the economic returns required by the developer and stilf respect the existing homeowners. It may not work for a production builder. I would like to add that Town Staff has been very helpful and professional in handling my questions and fulfilling my reques#s. Respectfully Submitted, John A. and Melody F. Holley 5556 West Oasis Road Tucson, Arizona. 85742 (520) 468-8226 Jholfey2��maiLcom �= John Holley P.E. jholley26n,�mail.com (520) 468-8226 �Cynthia Ross From: Cynthia Ross Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 2:36 PM To: 'Rick amdaht` Cc: jholley26@gmail.com' Subject: RE: Objection to Annexation By Town of Marana Twin Peaks & Oasis Rd parcel Hi Rick, Thank yau for your letter. Unfortunately, it is not the Town's practice to read letters at public hearings. We will provide the letter, along with the other comment letters, to the Town Council members. The letters will be made a part of the permanent public record. If you want it read at the hearing I respectfully suggest that you have one of your neighbors read it. That is an allowed practice. Sincerely, Cynthia Ross From: Rick amdahl [mailto:rickamdahl@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 1:05 PM To: Cynthia Ross Cc: 7ohn Holley Subject: Objection to Annexation By Town of Marana Twin Peaks & Oasis Rd parcel Dear Sir or Madame, My Wife and I will not be able to attend your meeting, but I formally ask that you read into the minutes my letter below: My wife and I own the property at 5351 W Oasis Rd Tucson AZ, and wish to make known our thoughts and feelings regarding the above annexation and future development request. First of all, our families background is over 38 years ofreal estate sales: including building and land development. So, we are not anti development. However, we are proponents of development that is smart and considerate of a11 the parties it affects. Smart development enhances the future of the community. No developer, or governing body in charge of the public good, should put the surrounding owners, who are already heavily invested in the community with a large chunk of their net worth, at risk by the financial gains of the few through bad planning. One of the reasons we bought the property we did, was the homogenous nature of the area. The area is predominately made up of 3+ acre home sites, with a lot of apparent thought given to the impact on the environment and preservation of property values, along with mainta.ining the quality of life. That is why I'm curious why this is being seriously considered. To allow a large tract of land next to these home sites to be developed into 6,000 sq. ft. home sites in an area of predominately 130,000 +sq. ft. home sites seems totally inappropriate. Many of the existing homes and improvements are, or are almost as large as, the lots being considered. Other than the financial advantage to Pu1te Homes of being able to sell cheaper cost housing due to postage _ stamp size lots stripped of any natural beauty, why would anyone think this a better idea than what is already in place around it? I also suspect the current owner of the land is very excited about very small parcels for their own financial gain, as the value of that parcel would be impacted if it reflected larger, more consistent size home sites. But where does that Ieave the current residents of Marana who have already trusted in the wisdom and guidance of the gaveming agencies to protect their Iargest investrnent. Is it Marana's plan ta provide housing at the expense of the others already invested? Does it add or detract to have a sea of roofs jammed together for our community? If this is approved, it sets a bad precedent that Marana is unconcerned about long term gaals of quality of life, and its about the gain of a large corporation, or a few individuals at the expense of the many. Overall property values, my property value, wili be negatively impacted. Tax base will suffer if that impact is accurately reflected in taa� valuations. Why not maintain and increase the base and the values for all with a more intelligent design and approval for the use of that parcel instead of what maa�imizes the gross sales far the developer, and minimizes their cost. Land development is necessary for the betterment of a growing community. But the utilization of the land should always be to the highest and best use, not the use that just simply makes the most money but ignores the long term consequences. We have a11 seen once a plat is approved, that its easier to make a couple of zoning changes, or changes later that are even mare detrimenta.l. This parcel is a gateway off of Twin Peaks into my neighborhood. We all want it to be something we are proud of, not embarrassed of or have to apologize for. If the developer says that the economics don't support the subdivision for homogenous 3+ acre lots, I guess I would ask why. Is it only if we make them so small that the ultimate sales price is cheap enough they will sell. The truth is it may not support their economics at the cost per acre without dividing it up into stamp size lots, but then, maybe they shouldn't drive up the land valu�s to make that a necessity. The market will then reflect the true value of the land predicated upon its correct and smart use for all concerned. The approval of this annexation as requested in its current form, I believe , will be a decision that no one later will be proud of. The developers will be long gone, and the impact is irreversible. I am asking that the request be DENIED in its current form for the reasons given above. thank you for your consideration. Rick and Kate Amdahl Owners 5351 W Oasis Rd Tucson, AZ -Cynthia Ross From: Roxanne Ziegier Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 1:16 PM To: Cynthia Ross Subject: FW: Please help and vote no on Annexation af Twin Peaks and Oasis Cindy — here you go. See you tonight. Roxanne From: Keith Arnold [mailto:karnoldCa�theeiements.com] Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 11:17 AM To: Roxanne Ziegler Subject: Please help and vote no on Annexation of Twin Peaks and Oasis August 29, 2013 Dear Ms. Ziegler, Words can't describe the fear, anger and sense of betrayal we will feel if this Twin Peaks/Oasis Annexation and Development is approved. My family has lived at 5630 W. Oasis Rd for 6 years. Our property is contiguous with this land and proposed development. We moved to this home and land to get away from the track home lifestyle. I have worked my whole life to build a home/haven with room, views and nature to surround us. Over the last five years, we have seen our property value diminish by well over $100,000 and just now prices are starting to creep back up — and still we are underwater. I have been trying to refinance my home during this time to take advantage of lower rates. I still am not able to because of the negative equity. If this Annexation and Development goes through, we will have no hope of ever refinancing our home and eventually the bank will own it. I have worked hard for this lifestyle. I have been patient with the banks and this economy. I have not turned my back on my responsibility, despite hardship. But 1 will not stand for this development coming into our backyard and ruining completely our dream, our lifestyle and our home. You cannot pass this Annexation and Development. You cannot sell us out for profit/tax revenue, and disregard completely the neighbors and voters that have entrusted you. 1 would bet that if this proposition came to your backyard, you would stand united with us. Please, we ask you now, to stand united with us, and vote this Annexation/Development down and preserve the integrity this land, this neighborhood, and this life. Thank you for listening. With respect, Keith P. Arnold 5630 W. Oasis Rd Tucson, AZ 85742 520-488-7278 Keith P. Arnold Sr.VP of Clinical Outreach, Marketing and Strategic Development Cell: 520-488-7278 " Fax: 562-546-1280 � � �, ,�� � t " � r r This transmission is intended oniy for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disGosure under applicable law. Please do not disseminate or duplicate without authorization by sender. In addition, if you have received this message in error, please notify sender and delete al! copies. Thank you. �ynthia Ross From: larwood <larwood@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 3:49 PM To: Cynthia Ross Subject: misguided proposed annexation Dear Ms. Ross, Several of us have been stewing angrily about the proposed annexation that is apparently on the Marana Council docket for tonight's meeting. Specifically, you are proposing to annex a part of the county that is zoned for 3.3 acre lots. This region is being built on; there are several new homes currently under construction within a block of my house...all on 3.3 acres or more. We are all here BECAUSE of the current 3.3 acre zoning and lifestyle. We do not object to the town annexmg our area. But we strenuously object to the stated purpose of the annexation: to immediately change our area from low to high density. That completely trashes the lifestyle here. Moreover, there is substantial land close-by that is already a part of Marana and is not built on. Clearly, the intention of the builders is to maacimize the value of the high density development by placing it immediately adjacent to areas that are obviously of rnuch higher quality. The effect will be disastrous. Let me be specific and quote from the memo of tonight's meeting: The proposed annexation area is currently within the Town of Marana`s General Plan Planning Area. The adopted Land Use Plan for the Town of Marana designates this site as Low Density Residential (LDR). In the County, this property is currently zoned Suburban Ranch (SR), a residential zoning designation with a minimum lot size of 3.3 acres. The developer plans to process a rezoning of the property to Specific Plan (F) after the annexation to accommodate a smaller lot width dimension than is allowed under the R-b single family residential zoning designation. Our area is unique—that is why we have built expensive homes on large parcels to preserve both the desert vegetation and animal life and our own lifestyles within it. The area is valuable. If allowed, it will continue to be filled in...but it will be filled in with beauty and value and without destruction of environment or habitat. We strongly oppose the high density proposal and trust that Marana will insist on maintaining sanity in developing our beautiful area and ensuring that it is not quickly destroyed simply at the whim of rapacious builders. Sincerely, Dr. Laurie Larwood Cynthia Ross From: Roxanne Ziegfer Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2Q13 5:01 PM To: Cynthia Ross Subjec#: FW: Annexation of property on northeast corner of Twin Peaks and Oasis Roads Cindy Below is another letter I received today. Roxanne From: Susan Parrish [mailto:parrish6@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 4:52 PM To: Roxanne Ziegler Subject: Annexation of property on northeast corner of Twin Peaks and Oasis Roads September 3, 2013 Dear Mayor and Town Council: Recently, I attended a meeting, where officials from different departments of the Town government presented Marana's "Strategic Vision." Much was said about preserving the character and beauty of the Sonoran desert habitat. At the same time, the cast of the Twin Peaks Expressway—one-hundred-fourteen million dollars—was mentioned. The implication was clear—Marana invested a lot of money in the area and the Town is eager to consider annexation of more land. The Marana Mayor and Town Council will determine the details of Marana's Strategic Vision, and we know who resides in the details so we have to be vigilant. Econorrtics must be considered in any decision. The question of whether to annex the 36 plus acres on the northeast corner of Twin Peaks Road and Oasis Road has financial implications for the owners of the 36 plus acres and the homeowners in the vicinity—the Blue Bonnet Homeowners Group—especially the homeowners on properties bordering this large plot. We who live in the area have invested large sums in our homes—in some cases, life savings. For the homeowners in the area it's abvut property values—money—but iYs also about lifestyle: We have invested our money for the privilege of living among rattlesnakes, gila monsters, bobcats, coyotes, jackrabbits, cotton#ails, hawks, quail, dove, and all the natura( vegetation. Some of my neighbors have seen mountain lions and jaguars, although I haven't. If the section of land at issue is annexed and rezoned, the existing homeowners will be big losers in terms of property values and quality of life. High-density development on the 36 plus acres in our neighborhood�oing from 3.3 acres to lot sizes of around six- thousand'square feet—will change the character of our area. The Northwest has become a magnet. Some might say more people should be able to enjoy what current residents now experience, and that we who live here are selfish. To describe those who want to preserve the current zoning as selfish is upside-down thinking. We aren't the ones who want to slice and dice the property for profit. Does the council want to promote densification—a bureaucratic word if there ever was one—at the expense of the current residents and the beauty of the area? Once this area is chapped and covered with "boxes of ticky tacky," it wilP be only a memory. Please vote NO on annexation now and rezoning in the future. Best regards, Susan Parrish and Ron Isaacson 5542 West Oasis Road