2008Appeal to P&Z Richter

The proposed Cielo Madera Conservation Subdivision (the Subdivision) consists of 774.4 acres of land, carved out of Pima County Assessor tax parcels 304-45-0150, 304-45-0210. (See Exhibit 1) Both tax parcels are owned by the Kettenbach family (Kettenbach). On January 22, 2008, PimaCounty approved a tentative plat sketch plan for the Subdivision (Exhibit 2), clearing the way for submittal of a tentative plat that complies with the approved sketch plan.

Pima County Code Sec. 18.09.100.B states as follows:

“Any dispute about the applicability of these [conservation subdivision] standards shall be reviewed at a public hearing before the planning and zoning commission.”

Pursuant to this section, FOMC hereby requests a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission to appeal the determination by the Planning Director that the Cielo Madera conservation subdivision meets all the required standards of the Conservation Subdivision Ordinance (CSO). As set forth in this appeal, the approved CSO tentative plat sketch plan does not meet numerous standards required by the CSO.

ROADWAYS

New Roadway and Driveway

The approved CSO sketch plan shows a new 50-foot wide roadway to be created by the plat, which cuts directly through the Primary Conservation Areas at the northern edge of the parcel. This new roadway is to be superimposed, for the most part, over the alignment of a narrow ranch trail through the Kettenbach property. This overly wide new roadway, described as a “utility access road,” is obviously being created to provide access to the adjacent portions of the Kettenbach property that are purposely being excluded from this plat.

The approved CSO sketch plan also shows a new 20-foot driveway leading to an out-parcel at the southern boundary of the Kettenbach property. The out-parcel does not currently exist, but will be created with the recordation of a final plat for the Subdivision. Although the sketch plan shows an Assessor parcel number for this out-parcel, the lot is not shown on the Pima County Assessor records as a separate parcel. The Assessor parcel number shown on the sketch plan is for a property not owned by Kettenbach, and located to the south of the Kettenbach property.

The NCA should not be degraded from the outset by new roadways serving future development parcels to the east and to the south. There is no provision in the CSO to permit creation of these new roadways. The CSO infrastructure standards, Section 18.09.100.G.3, provides that “Existing ingress and egress easements within the subdivision that do not serve lots within the subdivision but only serve parcels outside the subdivision may remain as part of a subdivision lot.” However, neither the existing ranch trail nor the proposed 20-foot driveway to the southern out-parcel are “existing ingress and egress easements” that would be permitted to remain under this CSO provision. The entire property is currently owned by the same owner, and property law is quite clear that an easement granted to oneself is a legal nullity, and does not exist. These easements will only come into existence when a final plat is recorded for the Subdivision.

Approval of a new 50-foot wide roadway that bisects the primary and secondary conservation areas and a 20-foot wide driveway though the middle of the Conservation area is not in compliance with the following three standards:

Section 18.09.100.F.2.d, which states that: ”To the fullest extent possible, improvements shall be sited to minimize disturbance in conservation natural areas and of the primary and secondary conservation features within them.”

Section 18.09.100.F2.2.e, which states that: ”The design of the development area shall be done so that the grading has the least impact on primary conservation features.”

Sec. 18.09.100F.2.g, which states that “Within washes that are primary or secondary conservation features, only that grading for roadways and utilities that is necessary to provide access to approved development areas is permitted.

The widening of the existing ranch road to 50 feet considerably increases the area of wash disturbance, and the 20-foot wide driveway cuts a long swath through hundreds of feet of secondary conservation features. In order to minimize disturbance to “the fullest extent possible” these two roads should be completely eliminated, or at a minimum, significantly reduced in width to minimize their impact on the Conservation Area.

OTHER EXITING RANCH ROADS IN THE CONSERVATION AREA.

The existing ranch road that extends south through the large central wash should be revegetated and included as preserved natural area. If, as the engineer for the Subdivision states, the road is a necessary utility access easement, it should be so labeled and restricted to its current existing width.

WILDLIFE MIGRATION

The new 50-foot wide roadway will effectively prevent north-south migration of wildlife across the major conservation area within the Subdivision, in direct violation of Sec. 18.09.100.G.1, which states: “Conservation subdivisions … shall emphasize the protection of wildlife corridors and minimization of traffic killings of wildlife.”

Additionally, the density and configuration of the lots within the development area will hinder, if not impede, wildlife migration in an east-west direction. The Subdivision should be required to provide for open space areas of a width and length sufficient to accommodate east-west wildlife migration. If this open space can only be provided by reducing the number of units in the development area, Section 18.09.100.F.1 specifically permits the planning official to require, where practicable, greater than fifty percent conservation open space areas where the “best scientific information . . . indicates that a higher percentage of conservation natural area or conservation easement is required ….”

UNDESIGNATED AREAS COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY CONSERVATION AREA.

The CSO sketch plan also contains areas entirely within the conservation areas that are not designated as a lot or NCA. Why have these areas not been designated as conservation areas? Both areas are shown as accessible by a road or a driveway, but their purpose is not given. Is there an intent to use them, or to use develop them in some manner at a later date? Leaving them undesignated leaves open the future argument that they are building lots. All of the undesignated areas within the conservation areas should be designated CNA and protected from development by the required conservation easement.

Please set this appeal for hearing at the next scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration of the issues raised herein.

Thank you.

Katharina Richter

Attorney for Appellant,

Friends of MaderaCanyon

Return to Defenders Home Page