Tucson Planning and Development services
Planning and Development Services
201 N. Stone Ave.
Tucson, AZ 85701
201 N. Stone Ave.
Tucson, AZ 85701
On the issue of rezoning to allow 6 story buildings
August 18, 2024 - Jefferson Park position on proposed zoning for 6 story building in R-1
see Bursuck response below
see Bursuck response below
August 18, 2024
Daniel Bursuck, Planning Administrator
Planning and Development Services
201 N. Stone Ave.
Tucson, Arizona 85701
Dear Mr. Bursuck:
The Jefferson Park Neighborhood Association board and neighbors have recently become aware of the proposal by Planning and Development to introduce a zoning regulation allowing six-story apartments to be built in residential areas that border collector and arterial streets. We also understand that the concept of a “block” in this case encompasses not just one side of a street but all four sides of a block, thus creating the possibility of the demolition of about 25+ homes in any given area.
The proposal identifies all arterial and collector streets as potential candidates for this zoning, regardless of an area’s designation. Jefferson Park is a National Register Historic District and a Neighborhood Preservation Zone. It is surrounded by arterial streets: Campbell, Grant, and Euclid. Additionally, it includes two collector streets - Mountain Ave. and Park Ave.
Maintaining historic status is of critical importance to enhance and preserve the rich history and culture of Tucson. The areas surrounding the U of A, and the designated “Gateway” corridor must maintain their signature infrastructure. Monolithic high rises have no place in such an environment and would cause irreparable harm to the quality of life, the historic neighborhoods, and the viewshed in these areas.
The proposed zoning change would be devastating to historic neighborhoods. First and foremost, it would jeopardize the historic status, which is based on a percentage of qualifying historic homes. Every contributing home that falls changes the ratio. Jefferson Park has already suffered the loss of contributing properties via the Grant Road widening and the Banner Hospital expansion. Jefferson Park cannot endure any more encroachments.
City staff often cites an AARP study advocating ADU’s for seniors. Certainly, AARP does not intentionally promote the displacement of seniors aging in place, but that would be the inevitable result of the property tax increase triggered by this overly broad zoning policy change. This mass rezoning approach makes a mockery of the oft-repeated mantra that the city seeks to modify only the edges of neighborhoods, while leaving the interior intact.
It is reckless for PDSD to pursue the wholesale approach of “whole block” redevelopment of properties along corridors, especially collector streets. Unintended consequences occur when a proposal is too broad, and all the possible outcomes have not been carefully considered. It would be far more prudent to recommend to Mayor and Council to consider a much more targeted spot rezoning of vacant lots and distressed commercial properties along arterials only, not along collector streets.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
The Jefferson Park Neighborhood Association
Cc: Kevin Dahl, Ward III, CJ Boyd, Ward III
Mike Attwood, North University
Diane Lett, Feldman’s
Alice Roe, Blenman Elm
Margaret Kish, Catalina Vista
Carver Struve, Principal Planner [email protected]
Rebecca Ruopp, Principal Planner [email protected]
Daniel Bursuck, Planning Administrator
Planning and Development Services
201 N. Stone Ave.
Tucson, Arizona 85701
Dear Mr. Bursuck:
The Jefferson Park Neighborhood Association board and neighbors have recently become aware of the proposal by Planning and Development to introduce a zoning regulation allowing six-story apartments to be built in residential areas that border collector and arterial streets. We also understand that the concept of a “block” in this case encompasses not just one side of a street but all four sides of a block, thus creating the possibility of the demolition of about 25+ homes in any given area.
The proposal identifies all arterial and collector streets as potential candidates for this zoning, regardless of an area’s designation. Jefferson Park is a National Register Historic District and a Neighborhood Preservation Zone. It is surrounded by arterial streets: Campbell, Grant, and Euclid. Additionally, it includes two collector streets - Mountain Ave. and Park Ave.
Maintaining historic status is of critical importance to enhance and preserve the rich history and culture of Tucson. The areas surrounding the U of A, and the designated “Gateway” corridor must maintain their signature infrastructure. Monolithic high rises have no place in such an environment and would cause irreparable harm to the quality of life, the historic neighborhoods, and the viewshed in these areas.
The proposed zoning change would be devastating to historic neighborhoods. First and foremost, it would jeopardize the historic status, which is based on a percentage of qualifying historic homes. Every contributing home that falls changes the ratio. Jefferson Park has already suffered the loss of contributing properties via the Grant Road widening and the Banner Hospital expansion. Jefferson Park cannot endure any more encroachments.
City staff often cites an AARP study advocating ADU’s for seniors. Certainly, AARP does not intentionally promote the displacement of seniors aging in place, but that would be the inevitable result of the property tax increase triggered by this overly broad zoning policy change. This mass rezoning approach makes a mockery of the oft-repeated mantra that the city seeks to modify only the edges of neighborhoods, while leaving the interior intact.
It is reckless for PDSD to pursue the wholesale approach of “whole block” redevelopment of properties along corridors, especially collector streets. Unintended consequences occur when a proposal is too broad, and all the possible outcomes have not been carefully considered. It would be far more prudent to recommend to Mayor and Council to consider a much more targeted spot rezoning of vacant lots and distressed commercial properties along arterials only, not along collector streets.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
The Jefferson Park Neighborhood Association
Cc: Kevin Dahl, Ward III, CJ Boyd, Ward III
Mike Attwood, North University
Diane Lett, Feldman’s
Alice Roe, Blenman Elm
Margaret Kish, Catalina Vista
Carver Struve, Principal Planner [email protected]
Rebecca Ruopp, Principal Planner [email protected]
August 19, 2024 - PDSD, Bursuck response to 8/18 letter
Good afternoon, Joan.
I understand your concerns and appreciate your feedback. I would like to clarify a few things. First, we are still developing the tool based on the feedback we are receiving, such as your letter. That input will be utilized to create a proposal that we will provide in September for further feedback.
Second, I do also want to make sure it is clear that the primary intent of this tool is to apply to parcels that already have commercial, office, or high-density residential zoning, are adjacent to corridors (or have frontage), and are near transit. We do not intend for this to be carte-blanch applied to “whole blocks” or to make significant changes to residential areas. The tool also isn’t intended to rezone large portions of the city, it looks to modify existing zoning. So, what would potentially be allowed in R-2 would be significantly different in scale from what would be allowed in C-2. The changes we are considering for a multi-family residential zone such as R-2 would be based on the direction from the Mayor and Council to look at code changes to support tiny home development or other smaller-scale housing types like townhomes, co-housing, or other missing middle housing.
Third, while we have not finalized the specifics, we do not intend for these tools to apply universally to all zones or areas. The existing zoning would be maintained, and the tool would modify standards based on the existing zone. We are looking at modifications for housing and mixed-use development that allow for some flexibility depending on the existing zoning, related to building heights (1-2 stories), reduced parking, reduced setbacks, etc. In order to utilize this zoning flexibility, design features that promote pedestrian-oriented form, walkability, increased shade, and climate-adapted development would be required.
Finally, we want to point out that we do not intend for the corridor redevelopment tools to supersede overlays (NPZ or HPZ) or apply where there are already optional overlays, such as the IID or Sunshine Mile UOD, etc. So, in Jefferson Park’s case (or Rincon Heights or Feldman’s), the NPZ standards and review process would still remain in place.
I hope this helps to clarify a few things and please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thank you for taking the time to reach out and work with us on finding a solution to housing affordability. We look forward to getting your input as we move forward
Thank you,
Dan Bursuck, AICP
Planning Administrator
Planning and Development Services | City of Tucson
d[email protected]
Phone (call or text): 520.965.4593
I understand your concerns and appreciate your feedback. I would like to clarify a few things. First, we are still developing the tool based on the feedback we are receiving, such as your letter. That input will be utilized to create a proposal that we will provide in September for further feedback.
Second, I do also want to make sure it is clear that the primary intent of this tool is to apply to parcels that already have commercial, office, or high-density residential zoning, are adjacent to corridors (or have frontage), and are near transit. We do not intend for this to be carte-blanch applied to “whole blocks” or to make significant changes to residential areas. The tool also isn’t intended to rezone large portions of the city, it looks to modify existing zoning. So, what would potentially be allowed in R-2 would be significantly different in scale from what would be allowed in C-2. The changes we are considering for a multi-family residential zone such as R-2 would be based on the direction from the Mayor and Council to look at code changes to support tiny home development or other smaller-scale housing types like townhomes, co-housing, or other missing middle housing.
Third, while we have not finalized the specifics, we do not intend for these tools to apply universally to all zones or areas. The existing zoning would be maintained, and the tool would modify standards based on the existing zone. We are looking at modifications for housing and mixed-use development that allow for some flexibility depending on the existing zoning, related to building heights (1-2 stories), reduced parking, reduced setbacks, etc. In order to utilize this zoning flexibility, design features that promote pedestrian-oriented form, walkability, increased shade, and climate-adapted development would be required.
Finally, we want to point out that we do not intend for the corridor redevelopment tools to supersede overlays (NPZ or HPZ) or apply where there are already optional overlays, such as the IID or Sunshine Mile UOD, etc. So, in Jefferson Park’s case (or Rincon Heights or Feldman’s), the NPZ standards and review process would still remain in place.
I hope this helps to clarify a few things and please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thank you for taking the time to reach out and work with us on finding a solution to housing affordability. We look forward to getting your input as we move forward
Thank you,
Dan Bursuck, AICP
Planning Administrator
Planning and Development Services | City of Tucson
d[email protected]
Phone (call or text): 520.965.4593
Diana Lett, Feldman's neighborhood, response to Bursuck's letter 8/21
CCRC folks,
Dan Bursuck, Planning Administrator with the city, has replied to my letter and a similar letter from Jefferson Park Neighborhood Association. Dan states that, "We do not intend for this to be carte-blanche applied to “whole blocks” or to make significant changes to residential areas." He also says, "the corridor redevelopment tools (will not) supersede overlays (NPZ or HPZ) or apply where there are already optional overlays, such as the IID or Sunshine Mile UOD, etc." That's good to hear, but it's radically different from what was presented in the August 6 public meeting on the corridor rezoning. I would like to see language protecting our historic zones and National Register Districts in the ordinance.
Diana
Dan Bursuck, Planning Administrator with the city, has replied to my letter and a similar letter from Jefferson Park Neighborhood Association. Dan states that, "We do not intend for this to be carte-blanche applied to “whole blocks” or to make significant changes to residential areas." He also says, "the corridor redevelopment tools (will not) supersede overlays (NPZ or HPZ) or apply where there are already optional overlays, such as the IID or Sunshine Mile UOD, etc." That's good to hear, but it's radically different from what was presented in the August 6 public meeting on the corridor rezoning. I would like to see language protecting our historic zones and National Register Districts in the ordinance.
Diana
Lois Pawlic, Garden District response to Bursuck's letter 8/19
Good morning Dan.
I read through your email response to Jefferson Park neighborhood. We do respect your response, but it is hard to trust that the City is really going to come up with a code change that is suitable to all of our inner city neighborhoods. We’ve seen what appear to be ‘harmless’ code changes by the City, which have turned out to be disasters for us. They all seem to be rushed through the process, with what turns out to be minimal input from the entire City of 800K people and we’ve noticed that input from developers and architects seems to be considered more than the residents. I think what would help us understand what your mission is, is to see what the M&C has told you they want from you with this project. Where can we see the memo in writing to PDSD about modifying the code or where can we see the M&C meeting video where they are stating what they were wanting PDSD to ‘go off’ and research so whatever codes need to be changed, can be changed?
Garden District has been abused in the past by code changes that someone at the City have made ‘on our behalf’, which have put us in the disastrous position our entire area is in from Pima St to Speedway and Alvernon to Swan. Density here has increased crime and it is not safer, as the recent shooting of 4 people at the Sprouts parking lot and on Fairmount St. on Speedway and Swan demonstrates.People contact the board on a regular basis to complain about the crime and there is basically nothing we can really tell them, except that we are working with TPD.
When we hear the City is going to increase density in our already dense, troubled neighborhoods,we know crime will get even worse here. Part of the issue can be directly attributed to the high number of rentals – approximately 90%. Since the City doesn’t enforce the codes already that require a local fiduciary for rentals, they tie our hands with even being able to attempt to work with rental property owners. And the bigger the complex, the harder it is. Those NEVER work with us and aren’t interested. We have one right in the heart here, at Pima & Columbus that isn’t the least bit interested in working with us and it constantly changes owners and management companies making it impossible to build a relationship. it’s boils down to profit for them and there is no profit working with neighborhoods.
The City is maybe attempting to try to solve a housing issue, but they are creatingfar more issues by allowing larger complexes. Investors are corporate entities that almost exclusively have out of town owners. Until Tucson has a solution to working with these entities, they should not be moving ahead with mass density. Most larger complexes use large national management firms and when we try to contact them, are stopped dead in our tracks because their automated phone systems do not allow us to talk to anyone if you don’t have a renter number. And don’t get me started on Code Enforcement in Tucson. They are grossly understaffed and it takes them just as long or longer to get a response, all on taxpayer’s money. Most issues go unreported because we are all volunteers expected to ‘turn in’ these businesses for the codes they don’t meet or the garbage their complexes allow to get onto our streets. I’d guess that 95% of issues go unreported because we cannot police an entire square mile. It’s something the City should be doing.
In summary, please tell us where we can hear or see the information that the M&C has given PDSD that has created this task for PDSD and that justify the hiring of a consultant that taxpayers are also paying for. If you don’t have this information, please pass my request along to your management so they can provide the information. And please add this email from me into the file as official feedback for this project from Garden District.
Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Lois Pawlak President Garden District
I read through your email response to Jefferson Park neighborhood. We do respect your response, but it is hard to trust that the City is really going to come up with a code change that is suitable to all of our inner city neighborhoods. We’ve seen what appear to be ‘harmless’ code changes by the City, which have turned out to be disasters for us. They all seem to be rushed through the process, with what turns out to be minimal input from the entire City of 800K people and we’ve noticed that input from developers and architects seems to be considered more than the residents. I think what would help us understand what your mission is, is to see what the M&C has told you they want from you with this project. Where can we see the memo in writing to PDSD about modifying the code or where can we see the M&C meeting video where they are stating what they were wanting PDSD to ‘go off’ and research so whatever codes need to be changed, can be changed?
Garden District has been abused in the past by code changes that someone at the City have made ‘on our behalf’, which have put us in the disastrous position our entire area is in from Pima St to Speedway and Alvernon to Swan. Density here has increased crime and it is not safer, as the recent shooting of 4 people at the Sprouts parking lot and on Fairmount St. on Speedway and Swan demonstrates.People contact the board on a regular basis to complain about the crime and there is basically nothing we can really tell them, except that we are working with TPD.
When we hear the City is going to increase density in our already dense, troubled neighborhoods,we know crime will get even worse here. Part of the issue can be directly attributed to the high number of rentals – approximately 90%. Since the City doesn’t enforce the codes already that require a local fiduciary for rentals, they tie our hands with even being able to attempt to work with rental property owners. And the bigger the complex, the harder it is. Those NEVER work with us and aren’t interested. We have one right in the heart here, at Pima & Columbus that isn’t the least bit interested in working with us and it constantly changes owners and management companies making it impossible to build a relationship. it’s boils down to profit for them and there is no profit working with neighborhoods.
The City is maybe attempting to try to solve a housing issue, but they are creatingfar more issues by allowing larger complexes. Investors are corporate entities that almost exclusively have out of town owners. Until Tucson has a solution to working with these entities, they should not be moving ahead with mass density. Most larger complexes use large national management firms and when we try to contact them, are stopped dead in our tracks because their automated phone systems do not allow us to talk to anyone if you don’t have a renter number. And don’t get me started on Code Enforcement in Tucson. They are grossly understaffed and it takes them just as long or longer to get a response, all on taxpayer’s money. Most issues go unreported because we are all volunteers expected to ‘turn in’ these businesses for the codes they don’t meet or the garbage their complexes allow to get onto our streets. I’d guess that 95% of issues go unreported because we cannot police an entire square mile. It’s something the City should be doing.
In summary, please tell us where we can hear or see the information that the M&C has given PDSD that has created this task for PDSD and that justify the hiring of a consultant that taxpayers are also paying for. If you don’t have this information, please pass my request along to your management so they can provide the information. And please add this email from me into the file as official feedback for this project from Garden District.
Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Lois Pawlak President Garden District