Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPackets - Council Packets (6) *AMENDED (1/15/16, 3:00 PM) AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION January 20, 2016 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS COUNCIL REPORTS • Spotlight on Youth DEPARTMENT REPORTS The Mayor and Council may consider and/or take action on the items listed below: ORDER OF BUSINESS: MAYOR WILL REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE MEETING CALL TO AUDIENCE – At this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Mayor and Town Council on any issue not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, individual Council Members may ask Town Staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers. However, the Mayor and Council may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during “Call to Audience.” In order to speak during “Call to Audience” please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. PRESENTATIONS 1. Recognition of Outgoing Board and Commission Members CONSENT AGENDA (Consideration and/or possible action) A. Minutes - January 6, 2016 B. Request for approval of the Stone Canyon Casitas Final Plat, located near the northern terminus of Hohokam Village Place in the Stone Canyon community C. Request for approval of the Bailey’s Desert Sky Final Plat located north of Desert Sky Road, approximately ¼ mile west of Oracle Road D. Resolution No. (R)16-03, amending the Right-of-Way License Agreement between the Town D. Resolution No. (R)16-03, amending the Right-of-Way License Agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and Zayo Group, LLC to allow telecommunication facilities within the Town's rights-of-way E. *Appointments to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) REGULAR AGENDA 1. RESOLUTION NO. (R)16-04, APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND THE GOLDER RANCH FIRE DISTRICT (GRFD) FOR THE USE OF THE EMPLOYEE HEALTH CLINIC BY GRFD EMPLOYEES AND DEPENDENTS PARTICIPATING IN A GRFD HEALTHCARE PLAN 2. PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF AN OVERHEAD CABLE LINE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF INA ROAD BETWEEN PASEO DEL NORTE AND ORACLE ROAD 3.AMENDING SECTION 22.15 AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE REGARDING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS a. RESOLUTION NO. (R)16-05, DECLARING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.15 AND OTHER RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED (OVZCR) RELATING TO NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, PROVIDED AS EXHIBIT "A" WITHIN THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD b. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)16-02, AMENDING SECTION 22.15 AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE REGARDING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS 4. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING A VETERANS AND FIRST RESPONDERS MEMORIAL PARK 5. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY USE OF A-FRAME SIGNS AND OUTDOOR DISPLAYS UNTIL FEBRUARY 6, 2017 6. RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 2, 2015 DIRECTION PROVIDED TO STAFF REGARDING POTENTIAL ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS LIMITING SIGN LIGHTING 7. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF THE CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECK BOX FROM THE TOWN'S JOB APPLICATION FORM 8. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO AMEND THE SIGN CODE REGARDING WINDOW SIGNS FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (The Council may bring forth general topics for future meeting agendas. Council may not discuss, deliberate or take any action on the topics presented pursuant to ARS 38-431.02H) CALL TO AUDIENCE – At this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Mayor and CALL TO AUDIENCE – At this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Mayor and Town Council on any issue not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, individual Council Members may ask Town Staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers. However, the Mayor and Council may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during “Call to Audience.” In order to speak during “Call to Audience” please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. ADJOURNMENT POSTED: 1/13/16 at 5:00 p.m. by mrs AMENDED AGENDA POSTED: 1/15/16 at 5:00 p.m. by ms When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the Council meeting in the office of the Town Clerk between the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00p.m. The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk’s Office at least five days prior to the Council meeting at 229-4700. INSTRUCTIONS TO SPEAKERS Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted public hearing. However, those items not listed as a public hearing are for consideration and action by the Town Council during the course of their business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. If you wish to address the Town Council on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete a speaker card located on the Agenda table at the back of the room and give it to the Town Clerk. Please indicate on the speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on, or if you wish to speak during “Call to Audience”, please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. Please step forward to the podium when the Mayor announces the item(s) on the agenda which you are interested in addressing. 1. For the record, please state your name and whether or not you are a Town resident. 2. Speak only on the issue currently being discussed by Council. Please organize your speech, you will only be allowed to address the Council once regarding the topic being discussed. 3. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. 4. During “Call to Audience” you may address the Council on any issue you wish. 5. Any member of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present. Thank you for your cooperation. Town Council Regular Session Item # 1. Meeting Date:01/20/2016 Recognition of Outgoing Board and Commission Members Information Subject Recognition of Outgoing Board and Commission Members Summary Board of Adjustment Bill Adler January 2012 - December 2015 Historic Preservation Commission Ellen Guyer March 2010 - December 2015 Dean Strandskov June 2011 - December 2015 Connie Trail April 2013 - December 2015 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Sue Bishop June 2011 - December 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Frank Pitts January 2014 - December 2015 William Rodman January 2012 - December 2015 Water Utility Commission Richard Davis October 2007 - November 2015 Richard Reynolds July 2009 - December 2015 Town Council Regular Session Item # A. Meeting Date:01/20/2016 Requested by: Julie Bower Submitted By:Mike Standish, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office Information SUBJECT: Minutes - January 6, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve, (approve with the following changes) the January 6, 2016 minutes. Attachments 1/6/16 Draft Minutes 1/6/16 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 1 MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION January 6, 2016 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hiremath called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT:Satish Hiremath, Mayor Lou Waters, Vice Mayor Brendan Burns, Councilmember Bill Garner, Councilmember Joe Hornat, Councilmember Mary Snider, Councilmember Mike Zinkin, Councilmember *EXECUTIVE SESSION - Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) for the purposes of discussion or consultation for legal advice with the attorneys for the public body regarding existing contracts and obligations with HSL for public facilities MOTION:A motion was made by Vice Mayor Waters and seconded by Councilmember Zinkin to go into Executive Session at 5:01 p.m. pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) for the purposes of discussion or consultation for legal advice with the attorneys for the public body regarding existing contracts and obligations with HSL for public facilities. MOTION carried, 7-0. Mayor Hiremath said the following staff members would join Council in Executive Session: Town Manager Greg Caton, Town Attorneys Susan Goodwin and Gary Verburg, Legal Services Director Tobin Sidles and Town Clerk Julie Bower. REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hiremath called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL 1/6/16 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 2 PRESENT:Satish Hiremath, Mayor Lou Waters, Vice Mayor Brendan Burns, Councilmember Bill Garner, Councilmember Joe Hornat, Councilmember Mary Snider, Councilmember Mike Zinkin, Councilmember PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Hiremath led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Communications Administrator Misti Nowak announced the upcoming Town meetings and events. COUNCIL REPORTS Vice Mayor Waters attended a New Year’s event at the Oro Valley Community Center and said it was very well attended. The Overlook restaurant at the Community Center would soon be offering French cuisine and other cultural dishes. DEPARTMENT REPORTS No reports were received. ORDER OF BUSINESS Mayor Hiremath said the agenda would stand as posted. CALL TO AUDIENCE The new Mountain Vista Fire District Fire Chief, Cheryl Horvath, introduced herself and said she was looking forward to working with the Town. Sanda Schuldmann, volunteer for Compassion & Choices, spoke about the mission of Compassion & Choices which was a leading nonprofit organization working to improve care and expand choice at the end-of-life and urged the Mayor and Council to consider adopting a resolution in support of end of life options. Oro Valley resident Geri Ottoboni thanked everyone who voted against the Pima County bonds and spoke about the difference in property tax rates between Pima and Maricopa Counties. 1/6/16 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 3 PRESENTATIONS 1.Presentation - Youth Art Program by the Arts and Culture Ambassadors Arts and Culture Ambassadors Dick Eggerding and Sasha Case, presented the youth artwork on display in the Council Chambers from the following schools: Pusch Ridge Christian Academy, Ironwood Ridge High School, Immaculate Heart High School and Canyon Del Oro High School. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Zinkin requested to remove items (B) and (C) from the Consent Agenda for discussion. A.Minutes - December 2, 2015 D.Reappointment to the Tucson-Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee E.Resolution No. (R)16-01, approving the Town's annual Legislative Agenda, protocols guiding the Town’s priorities for the upcoming legislative session and any lobbying activities MOTION:A motion was made by Councilmember Garner and seconded by Councilmember Snider to approve Consent Agenda items (A) and (D)-(E). MOTION carried, 7-0. B.Fiscal Year 2015/16 Financial Update through October 2015 C.Fiscal Year 2015/16 Financial Update through November 2015 Councilmember Zinkin inquired about the Fiscal Year 2015/16 Financial Updates through October and November, 2015 and discussed his concerns regarding sales tax revenues and Community Center and Golf Fund revenues. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the Fiscal Year 2015/16 Financial Updates through October and November, 2015. MOTION:A motion was made by Councilmember Snider and seconded by Vice Mayor Waters to approve Consent Agenda items (B) and (C). MOTION carried, 7-0. 1/6/16 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 4 REGULAR AGENDA 1.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION ON THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WITH TOHONO CHUL PARK TO COMPLETE PHASE 1 OF THE 420-SEATED EVENT PAVILION Economic Development Manager Amanda Jacobs presented item #1. Discussion ensued amongst Council, staff and Dr. Christine Conte, Executive Director for Tohono Chul Park, regarding Phase 1 of the 420-seated event pavilion. MOTION:A motion was made by Vice Mayor Waters and seconded by Councilmember Snider to approve the public-private partnership with Tohono Chul Park to complete Phase 1 with the purpose to design a 420-seated event pavilion. Councilmember Zinkin requested an amendment to the motion to stipulate that Town waived permitting fees not exceed $7,800. Vice Mayor Waters and Councilmember Snider agreed to the amendment. MOTION AS AMENDED:A motion was made by Vice Mayor Waters and seconded by Councilmember Snider to approve the public-private partnership with Tohono Chul Park to complete Phase 1 with the purpose to design a 420-seated event pavilion with the stipulation not to exceed the amount of $7,800 in Town waived permitting fees. MOTION carried, 7-0. 2.PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION NO. (R)16-02, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING INCREASES IN WATER RATES, FEES AND CHARGES FOR THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Water Utility Administrator Shirley Kiel presented item #2 and outlined the following: -Mayor & Council Water Policies -Water Rates Analysis -Revenue Projections - Water Use Trends -Cost Increases -Preferred Financial Scenario -Water Rate Comparison -Customer Impacts -Proposed Changes to Service Fees -Schedule -Recommendations Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing. 1/6/16 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 5 No comments were received. Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the proposed increases in water rates, fees and charges for the Town of Oro Valley Water Utility. MOTION:A motion was made by Councilmember Snider and seconded by Vice Mayor Waters to approve Resolution No. (R)16-02, authorizing and approving increases in water rates, fees and charges for the Town of Oro Valley Water Utility. MOTION carried, 7-0. 3.PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)16-01, REZONING AN EXISTING 26.3 ACRE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE AND ORACLE ROAD FROM R1-144 TO VERDE CATALINA TOWNHOMES PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) Senior Planner Rosevelt Arellano presented item #3 and outlined the following: -Purpose -Large Lot Zoning Versus Townhome Zoning -Timeline -PAD Development Standards -General Plan Conformance -Public Participation -Summary Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the proposed rezoning request. Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing. No comments were received. Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing. MOTION:A motion was made by Councilmember Snider and seconded by Councilmember Zinkin to approve Ordinance No. (O)16-01, rezoning the Verde Catalina Townhomes subdivision, from R1-144 to Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development, based on the findings that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan and will resolve a long standing zoning issue. MOTION carried, 7-0. 4.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING A 1/6/16 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 6 MEMORIAL FOR BILL ADLER Mayor Hiremath presented item #4 and discussion ensued amongst Council regarding a memorial for Bill Adler. MOTION:A motion was made by Councilmember Snider and seconded by Mayor Hiremath to direct the Town Manager and staff to accept and compile memorial suggestions and disseminate the list of suggestions to the Town Council at which time a future meeting would be set to discuss and choose a memorial option. MOTION carried, 7-0. Mayor Hiremath recessed the meeting at 7:42 p.m. Mayor Hiremath resumed the meeting at 7:51 p.m. 5.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO DEVELOP EQUINE THERAPY AT STEAM PUMP RANCH TO INCLUDE PARTNERING WITH NON- PROFITS AND 501(C)(3) ORGANIZATIONS Councilmember Burns presented item #5 and discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the feasibility of developing an equine therapy program at Steam Pump Ranch. No direction was given to staff regarding developing an equine therapy program at Steam Pump Ranch. 6.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING PARTNERING WITH HOST COMPLIANCE LLC TO ASSIST WITH IDENTIFYING PRIVATELY-OWNED, SHORT-TERM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO MONITOR AND ENFORCE PERMITTING AND LODGING TAX PAYMENT COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS Councilmember Zinkin presented item #6 and discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding partnering with a third party to enforce permitting and lodging tax payment compliance of the property owners. No direction was given to staff regarding partnering with a third party to enforce permitting and lodging tax payment compliance of the property owners. 7.*DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO RESEARCH THE FEASIBILITY OF ENTERING INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH A THIRD PARTY INTEGRITY GOLF COMPANY LLC TO MANAGE THE TOWN’S GOLF FACILITIES 1/6/16 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 7 Councilmember Zinkin presented item #7 and discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the feasibility of entering into a lease agreement with a third party to manage the Town's golf facilities. MOTION:A motion was made by Mayor Hiremath and seconded by Vice Mayor Waters to have Town staff not research the feasibility of entering into a lease agreement with a third party to manage the Town's golf facilities. MOTION carried, 4-3 with Councilmember Burns, Councilmember Garner, and Councilmember Zinkin opposed. 8.MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 2, 2015 DIRECTION GIVEN TO DEVELOP SIGN LIGHTING STANDARDS MOTION:A motion was made by Vice Mayor Waters and seconded by Mayor Hiremath for reconsideration of the December 2, 2015 direction given to develop sign lighting standards. MOTION carried, 7-0. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No future agenda items were requested. CALL TO AUDIENCE No comments were received. ADJOURNMENT MOTION:A motion was made by Councilmember Snider and seconded by Vice Mayor Waters to adjourn the meeting at 8:46 p.m. MOTION carried, 7-0. Prepared by: __________________________ Michael Standish, CMC Deputy Town Clerk I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 1/6/16 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 8 6th day of January, 2016. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of _______________________, 2016. _____________________________ Julie K. Bower, MMC Town Clerk Town Council Regular Session Item # B. Meeting Date:01/20/2016 Requested by: Bayer Vella Submitted By:Rosevelt Arellano Development Infrastructure Services Department:Development Infrastructure Services Information SUBJECT: Request for approval of the Stone Canyon Casitas Final Plat, located near the northern terminus of Hohokam Village Place in the Stone Canyon community RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this request is to consider a Final Plat for the Stone Canyon Casitas, located near the northern terminus of Hohokam Village Place (Attachment 1). The proposed Final Plat (Attachment 2) consists of 28 detached single-family homes, which will be individually owned and leased as short-term rentals for visitors of the adjacent Stone Canyon Golf Course. The plat features 28 lots, private streets, pedestrian easements, and no-build areas, which will preserve over 90% of the existing saguaros and regulated rock outcroppings. The Final Plat has been reviewed and meets Town requirements and the approved Conceptual Site Plan. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The Final Plat requires Town Council approval prior to being officially recorded by Pima County. In December 2015, the Town Council approved the Conceptual Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Golf Course Setback Reductions for the proposed development. The Final Plat conforms with the design components (i.e. lot layout, circulation, golf course setback reductions, preservation of environmental resources, etc.) approved as part of these applications. Proposed Improvements 8.47 acres subdivided into 28 lots Average lot size: 12,231 square feet Building height: 21’ 5”, one-story Open space areas throughout the site Previous Approvals December 2015: Conceptual Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Golf Course Setback Reductions FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve the Final Plat for the Stone Canyon Casitas, finding that it meets Town requirements and the approved Conceptual Site Plan. OR I MOVE to deny the Final Plat for the Stone Canyon Casitas, finding that ___________________. Attachments Attachment 1 - Location Map Attachment 2 - Final Plat LOCATION MAP STONE CANYON GOLF CASITAS (OV1500719) Attachment 1 Attachment 2 NOTES 1. THE GROSS AREA OF THE DEVELOPMENT SITE =369,024.73 SF (B.471 ACRES) COMMON AREA A (PRIVATE STREET) =21,779.75 SF (0.50 ACRES) 2. EXISTING ZONING IS RANCHO VlSTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (RV PAD), GOLF/RECREATION, AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR). PROJECT HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO MEET THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATION. 3. TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS IS 2B. RESIDENTIAL UNITS PER ACRE = 3.30. 4. TOTAL MILES OF NEW PUBLIC STREETS IS 0 MILES, TOTAL MILES OF NEW PRIVATE STREETS IS 0.23 MILES. 5. DEVELOPER WILL COVENANT TO HOLlO TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, HARMLESS IN THE EVENT OF FLOODING, FLOWING EROSION, OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY WATER, WHETHER SURFACE FLOW OR RAINFALL. 6. DRAINAGE WAYS AND/OR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO APPROVED PLANS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS FROM THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND/OR BUILIOING OFFICIALS FOR LOTS AFFECTED AS OUTLINED ON PLAT. 7. THE PROPERTY OWlNER, HIS SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS OR A DESIGNATED HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AGREES TO 1) KEEP ALL REQUIRED LANDSCAPED AREAS MAINTAINED IN A WEED FREE, TRASH FREE CONDITION; 2) REPLACE ANY DEAD PLANT MATERIALS WITHIN 90 DAYS; AND 3) MAINTAIN THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IN PROPER WORKING ORDER. 8. AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE =12.402 SF. MAXIMUM LOT SIZE =19,649 SF. MINIMUM LOT SIZE = 7,054 SF. 9. MAXIMUM ALLOWED BUILDING HEIGHT IS 30 FT. MAXIMUM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT IS 21'-5". 10. ALL REQUIRED PARKING (AT LEAST 2 SPACES + 2 GUEST SPACES PER OVZCR SECTION 27.7.D.1.C.) WILL BE OFF STREET ON SITE. 11. THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SERVED BY ORO VALLEY UTILITY, WHICH HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS HAVING AN ASSURED 100-YEAR WATER SUPPLY BY THE DIRECTOR OF WATER RESOURCES. 12. ALL ROADS MUST BE POSTED AS PRIVATE ROADS. ORO VALLEY POLICE MUST BE PROVIDED THE ACCESS CODE TO THE GATE (IF ANY). ALL GATES INSTALLED ACROSS FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPENDIX D OF THE FIRE CODE. ALL ELECTRICALLY OPERATED GATES SHALL INCLUDE PREEMPTION OPERATING EQUIPMENT COMPATIBLE WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S SYSTEM. 13. NO NEW PUBLIC ROADS WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THIS PROJECT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED. 14. NO FURTHER SUBDIVISION OF ANY LOT OR PARCEL SHOWN WILL BE DONE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWIN COUNCIL 15. MAINTENANCE OF PRIVATE ROAD, P.U.E., FIRE ACCESS, INGRESS/EGRESS, REFUSE COLLECTION, NO BUILD AREAS AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENTS SHALL BE TlHE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOMEOWINERS ASSOCIATION. MAINTENANCE OF THE PROPOSED WATER EASEMENT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ORO VALLEY WATER COMPANY. 15. THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OF RECORD SHALL CERTIFY AS TO THE FORM, LINE AND FUNCTION OF ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ROADWAYS AND DRAINAGE STRUCTURES BEFORE THE RELEASE OF ASSURANCES. 17. NO IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN THIRTY (30) AND SEVENTY-TWO (72) INCHES IN HEIGHT RELATIVE TO TlHE ADJACENT PAAL/ROADWAY WHICH MIGHT INTERFIERE WITH THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE SIGHT VISIBILITY TRIANGLES SHALL BE PERMITTED, PLACED OR MAINTAINED WITHIN THE SIGHT VISIBILITY TRIANGLES SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. 18. PROPERTY OWNERS SHALL MAINTAIN PLANTINGS TO ENSURE UNOBSTIRUCTED VISIBILITY TO MOTORISTS. ALL SHRUBS, ACCENTS AND GROUND COVERS SHALL NOT EXCEED THIRTY (3~) INCHES IN HEIGHT WITHIN SIGHT VISIBILITY TRIANGLES. TREES WITHIN SIGHT VISIBILITY TRIANGLES WILL BE MAINTAINED TO ENSURE BRANCHES/FOLIAGE IS NOT BELOW A HEIGHT OF SEVENTY-TWO (72) INCHES. 19. PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE SPECIFIC OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA. THE ZONES INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: 1. AIRPORT ENVIRONS ZONE (CUZ D) 2. SECTION 1.2.J, HILLSIDE DISTRICT AND GRADING OF THE RV PAD 3. GOLF COURSE OVERLAY ZONE 20. ALL SIGNAGE AND LIGHTING TO BE ADDRESSED AS PART OF A SEPARATIE REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS. 21. PROJECT SHALL MEET: 1. SECTION 27.5, OUTDOOR LIGHTING OF THE ZONING CODE 2. NEIGHBORHOOD 11 POLICIES OF THE RV PAD 3. DESIGN STANDARDS OF SECTION 2.2 OF ADDENDUM" A" OF THE ZONING CODE 22. ALL PROSPECTIVE BUYERS OF LOTS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE INFORMED OF THE PRESENCE AND ACTIVITY OF THE LA CHOLLA AIRPARK, A PRIVATE AIRPORT LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE PROJECT. ALL PROSPECTIVE BUYERS SHALL BE INFORMED THAT LOW FLYING AIRCRAFTS MAY BE A NUISANCE. 23. EACH LOT SHOWN HEREON SHALL HAVE ONE UNIT. 24. EACH UNIT IS RESTRICTED FOR USE AS A "SHORT TERM RENTAL PROPERTY" AS DEFINED BY TlHE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE (IN EFFECT ON JULY 1, 2015). TEMPORARY LODGING IS TO BE OFFERED FOR NO MORE THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS PERIOD(S). 25. ALL UNITS ARE REQUIRED TO BE PART OF A SINGLE RENTAL POOL REPRESENTING ALL UNITS. 26. ALL BUYERS OF LOTS WITH "NO BUILD AREAS" AND EASEMENTS SHALL BE INFORMED OF SUCH AREAS OR EASEMENTS. BUYERS WILL ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS INFORMATION BY SIGNING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORMS PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED BY THE DEVELOPER. 27. PLEASE REFER TO TlHE APPROVED FINAL SITE PLAN FOR THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING PADS. 28. THE BUILDING SETBACK LINES ARE AS FOLLOWS: FRONT SETIBACK: 20' SIDE SETBACK: 5' REAR SETIBACK 10' PLEASE REFER TO FINAL SITE PLANS FOR LOCATION OF BUILDING SETIBACK LINES. 29. NO PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN NO BUILD AREAS. IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, PLAY STRUCTURES, TRAILS, BUILDINGS, WALLS OR FENCES. NO BUILD AREAS ARE TO BE LEFT NATURAL AND WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. 30. BASIS OF BEARING IS N89'4B'54"E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST, BETWEEN THE NORTHWEST CORNER AND NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 23, BOTH CORNERS BEING GLO BRASS CAPS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. 31. OPEN SPACE AREAS ON PLAT ARE DEFINED AS "NO BUILD AREAS" WITH A CALCULATION OF 80,861.23 SQUARE FlEET OR 1.85 ACRES COVERING PORTIONS OF THE SITE AS SHOWN ON SHEETS FlP09 & FP10 ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF ARIZONA '( COUNTY OF PIMA 5 ss ON THIS, THE _ DAY OF 2016, BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGNED NOTARY, PERSON ALL Y APPEARED WHO ACKNOWLEDGED HIMSELF TO BE TlHE 7':AU"'T::-:H7.0R::::IZ::::E::CD-:S"'IG"'NC:-AT::::0:::R::-:Y-:0C:=F-:S""TO"'N";;;E""'C""'AN=-;YQN;;;;-'BUFFALO GOLF, LLC. NOT OTHER'MSE AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE, BEING DULY AUTHORIZED SO TO DO, EXECUTED THIS INSTRUMENT FOR THE PURPOSES HEREIN CONTAINED. IN WITINESS WHEREOF: I HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL: NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FINAL PLAT FOR STONE CANYON CASITAS OV1500719 SURVEYOR HILGART'MLSON, LLC OWNER/DEVELOPER STONE CANYON BUFFALO GOLF, LLC BASIS OF BEARING BASIS OF BEARING IS NB9'4B'54"E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST, BETWEEN THE NORTHWEST CORNER AND NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 23, BOTH CORNERS BEING GLO BRASS CAPS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. 2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE, SUITE 250 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 13845 NORTH NORTHSIGHT BLVD., SUITE 200 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260 PHONE: (602) 490-0535 PHONE: (28D) 691-3600 CONTACT: ROBERT A. JOHNSTON, RLS EMAIL: rjohnston@hilgartwilson.com CONTACT: MR. ROGER NELSON EMAIL: rgmelson7@gmail.cam DEDICATION STATE OF ARIZONA COUNTY OF PIMA SHEET INDEX COVER SHEET SITE PLAN, LEGEND, LOT TABLE PLAT SHEETS DRIVEWAY EASEMENT WATER EASEMENT NO BUILD AREA PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT "I. LINE & CURVE TABLES 5 SS FP01 FP02 FP03-FP04 FP05-FP07 FP08 FP09-FP10 FP11-FP12 FP13-FP14 FP15-FP16 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY WARRANT THAT WE ARE ALL AND THE ONLY PARTY HAVING ANY RECORD TITLE INTEREST IN THE LAND SHOWN ON THIS PLAT AND WE CONSENT TO THE SUBDIVISION OF SAID LAND IN THE MANNER SHOWN HEREON. UTILITY EASEMENTS AS SHOWN HEREON ARE DEDICATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES AND SEWERS. EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR TOWIN USES AS SHOWIN HEREON ARE HEREBY DEDICATED TO THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OUR SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, DO HEREBY SAVE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, IT'S SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, THEIR EMPLOYEES, OFFICERS AND AGENTS HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES RELATED TO THE USE OF SAID LANDS NOW AND IN THE FUTURE BY REASON OF FLOODING, FLOWAGE, EROSION OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY WATlER, WHETHER SURFACE, FLOOD OR RAINFALL. IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT NATURAL DRAINAGE SHALL NOT BE ALTIERED, DISTURBED OR OBSTRUCTED WITHOUT APPROVAL OF TlHE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL. PRIVATE DRAINAGEWAYS AND COMMON AREAS, EASEMENTS AND PRIVATE ROADS AS SHOWN HEREON, ARE RESERVED FOR THE PRIVATE USE AND CONVENIENCE OF ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION, THEIR GUESTS AND INVITEES, AND (EXCEPT FOR DRAINAGEWAYS), FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SEWERS. TITLE TO THE LAND OF ALL PRIVATE DRAINAGEWAYS AND COMMON AREAS SHALL BE VESTED IN AN ASSOCIATION OF INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNERS AS ESTABLISHED BY COVENANTS, CODES AND RESTRICTIONS AS RECORDED IN SEQUENCE NO. IN THE OFFICE OF THE PIMA COUNTY RECORDER. EACH AND EVERY LOT OWNER WITHIN TlHE SUBDIVISION SHALL BE A MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION, WHICH ~LL ACCEPT ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONTROL, MAINTENANCE, SAFETY AND LIABILITY FOR THE PRIVATE DRAINAGEWAYS, COMMON AREAS AND PRIVATE ROADS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION, AS SHOWN HEREON. A NON-EXCLUSIVE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT BEING BLANKET IN NATURE IS HEREBY GRANTED WITHIN THE FRONT, SIDE, AND REAR YARD SETBACKS TO THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OVER LOTS WlTIH NO BUILD EASEMENT AREAS. THE EASEMENT IS FOR THE REASONABLE ABILITY TO ACCESS NO BUILD EASEMENT AREAS FOR MAINTENANCE. STONE CANYON BUFFALO GOLF, LLC., AS OWNER, HAS HERE UNTO CAUSED ITS NAME TO BE SIGNED AND THE SAME TO BE ATTESTED TO BY THE SIGNATURE OF ROGER NELSON ITS VICE PRESIDENT THEREUNTO DULY AUTHORIZED THIS _______ _ DAY OF _________ 2016. STONE CANYON BUFFALO GOLF. LLC. BY: ROGER NELSON ITS: VICE PRESIDENT WATER ADEQUACY "THE TOWIN OF ORO VALLEY HAS BEEN DESIGNATED BY THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AS HAVING AN ASSURED WATER SUPPLY, PURSUANT TO ARS § 45-576 AND HERBY CERTIFIES IN WRITING TO SUPPLY WATER TO THIS SUBDIVISION". BY: WATER UTILITY DIRECTOR ASSURANCE DATE ASSURANCE IN THE FORM OF FROM AS RECORDED IN SEQUENCE NO. HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO GUARANTEE DRAINAGE AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS (INCLUDING MONUMENTS) AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS (ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, GAS, SEWER, WATER IN TlHIS SUBDIVISION). BY M·"7A;-;:Y;;;:O;:;-R ----;:;TO:;;:WIN::;-;-:O;;;:F:-:O;;;:R;-;;O:-;V:-;-;A:7"LL~E:-::;Y-DATE ASSURANCES IN THE FORM OF , FROM , IN THE AMOUNT OF , HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO GUARANTEE TlHE RESEEDING OF TlHIS SUBDIVISION IN THE EVENT THE PROJECT IS ABANDONED. NO FINAL INSPECTION FOR ANY LOT WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE APPROVED UNTIL A BUILDING CODE OFFICIAL HAS VlERIFIED THAT CONSTRUCTION ON THE LOT IS COMPLETE AND SIDEWALKS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED, PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE WHERE SHOWN ON THE APPROVED IMPROVEMENT PLANS. LEGEND EASEMENT TYPES o • ® R/W V.N.A.E. P.U.E. PCR RLS APN 787 CA MDR (8) FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED FOUND BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE SET 1/2" REBAR W/ CAP, RLS #37495 OR AS NOTED BRASS CAP FLUSH BOUNDARY LINE SECTION LINE CENTER LINE RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINE AS NOTED PARCEL LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED VEHICULAR NON-ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PIMA COUNTY RECORDS REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER LOT NUMBER COMMON AREA MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTAL NUMBER = TYPE OF EASEMENT LETTIER = EASEM ENT DETAIL CD CD o CD ® ® 0) ® ® ® PROPOSED PRIVATE ROAD (COMMON AREA "A") PROPOSED P.U.E. PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS PROPOSED PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED REFUSE COLLECTION (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP08) PROPOSED NO BUILD AREAS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP09-FPlO) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP11-FP12) PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP13-FP14) PROPOSED ELECTRIC EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP09-FP10) PIMA COUNTY THIS PROJECT I""'I"'III .... TOWN LIMITS STONE .~!I""i"r~ CANYON II ~ ~~~~ STONE CANYON C GOLF COURSE 12r"Jl"o.. 152Jl STONE CANYON (SOUTH) 52.J2 A PORTION OF SECTION 14 & 23 TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST, G, & S.R.M., TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA VICINITY MAP RECORDING DATA STATE OF ARIZONA ( SS COUNTY OF PIMA 5 3"=1 MILE THIS INSTRUMENT WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT THE REQUEST OF .-==-= _____ ON THIS DAY OF , 20~ AT M., IN SEQUENCE NO. _____ ~ BY: --:D:-::E""PU"'T"'Y--::F::::O"'"R -;:P:;;"IM:-7A-'C;c;O::CU7:"N T:;;"Y:-CR;::;E::::C""OR;::;D:-;:::E;:;-R -DATE APPROVALS. I, , CLERK OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS APPROVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ON THE DAY OF ___ ~ 20_. ATTEST: __ ~~~~~~~~~~ __ _ CLERK, TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ATTEST: _--;:~~~~~~~~~~~~ __ PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT ATTEST: ____ ~~~~~;:;------ TOWIN ENGIN EER ATTEST: _~~~~~~~~~~~~ ___ PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTIRATOR ATTEST: ___ ~~~~~~~~;:;--__ _ WA TER UTILITY DIRECTOR BOUNDARY CORNER NOTIFICATION DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE PER THE ARIZONA BOUNDARY SURVEY MINIMUM STANDARDS (ADOPTED FEB. 6, 2010), EXTERIOR BOUNDARY CORNERS WILL BE SET BY THE SURVEYOR WHO CERTIFIED THIS PLAT. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUBDIVIDER TO ENSURE TlHAT INTERIOR CORNERS OF THE SUBDIVISION ARE SET (I) WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS, OR (II) WITHIN TWO (2) YEARS AFTER RECORDATION OF TlHE SUBDIVISION PLAT. WHICHEVER DATE IS FIRST TO OCCUR. THE INTERIOR CORNERS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAY BE STAKED BY SURVEYORS OTHER THAN WHO CERTIFIED THIS SURVEY. IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OTHER SURVEYOR WHO STAKES THE INTERIOR CORNERS OF TlHE SUBDIVISION TO RECORD A "RECORD OF SURVEY" WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER, CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT ARIZONA BOUNDARY MINIMUM STANDARDS. STONE CANYON BUFFALO GOLF, LLC. BY: ROGER NELSON ITS: VICE PRESIDENT CERTIFICATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT TlHE SURVEY AND SUBDIVISION OF THE PREMISES DESCRIBED AND PLATTED HEREON WAS MADE UNDER MY DIRECTION DURING THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2015; THAT THE SURVEY IS TRUE AND COMPLETE AS SHOWN; THAT THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARY MONUMENTS SHOWN ACTUALLY EXIST OR WILL BE SET AS SHOWN; THAT THEIR POSITIONS ARE CORRECTLY SHOWN; AND THAT SAID ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THIS SURVEY TO BE RETRACED. ROBERT A. JOHN STON, RLS RLS# 37495 HILGARTWILSON, LLC 2141 E. HIGHLAND AVENUE, SUITE 250 PHOENIX, ARIZONA B5016 P: (602) 490-0535 r johnst on@hllgartwilson.com FIN AL PLAT FOR STONE CANYON CASITAS LOTS 773 THROUGH 800. AND COMMON AREA A A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA OV1500719 12/11/15 U: \1400\1458\SURVEY\PLAT\1458-FPDI.dwg 1/6/2016 10: 59 AM c 0 '" ~ ~ L. 0 ry .- r ~ 0 A ~ L_ "' Q. 0 , Q. "' 0 '" "' r ~ '" ~ C '" E :0 U 0 C1 "' .L f- ~ 0 M r 0 '" " ~ L 0 nc .- ~ ~ .L G' L >, n 0 u @ 00 ( t--00 « ( w z u 0 0 « N ..J 0:: a.. « w Z '-' ~ « ..J f- 0 ..J Z > => 0 >-::?! U « « ~ Z 0 ::?! I a.. ( 0 I ~ W 0 Z ..J ..J 0 « 0 > N W ..,. 0 ~ 0:: Z 0 0 t- OO 0 z C) Z ::<: 0 <:( 0::: I- ...J <:( (/) D- :J 0 I- <:( Z I-:J (/) ::;; L() Z ~ 3: D- eo 0 0 (/) L() <'j 0 ..;-:r: "-. ~ e-: (/) 0 .. D-o::: (/) 0 W <:( <:( Z (/) .. Z W ...., W _J 3: 0 I-<:( <:( 0::: <:( 0 0::: D-o (/) CJ DWG. NO. FP01 J ~ Z = ...., <:( 0::: 0 W > 0 0::: D- D- <:( SHT. 1 OF16 DO 0 0 I on ;:;: 0 « N 0 I ..... 0 I 0> 0 > 0 en r::: 0 0 on ;:;: 0 Attachment 2 15 14 FINAL PLAT FOR STONE CANYON CASITAS FOUND GLO BRASS CAP NORTHWEST CORNER SEC. 23, Tll S, R13E OV1500719 PAD UNSUBDIVIDED APN: 219-05-011Y GOLF COURSE 795 792 791 794 5272.27'_ 793--r--+-789 22 23 2874.96' 530.11' \ 1867.19' 24 PAD UNSUBDIVIDED APN: 219-05-011 Y GOLF COURSE / /800 --- PAD UNSUBDIVIDED APN: 219-38-0630 DKT.11581. PG.5745 GOLF COURSE HOHOKAM VILLAGE PLACE (PRIVATE) ~ 778 777 32' ACCESS, INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UTILITIES PER SEQ.20140490645 8:5 PAD 781 773 FP03 / 783 782 776 775 774 788 \ 785 787 CASITAS WAY (PRIVATE) PAD UNSUBDIVIDED APN: 219-38-0620 DKT.13564, PG.3483 MDR N ~ ~ THE ENCLAVE AT [5 STONE CANYON V APN: 219-19-8680 SEQ.20143040306 SITE PLAN SCALE 1" = 100' LEGEND o • R!W V.N.A.E. P.U.E. PCR RLS APN 787 CA MDR ED I FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED FOUND BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE SET 1/2" REBAR wi CAP, RLS #37495 OR AS NOTIED BRASS CAP FLUSH BOUNDARY LINE SECTION LINE CENTER LINE RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINE AS NOTED PARCEL LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED VEHICULAR NON-ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PIMA COUNTY RECORDS REGISTIERED LAND SURVEYOR ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER LOT NUMBER COMMON AREA MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NUMBER = TYPE OF EASEMENT LETTER = EASEMENT DETAIL EASEMENT TYPES CD o 0) 8) @ ® (?) ® ® @ PROPOSED PRIVATE ROAD (COMMON AREA "A") PROPOSED P.U.E. PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS PROPOSED PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED REFUSE COLLECTION (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP08) PROPOSED NO BUILD AREAS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP09-FP10) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FPll-FP12) PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP13-FP14) PROPOSED ELECTRIC EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP09-FP10) LOT # 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 LOT TABLE LOT TABLE AREA (SO.FT) AREA (ACRES) LOT # AREA (SQ.FT) AREA (ACRES) 14,513.63 0.333 793 18,903.99 0.434 10,990.92 0.252 794 7,998.53 0.184 11,496.83 0.264 795 8,453.07 0.194 12,607.94 0.289 796 11,825.54 0.271 16,268.29 0.373 797 13,492.53 0.310 17,697.84 0.406 798 10,793.44 0.248 11,666.65 0.268 799 7,053.74 0.162 16,547.73 0.380 800 12,687.61 0.291 19,648.95 0.451 14,215.63 0.326 11,358.90 0.261 11,786.53 0.271 13,527.78 0.311 14,424.44 0.331 11,588.42 0.266 12,123.86 0.278 9,073.43 0.208 9,835.61 0.226 7,855.52 0.180 8,807.66 0.202 AREA TABLE PARCEL AREA (SO.FT) AREA (ACRES) COMMON AREA 21,779.75 0.500 FINAL PLAT FOR STONE CANYON CASITAS LOTS 773 THROUGH 800, AND COMMON AREA A A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTIER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA OV1500719 12/11/15 U: \1400\1458\SURVEY\PLAT\1458··FP02.dwg 1/6/2016 10:57 AM 00 « l-F -00 « 4 « w z 0 0 0 « N J ...J 0:: (L « w a. z '-' ~ « ...J f-a ...J z 5 ::::> 0 >-~ 0 « « J ~ z 0 ~ I (L « 0 4 I ~ W 0 Z ...J ...J 0 « Z 0 > C'I W -.t 0 ..-0:: ..... Z 0 lL a I- 00 c 0 " s ~ L 0 0 00 Z .c " Cl 0 Z >, :>:: " 0 • c, « e. tr c • l-e. ~ -' c « " (fJ 0.. Q ~ 0 .c Z ~ « " I-::J (fJ :::;: ~ r " '= ~ 0 LfJ Z .0 U ~ s: 0.. !Xl 0 0 (fJ ..., " LfJ N 0 « .c -q-I "-0:: <Xl I ~ r-: Ul 0 a 0 .. n.. tr 0 I Ul 0 W « « w U) ~ z Ul > ~ " w Z 0 :;: ..., w -' s: tr 0 c 0 I-« « 0.. .c 0 > ~ 0 .c FP02 0' 0> L ;:::: >, 0. a 0 a 0 SHT. 2 OF16 U) Q :;: 0 Attachment 2 FOUND GLO BRASS CAP NORTHWEST CORNER SEC. 23, T11S, R13E 15 14 22 2J /' /' 67.37' 2874.96' /' /' /' /' /' /' /' /' /' /' /' /' /' /' /' /' /' /' /' /' PAD UNSUBDIVIDED APN: 219-05-011Y GOLF COURSE ...-------~ / / S89' 44'27 ft E 283.17' 70.59' 192 .58 ' I PAD UNSUBDIVIDED APN: 219-05-011Y COLF COURSE I I 52.64' ) I J 7:~!E / / I ' I I S71'42'29"E 799 ~ L24 ~--, .... w • ~-<8 ~--"!=::: !5 ----8 z 791 CURVE # C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 Cll C12 C13 789 CURVE TABLE RADIUS 150.00' 400.00' 85.00' 100.00' 79.00' 27.00' 90.00' 101.00' 27.00' DELTA LENGTH 17'50'39" 46.72' 8'33'48" 59.78' 122'29'18" 181. 71' 20'26'48" 35.69' 12'22'41" 17.07' 130'03'55" 61.29' 52'26'36" 82.38' 31'17'06" 65.73' 74'50'30" 35.27' N'J6 '14'S 5" 85.0J' W PAD UNSUBDIVIDED APN: 219-38-0620 DKT.13564, PC.3483 MDR LEGEND LINE TABLE LINE # DIRECTION LENGTH L5 N34'46'25"E 23.52' L6 S21'56'23"W 24.59' L7 N69'37'39"W 28.75' L8 S07'29'36"W 31.28' L9 N82'30'24"W 28.51' L10 S15'14'08"E 36.59' L11 S66'26'58"E 26.57' L12 N79'09'05"W 106.20' L 13 N63'17'31 "E 1 0.62' L 14 N26'39'22"W 22.00' L15 N63'17'31"E 16.55' L16 S26'42'29"E 18.26' L17 N6S17'31"E 31.15' L18 S26'25'21"E 21.00' L19 N63'17'31"E 72.32' L20 S68'56'50"W 14.96' L21 S26'42'29"E 22.00' L22 N63'17'31"E 25.63' L23 N26'42'29"W 6.94' L24 N81'48'24"E 21.28' L25 S11'OO'56"E 39.25' S89'48' S4"W 5272.27' 1867.19' PAD UNSUBDIVIDED APN: 219-19-196Q COLF COURSE S31'21'll"W 1 0,13' S30"47'S9"W 14,34' o • R/W V.N.A.E. P.U.E. PCR RLS APN 787 CA MDR (8) SS0"21'43"W~ 14, 78' ~LF COURSE S31"10'SO"W "Mo'R-- 22,06' 14 13 13 24 FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED FOUND BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE SET 1/2" REBAR W/ CAP, RLS #37495 OR AS NOTED BRASS CAP FLUSH BOUNDARY LINE SECTION LINE CENTER LINE RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINE AS NOTED PARCEL LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED VEHICULAR NON-ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PIMA COUNTY RECORDS REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER LOT NUMBER COMMON AREA MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NUMBER = TYPE OF EASEMENT LETTER = EASEMENT DETAIL EASEMENT TYPES CD CD 0) @ ® ® (j) ® ® @ PROPOSED PRIVATE ROAD (COMMON AREA "A") PROPOSED P.U.E. PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS PROPOSED PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED REFUSE COLLECTION (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FPOS-FP07) PROPOSED PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FPOB) PROPOSED NO BUILD AREAS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP09-FP10) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP11-FP12) PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP13-FP14) PROPOSED ELECTRIC EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP09-FP10) FOUND GLO BRASS CAP NORTHEAST CORNER SEC. 23, T11 S, R13E N 40 20 0 40 80 i ~~~iIiiiiIiiII~1 SCALE FEET FINAL PLAT FOR STONE CANYON CASITAS LOTS 773 THROUGH 800, AND COMMON AREA A A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA OV1500719 12/11/15 c o m -o .~ ~ L V 0. o L 0. V o m (f) ~ ~ ~ « m I- (f) J 4 Z = ~ 1-+---1--,--,---1 v E " ~. FP03 m <~ ~ CL 0 Uo L{)0 SHT. 3 OF 16 ~ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ~U~:\~14~OO~\~14~58~~~UR~~~Y~~~LA~T~~~~!a-~r~po~3.~dW!9~1~fi~/~20~16~1~1:~OO~A~M~@~_=~~~~~~~ Attachment 2 I I ! ! ! "-"-"- N, HOHOKAM VILLAGE PL (PRIVATE) BKT.13564, PG.3483 PAD UNSUBDIVIDED APN: 219-05-011Y COLF COURSE S60"0S'IS"E 2S.75' N34·0S'04"W 33.67' ,; L=20,S5' R=90,OO' 0=13·16'20· HOHOKAM VILLAGE PLACE (PRIVATE) 32' ACCESS, INGRESS/EGRESS AND PUBLIC UNTILITIES PER SEQ.20140490645 'l\ \ \ \ \ ~ 778 PAD THE ENCLAVE AT STONE CANYON V LOT 1 APN: 219-19-8680 SQ20143040306 SEE SHEET 03 780 PAD THE ENCLA VE AT STONE CANYON V LOT 36 APN: 219-19-9030 SQ20143040306 / y/ ~. / /,,/ / ..". ./ /~ / / L=46.15' 0=26'42'28" 774 S52·47'4l"W 47.25' S09· 48'19"E 42.50' PAD UNSUBDIVIDED APN: 219-38-0620 DKT. 13564, PC. 3483 MDR PAD THE ENCLAVE AT STONE CANYON V LOT 30 APN: 219-19-89'70 SQ20143040306 LEGEND o • Ii> R/W FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED FOUND BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE SET 1/2" REBAR W/ CAP, RLS #37495 OR AS NOTED BRASS CAP FLUSH BOUNDARY LINE SECTION LINE CENTER LINE RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINE AS NOTED PARCEL LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY V.N.A.E. PROPOSED VEHICULAR NON-ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LINE # L1 L2 L3 L4 P.U.E. PCR RLS APN 787 CA MDR LINE TABLE DIRECTION S42'35'35"W N09'34'38"E S53"34' 09"E NS2'37'04"E PIMA COUNTY RECORDS REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER LOT NUMBER COMMON AREA MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NUMBER = TYPE OF EASEMENT LETIER = EASEMENT DETAIL EASEMENT TYPES CD @ @ o ® @ C?) ® ® @ LENGTH 8S.29' 43.50' 24.55' 3S.07' PROPOSED PRIVATE ROAD (COMMON AREA" A") PROPOSED P.U.E. PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS PROPOSED PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FPD5-FP07) PROPOSED REFUSE COLLECTION (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP08) PROPOSED NO BUILD AREAS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP09-FP10) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FPll-FP12) PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP13-FP14) PROPOSED ELECTRIC EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP09-FP10) CURVE TABLE CURVE # RADIUS DELTA LENGTH Cl 24.00' 73'17'07" 30.70' C2 24.00' 72'19'14" 30.29' C3 160.00' 33'00'S8" 92.20' C4 110.00' 43'02'26" 82.63' C5 lS0.00' 17'SO'39" 46.72' N 40 20~;;~0~~~4~0~;;;;~80 I I I , SCALE FEET FINAL PLAT FOR STONE CANYON CASITAS LOTS 773 THROUGH 800, AND COMMON AREA A A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA OV1500719 12/11/15 U: \1400\1458\SURVEY\PLAT\1458-FP04.dwg 1/6/2016 11: 01 AM C/) ( I-~ -C/) « 4 ( w Z () 0 0 « N J .-J 0::: a.. « w (l Z 0 ~ « .-J I- 0 .-J Z > ::J 0 >-::::!: () « « J ~ z 0 ::::E :r: a.. ( 0 4 :r: ~ w 0 Z .-J .-J 0 ~ Z 0 N W -=t 0 ~ 0::: = Z 0 lL 0 I- C/) c 0 m .- ~ ~ L 0 0 en Z "' -C) 0 Z A "" , . U L ill « "-IY 0 L I-"- ill -' 0 « m cii (L ill ::::l U "' I- ~ « z m I-::::l (/) ~ ,~ c <, E CO u If) Z 0 "D ~ ~ (L CXl 0 (/) " m l() N 0 0 « "' V :r: '-... IY 00 f--~ r-: (/) u 0 0 .. (L (/) IY 0 I 0 W « « w u-, ~ Z (/) > 0 Z 0 :> N W ~ 0 " W -' IY c 0 I-« « (L .{ 0 IY « U IY (L '" m (L 0 (/) 0 « 0 '~ I ~ ..... L 0 0 I cr DWG. NO. 0> "' 0 > ~ 0 r FP04 IT 0> L ~ > ..... Q. 0 0 0 u SHT. 4 OF16 u-, @ :> 0 Attachment 2 ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ N90'OO'00"E 4.29' ,/ 792 791 793 N90'00 00 E 29.87' I t , 0/ ;J, .... , ,==, -~, 0>, PI ~ __ l1i\!WIf"o..../_ ,; g, hV ' .,;;,<l:' ; / 0, t &,/~ I / I I ,/ &1 ,/ I ,/ L=28.64' ,/ 0=17'05'28" I I I I I I I- / ,.== /'10 _ ff; g f'J('..j " .... o / C/) ~ , + / I I I If] \ L42 I 1'0 L..:!.s L38 I ::J --~ /..1» / 52T56'23"W ;---24.92' I L=8.01' ....... .-:--D=4·46· 49" DETAIL A \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ LEGEND o FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED i,;j FOUND BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE • SET 1/2" REBAR W/ CAP, RLS #37495 OR AS NOTED ® BRASS CAP FLUSH BOUNDARY LINE SECTION LINE CENTER LINE RIGHT OF WAY - - - - - - - - -EASEMENT LINE AS NOTED PARCEL LINE 790 788 R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY V.N.A.E. PROPOSED VEHICULAR NON-ACCESS EASEMENT P.U.E. PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PCR PIMA COUNTY RECORDS RLS REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR APN ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 787 LOT NUMBER CA MDR <9> COMMON AREA MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NUMBER = TYPE OF EASEMENT LETTER = EASEMENT DETAIL EASEMENT TYPES CD @ PROPOSED PRIVATE ROAD (COMMON AREA "A") PROPOSED P.U.E. @ o ® @ (2) @ ® @ PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS PROPOSED PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED REFUSE COLLECTION (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP08) PROPOSED NO BUILD AREAS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP09-FP10) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP11-FP12) PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP13-FP14) PROPOSED ELECTRIC EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP09-FP10) 797 796 799 DETAIL B DETAIL C 800 2.96' """.=--2.96' 795 793 N KEYMAP N.T.S. 795 N72'24'35"E RADIAL~ _589'52'17"[ 47.83' ___ 7 \ (l -.r::;{5)4 5 W ~ I~ 589'34'24"W '''),t;: \'" RADIAL L33~ L31-~ DETAIL A 794 DETAIL B 798 N FINAL PLAT FOR STONE CANYON CASITAS LOTS 773 THROUGH 800, AND COMMON AREA A 20 10 0 20 40 A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA i iiiiiiIiiIiiii~~~_;;1 SCALE FEET OV1500719 12/11/15 U: \1400\1458\SURVEY\PLAT\145B-FP05.dwg 1/6/2016 11: 03 AM L 0 '" 3 .~ . L 0 U· "' ~ 0 ~ ~ L W a. 0 L a. ~ 0 '" ~ "' ~ '" ~ c v E ~ u 0 " '" "' f-- ,~ 0 n c 0 '" 3 ~ L 0 oc L " "' '" " ~ C- 0 u © U) « I--U) « « w z 0 0 0 « N ....J a:: a.. « w Z (!) ~ « ....J t- O ....J Z > ::::> 0 >- ::::2; 0 « « ~ Z 0 ::::2; I a.. « 0 I ~ W 0 Z ....J ....J 0 « 0 > N W ~ 0 ..-a:: Z 0 0 I- U) 0 Z 0 Z y: U « et:: f- --' « (f) (L :::J U I-Z « I-:::J (f) ~ LO Z ~ ~ (L aJ 0 0 (f) LO N 0 '<t :r: "'- ~ ...: (f) u .. (L (f) et:: 0 W « « Z (f) .. W Z ..." W --' ~ 0 I-« « et:: « U et:: (L 0 (f) 0 DWG. NO. FP05 J ~ Z = J « et:: 0 w > 0 et:: (L (L « SHT. 5 OF16 <Xl 0 0 I on ~ :> 0 «: N 0 I ..... 0 I '" 0 > 0 en ~ ,... o 0 on :> 0 Attachment 2 783 / \ \ )-1 r-<C II ~ (}1 ... '" (f) -..j <C t-/ -~) I I / >- ~ CI) ~ -CI) <, o 15.04'-r--J / __ L=5.87' 0=3'30'09" R=171.00' 0=3'59'41· L=11.92' 788 785 DETAIL D L71 775 DETAIL E 787 , 776 795 794 792 781 793 DETAIL D DETAIL E N KEYMAP N.T.S. S72'53'19"W RADIAL "t \\~ 782 ~;,'6'\, \p; ..... ""\ <:: N37'S'48"E ~"'...... \"" ..... " ".. I RADIAL C35\..... \~ 4J \/ 1m / tI.; Tn ,:?!' I~ ,:?!!f, ~ -\ ~ <0 _, O. ~ \~~ (, \'~ i, , \ .~, '" \ ~ 1" \~ ~<;0:--, '~.rL65 9'Q>. , "- It--6'';', 'X C39 ,~" 1231'-- / / , . ~ , 'v L63~ { L=27.7S' r~1 D= 11'27'08"'-;-;;::::-';-!J-...-/ ",I>< L61~ (/ S41'11'11"E ~ / 7.00' x--___ .L=9.23' 0=3'48'15" \:)4.. ,.\-tv..t. ":J'::>' • \:)l>< ... \ 1'- ,-:,'\ ~" '" '::> "L-~ ~,.. / ~, 0'" DETAIL F N / LEGEND o • ® R/W V.N.A.E. P.U.E. PCR RLS APN 787 CA MDR <8> L=6.28' 0=2'35'16" 784 FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED FOUND BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE SET 1/2" REBAR W/ CAP, RLS #37495 OR AS NOTED BRASS CAP FLUSH BOUNDARY LINE SECTION LINE CENTER LINE RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINE AS NOTED PARCEL LINE RIGHT-Of-WAY PROPOSED VEHICULAR NON-ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PIMA COUNTY RECORDS REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER LOT NUMBER COMMON AREA MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NUMBER = TYPE Of EASEMENT LETTER = EASEMENT DETAIL EASEMENT TYPES CD @ @ CD ® CD 0) ® ® @ PROPOSED PRIVATE ROAD (COMMON AREA "A") PROPOSED P.U.E. PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS PROPOSED PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED REFUSE COLLECllON (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP08) PROPOSED NO BUILD AREAS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP09-FP10) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP11-FP12) PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP13-FP14) PROPOSED ELECTRIC EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP09-FP10) FINAL PLAT FOR STONE CANYON CASITAS LOTS 773 THROUGH 800, 20 10 0 20 40 ~CALE ~~~~~;;~F~EE~T AND COMMON AREA A A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA OV1500719 12/11/15 U, \1400\1458\SURVEY\PLAT\1458-FP06.dwg 1/6/2016 11,05 AM c 0 m 3 ~ , 0 <.)1 .c ~ G ,,, ~ L V CL 0 L CL " 0 m v .c ~. m . c v E c C L m L f- l" 0 N c 0 v, " ~ ~ c co L , . .c '" 'c >, 0. U (J @ (J) « I--(J) « « w z 0 0 0 « N ....J e::: a... « w Z C) ~ « ....J I- 0 ....J Z > ::J 0 >-~ 0 « « ~ Z 0 ~ ::r: a... « 0 ::r: ~ w 0 Z ....J ....J 0 « 0 > '" W "<t 0 ..-e::: Z 0 0 I- (J) 0 Z '" Z ~ () « a: \- -' « (f) 0... ::> () \-Z « \-::> (f) ::;;: t[') Z ~ 3: 0... ro 0 0 (f) t[') C"l 0 ..... I '-- ~ ~ (f) () 0... (j) IY 0 w « « Z (f) .. z W 3: J W ..J 0 \-« « IY « () a: 0... 0 (j) 0 owe. NO. FP06 1= 4 J (L J 4 z J « a: 0 w > 0 a: 0... 0... « SHT. 6 OF16 IX) 0 0 I If) :> 0 0 0> r:::: 0 0 If) :> 0 Attachment 2 800 L=2.85' D=2'10'29" , L=10.55' 0=6'42'56" u L=10.30' 0=6'33'24" PAD THE ENCLA VE AT STONE CANYON V LOT 1 APN: 219-19-8680 SQ20143040306 778 N60'08'18"W 7.91' L=11.68 R=44.00' D=15'12'57" , . o,~ <'I' o· S!J ....,. II ~ -' 1\ o DETAIL G 777 I / I / / L=1.20' 'Z-~~--0=O'17'07" L=17.65 /""<~-----R=178.00' / C52 L75 0=5'40'47" ~ ,,<L74 x.. C5:) ;I _ .... 773 795 796 797 DETAIL G 794 792 793 KEYMAP N.T.S. 774 N N 20 10 0 20 40 i ~~ __ iIiIIIIill SCALE FEET LEGEND o • R/W V.N.A.E. P.U.E. PCR RLS FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED FOUND BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE SET 1/2" REBAR W/ CAP, RLS #37495 OR AS NOTED BRASS CAP FLUSH BOUNDARY LINE SECTION LINE CENTER LINE RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINE AS NOTED PARCEL LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED VEHICULAR NON-ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED PUBLIC UTlLlTY EASEMENT PIMA COUNTY RECORDS REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR APN ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 787 LOT NUMBER CA COMMON AREA MDR (8) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTlAL NUMBER = TYPE OF EASEMENT LETTER = EASEMENT DETAIL EASEMENT TYPES CD @ @ o ® ® <2> ® ® @ PROPOSED PRIVATlE ROAD (COMMON AREA "A") PROPOSED P.U.E. PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS PROPOSED PRIVA TlE INGRESS/EGRESS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED REFUSE COLLECTION (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED PUBLIC WA TlER EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP08) PROPOSED NO BUILD AREAS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP09-FP10) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FPll-FP12) PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP13-FP14) PROPOSED ELECTRIC EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP09-FP10) FINAL PLAT FOR STONE CANYON CASITAS LOTS 773 THROUGH 800. AND COMMON AREA A A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTlER OF SECTION 14 AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTlER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA OV1500719 12/11/15 U: \1400\1458\SURVEy\PLAT\1458-FP07.dwg 1/6/2016 II: 08 AM c 0 " ~ ~ L 0 D' r -0 >. ~ c m Q 0 L Q <J) 0 if> (l) r ~ Vl ~ C ID r C ~ U 0 TJ " .L c- w 0 ~ r 0 m ~ ~ L 0 '" .- L ~ L 0' 5. n 0 u Q UJ ( ~ -UJ « ( w z u 0 0 « N -1 Ck: Cl... « w Z (.') ~ « -1 I- 0 -1 Z 5 ::::> 0 >-~ u « « ~ Z 0 ~ :::c Cl... ( 0 :::c ~ w 0 Z -1 -1 0 « 0 N > W "" 0 ..-Ck: Z 0 0 ~ UJ .. 0 Z G Z "" u ~ 0::: I- -l ~ (f] [L => U I- ~ z l-=> (f] :::;; L{) Z ~ 3: [L <Xl 0 0 (f] L{) N 0 ... :r: "- ~ e-: (f] u .. [L 0::: (f] 0 w ~ ~ Z (f] .. z w -; W -l 3: 0 I-~ ~ 0::: ~ U 0::: [L 0 (f] 0 DWG. NO. FP07 J ~ Z = --::> ~ 0::: 0 w > 0 0::: [L [L ~ SHT.7 OF16 <X) 0 a I tl) ~ >= 0 « N 0 I ..... 0 I '" ~ 0 '" r::: 0 0 tl) >= 0 Attachment 2 - 796 797 6.73' /' 779 /' /' /' 800 -- \ \ / 778 J \ \ \ \~ \"3- \ \ PAD THE ENCLAVE AT STONE CANYON V LOT 1 APN: 219-19-8680 SQ20148040806 795 798 780 777 794 L532 L531 792 {s 791 ~ 0' \(0' CO' IT,,·Z ~L537 \. XJ. ~5 L536 L538 <0'~, ----®-<0' is.... 6 ,:.Js / r L540 1-____ ~_'8_-___I.527 - ( 2..... ..( /L541 'fG ~,;!':;I L543 r-,'---~./L544 ~ I", L=37.01' 793 r -~ -1;1; 790 789 D= 78'32'37" {\" <0'7 L513 / " \ CJ>~/ / L520] lV " ~ __ / L519, \ <r) I \ ~ ----_ L514 L515j V'....., ~ C83 ----.,1__ (® /....., \ _ L511 / --'I \ 788 781 L493 / / / 773 ~ _ L517 / 782 L489 L492, C74 ~ \ L491 774 L547 \ \ L=59.04' D=45'42'58" L481 :../ " 783 I ~ <J, .... ~s-756~ 6 <~L560 "\ L552 ® / L480-.l .. \.: " , L479 ~_L551 , '" <. L=42.74' 'L567~' ~~7 0=33'05'31" I I L569 !5'" ~ ~LT4~8T4J ~.) 11'2 , ~ ------r" l~ L564~ }" L483 tJ Lr-L571 < !5'..tv~'O<'v L482 L391 ") L=26.01' ",","v ~"? 0=20'08'30" ~ """--L573 785 11.19' 776 775 \LL575 \....:L576 L578 784 DETAIL Q DETAIL Q KEYMAP N.T.S. ~,,-L-----..lt--;r-DETAIL Q N N 20 10 0 20 ~i ~riiiii1.~~ SCALE 40 I FEET LEGEND o • R/W V.N.A.E. P.U.E. PCR RLS APN 787 CA MDR <£D FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED FOUND BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE SET 1/2" REBAR W/ CAP. RLS #37495 OR AS NOTED BRASS CAP FLUSH BOUNDARY LINE SECTION LINE CENTER LINE RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINE AS NOTED PARCEL LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED VEHICULAR NON-ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PIMA COUNTY RECORDS REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER LOT NUMBER COMMON AREA MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NUMBER = TYPE OF EASEMENT LlETTER = EASEMENT DETAIL EASEMENT TYPES CD CD @ o ® @ 0 ® ® @ PROPOSED PRIVATE ROAD (COMMON AREA "A") PROPOSED P.U.E. PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS PROPOSED PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED REFUSE COLLECTION (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP08) PROPOSED NO BUILD AREAS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP09-FP10) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FPll-FP12) PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP13-FP14) PROPOSED ELECTRIC EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP09-FP10) FINAL PLAT FOR STONE CANYON CASITAS LOTS 773 THROUGH 800. AND COMMON AREA A A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTIER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH. RANGE 13 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA OV1500719 12/11/15 U: \ 1400\H58\SURVEY\PLA T\ 1458-FP08.dwg 1/6/2016 11: 10 AM (JJ ( ~ r= -(JJ « ~ ( W Z 0 0 0 « N J --1 0:: Il.. « W (l Z e" >= « --1 I- 0 --1 Z 5 ;:) 0 >-:::?! 0 « « J ~ z 0 :::?! I Il.. ( 0 ~ I >= W 0 Z --1 --1 0 « Z 0 > N W "<I-0 ..---0:: = 0 z lL 0 ~ (JJ c 0 " " ~ L 0 0 0; Z .c '~ '-' 0 Z '" ~ ~ U , m <{ C>-o::: 0 L I-0. W .....J 0 <{ " (f) 0.. m ::::J U r I- ~ <{ z " I-::::J (f) ::2 ~ c m E => u L[) Z 0 D ~ ~ 0.. 0Cl 0 0 (f) -, m L[) N 0 <{ .c "<l-I ~ 0::: CO f-~ c-= (IJ u 0 0 .. 0.. (IJ 0::: 0 I 0 W <{ <{ W '" ~ Z (IJ > 0 Z 0 :;: N W ~ 0::: 0 -, W .....J c 0 I-<{ <{ 0.. « 0 0::: <{ U 0::: 0.. N m 0.. 0 (f) 0 <{ 0 .~ I ~ r-- L 0 0 I 0; DWG_ NO. 0> r 0 > ~ 0 r FP08 0' 0> ~ r.::: >, 0. 0 0 0 () SHT. 8 OF16 U) Q! :;: 0 Attachment 2 '" N89· 44'27"W ~ 1.0. ~ • ~ ~ t" L82 172.54' -- 799 L=30.59' 0=64'55'17" L92 //1 __ 1""'/ ----\ /' r /' /' /' \ \ J 779 / \ / /' L __ / \ 778 DETAIL N 1':::--_ DETAIL N ~~;:::=:~~~ 57.99' 795 50.54' I I" I~ 5.00' N87'40'28"E L245 1-1 1 0.85' I 792 0 'co \ I~ ~~<"':-' 1....1 ~u'\ ' ____ L125 ~a L98 I I {..-~,~, \!.;i' I I ~ .... '11 37.76' 791 L97~1 ~L2.u .... .!:!...<~ L116 L243 I)J ""'I L242~)"1 ( L'96 I L118 ... ' \ I ... ~) L100 I 1' ..... _ ,"" ,) 1 ..... _ .... ~ 0 It! LI~-..... ,~ L95 , .... ~"'-L241 /.::; -..... ~ L128 790 N31'55'13"W 25.26' N29'26'46"W 39.01' 789 or 1_ 793 ;:j1...-L103 I::: rl110 -Gl \~ ~ ~<~ " ~,0'.J:!.05 L1 ""''''a / <' <) (~ "11 u 06 -.Pz.. )09 / ''1 'V..t's~86' Lfos"'-c64 L93-lL 138\ "/'<J" _______ / \''\3~~-L139 -----------.J_ 798 !:, N29'45'SS"E ..... 140 _________ g:"",~ 11.23: / G ~\~ f \ \ \788 \ L157J \~ Y / / L=48.87' - ] A r::r / ... L155~\ 0 l:t 0=37'50'23" L192 L1S3~U.\ ~/" L142 'l> :-~~~ L282 \ ---~ L 152 Ii-) I L144 ~ L 193--"""""J t3-V ~ 143 ::'>0 .~_ V /": '526'33'25"E "'(-. 783 L194 I I I 780 \ '\ \ ~ ~-_--/' '-'-"" 19.45' ..--...£07 ".....,u04 " ...... -8.27' ( ~ \ 784 \ 776 \ \ .-J SEE SHEET 10 / I , I I ~I !J.' ;/ / I I 785 799 KEYMAP N.T.S. L310 "---.-DETAIL N N LEGEND o • R/W V.N.A.E. P.U.E. PCR RLS APN 787 CA MDR FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED FOUND BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE SET 1/2" REBAR w/ CAP, RLS #37495 OR AS NOTED BRASS CAP FLUSH BOUNDARY LINE SECTION LINE CENTER LINE RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINE AS NOTED PARCEL LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED VEHICULAR NON-ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PIMA COUNTY RECORDS REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER LOT NUMBER COMMON AREA MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ([;D NUMBER = TYPE OF EASEMENT LETTER = EASEMENT DETAIL EASEMENT TYPES CD @ @ @ ® ® o ® ® @ PROPOSED PRIVATE ROAD (COMMON AREA "A") PROPOSED P.U.E. PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS PROPOSED PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED REFUSE COLLECTION (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP08) PROPOSED NO BUILD AREAS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP09-FP10) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FPll-FP12) PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP13-FP14) PROPOSED ELECTRIC EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP09-FP10) N 40 20 0 40 80 i i ! SCALE FEET FINAL PLAT FOR STONE CANYON CASITAS LOTS 773 THROUGH 800, AND COMMON AREA A A PORllON OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 AND A PORllON OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA OV1500719 12/11/15 U:\1400\H58\SURVEY\PLAT\1458 ~FP09.dw9 1/6/2016 11:12 AM c 0 " .-s ~ ~ 0 0; "" ~ 0 A ~ L ID 0. 0 ~ "'- 0 0 " 0 .c ~ " ~ c <l) E :> 0 0 TI ~ 0; N r 0 " 5 ~ L 0 en .-.c ~ L lJ' .~ " 0 u @ (J) c( I--(J) c( 0 Z 0 >-Z c( 0 W Z 0 I- (J) (f) F! « I- (f) ~ 0 z "") 0 {Y a.. w u « --l Q.. w <.!l « --l ....J > :::::E « ~ 0 I 0 I Z 0 0 N '<t ~ LJ') ~ 0 C'J ,...: 0.. W (f) w I-« 0 « z 0 N ~ « • >-I- Z :::> 0 U « :::::E Q.. ~ W --l --l « > 0 ~ 0 o Z <.:l Z Y U « {Y f- --' « a.. u z ::J ::;;; z ~ 0 I (f) (f) « w --' « u (f) a.. (f) 0 '-. u {Y « .. z ~ « {Y 0 DWG. NO. FP09 J ~ Z = "") « {Y 0 w > 0 Ct:: a.. a.. « SHT. 9 OF16 cx:J 0 a I LI'l ~ >: 0 0 Attachment 2 N40"04' 41"E 10.00' N48·20'22"W 14.26' S48"20'22"E 14.39' L=10.0S' '" ~OO R=14.00' 0=41·,4'26"-__ SOI"26'33"E 10.00' L=17.46' =24.00' 0=41·40'50" -"-. L246i-~ c> ¢'o bJi or 5lor UQ ~t o °1 I I I I I I I I I SEE SHEET 09 799 L245 557"03' 43'W 17.95' 798 \ \ 777 DETAIL 0 \ \ \ \ ) I '-\--;L-=-=~-:: I I I \ I I I I I I 773 775 774 It) /(jZ/JI 'fl'!) I "I !J/ ~ l.(J)OO " L256 3.00"-'7 783 61 \ ) 12.59' 785 \ \ \ 794 795 792 , 797 796 793 DETAIL D KEYMAP N.T.S. DETAIL 0 N DETAIL 0 LEGEND o • ® R/W V.N.A.E. P.U.E. PCR RLS APN 787 CA MDR <8) FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED FOUND BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE SET 1/2" REBAR W/ CAP, RLS #37495 OR AS NOTED BRASS CAP FLUSH BOUNDARY LINE SECTION LINE CENTER LINE RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINE AS NOTED PARCEL LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED VEHICULAR NON-ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PIMA COUNTY RECORDS REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER LOT NUMBER COMMON AREA MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NUMBER = TYPE OF EASEMENT LETTER = EASEMENT DETAIL EASEMENT TYPES CD PROPOSED PRIVATE ROAD (COMMON AREA "A") CD PROPOSED P.U.E. o o ® @ o ® ® @ PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS PROPOSED PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED REFUSE COLLECTION (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP08) PROPOSED NO BUILD AREAS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP09-FP10) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP11-FP12) PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP13-FP14) PROPOSED ELECTRIC EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP09-FP10) N FINAL PLAT FOR STONE CANYON CASITAS LOTS 773 THROUGH 800, AND COMMON AREA A A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA OV1500719 12/11/15 U: \14()O\H58\SURVEy\PLAT\1458-FP10.dwg 1/6/2016 11: 13 AM c o ~ -o >- ~ L m Q. o L Q m (JJ ( I--(JJ ( 0 Z a >-Z ( 0 W Z a I- (JJ (5 tn Ui ~ ~ ~ ..: ~ I- CfJ ~ c "' I:: ~ u 0 " 0) ~ LO .£: "<l-f-- ~ .. 0 w Z 5 ,~ -, c 0 0 De:: ~ 0.. " ~ L 0 Cf' .£: ~ r cc L >- Q 0 w u « --1 a.. w (!) « --1 --1 > :E « ~ 0 I 0 I Z 0 0 N v .- LO ~ 0 N ~ 0.. W (JJ W I-..: 0 « z 0 N a:: « ~ I- Z ::::> 0 U « :E a.. ~ W --1 --1 « > 0 a:: 0 o z (:) z ~ u ..: 0' I- -l ..: 0.. U Z ::) ~ Z :;;: 0 I (JJ (JJ ..: W -l ..: U (JJ 0.. CfJ 0 "-U 0:: « Z :;;: « De:: 0 DWG. NO. FP10 J ~ Z = -, ..: 0:: 0 w > 0 De:: 0.. 0.. ..: u SHT.l0 OF 16 @ ex:> 0 0 I <.J) ~ :;: 0 ~ 0 0> ~ '" 0 0 U') :;: 0 Attachment 2 797 779 -::::, cP • ...l N69'01'26"E "'. 2.00' 799 778 796 795 DETAIL H LEGENP o • ® R/W V.N.A.E. P.U.E. PCR RLS APN 787 CA MDR 666 FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED FOUND BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE SET 1/2" REBAR W/ CAP. RLS #37495 OR AS NOTED BRASS CAP FLUSH BOUNDARY LINE SECTION LINE CENTER LINE RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINE AS NOTED PARCEL LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED VEHICULAR NON-ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PIMA COUNTY RECORDS REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER LOT NUMBER COMMON AREA MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NUMBER = TYPE OF EASEMENT LETTER = EASEMENT DETAIL EASEMENT TYPES (2) CD G o ® @ ® @ PROPOSED PRIVATE ROAD (COMMON AREA" A") PROPOSED P.U.E. PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS PROPOSED PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED REFUSE COLLECTION (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP08) PROPOSED NO BUILD AREAS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP09-FP10) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP11-FP12) PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP13-FP14) PROPOSED ELECTRIC EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP09-FP10) 796 795 794 792 797 793 800 DETAIL J KEYMAP N.T.S. 777 775 / I L642 DETAIL J N 20 10 0 20 40 i IiiIiiiiiiIi ~~ IIiIiIIIiIiIllllli SCALE FEET N FI NAL PLAT FOR STONE CANYON CASITAS LOTS 773 THROUGH 800, AND COMMON AREA A A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23. TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN. PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA OV1500719 12/11/15 c o '" sc >, ~ ~ W Q. o ~ Q. W (5 '" 'D L ~ ()} ( ~ -()} ( 0 Z 0 >-Z ( 0 W Z 0 ~ ()} Ul ::::l I-« I- Ul « w z () 0 « N ....J ~ a.. « w 0 ~ « ....J I- ....J Z > :::> 0 ::?; () « « ~ 0 ::?; I a.. 0 I ~ W Z ....J ....J 0 « 0 > N V 0 .-~ 0 .. 0 Z G Z ~ U « Il: f-- --.l « 0.. U Z :::J ::2: 1= 4 J (l J 4 z = ~ I--+--+~-~...j v E ~ u o "1J .. o ~ z o '" L() z ~ 3: 0 N 0 I r-: (f) 0.. Ul W « Ul W W --.l I-« « u 0.. (f) J 0 "-« et: u Il: « 0 W .. > z 3: 0 et: « 0.. Il: 0.. 0 Ul 0 J c: 0 o et: m 0.. " j-=....l---L::.:....L-=-.L..-:...j ~ ~ « o 0; .L , . sc ry .~ Q. o () DWG. NO. FP11 U:\1400\1458\SURVEy\PLAT\1458-FP1I.dwg 1/6/201611:14 AM @ SHT. 11 OF 16 <Xl 0 0 I en ~ >: 0 <C N 0 I r-- 0 I en 0 > 0 en r:::: 0 0 Lf) >: 0 Attachment 2 r-------------------------------------------'<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~--------~ 780 781 ____ L=20.12' 0=11'38'47" DETAIL K 782 776 783 / ~ L= 14. 24' 0=8'29'54" \ \ \ ) / / / I I I I I ~ L-c96 \ <'6'£:-) ~ () fo'V 'V L=8.00' \ , , , I I I I I I ~ /", (j 1& I--.]' I I I I I ® ~4. L=26.63' 0=1'10'42" CJ~~~ 0=3'55'20" L631 7B4 ® 794 792 DETAIL L 793 ....--\:-789 :L~~~/r---;-DETAIL K N KEYMAP N.T.S. 793 Z L=2B.64' _----~7.,c.~L~..§i!.~2:.:::J::::: 0=17'05'2B" --L623 ! L624 ~~~ -~N79'09'05"W ~ r L626 '" 6.85' ~~,//~C90 ~ L=8.01' __ "> D=4'46'49" \(~ ~O..., ,a -.:" U! C',9 ,,9,,. ~,~ , ~' ,Vy'1 "{ L621 DETAIL L N L627 \ \ 7BB 20 10 0 20 40 i ~I ;;~~~;;;;;;~I SCALE FEET LEGEND o • ® R/W V.N.A.E. P.U.E. PCR RLS APN 787 FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED FOUND BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE SET 1/2" REBAR W/ CAP, RLS #37495 OR AS NOTED BRASS CAP FLUSH BOUNDARY LINE SECTION LINE CENTER LINE RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINE AS NOTED PARCEL LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED VEHICULAR NON-ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PIMA COUNTY RECORDS REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER LOT NUMBER CA COMMON AREA MDR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL \ \ , NUMBER = TYPE OF EASEMENT LETTER = EASEMENT DETAIL EASEMENT TYPES CD @ @ CD ® @ CD @ ® @ PROPOSED PRIVATE ROAD (COMMON AREA "A") PROPOSED P.U.E. PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS PROPOSED PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED REFUSE COLLECTION (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP08) PROPOSED NO BUILD AREAS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP09-FP10) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP11-FP12) PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP13-FP14) PROPOSED ELECTRIC EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP09-FP10) FINAL PLAT FOR STONE CANYON CASITAS LOTS 773 THROUGH 800, AND COMMON AREA A A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE GILA ANO SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA OV1500719 12/11/15 U,\1400\1458\SURVEY\PLAT\1458-FPI2.dwg 1/6/201611,16 AM c 0 ~ ~ , . c. 0 U' - ..c ~ 0 .~ '" 0. 0 ~ 0. '" 0 CD w ..c , . CD ~. c '" E " u 0 '1J on ~ ~ 0 N r 0 c, " ~ ~ 0 0-.- L _. '" >. "-" () © (j) ( ~ -(j) ( 0 Z 0 >-Z ( 0 W Z 0 ~ U) UJ ::::l I-« I- UJ <Xl l{) <j- ~ .. 0 Z -0 0 0:: 0... « w z 0 0 « N ....J 0::: D... « W " ~ « ....J ....J Z 5 :J 0 :::2; 0 « « ::.::: 0 :::2; :::r: D... 0 :::r: ~ w Z ....J ....J 0 ~ 0 N "<t-O .-0::: 0 0 Z (9 z ~ u « 0:: I- .....J « 0.. U z ::::l :::;; l{) Z ~ 3: 0.. 0 0 (f) C'J 0 I '-r-: (f) U 0.. 0:: UJ W « « (f) .. Z W W .....J 3: I-« « « U 0:: 0 (f) 0 DWG. NO. FP12 J ~ Z -0 « 0:: 0 w > 0 0:: 0.. 0... « SHT.12 OF16 00 a 0 I on ~ > 0 a > 0 0'> -" 0 0 on 3> 0 Attachment 2 , I , , 778 :1 L768 1E1 ~---, '-.... '" \(' '( '-I. \ ~ \ '\ \ ® ) G\ / ~\ ' \ ~~ \ 'I\. \ /" , " e2l6 PAD LOT 1 THE ENCLAVE AT STONE CANYON V APN: 219-19-8680 SEQ.20143040306 780 777 DETAIL M PAD LOT 36 THE ENCLAVE AT STONE CANYON V APN: 219-19-9030 SEQ.20143040306 I / 775 774 773 536"55' 49 " E_>C-' 28.91' ,~ __ ,537'29'31"W --""-...Y 1 0 ,38' / / 776 784 ----- N19'47'50·W 16.10' DETAIL 793 783 782 --"<---~ N 774 LEGEND o • • R/W V.N.A.E. P.U.E. PCR RLS APN 787 CA MDR o J) FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED FOUND BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE SET 1/2" REBAR W/ CAP, RLS #37495 OR AS NOTED BRASS CAP FLUSH BOUNDARY LINE SECTlON LINE CENTER LINE RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINE AS NOTED PARCEL LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED VEHICULAR NON-ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PIMA COUNTY RECORDS REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER LOT NUMBER COMMON AREA MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NUMBER = TYPE OF EASEMENT LETTER = EASEMENT DETAIL EASEMENT TYPES CD (3) PROPOSED PRIVATE ROAD (COMMON AREA "A") PROPOSED P.U.E. PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS DET AIL M...L-~"C""~ o G) PROPOSED PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) 796 KEYMAP N,T,S, 5.00' 795 I I I I I • I 10 1 ~I <»1 .... 1 ~I :tl 10 1 PI 81 ZI I I L701 · <» , I() <» ~ • ~ · 10 o b o (/) CD CD 0) CD ® 47.64' @ 5.00' 794 PROPOSED REFUSE COLLECTION (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FPOB) PROPOSED NO BUILD AREAS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP09-FP10) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FPll-FP12) PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP13-FP14) PROPOSED ELECTRIC EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP09-FP10) I 1~0~ 1 i DRAINAGE EASEMENT I I ) I /® )~, / /!\" / / 10 fotb// /<f~ ~';I ~"'<:) (6/ / ~ ... <.-~<t."'" ,"'~/ /~~ ..... ~/ / .;5-/ / N63'17'31"E ~ "/ / ;I / 19.82"-{'--~~ 1 1.01' '/ 01 Y'"7.L...-- ~I /1 ~'Y ~/;" /1 ~/::; / 1 "'1-/~""-__ 1 798 DETAIL N N26'25'21 "w 8,05' ./ N 20 10 0 20 40 i~lIIIi _i~~ __ ~i SCALE FEET FINAL PLAT FOR STONE CANYON CASITAS LOTS 773 THROUGH 800, AND COMMON AREA A A PORnON OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SEcnON 14 AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA OV1600719 12/11/15 U: \1400\1458\SURVEY\PLAT\1458-FPI3,dwg 1/6/2016 II: 17 AM L o " U) ( ~ -U) ( 0 Z a >-Z ( 0 W Z a ~ U) (J) =:l I- <C I- (J) w u « -.J a.. w C) « -.J -.J > ::E « ~ 0 :r: 0 :r: Z 0 0 N "'" ..- « z 0 N 0::: « >= I-z ::::> 0 U « ::E a.. >= w -.J -.J ~ 0 a::: 0 0 z (9 z ~ 0 « 0:: f- -.l « 0.. 0 Z =:l :::< J 4 z c t-+--+-,----,----I ~ E l{) z ~ ~ (L 0 if) J ~ 0 0 « :c '-... 0:: r-: (J) 0 0.. (J) 0::: 0 w « « w (J) .. > .. o cc Z w z 0 W -.l ~ 0:: f-« « 0.. « u 0:: 0.. 0 if) 0 « c, J c 0 c 0:: u. (L " , ~ G DWG. NO. en - £ FP13 ~, £ CJ> ~ >. <l 0 U Q SHT.13 OF 16 ro e a 1 U") ::> 0 « N a I ..... e I 0'> a > a 0'> -..... e a U") > 0 Attachment 2 794 ----- ~ N79'09'05"W / / / 781 11.63' N2S'33'25"W 20.07' ,. . .{.>., / '<:;7 I~ ) /,,~ ~'" /v ~IV r ®/v I I I 790 793 I I I ",I ~I !:J , I I I I I ..... r--lLf.. I It) ~I ..... -IL L716 -I, -------, I I I / 0-'/ #/ I 1---- ~/ f;j~ c,<::i ~ L=13.21' / D=7'34'02" / S27"56'23"W r;,-------t;z~." 859' 10 ----L . " ----. ~ / L~~-_~~~ L707/ ® .......... / / 783 ..... , : 10 ' \ I _I \' !:J I I : l' I I \ I 1 I 1 / / / ~/ ® ,,"'/ v'/ L=15.56' I D=9'17'06" \ \ \ (~ \~ \ \ \ \ } /ql '" "I 11-E>"" ';:"" ..... ,) \ \ \ \ \ \ I L727 ------, 782 12.31"::"....--7 I D=2'35'16" L=6.28' / DETAIL P L729) "" ",-,' "" V"' ..... "" ..... "" ® < '~>.t. ..... ~ L=13.22' ' D=10'13'56" / ® I I (")1 ~I "" I __ L728 I ---1 -- 788 \ \ \ 785 789 795 796 797 794 792 89 7 93 J.J;;;:~~S?r-DETAIL P ::---'~~ N 774 KEYMAP N.T.S. LEGEND o • • R/W V.N.A.E. P.U.E. PCR RLS APN 787 CA MDR FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED FOUND BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE SET 1/2" REBAR W/ CAP, RLS #37495 OR AS NOTED BRASS CAP FLUSH BOUNDARY LINE SECTION LINE CENTER LINE RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINE AS NOTED PARCEL LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED VEHICULAR NON-ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PIMA COUNTY RECORDS REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER LOT NUMBER COMMON AREA MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NUMBER = TYPE OF EASEMENT LEITER = EASEMENT DETAIL EASEMENT TYPES CD CD o CD PROPOSED PRIVATE ROAD (COMMON AREA "A") ® ® 0 ® ® @ PROPOSED P.U.E. PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS PROPOSED PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED REFUSE COLLECTION (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP05-FP07) PROPOSED PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP08) PROPOSED NO BUILD AREAS (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS FP09-FP10) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP11-FP12) PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP13-FP14) PROPOSED ELECTRIC EASEMENT (FOR DETAILS SEE SHEET FP09-FP10) N 20 10 o 20 40 i I SCALE 1~~iIIiiii~1 FEET FI NAL PLAT FOR STONE CANYON CASITAS LOTS 773 THROUGH 800. AND COMMON AREA A A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARnER OF SECTION 14 AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA OV1500719 12/11/15 U:\1400\1458\SURVEY\PLAT\1458-FP14.dwg 1/6/201611:18 AM c o m 'v '" (j) ( ~ -(j) ( 0 Z 0 >-Z ( 0 W Z 0 ~ (j) ,j) (f) ~ F! ~ « w I- (f) ~ c ~ E ~ " 0 D <Xl if> lfl .r:: .... - ~ .. 0 ~ Z 0 N -, c 0 0 0::: if> [L " ~ L 0 0' .c ~ .c U' 50, 0. 0 w <.> <: ...J Cl.. w (!) <: ...J ...J > ::E <: ~ 0 I 0 I Z 0 0 N """ .... lfl ~ 0 N r-= [L W (f) W I-« 0 <: z 0 N 0::: <: ~ I- Z :::::> 0 <.> <: ::E Cl.. ~ W ...J ...J <: > 0 0::: 0 o z o Z ':L o « (t: I- ---' « [L o z ~ :::;>! Z 3; 0 :r: (f) (f) « W ---' « 0 (f) [L (f) 0 "" 0 0::: « z 3; « 0::: 0 DWG. NO. FP14 J ~ Z = -, « (t: 0 w > 0 (t: [L [L « v SHT.14 OF16 @ <Xl 0 0 I '" >: 0 0 > 0 0> r:.:: 0 0 '" ~ > 0 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Town Council Regular Session Item # C. Meeting Date:01/20/2016 Requested by: Bayer Vella Submitted By:Robert Kirschmann Development Infrastructure Services Department:Development Infrastructure Services Information SUBJECT: Request for approval of the Bailey’s Desert Sky Final Plat located north of Desert Sky Road, approximately ¼ mile west of Oracle Road RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this request is to consider a Final Plat for 0.71 acres on the north side of Desert Sky Road, approximately ¼ mile west of Oracle Road (Attachment 1). The Final Plat (Attachment 2) features three (3) lots with a private driveway. The Final Plat has been reviewed and conforms with Town requirements and the approved Conceptual Site Plan. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The Final Plat requires Town Council approval prior to being officially recorded by Pima County. On March 18, 2015, the Town Council approved the Conceptual Site Plan for the proposed development. The Final Plat conforms with all design elements (i.e. site layout, access, etc.) approved as part of the Conceptual Site Plan. Proposed Improvements 0.71 acres subdivided into three (3) lots Average lot size: 10,300 sq. ft. Minimum lot size: 8,448 sq. ft. Building height: 25’, 2-story Sidewalk constructed along Desert Sky Road All three (3) lots will be accessed by a single private driveway Previous Approvals March 2015: Conceptual Site Plan FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve the Final Plat for Bailey’s Desert Sky subdivision, finding that the request meets Town requirements and conforms with the approved Conceptual Site Plan. OR I MOVE to deny the Final Plat for Bailey’s Desert Sky subdivision, finding that ___________________. Attachments Location Map Final Plat LOCATION MAP BAILEY’S DESERT SKY (OV1215-11) Attachment 1 Desert Sky Road O r a c l e R o a d Attachment # 2 APPROVALS I, _______________________ , CLER K OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS APPROVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ON THE __ DAY OF ____ , 20 __ . CLERK, TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT TOWN ENGINEER PLANNING AND ZON ING ADMIN ISTRATOR WATER UTILITY DIRECTOR ASSURANCE DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE ASSURANCE IN THE FORM OF ________ FROM __________ AS RECORDED IN DOCKET ____ PAGE __ HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO GUA RANTEE DRAINAGE AN D STREET IMPROVEMENTS (I NCLUDI NG MONUMENTS) AND UTILI TY IMPROVEME NTS (E LECTRIC , TELE PHONE, GAS, SEWER, WATER IN THIS SUBDIVISION. BY __________________ : DATE __________ _ ASSURANCES IN THE FORM OF ________ , FROM _____________ , IN THE AMO UNT OF ______ HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO GUARANTEE THE RESEEDIN G OF THIS SUBDIVISIO N IN THE EVENT THE PROJECT IS ABANDONED. "N O FINAL INSPECTION FOR ANY lO T WITHI N THIS SUBDI VISION SHALL BE APPROVED UNT il A BUILDING CODES OFFIC IAL HA S VER IFIED THAT CO NSTRUC TION ON THE lOT IS COMPLETE AND SIDEWALKS HAVE BEEN INSTAllED, PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE" RECORDING STATE OF ARIZONA ) ) SS COUNTY OF PIMA ) FEE _________ _ NO. ________ _ THIS INS TRUME NT WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT THE REQUEST OF PERRY ENG INEER ING ON THIS ______ DAY OF ________ , 20 ___ AT _____ M., IN BOOK ____ OF MAPS AND PLATS AT PAGE ______ THEREOF. DEPUTY OF PIMA COU NTY RE CORDER DATE DEDICA TION: WE , THE UNDER SIGNED, HEREBY WARRANT THAT WE ARE THE ONLY PARTY HAVING ANY REC ORD TITLE INTEREST IN THE LAND SHOWN ON THIS PLAT AND WE CO NSENT TO THE SUBDIVISION OF SAI D LAND IN THE MANNER SHOWN HEREON . UTILITY EASEMENTS AS SHOWN HEREON ARE DEDICATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLATION AND MAI NTENANCE OF UTILITIES AND SEWERS. EXCLUSIV E EASEMENTS FOR TOWN USES AS SHOW N HEREON ARE HERE BY DEDICATED TO THE TOWN OF ORO VAllEY. WE THE UNDERSIGNED, OUR SUCCESSORS AND AS SI GNS, DO HEREBY SAVE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY , IT'S SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGN S, THEIR EMPLOYEES , OFFICERS AND AGENTS HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE S RELATED TO THE USE OF SAID LANDS NOW AND IN THE FUTURE BY REASO N OF FLOODI NG, FL OWAGE, EROSI ON OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY WATER, WHETHER SURFACE, FLOOD OR RAINFALL. IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT NATURAL DRAINAGE SHALL NO T BE ALTERED, DISTURBED OR OBSTRUCTED WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE ORO VAllEY TOWN COUNCIL. PRIVATE DRAINAGEWAYS AREAS, AS SHOWN HEREON, ARE RESERVED FOR THE PRIVATE USE AND CONVENIENCE OF ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY WI THIN THIS SUBDIVIS ION , THEIR GUESTS AND INV ITEES, AND (E XCEPT FOR DRAINAGE), FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGR OUND UTILITIES AND SEWER S. TITLE TO THE LAND OF ALL PRI VATE DRANAGEWAYS AREAS SH All BE VESTED IN AN ASS OCIATIO N OF INDIVIDUAL lOT OWNERS AS ESTABLISHED BY CO VENANTS, CONDIT ION S AND RESTRICTIONS IN DO CKET BOOK ___ PAGE _____ IN THE OFFICE OF THE PIMA COUNTY RECORDER. EACH AND EVERY LOT OWNE R WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHALL BE A MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION, WHICH Will ACCEPT All RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CO NTROL, MAINTENANCE, SAFETY AND lIABILITY OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGEWAYS AREAS WITH IN TH IS SUBDIVISI ON, AS SHOW N HERE ON. BY: THOMAS D. BAI LE Y, II BY: THOMAS D. BAILEY, III STATE OF ARIZONA ) ) SS COUNTY OF PIMA ) AND AND KAREN A. BAIL EY, HUSBAND AND WIFE TARA SUE BAILEY, HUSBAN D AND WIFE ON THIS THE ______ DAY OF ________ , 20 ___ AT _____ M., BEFORE ME, THE UNDERSI GNED OFFICER, PERSONALLY APPEARED THOMAS BAilEY WHO ACKNOW LEDGE S HIMSELF TO BE THE OWNER AND TO EXE CUTE THE FOREGO ING INSTRUMENT FOR THE PUR POSE THEREI N CONTAINED BY SIGN ING AS THOMAS BAILEY . NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMM ISSION EXPIRES INGRESS/EGRESS ill EASEMENT LINE TABLE Li ne # Le ngt h Dire ction L 1 24.09 ' S89 '53 '34 "W L2 95.70 ' N04 '57'52 "W L3 24.09' S89 '55 '03 "W L4 25.09 ' N04 '57'52"W LS 40.73' N 1 O'35 'S9 "W L6 20.07' N89 '55 '03'"E L7 63 .4 4' N04 '57'52"W L8 20.4 1 ' S7S31'52 "W DRAINAGE EASEMENT ill LINE TABLE Line # Length Direction DL2 0 30.11 ' N04'57'52"W DL 2 1 9 1.47' N89 '53 ' 34'1 DL22 65.36 ' NOO '0 4' 31 "W DL 23 6.00 ' N89'55'03 "E DL24 65.00 ' NOO '04'31 "w DL2 5 6.00' N89'55'03"E FINAL PLAT BAILEY'S DESERT SKY LOTS 1 - 3 OV121S-11 J o SCA LE: 1" = 40' 40 IH 1 HORIZON HEIGHTS r' CONDOMINIUMS j BK. 38, PG. 79 M&P. ~ FND ACP ERT S I RLS 7599 DES KY LOT 79 BK. 59, PG. 96 Dl27\ R4 ZONING , \.1<11 J!---------- i~:,·Q:, DESERT SKY .--. FND >r IP RlS 27739 \-117):' _ ---,: BK. 59, PC. 96 30.71' (M) \..-----SOO'14 '13"w (M) J,I ~ ELECTRICAL EASEMENT Q) LINE TABLE Line # Le ngth Di rection EL30 4.1 5 ' N0 4'5 7'5 2"W EL31 10.00' N85 '02'08"E EL32 10 .00 ' S04'57'5 2 "E EL33 10.00' S85'02'08 "W EL34 5.85' N0 4'S7'52"W EL35 10.00' N0 4'57'52 "W EL36 10.0 4 ' N89 '55'03 "E EL37 10.00 ' S04"57'52"E EL38 10.04' S8 9'55'03 "W THIS PRCIJEC T - 3 "=1 mile 14.~e ~ 23 124 VICINITY MAP 12107 SECTION 13, T12S, RUE, C&SRM, TOWN OF ORO VA LLEY, LEGEND L2 EASEMENT PER KEY NOTE# 1 DL22 EASEMENT PER KEY NOTE# 2 EL30 EASEMENT PER KEY NOTE# 3 (C) CAL CULATED DIMENSIO N. PIMA COUN TY, AZ (M) MEASURED DIMENSION PER THI S SURVEY. (R) RECORD DIMENSION PER TITLE POLI CY lEGAL DESCRIPTION & RECORD DIMENSION PER REC ORD OF SURVEY IN BK 54 AT PG 58 [QI FND BRASS CAP SURVEY MONUMENT (BCSM). N73 '31'5 2"E l 8 ~ l\ l' ~: I~ '\ OESEflT SKY ;,., I \ N.A.E. 600' I I [0 LOT 17 l ' N A E ~...-,~ r--I LOT 3 ® .• 1 r-BK 59, PC. 96 ... -'" -' I .1 ~ 10,552 SQ. FT. Dl 25-1 1----------/ 1 20.00" "'-'·-j'\.BUllDIN G SETBACK " , I DESEflT'v KY I ~1' N.A.E. _..-.. L6:' ~~' -132.71'-~ --j C.A "A" 96 .1 8 ' NOO '04'31 "w DL2 6 6.43 ' DL2 7 --I • FOU ND AS NOTED. o NEW PROPERTY CORNER TO BE SET BY A R.L.S . l' N.A.E. l' NO ACCE SS EASEMEN T GRANTED BY THIS PLAT. . - - - - - -EX ISTING EASEMENT (AS NOTED) TO REMAIN -------NEW EASEMENT GRANTED BY THIS PL AT (AS NOTED) : 6--\ -(D--'---? ... ------_...., ~BK 59 PC 9 ~ I 3 \ ...... ----'S'. \ W l-N89'55'03 "E- -~.:::;.'. I LOT 3 I ........ ~ .. ~ --, \ ,l l 2000'---1 ..... .", ",\ \ 1 N.A.E. r ~ / I . r--....... ~ '-'\ ..\.1 '0 ..... N · / • 1 El35" :EL36 ..... -'" LOT 2 N O. N • 1 \I I ~ I ~4 N N \ \ 61 '" ( I L6 i ,w n ZONING DKT 12817, PC 5431 ~ \'6 \ 8,445 SQ . FT. I I <D S' : \ I, LEL38 ,I 9791 N DESERT SKY RD ~ _ ..... 1. _ .. \ DL23 1\ I ,:- I '" -., -'I H ..J ' I \ LOT 2 I .......... -----... ____ ...... ;<' 1 L3 'r'~"--127.15' ---;;; \ '.. \ SCALE : 1"=20' f _......... EXHIBIT B INGRESS /EGRESS fil l LI -l "n!~N89'55'0 3"E -----.j l .~ \ - - - - _ •• - - - --., fill' --r-6-0 -0 .'1 ' \ b #~-'-----,----"\ EASEME NT DKT 12720 ~. '--,,-" BUilDING ®. t ll---5\ , I 1 ::'1 0'" 2 3 I PG 002 32 ~ 24.0 0' I , \ SETBACK NNI 1 N.A.E. L " I I [UO I I ABANDONMENT OF EASEME NT 1 • I LOT 1 6 1 I ~ DESERT SKY es kJ I ..! -'w R DKT 13393 PG 00368 '" / - - - - -og I ,. I, f2\ I g CA. "A " ~ ~ I 1 El34-;-EL3t n ~1' N.A~E~ -........;\ ", ,~NA~'\o'\ \f.I Dl21 I I ~)BK. 59 , PC. 96 ~ is : ..--24.00'\ LOT 1 ! OKT 12817 PC 5431 / FND r l IP \ I g " io!,'" ~ f1\ SCALE: 1"=20' n 9797 N DESERT SKY RD ./ RlS 27739 "Dl20 0 FND ~ IP" I I / Q:::I~ \,. -en _ W __ ..... - --' ___ ./ L1 "'-....... f"") RLS 27739_\11 ../ ~IV) FND BCSM-.... ~ .. ~..... -~ 33.5jS';~T -.~ .. ~..... ..... ~ S89'53'34"W (M) 118.99' (M) .... ~ R4 RlS 12219 DEEDED TO ORO VALLEY PER DKl. 5712, PG 541 ;; 3 d 3 ZONING ......... .. RECORDED 2-10-78 (NO ROAD DEDICATION) ...... ~ _ """ ..... """ T"".... "'.v.::-87.32' (M) -... ----= N 8W5s'3s'; [(R&M} 541.ff' (if' 54i.l?'(M) = DESERT SKY ROAD ° I ------- DESERT SKY LOTS 1-45 & COMMON AREA "A " B OOK 59 PAGE 96 I'R4I ~ - - --NEW BUILDI NG SETBACK LINES --- EXISTING LOT LINES STREET CENTER LINE SECTI ON LINE EXISTING BOUNDARY NEW LOT LINE EX. ZONING BOUNDARY LINE GENERAL NOTES : 1. GROSS AREA OF SUBDIVISI ON 0.7 1 AC . 2. TOTAL NUMBER OF lOTS IS 3. 3. EXISTING ZON ING IS R4 AND MAX . DENS ITY IS 5,450 SF. OF LAND AREA PER DWELLIN G, OR 8 RESIDE NCES PER ACRE. 4. SUBDIV ISION AREA= 30,749 SQ. FT . AND DRAINAGE/EA SEMENT AREA= 9,259 SQ. FT. 5. TOTAL MilES OF NEW PUBLIC STREETS IS O. 6. MINIMUM LOT SIZE 8,400 SQ. FT. 7. AVERAGE LOT SIZE 10,000 SQ. FT. 8. MAXIM UM BUilDING HEIGHT 25' (BASIS OF BEARINC) (PUBLIC) ° ____ -.L _ _ _ _'\ _ _ _ _ _ -g R1-7 ZONING FND BC SM PU NCHED RLS 18557 9. BUilDING SETBACKS, FRONT 20', REAR 10' AND 5' SI DE SETBACKS. (10' TOTAL BETWEEN BUI LDINGS). ----------'-T' r ---- SUNS TONE ESTATES LOT 27 BK. 46. PG . 71 SU NS TONE ESTATES LOT 28 BK. 46, PG. 77 WATER ADEQUACY SUNS TONE ESTATES LOTS 7-50 AND COMMON AREA "A" & "B " BOOK 46 PAG E 77 /\ R1-7 ZONING 1\ SUNS TONE ESTATES LOT 34 BK. 46, PC. 71 "THE TOWN OF ORO VAllEY HAS BEEN DES IGNATED BY THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOUR CES AS HAVI NG AN ASSURED WATER SUP PLY, PURSUAN T TO ARS §4 5-576 AND HEREBY CERTIF IES THAT IN WRI TING TO SUPP LY WATER TO THIS SUBDIVI SI ON " BY : ____________________________ _ WATER UTILI TY DIRECTOR DATE SUNS TONE ESTA TES LOT 35 BK. 46 , PC. 71 KEYNOtES: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUNS TONE ESTA TtS LOT 36 BK. 46, PC. 71 (D PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS , UTILI TY AND PR IVATE DRAINA GE EASEMENT GRANTED BY THI S FINAL PLAT (SEE PLAN VIE W FOR OIMENSIONS) ® PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMEN T FOR PURPOSE OF LOT TO lOT DRAINAGE AND RA INWATE R HARVE STI NG BASI N GRANTED BY THIS FINAL PLA T. (SEE PLAN VI EW FOR OIMENSIONS) ill 10' x 10 ELECTRICAL EAS EMENT FOR TUCSON ELECTR IC POWER CO. GRANTED BY THIS FINAL PL AT (SEE ENLARGEMENT DETAILS FOR DIMENSIONS) 10. PARKING PRO VI SIONS (2 GUEST PARKING ARE PROVIDED IN EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT DRIVEWAY) 11. "NO FURTHER SUBD IVI SION OF ANY LOT OR PARCEL SHOW N WILL BE DONE WITHOUT THE WRITIEN APPROVAL OF THE ORO VAllEY TOWN CO UNCIL." 12. TH IS PROJECT IS OUT OF THE 1 00 YEAR FLOOD LIMIT S. 13. BASIS OF BEARINGS: MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF DE SERT SKY RO AD AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT MAP OF DESERT SKY RE CORDED IN BOOK 59 OF M&P AT PAGE 96. SAID BEARING BEING: N 89'55'35" E. 14 . THE PROFESS IONAL ENGINEER OF RECORD SHAll CERT IFY AS TO THE FORM, LINE AND FU NCTION OF Al l PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ROADWAYS AND DRAINAGE STRUCTURES BEFORE THE RELEASE OF ASSURANCES. 15. "THE PROPER TY OWNERS, THEIR SUCCES SORS OR ASSI GNS AGREES TO 1) KEEP ALL REQUIRED LANDS CAPED AREAS MAINTAINED IN A WEED FREE, TRASH FREE CONDITION; 2) REPLACE AN Y DEAD PLANT MATE RIALS WITHIN 90 DAYS: AN D 3) MAINTAIN THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IN PROPER WORKING ORDER." 16. ORO VA LLEY WATER WIL L BE THE WATER SERVICE PROVI DER. ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE CERTIFICATION OF SURVEY 17. NO FINAL INSPECTION FOR ANY l OT WITH IN THI S SUBDIVISION SHALL BE APPROVED UNTIL A BUI LDING CODES OFF ICIAL HAS VE RIFIED THAT CONSTRUCTION ON THE LOT IS COMPLETE AND STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE IN-PLACE OF CON CRETE SIDEWA LKS HAS BEEN INSTAllED, PROPERTY LI NE TO PROPERTY LINE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS PREPAREO UNDER MY DIRE CTION . I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE 100-YEAR FLOOD PRO NE LIM ITS OR HAZARD SETBACKS NOTED, IF ANY, \\£RE REV IEWED ANO SHOWN UBDER MY DIRECTION . KENNETH D. PERRY Expires: 9/30/17 P.E. NUMBER 34010 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PERIMETER BOUNOARY SURVEY AS SH OWN ON THIS PLAT WAS PERFORMED UNDER MY DIRECTION , AND THAT ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED SURVEY MONUMEN TS AND MARKERS S WN ARE CORRECTLY DESCR IBED . I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT IS PlA WAS PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECTION. FREDRI CK J. STURNIOl O ARIZO NA R.L.S. # 12537 EXPIRES 6130/2016 OWNER/DEVELOPER THOMAS BAILEY 9785 N. DESERT SKY ROAD TUCSON, ARIZONA 85718 PHONE: 520 .909 .1495 tdbailey27@aol.com PERRY ENGINEERING 505 WEST WETMORE ROA D TUCSON, AZ 85705 CONTACT: KEN PERRY, P.E. PHONE: 520 .620.98 70 Kperry@perryengineering.net FINAL PLAT BAILEY'S DESERT SKY LOTS I -3 LOCA TED IN A PORTION OF BLOCK 4 OF HORIZON HEi CHTS, IN BOOK 15 OF M&P IN PACE 84. SE CTION 13, T-/2-S, R-13-E, G&SRB&M, TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA OV12 1S-11 REF,OV1214-27 SEPTEMBER 2015 1 OF 1 Town Council Regular Session Item # D. Meeting Date:01/20/2016 Requested by: Tobin Sidles Submitted By:Mike Standish, Town Clerk's Office Department:Legal Information SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R)16-03, amending the Right-of-Way License Agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and Zayo Group, LLC to allow telecommunication facilities within the Town's rights-of-way RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Zayo Group is a provider of bandwidth infrastructure services, and is requesting permission to expand its network within Oro Valley's jurisdiction. Its plan includes pulling fiber optics through existing CenturyLink ducts, and adding short runs of new ductwork as necessary for continuity. Zayo has contracted with CenturyLink in the use of the ducts. Per Town Code 7-4-1 (Construction in Town right-of-ways), a right-of-way permit is required for the proposed work. However, due to the nature of the work, dark fiber, a license agreement would be required before a right-of-way permit can be issued. Attachment “Exhibit A” shows various locations installation will be placed throughout the Town. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The Zayo Group applied for a right-of-way permit to install telecommunication facilities within the Town’s public right-of-ways. The proposed work consists of pulling fiber optics through existing conduits owned by CenturyLink and located within and along the edge of the Town’s right-of-ways, and installing new conduits at various locations for continuity with existing conduits. The majority of the work is outside of the roadway pavement sections except for two locations where they will bore underneath to avoid cutting the pavement. DIS engineering staff has reviewed the documents outlining the proposed work and has no objections with respect to the locations in the right-of-way. If approved, the license agreement sets forth the conditions to install telecommunication facilities within the Town’s rights-of-way. In addition, a Conditional Use Permit will be required for any aerial installation over 600' in length, as per the Town Zoning Code. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impact to the Town; however, the Zayo Group, if they meet certain criteria, will pay $0.22 per lineal foot annually per the license agreement. This equates to an annual revenue of approximately $8,000 should the conditions ever occur. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (approve / deny) Resolution No. (R)16-03, amending the Right-of-Way License Agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and Zayo Group, LLC to allow telecommunication facilities within the Town’s rights-of-way. Attachments (R)16-03 Zayo R.O.W. License Agreement Exhibit A License Agreement Exhibit B - Overall Sites C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@700CB5FE\@BCL@700CB5FE.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/061609 RESOLUTION NO. (R)16-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND EXECUTING A RIGHT OF WAY LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND ZAYO GROUP, LLC TO ALLOW ZAYO GROUP TO INSTALL NEW TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES WITHIN THE TOWN’S RIGHT OF WAY WHEREAS,the Town is the owner of the right-of-way as depicted in Exhibit “B”; and WHEREAS,ZAYO Group, LLC desires to expand their telecommunication network within the Town by pulling fiber optics through existing CenturyLink ducts and adding short runs of new ductwork as is necessary for continuity; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Town Code 7-4-1, Construction in Town rights-of-way, a right of way permit is required for ZAYO Group to complete their work; and WHEREAS, a permit cannot be issued without a license agreement approved by the Town; and WHEREAS,the Town desires to permit ZAYO Group to use the Town’s right of way to expand their telecommunication network within the Town of Oro Valley. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona that the License Agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and ZAYO Group, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and any other administrative officials of the Town of Oro Valley are hereby authorized to take such steps as are necessary to execute and implement the terms of the Agreement. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 20 th day of January, 2016. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Dr. Satish I. Hiremath, Mayor ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: Julie K. Bower, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date:Date: EXHIBIT “A” EXHIBIT “B” TOWN OF ORO VALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY LICENSE (Zayo Group,LLC) LICENSOR:TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Attn: Town Engineer 11000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Licensee:ZAYO GROUP,LLC 180529th Street Boulder, Colorado 80301 1)Definitions: a)“Dark fiber” refers to unused fiber-optic cable installed by Licensee. b)“Effective Date” means the date on which all persons necessary to sign this Agreement in order for it to be binding on both parties have executed this Agreement as indicated on the signature page(s), unless a specific date is otherwise provided in the “Term” section herein. c)"Licensee" includes any person or entity employed by, contracted by, or acting on behalf of Licensee. d)“License Agreement” or “Agreement” shall mean this Agreement and any amendments or modifications hereto. e)“License Area” means the present legal boundaries of the Town as of the Effective Date, as described in attached Exhibit “A”. f) “Licensor” means the Town or the lawful successor, transferee, designee. g)The definitions of the Oro Valley Town Code, are incorporated herein. 2)In consideration of Licensee's payment of a license fee, the receipt of which is acknowledged by the Licensor, and Licensee's performance of its obligations under this License, Licensor hereby authorizes Licensee to use, in conformance with this License and all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations, Licensor's public right-of-way referred to in this License as the License Area, The License Area as described in Exhibit A may be amended by written instrument signed by the Oro Valley Town Engineer and a duly authorized officer of Licensee. 3)License Fee. In the event a fee becomes payable to Licensor under ARS §9-583 (C) (2), payment shall be made by check payable to The Town of Oro Valley and mailed to: The Town of Oro Valley Finance Department 11,000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley AZ, 85737 In accordance with A.R.S. §9-582, referencing A.R.S. §9583 (C) (2), Licensee shall pay an annual License Fee of $.22 based on the number of linear feet of trench in the public highways in which the telecommunications corporation had placed facilities that carry interstate traffic between and among the telecommunications corporation’s interstate points of presence exclusive of the facilities used by the local network and the portion of the interstate network that carries the intrastate calls. Provided the linear foot fees comply with applicable Arizona law, Licensee hereby consents to the addition of such fees to this license, which all be paid annually to the address designated above, and shall be subject to annual increases through the terms of the license and any renewals, in an amount equivalent to the Consumer Price Index (as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics) for each Linear Foot of fiber optic cable now or hereafter installed in the public right-of-way described herein which meets the definition of A.R.S. §28-583 (C) (2). If payment is not received within 30 days of the due date, Licensee shall pay interest (simple interest, not compounded) on the past due license fee amount or any other sum due under this license, at the rate of ten percent per annum as allowed by ARS § 44-1201. Interest shall be calculated from the date due until paid. 4)This license is not transferrable without the written consent of Licensor. 5)Licensee may use the License Area for installation of telecommunications facilities in a manner consistent with this License and conforming to plans approved and permits issued bythe Town of Oro Valley for each installation. 6)This License is evidence of Licensee's right to use the public right-of-way-a pre-condition and prerequisite to obtaining one or more Town of Oro Valley right-of-way use permits in accordance with Oro Valley Town Code 7-4-1 (Construction in Town rights-of-way). All Licensee work in the License Area shall be accomplished pursuant to a right-of-way use permit in accordance with the requirements of Oro Valley Town Code 7-4-1 (Construction inTown rights-of-way) and in compliance with A.R.S. §9-582 as follows: a)Licensee shall submit to Licensor all of the following with any right of way permit application: i)Engineered construction plans with specifications for the facilities Licensee proposes to install inthe License Area. ii)A construction cost estimate for the installation of Licensee's facilities proposed to be installed inthe License Area. iii)The "Right-of-Way Permit; Construction Plan Check Fee" and any other applicable review fee set forth in the then-effective Oro Valley Comprehensive Fee Schedule. iv. If Licensee is using or occupying facilities owned or operated by another entity, or is installing new facilities for another entity, a true and correct copy of a lease or other agreement evidencing Licensee's legal right or authority to use, occupy, or install the facilities. b)During Licensor's review of Licensee's right-of-way application and associated documents,Licensor will: i)Identify any potential pending Oro Valley Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project conflict and route plan review through the CIP Project Manager for designer review. ii)Determine if the permit can be issued, and if so: notify Licensee of any applicable standard or special permit conditions; and iii)Require the posting of a cash bond or some form of security when and to the extent the Licensor reasonably determines that it is prudent to do so to protect against any direct financial impacts on Licensor that may be caused by Licensee's: (1)failure to perform, (2)facilities conflict, (3)failure to relocate its facilities, and/or (4)any other similar reasons. iv)Decline to issue a right-of-way permit for areas that will or may conflict with public works projects in circumstances where the Licensor reasonably determines that Licensee's posting of a cash bond or other security is not sufficient to address Licensor's concerns or interests. 5.This License does not authorize Licensee to provide "cable service"as defined in Oro Valley Town Code Articles 12-17 and 12-6.See Oro Valley Town Code Chapter 12 (Cable Communications). 6.Licensee's use of the License Area shall comply with all applicable local,state,and federal requirements. 7.Licensee shall pay any and all taxes, charges, and fees applicable to this License or applicable to Licensee's use of the License Area that may hereafter be adopted by Licensor in conformance with Arizona Revised Statutes section A.R.S. §9-582 (Taxes and other charges; telecommunications facilities; limitations) and A.RS.§9-583 (Issuance of license or franchise; use of public highways; limitations). 8.Licensee shall bring into compliance with Town-approved plans and all applicable local, state, and federal requirements any use of the License Area installed by or on behalf of Licensee. If Licensee is unable to bring any such use of the License Area into compliance, Licensee shall remove such use at Licensee's cost. 9.Licensee shall maintain any use of the License Area installed by or on behalf of Licensee. 10.Licensor shall have the right to modify or terminate this License at any time. 11.This License shall remain in effect unless and until it is terminated (a) by and at the sole discretion of Licensor or (b) bywritten agreement of Licensor and Licensee. 12.Licensor shall give Licensee written notice of full or partial termination of this License at least 60 calendar days before the termination unless an emergency requires a shorter notice period, and inthat event Licensor shall notify Licensee as early as practicable. 13.Upon demand by Licensor for any reason, including without limitation Licensor's construction of a road widening or other capital project that conflicts with or otherwise affects Licensee's facilities, Licensee shall at its sole cost either (i) relocate Licensee's facilities to a portion of the remaining License Area not in conflict with the capital project, or (ii) completely remove everything maintained by Licensee in the portion of the License Area affected by the capital project. Licensor shall not be responsible for damages resulting from Licensee's failure to timely remove or relocate itsfacilities pursuant to this paragraph. 14.This License shall not be assigned by Licensee, but Licensee's obligations under this License shall be binding upon Licensee's heirs, contractors, assignees, designees, agents, andrepresentatives. 15.Licensor issues this License to Licensee as an accommodation for the provision of telecommunication services to businesses and residents of the Town of Oro Valley and the surrounding area. 16.Licensee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Licensor, its officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, complaints, suits, losses, damages, injuries, and liabilities whatsoever (including those for costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees) to any person, persons, or property arising out of either (i)Licensee's use or maintenance of the License Area or (ii) Licensee's negligent acts or omissions in connection with anything installed by or on behalf of Licensee in the License Area. 17.Licensee shall obtain liability insurance for the term of this License in minimum amounts of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence and $2,000,000.00 per occurrence for general aggregate. Licensee may satisfy the minimum insurance requirement with excess or umbrella liability coverage. This insurance shall be updated annually and shall be kept in force while this License is in force. Licensor may, if it deems necessary, require additional coverage. Licensor shall be named as an "additional insured" endorsee for the coverage, evidenced by endorsement number on the face of the insurance certificate and submittal of a copy of the additional insured endorsement or any other required endorsement. If available through Licensee's insurance carrier, Licensee shall obtain a "cancellation notice recipient" endorsement, evidenced by endorsement number on the face of the insurance certificate and submittal of a copy of the cancellation notice recipient endorsement, in all its insurance policies, requiring Licensee's insurance carrier to provide notice to Licensor of cancellation or reduction of insurance coverage. CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE FOR COVERAGE AS DESCRIBED IN THIS LICENSE SHALL BE FILED WITH LICENSOR PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY ACTIVITY UNDER THIS LICENSE. Licensee SHALL ALSO FILE ALL CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE AND REQUIRED ENDORSEMENTS EACH TIME THE POLICY IS UPDATED OR RENEWED. Certificates of insurance and endorsements shall be sent to the Town of Oro Valley Engineering Division, 11000 N. La Canada Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85737, annually commencing on the date of execution of this License. 18.Licensee shall give Licensor written notice within two working days after Licensee receives notice of any cancellation or reduction of its insurance coverage. 19.If Licensee causes any damage to the License Area, Licensee shall promptly make and pay for the repairs necessary to restore the License Area to its pre-damaged condition. At the discretion of Licensor, if repairs are not initiated and completed within a reasonable length of time, but in any event within 14 calendar days after Licensor gives written notice of damage to Licensee, Licensor may make the repairs and bill Licensee for all costs plus a 25% administrative fee. Licensee shall pay the bill within ten calendar days of receipt. 20.This License is effective for five years from its effective date. So long as Licensee is not then in default under this License, this License shall be automatically renewable for an additional five-year period at the written request of Licensee delivered to Licensor not less than 30 days before the end of the five-year term. 21.This License is subject to cancellation for conflict of interest pursuant to A.R.S.§38-511. INWITNESSWHEREOF,thepartieshaveexecutedthisLicenseeffectiveasoftheLicensor's signature date below. "LICENSOR":“Licensee”” TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ZAYO GROUP, LLC, A Delaware limited liability company an Arizona municipal corporation By: __________________________________By: _____________________________ Its: _____________________________ Date: ___________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Boulder ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _____________, 2015 by ____________________________________, the ________________________of ZAYO GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, on behalf of the LLC. (seal) ____________________________________ Notary Public STATE OF ARIZONA ) ) ss. County of Pima ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ______________, 2015 by ____________________________________, the ________________________for the Town of Oro Valley, an Arizona Municipal corporation. EXHIBIT A: THE "LICENSEAREA" 1.The following public road rights-of-way owned by the Licensor: a. lOF 1 I GRO N/A BY 038A Oro Valley Overall Sites NEW AERIAL NEW UNDERGROUND LEGEND: EXISTING CENTURYLINK ----------------- ORO VALLEY UMITS _ •• _ •• _ •• _ •• - Town Council Regular Session Item # E. Meeting Date:01/20/2016 Requested by: Julie Bower Submitted By:Julie Bower, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office Information SUBJECT: *Appointments to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) RECOMMENDATION: There are currently three vacancies on the Historic Preservation Commission. After conducting interviews, the selection committee is making the following appointment recommendations: Allison Crane for a term ending December 31, 2018 Walter Ohlson for a term ending December 31, 2018 Joseph Kane for a term ending December 31, 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: HPC liaison Councilmember Zinkin, HPC Vice Chair Marilyn Lane and Parks & Recreation Director Kristy Diaz-Trahan were members of the selection committee. The applications of Ms. Crane, Mr. Ohlson and Mr. Kane are attached for review. All unsuccessful candidates will be notified via letter from the Council liaison and will be advised that their applications will be kept on file for two (2) years. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) was formed to promote the educational, cultural and economic welfare of the Town of Oro Valley by ensuring the preservation of historic buildings, districts, landmarks, structures, documents, photographs and other artifacts that represent the historic background and development of the greater Oro Valley area. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (approve or deny) the following appointments: Allison Crane for a term ending December 31, 2018 Walter Ohlson for a term ending December 31, 2018 Joseph Kane for a term ending December 31, 2018 Attachments Crane Application Ohlson Application Kane Application Kane Application First Name Middle Initial Last Name Suffix Email Address Street Address Suite or Apt City State Postal Code Number of years in Oro Valley (If less than 1 year, please state number of months) Primary Phone Alternate Phone Submit Date: Dec 29, 2015 Status: submitted Town of Oro Valley Boards & Commissions Application Form Profile Dear Oro Valley Citizen: We appreciate your interest in the Town of Oro Valley. This informational form, when completed, will allow us to quickly process your application by assisting us in understanding how we can best use your talents and experience. Information reflecting the procedures surrounding the appointment process to Boards is attached below. Your application will remain on file for two years from the date of receipt. We thank you kindly for volunteering to serve the Town! Please note: No volunteer shall serve on more than one standing Board at any time. Please select your residency status: Which Boards would you like to apply for? Historic Preservation Commission, Tucson-Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee Interests & Experiences Please list your volunteer services in Oro Valley and with other organizations including any Alison Crane Oro Valley AZ 85737 Oro Valley Resident 8 Mobile: Home: ( boar ds or commissions on which you have served : (boar d/commission , civic, educat ional, cultural, social, etc.) I have coached youth soccer in the 922 Oro Valley regi on. I also help organi ze and run the high school mock tri al competiti on. How does your previous volunteer service pr epare you for the board or commission appointment for which you have applied? Please describe an issue consider ed at a meeting of the Board or Commission for which you ar e applying. My previ ous volunteer experi ence has gi ven me i nsi ght into communi ty members and acti vities. I understand what i t takes to organize an event or engage youth and famili es i n communi ty acti viti es. I have seen the importance of having opportuni ties for members of the communi ty to connect with each other and understand that events and locations are one key for maki ng those connecti ons happen. Briefly describe your educational/vocational background. I have a B.A. i n psychology and a J.D ., both from the Universi ty of Arizona. Ques tion app lies to Con cep tual De s ign Review Board . Please describe an issue or pr oject you contr ibuted to which related specifically to conceptual design? Ques tion app lies to Con cep tual De s ign Review Board . Listed below are fields of pr ofessional experience required for four (4) member s of the CDRB . If you have r elevant experience, please check all that apply. A rt A rchi tecture P lanning E ngi neeri ng D evelopment C onstructi on If ye s, what yea r? Up l oad a Re sum e Pl e ase a tta c h a n y a d di ti ona l doc um e nts h ere Other D esi gn B ackground Ques tion app lies to Con cep tual De s ign Review Board . For each selection you made above, please provide your years of experience and a generaliz ed description of your professional design background in that area. Have you at tended the Community Academy or CPI? Yes No If no, are you willing to attend? Yes No Please read the infor mation c ontained in Appendices "B" and "C" of the Parliamentary Rules and Proc edures before continuing. Appendix "B" - Appointment Proc ess Appendix "C" - Volunteer Consideration Please Agree with the Following Statement By clicking this box, I cer tify t hat I have read the information cont ained in Appendices "B" and "C" of the Parliamentary Rules and Pr ocedur es. I Agree * 1pg_updated_law_resume.doc Alison P. Cran e Oro Valley, AZ 85737 WORK EXPERIENCE ASS ISTANT An'OIlNEY GENERAL, C HI LD AND FAWLY PROTE CTION AN D LITIGATION SUPPOR T DI VISIONS, Tu cs on , AZ- S eni or Litigation Aflomey (June 2007 -current)-prom oled to Senio r Lit iga li on Attorney in Ja n uary 2013; mediated , nego tiated, litigated high-pro fil e child abuse and ne glect ca ses throughout Arizona ; re sea rched issues of juvenile, family law; de ve loped trainin g pro gra ms for new attomeys, intem s, case workers; in stmcted attomeys, case workers, out s ide agencies; contributed to mana gement and court-improvement committees. UN IVEIlS ITY OF PH OEN IX, Tucson, AZ-Adjun ct Professor (September 2008 -June 2014)-ln st ructed and engaged college and graduate students in var ious law -related courses; deve loped co urse -re lated materia ls and ass ignme nt s. PI~IA COUNTY J UVEN ILE COUIlT, The Honorable Terry C handler, Tucson. AZ-Clerk (August 2006 -June 2007)-Drafted memoranda on issues such as the Indian ChiW Welfare Act, illiver's license revocation: prepared Rule 32 ruli llgs; discussed nuances of jud icia l deci s ion-making and le gal etiquette. PI~IA COUN TY PUBLIC DEFENDER, Tucso n, AZ-C/erk (January 2006 -June 2006)-Researched and drafted mOlions, memoranda on topics sllch as confession s, bifurcation , rules of evidence, suppression , and se ntence enhancement. ZARAGOZA LAW F IIl M, Tucs on. AZ-Clerk (January 2006 -May 2006)-Prepared interrogatories, c ivil complaints, production request s ; re searched contract iss ues. C HILD ADVOCACY CLINI C, UN IVER SIT Y OF AR IZONA COLLEGE OF LAW, Tucson, A 'lr-38(d) Student LalVy er (August 2005 -May 2006)-Represe nted chi ldren in dependency cases; negotiated with attorneys; re searched and drafted motion s . PIMA COUN TY JU\'EN IL E COURT, The Honorable M ichael Miller, Tucson. AZ-Clerk (August 2004 -December 2004)- Drafted memoranda on iss ue s rel at ing to competency to stand tr ia l, ru les of evidence ; altended cou rt proceeding s; discussed nuances of judic ia l decis ion-m aking an d lega l e liqu e lte. ROCKY MOUNTAIN C I-IILDR EN'S LAW CENTER, Denver, CO -SulIlm er Associate (June 2004 -August 2004)-Guardian ad Litem in num erous dependency cases; negot iated with clients, case workers, therapi sts, and attorneys; summarized case materia ls; prepar ed and accompanie d supervising attorneys to Court. PUBLICATIONS Th e Encyclop edia of AlIl eri can Civil Li berti es (Paul Finklema n ed.. Routledge 2006) (su mmmies of Crane v. J oh nson and Allen \'. lIIinois). Conl ribution s to the forum s h opping ch apter in Kev in John son, Catheline Ro gers & John V. White, Complex Litigation: Cases and lvIaterials all Litigatingfor So cial Change (Carolina Academic Press 2009). A WARD S • Ari zona Attorney General, Attomey of th e Year 20 I 0 E DUCATION THE UN IVE RSITY OF AR IZONA, Tucso n, AZ • J;IMES E. ROGERS COLLEGE OF L AW Admitted to Ihe Arizona Bar, October 2006 Juri s Doctor, May 2006 Substantial Paper: "Building a Better Bra z il for it s Next Generation" • COLLEGE OF SOCIAL AND B E HAVIORAL SCt ENCES Bac he lor of Arts in Psych o logy; Summa C um Laud e, May 2002 • Honors Thesis: "Sex ual Abuse and the Femal e Ado lescent V ic li m: The Need for U n iform Lega l Sia ndards" COMMUN ITY SERV l CEfLAi'iG UAGES Will s for H eroes, H igh Sc hool Mock Tri al Tournament, A.Y.S.O. Soccer Coach, My Sister's Closet. • Int er mediate flu ency in Spani sh. First Name Middle Initial Last Name Suffix Email Address Street Address Suite or Apt City State Postal Code Number of years in Oro Valley (If less than 1 year, please state number of months) Primary Phone Alternate Phone Submit Date: Dec 17, 2015 Status: submitted Town of Oro Valley Boards & Commissions Application Form Profile Dear Oro Valley Citizen: We appreciate your interest in the Town of Oro Valley. This informational form, when completed, will allow us to quickly process your application by assisting us in understanding how we can best use your talents and experience. Information reflecting the procedures surrounding the appointment process to Boards is attached below. Your application will remain on file for two years from the date of receipt. We thank you kindly for volunteering to serve the Town! Please note: No volunteer shall serve on more than one standing Board at any time. Please select your residency status: Which Boards would you like to apply for? Historic Preservation Commission Interests & Experiences Please list your volunteer services in Oro Valley and with other organizations including any Walter H.Ohlson Oro Valley AZ 85755 Oro Valley Resident 3 mos Mobile: Business: boar ds or commissions on which you have served : (boar d/commission , civic, educat ional, cultural, social, etc.) None. Relocated here only three months ago. How does your previous volunteer service pr epare you for the board or commission appointment for which you have applied? Please describe an issue consider ed at a meeting of the Board or Commission for which you ar e applying. In additi on to bei ng a member of the Nati onal Trust for Histori c Preservation, I am an Urban Historian havi ng worked on oral hi story projects as well as certi fying with the C hi cago Architectural Foundation, which i s consi dered "graduate-level" trai ning and one of the best i n the world. I have also curated a project at the National Hellenic Museum. Briefly describe your educational/vocational background. After a tough start, academically, I returned to school twenty years post hi gh school when the greatest uni versi ty on the planet: The Uni versity of A rizona, accepted me a freshman in 1993. Graduati ng wi th a B .A. in the C lassics in four years i n 1996, I have amassed a fine hi storian's library whi le also pursi ng an M.A i n Publi c History. Ques tion app lies to Con cep tual De s ign Review Board . Please describe an issue or pr oject you contr ibuted to which related specifically to conceptual design? Ques tion app lies to Con cep tual De s ign Review Board . Listed below are fields of pr ofessional experience required for four (4) member s of the CDRB . If you have r elevant experience, please check all that apply. A rt A rchi tecture P lanning E ngi neeri ng D evelopment C onstructi on If ye s, what yea r? Up l oad a Re sum e Pl e ase a tta c h a n y a d di ti ona l doc um e nts h ere Other D esi gn B ackground Ques tion app lies to Con cep tual De s ign Review Board . For each selection you made above, please provide your years of experience and a generaliz ed description of your professional design background in that area. Have you at tended the Community Academy or CPI? Yes No If no, are you willing to attend? Yes No Please read the infor mation c ontained in Appendices "B" and "C" of the Parliamentary Rules and Proc edures before continuing. Appendix "B" - Appointment Proc ess Appendix "C" - Volunteer Consideration Please Agree with the Following Statement By clicking this box, I cer tify t hat I have read the information cont ained in Appendices "B" and "C" of the Parliamentary Rules and Pr ocedur es. I Agree * OHLS.di rector.2016.Tucson.docx w ALTER H. OHLSON Tucson, AZ 85755 SENIOR-LEVEL DIRECTOR T o pa rla y over twenty-years of building lo ng-t erm, profess io nal business relation s hip s inside the fr a nc hi se world , rea l es tate brokerage, IT, and Yellow Pages adverti s in g --throug ho ut the U.S. --in addition to ha v in g an hi sto ri a n's eye for unde rs tanding and inte rrupting human endeavor, into an executive-level positi o n with a market-leading, cutting-edge co rp oration. PROFESSIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS Administration R ec ruit ed, tra in ed, and managed hu ndreds of e mpl oyees in addition to manage rs and admini s tra ti ve s taffs; Ad mini s te red HR po li c ies and procedures and wrote a ll employee evalu ati o ns in addition to presenting co mp-plans; Serviced & consulted over 45 0 fr anc hi see cli e nt s in multi -s ta te reg ions: Dese rt Southwes t (Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, a nd Wes t Texas) (twice); and the Mid wes tern U .S (Illino is, Indi a na , Io wa and Nebraska); Dra fted "preferred ve nd or" contracts to enhance web-reven ue lines in addition to o ffe rin g broader transac ti onal se r vices; Env isioned and planned multiple annual award celeb ra ti ons, quarterl y meetings, a nd sa les rallies fo r as man y as 1,600 attendees; Pre pared PowerP o int presentations for client proposals and designed company broc hures for trad e s hows; Sup ervise d as many as 10 intemationa l trad e expositi o ns and sta te conventions, as well as franchisorlbrand co n ve ntions; R e loca ted entire fi e ld operations in both Phoeni x as well as C hi cago; Conso lid ated and revamped two major parliame nt a rian advertising councils; Advanced proficiencies in most Mi croso ft o pe ratin g sys te m s; Tactfully com muni cates sensitive information; P rofessio na l bu s iness, educational, and le isure trave ler thro u g h o ut the u.s . and Ha wa ii , Mexico, Can ada, and Europe. Sa les and Sales Management: T we nt y+ years of business-lo-business, cons ult a ti ve sales experiences in sid e ex tensive co ld-calling e nviro nm en ts s uch as Yellow Pages advertis ing, spec ialty billboards, an d franchising; Advanced kn owle dge o f the franchise sa les processes, i.e., transac ti o ns, legal docum ents, sales a nd growth models; Negotiated and closed over 70 fra nchises, w ith an ave rage royalty-fcc o f $250,000, in th e statcs o f Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico , Texas, Ohio, and Io w a ; Managed INTERNET s ales operation, c los in g, on average, 800 tran sactio ns annually; Experience w ith vario us CLIENT RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT (CRM) systems including SalesFo rce; Coached a nd ma na ged hundreds of sales pe rso nn e l ac hi evin g so me of the highest produc ti v ity me tri cs measured. Strategic Planning, Budgeting and Project Management: Forecasted m o nthl y/quarterl y and allliual bud ge ts whil e lead in g the nation in net operating profits (N.O.I) wi th two brands; R econfig ured e ntire lead di stributi o n algorithms to maxim ize e ffi c ie nc ies and product iv ity; De m ons t ra ted und erstanding of and expertise in fran c hi sor/franc hi see relati o n ship; He lp ed hu nd re ds o f fran c hi sees unde rsta nd their s tra teg ic ro le in building brand via rec ruiting and M&A ini tia tives; Seven (7) years o f fi e ld manage me nt experience as a Franchise Di st ri c t Manager or Directo r ; D ra ft e r of excellent , in-dep th S.W.O.T. analyses; Comm ission ed IT development of Go LOCAL ma rk e tin g ini tia ti ve at C hi cago, Omaha a nd Lincol n, NE. Academic Achievements: Graduate-leve l work in Ameri can (U.S.) Hi s to ry ; Ea lll ed Bachelor's Degree in Classica l S tud ies; Presen ted academ ic essay titl ed: Ambushed at Shi lo h : G ra nt 's Arm y, th e n Grant Him se lf a t Mid-Am erica Co nference on f-l istOlY as we ll as Nort hern Illin ois University Graduate Student Conference; S u ccessfull y co mpl eted 3-day se minar 011 profess io na l public s pea kin g ski ll s u sing MS PowerP o inl ; P roc ur ed s tat e-iss ued re a l estate li censes in bo th Arizona an d Illin o is. WALTER H. OHLSON Pa ge Two PROFESSIONAL HISTORY Ca pital CO llu ect, Inc ., Tu cso n. AZ . is a nationally recog nize d leader in residential and co mm ercial security and hom e aLll omation systems. Partn ers are indus /J y lead ers that help deliver affordable security products and services 10 c ustomers across Arizo na, California, New Mexico, Texas, Co lorado. Utah, Nevada, Idaho and Illino is. • DffiECTOR of STRATEGIC PARTNERS HIPS Home and Business Sec ur ity SolutionsiTeclm o iog ies September 2015 to Present Spearhead in g new commerc ial department foc usin g on bu s in ess sec urit y in addition to seeki ng partners hi ps that align with eel co re-res id e ntial bu siness. • Pro cured th e lar gest Advertising Bu s in ess Agreement (ABA) in company hi story, aligning with a 1 OOO -agent real es tate firm in Arizona that c loses ove r 15,000 transactions a year -in onl y firs t mo nth ; RE/MAX LLC, De nver, CO (NYSE: RMAX) A "best-in -c1ass" publicly traded brand with 10 0,000 mem ber-agents working oW of over 6,500 offices in 100 co untries . • Sr, BUSINESS D EVELOPM ENT CONSULTANT (SR. BDC) Fran chi se Sa les, So uth wes t Re g ion (Ari zo na , New Mexico a nd West Texas) Augu s t 20 14 to Augu st 2015 Pro mote d to the franchise sales di vision as a senior director to market the fran chi se sys tem s a t Tucso n, Ph oe ni x, Albuquerq ue/S anta Fe, and El Pa so, TX. So ld 7 fra nchi ses at Tu cso n (UA), Scottsda le (Old To wn), Te mp e, Rio Rancho (3), and Santa Fe -in jus t 8 mo nth s; Brokered ac qui siti on o f 20 -year old co mp a ny in New Mex ico; Tumed-aro und declared "termination" by findin g an d broke rin gpartnership to sav e ex ist in g operat io n a t Tucson; Pro bed and forged the Adult-Community Franchise concept. • FRANCHISE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT (FDC) February 2014 to Aug ust 20 14 Regiona l Serv ices, So uth west Region (Ari zo na, New Mex ico and West T ex a s) Re loca te d to D enve r to serve the Sou th west Region to bring va lue to franchise clients; assist and cons ult me mb ers on broke ra ge growth; co ll ec t o uts tandin g fees and renew all ex pired contrac ts. • • • Stabili zed regiona l service s in the s ta te of New Mexico and Southe m Arizo na b y renewing 7 contracts in th e fir st 4 month s; Tenninated non -pe rforming me mb ers (where ot he rs have fai led), Engaged and trained ~250 members ou t of 350 in less th a n 5 months to gain a robu s t in c rea se in adoptio n-rates wit hin th e Lea d Stree t CRM. • DIRE CT OR of BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT February 20 13 to Feb ruary 2014 Reg iona l Serv ices, RE /MAX Cen tral , In c. Linco ln , NE (Nebraska -Iowa) Re loca ted to Lin co ln , NE to se rve th e Centr a l Regio n, one o fthe o ldes t ind e pe nd ent regio ns in the R EIMAX wo rld ; marke t and serv ice th e franchis e syste m s. In creased me mb e rsh ip head-count in Neb raska and Iowa from 585 to 620 , or +6%, in just th e I s t year from a dec lin e of -22 members (2012); • Added new fra nc hise @ Des Moines; • De co mm issio ned half th e hot-air ba ll oo n fl eet w hil e purchas in g a nd re furb is hin g fl eet in two sta tes; • Se t 20 14 Reg io nal Marketing Plan titl ed : Go LOCAL! See http://www.rem a x-ce ntra l.co m/oma halco ml1l unit ies WALTER H. OHLSON Page Three ADHOC Ad voca tes, L.P ., Chi cago, lL Professional business consultancy, concentrating 011 solving business and brand development issues • MANAGING GENERAL PARTNER Manage me nt Co nsu ltin g May 20 I I to Dece mb er 20 12 Fo ur (4) mai n areas of concentration: Brand Deve lop ment ; New Market Opportunities; Staffin g & Recruiting Solutions; E xit Strategy So luti ons; Proj ec ts co mmi ss ioned: Apartment Finde rs , Inc .: Brand D eve lop me nt & Inves to rs so ught • Prud ential Rubloff Corporation New Market D eve lopm e nt (NW Indiana and SW Mi chigan) • Drafted fea s ibilit y stud y on resid enti a l re nta l business in Chicago • Li stingbook, LLC , "The Ultimate Online Solution/or Real Estate Agents and their Clien ts, "Nor theast Illin o is Laun c hed ne w compa n y int o Chicago market, pro motin g the ir robu s t CRM. ZIP Realty, Inc ., Emeryvill e, CA, is a publicly-traded, high-tech c01pora tion working inside the residential real estate space. • DffiECTOR of REGIONAL OPERATIONS (RD) In temet Real Es tate Brokerage (Chi cago) Apri l 2009 to Apri l 20 II Admini s tered day-ta-day business operations for this intemet-b ased rea l estate brokerage including recruitin g and training; fiscal budgetary man age me nt; brand deve lopment ; C li e nt Re lationship Management (CRM) develop me nt a nd manage ment; sought adve rti sing revenues and allianc es: Turned-around one of th e most dysfu nc tiona l, poorly-nlll and non-profitable bu si ness units in U.S. Surpassed bo th 2009 and 20 10 revenue budgets by 13% and 4 %, respectively; Ch icago operation closed over 1,600 tra nsac tion s o n $8 MM in conuniss io ns, genera tin g $1,837,05 1 (22.5%) in net o perating p ro fit wh ile co mpany posted record lo ses o f -S 17 MIL in 2009 a nd 20 I 0; One o f onl y fi ve regio ns in the U .S ., out 004 , th at posted a po siti ve r e turns in 2010; Rec ru ited on a ve rage seventy-fi ve (75) new empl oyees annua ll y and taug ht engageme nt s tr ateg ies; • Re designed e ntire territory confi g ura ti on to maxi mi ze capture rates on 5,000-7 ,000 B2C internet-pro spec ts monthly; • Sales techniques tau ght and managed whi ch produced #1 o r #2 rankin gs in LEAD-CONVERS ION RATIOS (.67 to .98), nationwide; • Inc rea se d Y-O-Yproductivity 133.1% fo r 5 1 of 56 e mpl oyee-agents (91%). REA LOGY Fran c hi se Group (RFG), Pars ipp a ny, NJ, is th e lel/gest Fan chiso r 0/ residential and co mmercial real es tate brokerage offices in the lVorld with approximately 14,300 Fanch ised and company-owned offices and 253,000 brokers. • REGIONAL SE RVICES DIRECTOR (RD) Regio na l Services, North e rn lIl inois and Northwest Indi ana February 2006 to Sept e mb er 2008 Spea rh eaded tum -aro und project of Century 21 LLC (C hi cago Region) wit h 200 + membe r c li ents a nd 6000 sa les assoc iates, ge n era ting $8 M IL in ann ual franchise fees: • In creased mar ket-share from 6.1 % to 7.1 % a ft e r o nl y I -year wh ile also purging regio n o f20% o f un der- perfonning offi ces an d age nts; • Retentio n st rategies renewe d over $7 milli o n in roya lt y fees inj us t the last yea r a lone; • Re-directed franch ise sa les e fforts whi c h added $5 MM in adjusted g ross comm iss io ns; • Fran chi se Sa les Team wo n TO P HONOR awards nati o nwid e in '06 and '07 • Hos ted 1 Sl ever annual awards ce lebra ti on in s id e a built 1929 s pea keasy. WALTER H. OHLSON Page Four REINIAX Int erna ti onal , Denver, CO Privat ely-held rea l esta te brand wilh 75,000 member-agents lVorking out of over 4,500 offices in 80 countries • DIRECTOR OF FRANCHISE DEVELOPMENT Franchise Sales, RE /MAX of Ca lifornia and Hawaii September 2005 to December 2005 Relocated to th e Californ ia-Hawai i Region at Los Angeles ... • Drafted plan to market the fran chi se sys tem in side the Ci ty of San Francisco; • Shortly after reloca ting , regional director passed away and th e reg ion was so ld ; • Returned to C hi cago to run the Century 21 region. • Sr. FRANCHISE SALES CONSULTANT February 200 1 to September 2005 Franchise Sales, REIMAX Cent ral & Northern Ohio (C leve land, Co lumbu s and Toledo , OH) Hire d to combat "adve rse" co nditi ons in Clevela nd , main tain stre ngth in Colu mbu s, and re-invigora te Toledo; directed th e se lection and pla ce ment of all new franchi sees; marketed franchi se sys tems via cold-calling to compe tin g firms: • Per sona lly So ld 35 franchises in pI four yea rs wh ile the region so ld 66 franchises in same time --a re co rd in Ohio; • Earned Honorable Mention and promoted after only I year, 200 I ; • Honored l SI in Franchise Sales Revenue and 2 nd in Units Sold in th e U.S. COR regions, 2002; • One of on ly five employees (5) nationwide to win a ll -expenses paid vacation (for 2) to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, '04; ACADEMIC STUDIES & PURSUITS Re-Ce rtified, Int egr it y Selling®, Inte grity Solutions Holding, LLC , Denver, CO, January 20 15; Certified, Take Back Your Life! (TBYL), Micro so ft Outlook®, McGhee Produc ti v it y Solutions, Denve r, CO, March 20 14 ; Graduate, Int egrity Se lling®, Inte grity So luti o ns Ho lding, LLC, Las Vegas, NY, March 20 13 ; M.A. Scholarship, Department of Hi story, WESTERN ILLINOI S UNIVERSITY & LOYOLA UNIVERS ITY-CHI CAGO, spring and fall 20 12, respectively; • Researc h w ithin the CO LD WAR era, th e American Civil War and the Hist01Y of tire American South. R ea l Estate Licensee, C hi cago Associat ion of REALTORS (CAR), 2000-2006, 2008; Certified Racer/Vintage, American Hi stor ic Ra c in g Me mbers Associat ion (AHRMA), 2004-2005; Certified, Shackl eto n Leadership Training, Chicago, IL , Augus t 2003; B.A ., C la ss ica l Studies w ith doub le minors in Eng li s h an d Hi story, UN I VERS ITY OF ARIZONA, Tucson, AZ, 1996 • Nationa l Honor Society in HistOlY, Phi Alph a Theta, UA Foundation, re troac ti ve from 1996 , Marc h 20 12. • Old Main Member, University of Arizona A lumni Associat ion, since 1997 • Booster, Classics Department, University of Ar izona, Sp rin g 1995 Spea rhead ed recmitment of stude nt body for academic tour of c la ssica l Italy, March 1995 Real Estate Licensee, Arizona Departmen t of REA L ESTATE (ADRE), 1992-199 6. COMMUNITY COMMITMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS Contributor, CPR, KUVOIKVJZ 88.1, Public Radio , Cancion Mexicana, Denver, CO 20 I 4-Prese nt; Membership: President's Circle, Na ti o nal Ba seball Hall of Fame and Museum, Cooperstown, NY, 20 14 - Contributor, NET, 91.1 Publi c Radio , In spire Nebraska, Lin co ln , NE, 2013 -1 4; Intern-Curator, American Moments: The Legacy of Greek Immigration , Nationa l He l lenic Museum , Chicago. IL , 20 12; Member, Na ti ona l Tru s t for Hi s to ri c Preserva tion , Wa shington , D.C., si nce 2012; Contributor, WTTW II Pu b li c Te levision, Chicago, 2007·20 12; Member Affiliate, American H is torical Assoc iation, Wash in gto n D.C., 201 1-2012; Intern-Oral Historian & Museum Member, C hi cago at the Crossroads of the COLD WAR, S tud s Terkel Cen ter for Oral Hi story, Ch icago Hi s torical Soc iety, Chicago, 20 11-20 12; Volunteer Recruit er, Parents & A lumni Working with Students (P.A.W.S), UN IVERS IT Y OF ARIZONA, Chi cago, 20 11 - Certified Docent, C hicago Architecture Foundation Educat ion Program, C hi cago, IL, 2009 • Grad uat e-level s tudi es on th e architectural and eng in eerin g discoveries of skyscrapers and th e ir builders ; EXTIIA Mile Member, American Mot o rcyc le Associat ion (AMA), 2003-2005. WALTER H, OHLSON PUBLIC HISTORY TOURS, CONFERENCES & PRESENTATION S Public HistOlY Tour, Go ld en Spike Nat io na l Hi s to ric Sit e Utah , Promo n tory , UT 15 August 20 15; Public HistOl Y Tour, World War II Nat io na l Monument, USS Arizo na Memorial, Ho no lulu , HI , Decemb er 2014; 2014 Indu c tion Ceremony, Nat ional Baseba ll Hall of Fa me and Mu se um, Cooper s town , NY, 27 Ju ly 2014; Pub lic Hi stOl Y Tour, West Point Military Academy, W es t Po in t, NY , 26 July 20 14 ; Page Fi ve Guided Public HistOlY Tour, Mt. Rushmo re Na ti o na l Memorial , C ra zy Horse Memo ri a l, an d Cu s ter State Pa rk, B la c k Hill s, SD, 04 July 2014; Public HistOl Y Tour, Abraham Lincoln Pres id ential Libra ry & Muse um , Springfield , IL 28 November 20 II ; Attendee, "Indians of the Midwest, Pas t and Prese nt ," The Newberry Library D 'Arcy M cNickle Ce nt e r/or American Indian and Indigen o us Studies, Chicago , 10 November 20 II ; Public HistOl Y Tour, "38'" Annual Hi s tori c Pullman Tour, Hi s to ric Pullman Foundatio n, 09 October 20 II ; Guided Tour, Vicksburg National Military Park, Vi cksburg, MS , 02 May 2011 Public HislOlY Tour, Mi ss issippi Blues Trail and th e Delta Blues Mu se um, C larksdale, MS , 30 A pril 20 II ; Public H istOlY Tour, Mississippi Ri ver Museum, Mud Island , Memphis, TN, 29 A pril 20 II Public H istOlY Tour , Fort Donelso n National Battlefield, Dover, TN, 10 April 2010 Public H islOlY Tour, National WW I Museum a t Lib erty Memorial , Kan sas City, MO, June 2009; Public HislOlY Tour , Negro Leag ue Base ba ll Muse um , Kansas C ity, MO, June 2009; Graduale Seminar, "La te Modernism, P ost-M odernis m & Conte mporary," Harrington, Kevin , Ph.D ., nT , II Apri l 2009; Graduate Seminar, "O ri g in s & Fa cets of Moderni s m ," Wittman , Tim, Chicago Architecture Foundation , 2 1 March 2009 Public H istOlY Tour, "Millennium Park Revealed ," C hi cago Arc hitectu re Foundatio n (CAF), 28 Nove mber 2008; Public H istOlY Tour, Nationa l World War II Muse um , New Orleans, 30 Dece mb er 2006; Public HistOlY Tour, El vis Presley Birthplace & Mu se um, Tupe lo, MS , 29 D ece mb er 2006 ; Ba ckstage Tour, Ryman Auditorium, Na s hvill e , TN , 28 Decemb er 2006; Public HistOlY Tour, Abraham Linco ln Birthplace & Nationa l Hi s tori c Site, Hodgenvill e, KY , 27 Decemb er 2006; Public HistOlY ToW', GRACELAND, Me mphi s, TN , 0 I June 2 006 ; Public Hi stOlY Tour, Sun Studio , Me mphi s, TN, 3 1 Ma y 2006; Conven ti oneer, "Ma s te r Your MARKET' Build Your BUSINESS!" M osco ne Cente r , San Francisco , CA , October 200S ; Public HistOl Y Tour, ''Murder of a Prophet: Josep h S mith ," Cartha ge Jail and Visitors' Center , Cartha ge, IL, 6 August '05 ; Co nventioneer, "Seeking New Leve l ," Conventi o n Ce nt e r, Orlando , FL, 5-8 November 2004; Motorcycle Tour, "Forts, Falls & Fli ght," Harl ey-David son Motor Compan y's Great Lakes T ou r of Lake Ontario, Roche s ter , NY , July 2004; Conventioneer, "A World of Opportunities," Moscone Center, San Fran c isco, CA, 7-10 Novemb e r 2003; Pu blic HistOl Y Tour, Harle y-David son Museum , "100 Years of the Motor Company," Mil wa ukee, W I, Jul y 2003; Conventioneer, "A New View in '02," Conve nti o n Cente r, New Orl ea ns, LA, 8-11 Nove mbe r 2002; Conventioneer, "200 I : Profitin g fro m Inn ovat ion ," McCormi c k Pla ce, Chicago , IL , 2 -5 Novemb e r 200 I ; Pub/ic Hi stOlY Tour, Lewis & C lark National Hi s toric Pa rk , Asto ri a, OR, 18 Nove mb er 1999 • Stud y of w inter encampment fo r th e Co rp s o f Discovery from Decemb er 1805 to March 1806, Ft. C la tso p ; Guided Tour, Ge ttysburg National Military Park , Gettysburg, PA, 02 Jul y 1997 • In-d e pth s tudy of Pickett's Cha rge ; Public HistOlY Tour, The Ronald Re aga n Pres ide nti a l Foundation & Library, June 1995 ; Academic Tour, "Gems of Italy," Roma , Ita ly, Sprin g Bre ak 199 5, 18-25 March Toured th e Roman Forum , Sorrento, Isola Di Capri, Pompeii, Assisi, Firenze, Pisa & Ve nezia; Public HistolY Tour, Huntington Library, Art Co ll ec ti ons and Botanical Gardens, San M a rin o, CA, Sp rin g Break 19 94; Min e TOLlI', Jero me Hi sto rical Society, Jero me, AZ, Marc h 1992; Walking Tou r, Sto ne Mountain, Geo rg ia , Septemb er 1990 Militmy Nave l Tou r, "Tiger Cruise 1990," USS Carl Vin so n , CVN 70, United S tat es Navy , 23 -29 Jul y 1990 In v it ed to cru ise from Ho nolulu , HI to Sa n Diego , CA, after pass ing FBI security c heck, by Lt. Comm ande r, and XlO o f th e USS Carl V in son, T ou r of th e Pa c ifi c 1990 , Ed wa rd C. O hl so n, Jf. (RE T) Toured the brid ge d ec k, fli g ht d eck, weapon bays, catapult mechan ics, e tc . A ll fli g ht o ps were exerc ised and v iewed ; Public HistOlY Tour, Bo d ie Sta te H is toric Pa rk , May 1987 Public HistOlY Tour, J . Paul Ge tty Muse um , Malibu , CA, Jul y 1984; Public Hi stOlY Tour, G reenfi e ld Vi ll age: The Henry Ford Mu se um , Dearborn , MI , March 197 1; REFE RER CES POSTED ON Linked lm .. First Name Middle Initial Last Name Suffix Email Address Street Address Suite or Apt City State Postal Code Number of years in Oro Valley (If less than 1 year, please state number of months) Primary Phone Alternate Phone Submit Date: Dec 18, 2015 Status: submitted Town of Oro Valley Boards & Commissions Application Form Profile Dear Oro Valley Citizen: We appreciate your interest in the Town of Oro Valley. This informational form, when completed, will allow us to quickly process your application by assisting us in understanding how we can best use your talents and experience. Information reflecting the procedures surrounding the appointment process to Boards is attached below. Your application will remain on file for two years from the date of receipt. We thank you kindly for volunteering to serve the Town! Please note: No volunteer shall serve on more than one standing Board at any time. Please select your residency status: Which Boards would you like to apply for? Historic Preservation Commission Interests & Experiences Please list your volunteer services in Oro Valley and with other organizations including any JOSEPH kane ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 Oro Valley Resident 10 Home: Home: boar ds or commissions on which you have served : (boar d/commission , civic, educat ional, cultural, social, etc.) C URRE NTLY PRESID ENT OF DESERT VISTA HOA. SERVED FOR THREE YEA RS ON THE BOA RD of D IRECTORS OF THE OLD PUEBLO A RC HAEOLOGY C E NTER. PAS T TEN YEA RS A VOLUNTEER AT THE AMERIND FOUNDATION IN DRAGOON AZ. How does your previous volunteer service pr epare you for the board or commission appointment for which you have applied? Please describe an issue consider ed at a meeting of the Board or Commission for which you ar e applying. ALL POSITIONS REQUIRE A NEED TO WORK TOGETHER WITH A DIVE RSE CROSS SE CTION OF PEOPLE IN ORD E R TO AC COMPLISH S ET GOALS, Briefly describe your educational/vocational background. C OLLE GE GRA DUATE WITH A D EGREE IN AC COUNTING. Ques tion app lies to Con cep tual De s ign Review Board . Please describe an issue or pr oject you contr ibuted to which related specifically to conceptual design? Ques tion app lies to Con cep tual De s ign Review Board . Listed below are fields of pr ofessional experience required for four (4) member s of the CDRB . If you have r elevant experience, please check all that apply. A rt A rchi tecture P lanning E ngi neeri ng D evelopment C onstructi on If ye s, what yea r? Up l oad a Re sum e Pl e ase a tta c h a n y a d di ti ona l doc um e nts h ere Other D esi gn B ackground Ques tion app lies to Con cep tual De s ign Review Board . For each selection you made above, please provide your years of experience and a generaliz ed description of your professional design background in that area. Have you at tended the Community Academy or CPI? Yes No If no, are you willing to attend? Yes No Please read the infor mation c ontained in Appendices "B" and "C" of the Parliamentary Rules and Proc edures before continuing. Appendix "B" - Appointment Proc ess Appendix "C" - Volunteer Consideration Please Agree with the Following Statement By clicking this box, I cer tify t hat I have read the information cont ained in Appendices "B" and "C" of the Parliamentary Rules and Pr ocedur es. I Agree * Town Council Regular Session Item # 1. Meeting Date:01/20/2016 Requested by: Gary Bridget Submitted By:Gary Bridget, Human Resources Department:Human Resources Information SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. (R)16-04, APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND THE GOLDER RANCH FIRE DISTRICT (GRFD) FOR THE USE OF THE EMPLOYEE HEALTH CLINIC BY GRFD EMPLOYEES AND DEPENDENTS PARTICIPATING IN A GRFD HEALTHCARE PLAN RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town of Oro Valley and the Golder Ranch Fire District for the use of the Employee Health Clinic by the Golder Ranch Fire District be approved as written. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Town of Oro Valley Employee Health Clinic is made available free of charge to Town employees and their dependents participating in a Town-sponsored healthcare plan. Under the current contract with Health Care Solutions, the facility offers the services of a Family Nurse Practitioner (FNP) two days per week and a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) one day per week. The Golder Ranch Fire District (GRFD) has expressed interest in partnering with the Town of Oro Valley in expanding Health Clinic availability to accommodate their eligible employees and dependents. There is capacity to add the GRFD employees and dependents by adding an additional FNP day to the week. The cost of the additional FNP day will be fully borne by GRFD via the IGA, resulting in no additional cost to the Town. The annual administrative fee will be shared, thereby relieving the Town of the full burden. The IGA will benefit Town employees due to the addition of another FNP day, and will also benefit our partners at GRFD by providing a cost effective healthcare alternative for their eligible employees and dependents. The IGA will go before the GRFD Board of Directors for consideration on February 10, 2016. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Under the current contract with Health Care Solutions (HCS), the Town of Oro Valley pays $10,182 dollars per month to provide healthcare services via the Employee Health Clinic. This monthly fee includes two FNP days, one LPN day, supplies and administrative fees. GRFD has less than half of the potential volume of the Town's employees with their 170 employees and 377 dependents. By adding a FNP day to support GRFD employees and dependents, the Town increases the capacity of the clinic by 50% at no additional cost. Furthermore, the cost of supplies will be shared with GRFD rather than the Town having to shoulder the full burden in providing medical expendables. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no additional cost to the Town of Oro Valley. There will be some savings to the Town at approximately $9,000 annually as the administrative costs of the Health Clinic will be shared with GRFD. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (approve/deny) Resolution No. (R)16-04, approving the IGA between the Town of Oro Valley and Golder Ranch Fire District for the use of the Health Clinic by Golder Ranch Fire District employees and dependents. Attachments (R)16-04 GRFD Health Clinic IGA with GRFD for Clinic C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@BC141EAC\@BCL@BC141EAC.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/041712 RESOLUTION NO. (R)16-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND GOLDER RANCH FIRE DISTRICT TO ALLOW THE USE OF THE TOWN’S HEALTH CLINIC WHEREAS,pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-952, the Town of Oro Valley is authorized to enter into or renew agreements for joint and cooperative action with other public agencies; and WHEREAS, Golder Ranch Fire District (“District”) desires to use the Town’s Health Clinic to benefit their employee and dependents who participate in a District sponsored healthcare insurance plan; and WHEREAS, The Town desires to allow the District to use the Town’s Health Clinic; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Town of Oro Valley approve the IGA between the Town and Golder Ranch Fire District for the District’s use of the Town’s Health Clinic. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona that: 1.The Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and Golder Ranch Fire District, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, for the use of the Town’s Health Clinic is hereby authorized and approved. 2.The Mayor and other administrative officials are hereby authorized to take such steps as necessary to execute and implement the terms of the Amendment. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 20th day of January, 2016. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ____________________________________ Dr. Satish I. Hiremath, Mayor C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@BC141EAC\@BCL@BC141EAC.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/041712 ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________________________________________ Julie K. Bower, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director _________________________________________________________________ Date Date C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@BC141EAC\@BCL@BC141EAC.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/041712 Exhibit “A” 1 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND GOLDER RANCH FIRE DISTRICT This Intergovernmental Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, § 11-951, between the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Arizona, hereinafter referred to as the “TOWN,” and GOLDER RANCH FIRE DISTRICT, an Arizona fire district, hereinafter referred to as the “DISTRICT.” Recitals WHEREAS,the Town and the District may contract for services and enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action pursuant to A.R.S. §11-951, et. seq; and WHEREAS, as part of its Health and Wellness program, the Town currently contracts with Health Care Solutions, L.L.C. for the operation of the Town’s Health Clinic, currently staffed by a family nurse practitioner and a licensed practical nurse providing certain services to Town employees and their dependents participating in a Town sponsored healthcare insurance plan (the “Health Clinic”); and WHEREAS, the District is familiar with the Health Clinic and the services offered by the Health Clinic and the benefits of extending Health Clinic benefits to employees and their dependents participating in a District sponsored healthcare insurance plan; and WHEREAS, the Town and the District recognize the District’s use of the Health Clinic as an opportunity for mutually beneficial cost-sharing and increased efficiency in operations; and WHEREAS, the District desires to use the Town’s Health Clinic upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Town desires to allow the District to use the Town’s Health Clinic upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, the Town and the District, in consideration of these covenants and conditions hereinafter stated, and the faithful performance thereof, do mutually agree as follows: Std IGA Form 5.6.2002 15:50:12 v-2 2 Section I. Purpose The forgoing recitals are hereby incorporated into this Agreement in their entirety. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth in writing the agreement between the Town and the District for shared use of the Town’s Health Clinic. A. Town’s Responsibilities: 1. The Town shall allow the use of the Health Clinic by the District’s employees and dependents participating in a District sponsored healthcare insurance plan. B. District Responsibilities: 1. The District shall make payment directly to Health Care Solutions as set forth on the attached Exhibit A incorporated into this Agreement by reference. The fees may be amended by Health Care Solutions upon annual renewal. Section II. Term The term shall commence upon execution by both the Town and District, and the Agreement shall end on the 30th day of June, 2016 to coincide with the end of the District’s fiscal year. Following the initial term of the Agreement, the Town and District may renew and extend this Agreement for additional annual terms. Section III. Manner of Financing The Town and the District each represent and warrant they have sufficient funds in the current fiscal year operating budget to fund their respective obligations under this Agreement. Section IV. Termination The Parties hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants contained herein, and the Parties reserve the right to terminate or abandon the service provided for in this Agreement as follows: A. Either Party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other Party. B. Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated with or without notice if the District does not appropriate sufficient funds for the purpose of maintaining this Agreement. C. In the event the Town shall terminate the service or any part of the services as herein provided, the Town shall notify the District in writing and immediately after receiving such notice, the District shall cease the services as provided in the Agreement. D. In any dispute concerning a question or interpretation or fact in connection with this Agreement, the Town shall make the final determination unless the District requests Std IGA Form 5.6.2002 15:50:12 v-2 3 arbitration pursuant to ARS § 12-1501 et seq. (Uniform Rules of Procedure for Arbitration). Section V. Reciprocal Indemnification Each Party shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless every other Party, their governing bodies and their officers, volunteers, employees and agents from and against any and all suits, claims, or damages of any kind, including defense costs, attorney’s fees, and expenses, arising out of this Agreement which are alleged to arise out of or are attributable to any act or omission of that Party, its governing body, officers, volunteers, employees, and agents. Section VI. Insurance Coverage The Town and District each confirm insurance coverage upon request by the other party. Section VII. Documents Upon termination or abandonment, the Parties shall deliver to the other Party all documents or special provisions as supplied by the other Party. Section VIII. Notice To the TOWN: Town of Oro Valley Attention: Town Manager 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 To the District: Golder Ranch Fire District Attention: Fire Chief 3885 East Golder Ranch Drive Tucson, AZ 85739 Section IX. Conflict of Interest This Agreement is subject to the provisions of A.R.S. § 38-511 which provides in pertinent part that the state, its political subdivisions or any department of either may, within three years after its execution, cancel any contract, without penalty or further obligation, made by the state, its political subdivisions, or any of the departments or agencies of either if any person significantly involved in initiating, negotiating, securing, drafting or creating the Agreement on behalf of the state, its political subdivisions or any of the departments or agencies of either is, at any time, while the Agreement or any extension of the Agreement is in effect, an employee or agent of any other party to the Agreement in any capacity or a Contractor to any other party to the Agreement with respect to the subject matter of the Agreement. Section X. Non-Waiver Std IGA Form 5.6.2002 15:50:12 v-2 4 The failure of either Party to insist upon the complete performance of any of the terms and provisions of this Agreement to be performed on the part of the other, or to take any action permitted as a result thereof, shall not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of the right to insist upon full and complete performance of the same, or any other covenant or condition, either in the past or in the future. Section XI. Reserved Section XII. Independent Parties Each Party is performing its duties hereunder independently, and not as an agent or employee of the other Party, and is supplying its own employees, maintaining its own insurance and handling all of its own internal accounting. Neither party to this Agreement controls, directs or has any direct responsibility for the actions of the other party, its officers, agents, or employees. Section XIII. Reserved Section XIV. Applicable Law The Parties to this Agreement shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, standards and Executive Orders, without limitation to those designated within this Agreement. This Agreement shall be governed by Arizona law and venue shall be in Pima County, Arizona. Section XV. Compliance with Civil Rights A.Non-Discrimination. The Parties shall not discriminate against any employee, client or any other individual in any way because of race, age, creed, color, religion, sex, handicap or national origin in the course of carrying out the covenants of the Agreement. The Parties agree to comply with the provisions of the Arizona Executive Order 75-5. B.Americans with Disabilities Act. The Parties shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336, 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213) and all applicable federal regulations under the Act, including 28 CFR Parts 35 and 36. C.Equal Employment Opportunity. In connection with the execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex, or national origin. Such actions shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, promotion, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rate of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. Std IGA Form 5.6.2002 15:50:12 v-2 5 D.Reserved. E.Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The Parties shall further be responsible for compliance with the United States Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Section XVI. Miscellaneous Provisions A.Execution. The parties represent and warrant that this Agreement was approved in an open session and that the person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the party is authorized to do so. B.Jurisdiction. The parties stipulate that this Agreement has been made and entered into, and shall be construed, enforced, and governed by the laws of the State of Arizona, and any action to enforce the same shall be brought only in courts in the State of Arizona. C.Headings. The titles or headings used in this Agreement are for general reference only and are not a part of the Agreement. D.Entire Contract. This is the entire Agreement between the Parties. If any portion of this Agreement is later found to be invalid or unenforceable, such portion shall be null and void and without any effect on the rest of the Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect. This Agreement may be altered only by a duly executed Agreement. E. Litigation. If the parties litigate any portion of this Agreement, the unsuccessful Party will reimburse the successful party for all legal costs and fees incurred as a result of the litigation (including preparation). F.Reserved. G. Assignment. Any assignment or attempted assignment of this Agreement by either Party without the prior written consent of the other Party shall be void. H.Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable to the extent that any provision or application held to be invalid shall not affect any other provision or application of the Agreement, which may remain in effect without the invalid provision or application. I.Full Force. Any provision of this Agreement held to violate any law shall be deemed void, and all remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. J.Waiver. The waiver of any term, condition, or covenant, or breach of any term, condition, shall not constitute the waiver of any subsequent breach of any other term, condition, or covenant. Std IGA Form 5.6.2002 15:50:12 v-2 6 K.Force Majeure. The Parties shall not be liable for the failure to wholly perform the covenants required by this Agreement if such failure is caused by a catastrophe, riot, war, act of God, or an accident not attributable to negligence or carelessness by either Party or similar contingency beyond the control of either Party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties, by their respective officers duly authorized, have executed this Agreement. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GOLDER RANCH FIRE DISTRICT _____________________________________________________________________ MAYOR BOARD CHAIRPERSON ATTEST:ATTEST: ________________________________________________________________________ TOWN CLERK CLERK This Intergovernmental Agreement which is a contract between public agencies has be reviewed pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute § 11-952 by the undersigned attorneys who have determined that it is in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted under the laws of the State of Arizona. APPROVED AS TO FORM:APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________________________________________________ TOWN ATTORNEY ATTORNEY Std IGA Form 5.6.2002 15:50:12 v-2 7 Exhibit A Schedule of Fees Administrative Fee: $9,000 per year Additional Clinical Day:$43,260 per year Total:$52,260 per year Town Council Regular Session Item # 2. Meeting Date:01/20/2016 Requested by: Bayer Vella Submitted By:Robert Kirschmann Development Infrastructure Services Department:Development Infrastructure Services Information SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF AN OVERHEAD CABLE LINE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF INA ROAD BETWEEN PASEO DEL NORTE AND ORACLE ROAD RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this request is to consider a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to install approximately 1,130 feet of cable line on existing utility poles on the north side of Ina Road, between Paseo del Norte and Oracle Road (Attachment 1). The proposed cable line is intended to provide phone and internet services to future users in the vicinity. The applicant’s submittal is provided as Attachment 2. The Zoning Code requires applicants to obtain a CUP prior to installation of new overhead utility wires. A CUP requires recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission and a final decision by Town Council. On August 4, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request to Town Council. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The applicant proposes to install 1,130 feet of new overhead cable line on existing utility poles on the north side of Ina Road, between Paseo del Norte and Oracle Road. The existing utility poles are approximately 50 feet in height and contain seven (7) existing utility lines serving the area. Specific project details include: Proposed Improvements 1,130 feet of new overhead cable line ½” thick cable Cable line approximately 25’ above grade 1' above existing cable line Previous Approvals Town Council approved a similar request in the same location on July 1, 2015 Zoning The zoning for the area is depicted in Attachment 3 and summarized below: North: Tohono Chul Park Planned Area Development (PAD) East: Commercial District (C-2) South (Pima County): Single Residence (CR-1) West (Pima County): Single Residence (CR-1) Southeast (Pima County): Local Business (CB-1) Review Criteria The application was reviewed utilizing the policies established by the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Conditional Use Permit criteria. The overarching goal of the review criteria is to ensure the project is reviewed for aesthetics, compatibility and safety. A key objective expressed in the Zoning Code is to ensure that new utility lines do not obstruct views and are placed underground where appropriate. Given that the lines and poles are pre-existing and the views of the Catalina Mountains will not be substantially diminished, this objective is satisfied. A detailed Zoning Code analysis is provided in Attachment 4 and a detailed Conditional Use Permit analysis is provided in Attachment 5. Public Participation Notice to the public was provided consistent with Town-adopted noticing procedures, which included the following: Letter to all property owners within 600 feet Posting at Town Hall All registered HOAs A neighborhood meeting was held on July 8, 2015, with no residents in attendance. To date, no comments or concerns have been received. Planning and Zoning Commission Action The request was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the August 4, 2015 meeting. No members of the public spoke in regard to the request. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request, finding that the proposal satisfies the General Plan, Zoning Code and Conditional Use Permit review criteria. The Planning and Zoning Commission staff report and minutes are provided as Attachments 6 and 7, respectively. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve the Conditional Use Permit to install the proposed cable line based on the finding that the proposal is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Conditional Use Permit review criteria. OR I MOVE to deny the Conditional Use Permit to install the proposed cable line, based on the finding that _______________. Attachments Location Map Applicant's Submittal Zoning Map Zoning Code Analysis Conditional Use Permit Criteria Analysis Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes LOCATION MAP ZAYO GROUP (OV1500812) Attachment 1 Cable Line Town Boundary Tohono Chul Park Ina Road TOWN OF ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES OEPARMENT 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY, AZ. 85737 PHONE: (520) 229-4800 FAX: (520) 742-1022 www.orovalleyaz.gov/dis 1.2 GENERAL APPLICATION FORM Application Type: D Major General Plan Amendment D Rezoning/PAD Amendment D Planned Area Development tl Conditional Use Permit D Zoning Code Amendment o Conceptual Site Plan D Conceptual Public Al1 D Conceptual Architecture o Final Site Plan (J Conceptual Landscape Plan Subject Property Information: OV Case#: D Final Plat D Pre-Application o Zoning Verification (J Sign Criteria D Sign -PAD Exemption (J Master Sign Program Office Use Only o Communication Facility -Tier 1 and 2 Minor D Communication Facility -Major D Revised Development Plan o Other __________ _ Address : 7366 North Paseo Del Norte, Tucson. AZ 85704 Parcelffax Code : 1060 ---------------------------Subdivision I Commercial Center Name: _________________________ _ Book I Page or Sequence Number: Lot Number(s)_2_2_5-_1_4-_2_37_D _______ _ Legal Description: ___________________________________ _ Sectionffownship/Range: T12S R13E 35SW, SE; T13S R13E 2NW , NE Area of Property : ______ _ Existing Land Use : M IXED Proposed Land Use : Aerial fiber optic . installation in Right of Way Applicant Information: * If more than one, attach list Applicant *: Name: Michael Waites Firm : Zayo Group LLC . Address : 9830 South 51st Street, Suite A-124 City : Phoenix State : ~Zip : 85044 Telephone : 520-709-5920 Fax: _______ Email : michael.waites@zayo.com Property Owner(s) if different from Applicant *: Name : ___________________ Fi~: ______________________ ___ Address : City : _________ State : __ Zip : ____ _ Telephone : Fax: Email : Consultant: (Discipline) Name : Firm : Address : City : ________ State : __ Zip : ____ _ Telephone : Fax : Email : 6 Attachment #2 Project Description/Narrative: Placement of approx 1,129' of aerial fiber optic line from intersection of North Paseo De l Norte & West Ina Road to North Via Ponte & West Ina Road . Case #OV11S-026 I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct. I am the owner of the property or the Owner's authorized representative, and if not the owner, I have obtained the owner's permission to perform stated work. All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The approval of this application does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other federal, state or local law for which this project may be subject to . Notice: It is the appJicanUowner's responsibility to ensure all private rules and regulations (such as Covenants , Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R 's)) of the subdivision and/or commercial center are adhered to . Contact your Home Owners Association or property management to determine applicable requirements . It is also the applicant's responsibility to coordinate with all outside agencies to secure their acceptance or clearance . Failure to do so may delay issuance of permits. See attached list of agencies . Michael Waites 7/9 /15 Applicant's Signature Print Name Date Important Note: .All submittals received after 4:00 p.m. will be processed the next day Submittals will be rejected if: • Not folded using Pima County fold & coUated ; • There are missing items on the checklist unless otherwise approved by Planning Division Manager or Town Engineer. • Re-submittals cannot be accepted without a transmittal and a written narrative summary describing the purpose of submittal. 7 Attachment #2 4.0 SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS 4.1 ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION [11 addition to the Town of Oro Valley (the 'Town "), there may be other jurisdictions affecting development of this property. If a propel1y developer waits until late in the development process to contact other pertinent governmental agencies or bodies, additional expense and time in coordination . redesign and development may be a result. Examples of other governmental agencies and/or bodies that may have overlapping jurisdiction over this property include but are not limited to the following: . Fedel'al: The United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for Endangered Species Act compliance, etc. Please note , habitat has been designated with the Town . U.S Fish and Wildlife Field Division 2321 W . Royal Palm Rd .• Suite 103 Phoenix, AZ 85021-4951 Phone (602 640-2720 Fax (602) 620-2730 The United States Corps of Engineers: This agency is responsible for management of jurisdictional waters , etc . Section 404 consultations may be required on properties that contain washes . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 5205 E. Comanche Dav is Monthan AFB Tucson , AZ 85707 Phone (520) 584-4486 Fax (520) 584-4497 State: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality: This agency has multiple responsibilities . Please contact directly for further information. ADEQ 1110 W . Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 (602) 771-2300 County: Pima County Department of EnviJ'onmental Quality : This agency has mUltiple responsibilities , Please contact directly for further information . PDEQ 20l N . Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson , AZ 85701 (520) 740-6520 Please be advised , issuance of a permit DOES NOT. nor should it be construed, to imply compliance with Federal , State or County regulations . (f you have any questions concerning your responsibilities under federal law, please contact the applicable agency . APPLICANT NAM E: _M_ic_ha_el_w_al_18s_' _______________________________ _ CON TACT PHONE AND ADDRESS : 9830 South 5 1st Sireet , Su ite A-124, Phoenix, Arizona . 520-709·5920 SITE LOCATrO N: North Passo Del Norte & North Oracle Road PROPOSEDUS E:!~~F~&O p~~b~om o ~_~_~_gu_ti_My_p_~_8_-~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~~ __ ~~ __ ~ __ ~~ Applicant Signature Date Case /Fil e Number _O_V1_1_S-0_2_6 _________ _ 14 Attachment #2 Oro Valley -West Ina Road Aerial Fiber Project (015A) -El1463 Fact Sheet • Aerial placement of approximately 1,129 feet of fiber optic cable along West Ina Road . • Placement will take place between North Paseo Del Norte and North Oracle Road (Arizona Highway 77) & will continue onto Pima County. • This project will utilize the presence of existing utility poles, resulting in a low impact and swift installation . • A traffic control plan & safety plan has been created to safely route commuters around the affected area . o The plans will keep drivers, bicyclists, as well as construction workers safe during this time and will have limited/Jow impact for commuters . o The plans will also control the threat of any potential hazards that may occur. • Estimated time for entire project: 2 Days . *Shaded area in ligh t blue ind icates approx . Oro Valley li mi ts **Blue line indicates proj ected route Attachment #2 ~ ..-+ Q) (") :::r 3 CD ::J ..-+ =t:t: N 860 7203 ------ c:9 c:9 ~ ~ >-zw ::>:J ~fi 8 ~ DI « 0 'j :::;: 0:; F:-a: 0 i! !.\:,~ 7225 J ~ ---J. ~ o ~z tQj 00 Z 0 ~ PLACf""~l'IlSTMND i,n', 7366 it___f II I 11: , ,.", , '; ',' ,W."'",""d --t: : ----:+ _~_C I t-- 46 so to -'= .~ ·t 0- o '" Z> AERIAL FOOTAGE: 279 ' ,.,- "'1 .\N:iL"'J'I/Io'OI'D·lAYO\I'.IXIl\1IU:1 .IIUt\IIUIU."IlI\J1lGl HI U""G\C(l~"ltI h.l,n"'oflll\ ... tM:W' ... ""UI"'ULI(,)(I""G $TA.4 3 'lo.3~'!E BC NOT FOUND 7130 DM 7131 STA.47+9181'{EI ~ ORO VALLEY :;;>' -PiMA' CCiU'NTv 7130 ,.;~ ~B ~i ~~ LL. ,0 :~¥~~~~;~;~;.;; 0;, ::o~::~~~.::=:. ... =t.~~~':!..:'N: I . ~~fu~~~~;ES~~~=~:.:u~r,.~ :: Ef~:~,::;;:.;;~~;~,,~t .. ";~::~:=~':-::~-:"':,~~~-::"~~~:£.I. ··~!$.~~a~~~W-1;~tE~~:·' u'~=:=:~?~!:,:::,~,",u. .. HOT ICI TOPLAtrtllOlpm: .nnn,ux.ai .l""DGTIIl1n.ana~lh.UTlaDIIMI'''' .''''''I''''''~l1·'·''''·:WO''''CII'J·''_'''·'''''''''~'·'' . • 'l ... · ...... " ...... ot ...... ,.,..""'..-..;' ... ..: ... ' __ ,O '."r.f IOM. __ Cft ........ _.U_._III II •.• '. _"."""'_II_:lO .,II •• "".~_ ... ~;cIl. CON~n~Jc:r P(ll N [')Tr:~: ~:t:t:r~;='tvt·=rli~.::ttl~r.~':.~~:;. ! ~~~~~ ij ..... c. ... () LITlI'l\t'!I-O,1 i~~I a IfIldt:Jt.'fU'W. (p ~,'h"' .. WCU e • ..ao,\lllloWfII:m<v (])nulUlftlr.IC ltfOli ~ :::~~;. .£ ~~~~.TIf ...... .rIl1' 1==~~IL~=':'yt, » r-+-r-+- ill (') =r 3 CD :J r-+- =t:I:: I'V 51 ~I ~. d 7366 J II ~~ ~ ~I ~m PlACE AERIAL SlRANo 195') 51 ~~ ~i :~ £,~ .. ~m_ ;:":::._;~m £':>'_'_ of---' -$ --$ --. L • ~d~ ----::-:p~~~~~Et~~~------..:: 7131 -C .~ t: c: ~~ 5 AERIAL FOOTAGE: 850' West Ina Road 55 56 ----+= ~-------------- STA. 53+98.32' (E) BC NOT FOUND 7130 LOI I un I I I I I I 110' rur I I I I I I ORO VALLEY ~iMAcOliNTy - - 7131 ~.~ ~I~~I;;, ___ c::::::==._ -1--t-I( 1S' I,s .!tiW'1TvW" ~'-H9:' PIC 18 (C QI .ct:: t: 0 00- ZfIl ;> ~ ~ w·"'··· .. 0' : ... _' 10 ~s !Q I §[!':I~_~~NOTG.S. :LNLVlU,. __ .~a"3UL.CD'flII"'lall::u.1UT ,HII-lIO"".IICJUO'11WlfUloo!IQ "'_,." ......... ~ ... IOU'· ........ I ... (G"qll.(.'.,.. a 'h· .. ;.o"U.F:oo\j"I~I ""~"",,, ... ~ .... ...w. ... nlll"'o.Q'"._, t~l l _II"r.>III''IH[U'U'lIUla!Of"lII: 1 ... "lIIOt'''''IICr .. ;n:I_.a: •. _ ..... • ~£~~:i~~'t£~~f!!!;=E:::~' . ~JE~~~~~~;t::=:: ~ ~~!i!-;;~;;;;;~;; ; ~~~~~~~;;~:, .. ::==:::~:J~~:':~=:~':'...ur ==~,=-:':::::!!!::~~~I.~ I"~~~jl~:.~?lr~'· "·~,!::~=5~~~M~":.~::lMJo;~, "~"O:: o ~~lClIWt Oolt1lll11011 1P111nt ~n.~,~. 1IZZ2I~ " Ill! GI lEI 111 IEJ II'iI El g €I IWtoCW o ,",nINl'4l:u i~~' ® -.x:bIOLUPDII (D ~ .. " 1QIKjo;1/MI <:> ·~~,rl.t6"!u''''hli 0 1011a~;l'''jCII ~ :::,-::~,rr i:l'lljJlIr ZONING MAP ZAYO GROUP (OV1500812) Attachment 3 Cable Line Town Boundary Pima County Single Residence (CR-1) Pima County Single Residence (CR-1) PAD-Tohono Chul Park Pa s e o D e l N o r t e Ina Road Or a c l e R o a d C-2 Pima County Local Business (CB-1) Attachment 4 Zoning Code Analysis The Zoning Code section 25.1.N.2 states the primary consideration shall be aesthetics with the following factors also considered shown in italics, followed by staff commentary: Zoning Code 25.1.N.2.b.i.: The location and height of such poles and wires and the relation to the present or potential roads;  There are no new poles installed with the proposed new cable line. The cable will be attached to existing poles which are located in the right-of-way on Ina Road outside of the paved road as shown in Attachment 1. Zoning Code 25.1.N.2.b.ii. The crossing of such lines over much traveled highways and streets;  The line will cross over Paseo Del Norte, Northern Ave and eastward over Oracle Road, similar to other existing cables on existing poles at 25’ from the ground. Zoning Code 25.1.N.2.iii.: Proximity of such lines to schools, religious institutions and other places where people may congregate;  The proposed cable line is not near any schools or religious institutions as it is proposed through this section of Oro Valley. The existing poles where the proposed cable line will be installed follows the southern property line of the Tohono Chul Park and will be approximately 60 feet away from the nearest trails in the park. Zoning Code 25.1.N.2.iv.: Fire or other accidental hazards from the presence of such poles and wires and the effect, if any, of the same upon the effectiveness of firefighting equipment;  The applicant states a minor amount of electricity flows through the cable line. Zoning Code 25.1.N.2.v.: The availability of a suitable right-of-way installation;  The existing right-of-way provides adequate space for installation and the Town will ensure the applicant uses prescribed traffic safety measures during installation. Zoning Code 25.1.N.2.b.vi.: Future conditions which may be reasonably anticipated in the area in view of a normal course of development;  If the existing utility poles were required to be relocated due to future road projects, it would be the applicants responsibility to arrange to move the line onto new poles. The Town would assume no costs for the relocation. Zoning Code 25.1.N.2.bvii.: The type of terrain;  The area where the cable will be attached to existing poles is relatively flat and does not pose any type of challenges to the proposed installation. Attachment # 4 Zoning Code 25.1.N.2.b viii:: The practicality and feasibility of underground installation of such poles and wires with the due regard for the comparative costs between underground and over ground installations (provided, however, that a mere showing that an underground installation shall cost more than an over ground installation shall not, in itself, necessarily require issuance of a permit);  The applicant states that cost of the proposed overhead work is approximately $5,839.75 and the estimated costs to install the cable underground would be $50,419.25. Installing this one section of cable line underground would be inconsistent with the overall project for the area. Zoning Code 25.1.N.2.c.: In the event such poles and wires are for the sole purpose of carrying electricity or power or for transmitting of telephone, telegraph, or television communication through or beyond the Town’s boundaries or from one major facility to another, the practicality or feasibility of alternative or other routes shall also be considered.  This 1,130 foot section of line is a small part of an overall larger project that travels several miles through Pima County and continues past the Oro Valley Town limits to a facility in Pima County east of Oracle Road. The applicant states this is the best route for the new line, since the poles where this 1,130 foot section of line is proposed are already in place. Attachment # 4 Attachment # 5 Attachment 5 Conditional Use Permit Criteria The Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria contained in Section 22.5 provide the primary guidance for evaluating conditional uses. CUP’s may be granted based on consideration of the following criteria shown in italics, followed by staff commentary: That the granting of such conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare. In arriving at this determination, the factors which shall be considered shall include the following: Damage or nuisance arising from noise, smoke, odor, dust, vibration or illumination; The proposed cable line does not create noise, smoke, odor, dust, vibration or illumination. Hazard to persons and property from possible explosion, contamination, fire or flood; The proposed cable line does not produce explosions or cause fire or flood. Hazard occasioned by unusual volume or character of traffic. The proposed cable line does not increase or affect the volume of traffic in the area. That the characteristics of the use proposed in such use permit are reasonably compatible with types of uses permitted in the surrounding area. The cable line will be installed on existing utility poles among other existing utility lines as shown in the applicant’s submittal (Attachment 2). The proposed additional line should not create a discernable impact to views within the surrounding areas and therefore is compatible with existing uses. Attachment # 6 Conditional Use Permit Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report CASE NUMBER: OV1500812 MEETING DATE: August 4,2015 AGENDA ITEM: 1 STAFF CONTACT: Robert Kirschmann, Planner rkirschmann@orovalleyaz.gov (520) 229-4836 Applicant: Zayo Group LLC, Michael Waites Request: Conditional Use Permit to install an overhead cable line Location: North side of Ina Road between Paseo Del Norte and Oracle Road Recommendation: Recommend approval to Town Council SUMMARY: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to install approximately 1,130 feet of cable line on existing utility poles on the north side of Ina Road between Paseo Del Norte and Oracle Road as shown in the applicants submittal (Attachment 1). The proposed cable line is intended to provide future phone and internet services to future users in the vicinity. The proposed cable line is approximately %" in thickness and will stretch 1,130 linear feet between seven existing utility poles that are located on the north side of Ina Road (Attachment 2). The proposed cable line will be located 12" above the existing cable line, which is approximately 25' in height above grade. The Zoning Code requires applicants to obtain a CUP prior to installation of new utility wires over 600 feet in length. A CUP requires recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission and a final decision by the Town Council. On July 1, 2015 the Town Council approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow %" cable line to be installed in the same location for Cox Communication. BACKGROUND/DETAILED INFORMATION: The subject property is in the established right-of-way of Ina Road. The existing land use and zoning for the property and surrounding area is depicted in Attachment 3. 1 Attachment # 6 OV 1500812 Zayo Group LLC Page 2 of 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report Approvals to Date 2013: Annexation into the Town of Oro Valley. 2015: Cox Communications, Conditional Use Permit (OV815-003) to install overhead cable line. Existing Site Details This section of Ina Road contains a multi-lane roadway with the following: • Seven utility poles parallel to Ina Road. • Multiple above ground utility lines attached to existing utility poles. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: Zoning Code Analysis The Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria contained in Section 22.5 provide the primary guidance for evaluating conditional uses. CUP's may be granted based on consideration of the following criteria shown in italics, followed by staff commentary: That the granting of such conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare. In arriving at this determination, the factors which shall be considered shall include the following: Oamage or nuisance arising from noise, smoke, odor, dust, vibration or illumination; The proposed cable line does not create noise, smoke, odor, dust, vibration or illumination. Hazard to persons and property from possible explosion, contamination, fire or flood; The proposed cable line does not produce explosions or cause fire or flood. Hazard occasioned by unusual volume or character of traffic. The proposed cable line does not increase or affect the volume of traffic in the area. That the characteristics of the use proposed in such use permit are reasonably compatible with types of uses permitted in the surrounding area. The cable line will be installed on existing utility poles among other existing utility lines as shown in the applicants submittal (Attachment 1). The proposed additional line should not create a discernable impact to views within the surrounding areas and therefore is compatible with existing uses. Attachment # 6 OV 1500812 Zayo Group LLC Page 3 of 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report In summary, the applicants proposal is consistent with the Conditional Use Permit evaluation criteria. A detailed Zoning Code analysis with regard to standards specific to the CUP requirements for utility wires is included in Attachment 4. General Plan Compliance Policy 11.3.2. The Town shall continue to require all new development and improvements to existing development, both public and private, to maintain and/or enhance the character and quality of views from and along scenic corridors and public parks ... This proposal is to install one additional cable line on seven existing poles. The addition of this one line and the one recently approved cable line should not create a discernable impact to the views of surrounding areas. Engineering The Engineering Division does not have concerns with the proposal. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Summary of Public Notice Notice to the public was provided consistent with Town-adopted noticing procedures, which includes the following: • Letter to all property owners within 600 feet • Posting at Town Hall • All registered HOAs Neighborhood Meetings A neighborhood meeting was held on July 8, 2015 with no residents in attendance. To date no comments or concerns have been received by Staff. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the following findings: • The proposed cable line will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare • The proposed cable line is consistent with the Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria and Zoning Code requirements for utility lines. • The proposed cable line will not be visually impactful as it will utilize existing utility poles which contain a number of similar lines. It is recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission take the following action: Attachment # 6 OV 1500812 Zayo Group LLC Page 4 of 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report Recommend approval to the Town Council of the requested Conditional Use Permit OV1500812. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow Zayo Group to install approximately 1,130 feet of cable line on existing utility poles on the north side of Ina Road between Paseo Del Norte and Oracle Road, based on the finding that the proposal is consistent with the Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria. OR I move to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit to allow Zayo Group to install approximately 1,130 feet of cable line on existing utility poles on the north side of Ina Road between Paseo Del Norte and Oracle Road finding that ________ _ ATTACHMENTS: 1. Applicant's Submittal 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Zoning Code Analysis e'ayerveJ ,Planning ManagEif'- MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION August 4, 2015 TOWN HALL, DIS BUILDING, HOPI ROOM 11000 N. LA CA�ADA DRIVE PZC 08-04-2015 PACKET REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chairman Rodman called the August 4, 2015 regular session of the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 6:00 PM. ROLL CALL PRESENT:Bill Rodman, Chairman Greg Hitt, Commissioner Malanie Barrett, Commissioner Charlie Hurt, Commissioner Tom Drazazgoski, Commissioner Bill Leedy, Commissioner EXCUSED:Frank Pitts, Commissioner CALL TO AUDIENCE - at this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the commission on any issue not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona open meeting law, individual commission members may ask town staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers. However, the commission may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during "call to audience." In order to speak during "call to audience" please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. There were no speaker requests. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Member Hornat updated the Planning and Zoning Commission and audience on the following: - Eagles Nest (Olson Property) has some activity on site - Update on property located between Shannon Road and Camino Del Fierro just north of Tangerine Road Planning & Zoning Commission http://orovalley.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=2230 1 of 6 12/28/2015 3:29 PM Attachment # 7 1. PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A CABLE LINE ON EXISTING UTILITY POLES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF INA ROAD, BETWEEN PASEO DEL NORTE AND ORACLE ROAD, OV1500812 OV1500812 Zayo Conditional Use Permit Staff Report Attachment 1 - Applicant’s Submittal Attachment 2 - Location Map Attachment 3 - Zoning Map Attachment 4 - Zoning Analysis Robert Kirschmann, Planner, presented the following: - Applicant's Request - Location - Project Views - General Plan Criteria - Conditional Use Permit Criteria - Recommendation Michael Scooles, construction manager for Zayo, presented the following: - Area of Interest - Total Length - Zayo fiber will be placed Michael Waites, project manager for Zayo, commented that Zayo is working with Cox Communication to see if work can be done simultaneously. Chairman Rodman opened the public hearing. Chairman Rodman closed the public hearing. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Hurt and seconded by Commissioner Leedy to Recomend Approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow Zayo Group to install approximately 1,130 feet of cable line on existing utility poles on the north side of Ina Road between Paseo Del Norte and Oracle Road, based on the finding that the proposal is consistent with the Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria. MOTION carried, 6-0. There were no speaker request. 2. YOUR VOICE, OUR FUTURE DISCUSSION AND COMMENTS Planning & Zoning Commission http://orovalley.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=2230 2 of 6 12/28/2015 3:29 PM Attachment # 7 YVOF Update and Discussion Staff Report Attachment 1 - YVOF Public Review Draft - Planning and Zoning Commission Targeted Topics Attachment 2 - YVOF Public Review Draft - General Plan Amendment Excerpt Attachment 3 - YVOF Response Letter from Don Cox Bayer Vella, Planning Manager, presented the following: - Meeting Purpose - Land Use Proposal Open House Questions/Concerns from the Commission - What is the essential difference between Commercial Office Park vs. Neighborhood Commercial Office? - What is the benefit to the developer in having down grade in zoning? - Will the input from these meetings effect the recommendation? - If these properties are controversial we ought to go through the Major General Plan Amendment process which involves public involvement. - Page 72, number 70: Creating development review strategies that require new development to link adjacent or contiguous environmentally sensitive lands together. Is this a new requirement to have the lands linked together? - Page 72, number 69: Reviewing and amending the zoning code as needed. Page 72, number 72: Developing new and improve existing land use regulations that discourage unnecessary spread of development. Continuing to manage development and allow for compact development and flexible design options, including clustering, transfer of development rights or other techniques. The actions are probably not just for maintenance of our current laws but actually saying we are going to be developing, reviewing and amending the codes that we have. Page 74, number 72: strike the text allowing for compact development and flexible design options, including clustering, transfer of development rights or other techniques. Insert we have the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance (ESLO) and that's what going to stand, but we are not going to have an action saying we are going to develop and improve the existing one. A concern that the lot sizes are becoming too small is what the Commission is Planning & Zoning Commission http://orovalley.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=2230 3 of 6 12/28/2015 3:29 PM Attachment # 7 hearing from guest speakers. The current General Plan isn't changing that. In the proposed draft cluster development takes it one step further and develop new cluster development. This is more than we currently have. The reason to strike the text is to develop new and improve existing land use regulations that do that. There is a concern with lot size and community conflict with ESLO, but don’t see a problem continuing with the current policy. Lets not suggest that we intend to alter the interpretation. Deleting the last two bullet points of number 72 doesn't do any damage to our existing law. Deleting the text doesn't say we are going to go even further on that path. Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, commented that what the commission is speaking about is in the environmental section. You shouldn't be surprised that this section they are talking about preserving and less concerned about growth. The problem we all have is that there are going to be in any kind of document that tries to represent the community you are going to have inconsistencies but down right contradictions. We need to make sure we are reflecting the community and isn't what you think is desirable it's what the community thinks is desirable. It's the Guiding Principles on which the Plan is based on. All the committees focused on how they can develop policies based upon these Guiding Principles. Why are we against compact development, clustering and the transfer of development rights and what are the negatives of that? A concern heard from guest speakers at Commission meetings are lots without yards, people should have yard. There are a lot of houses that fill out the entire lot with no yard with the kids playing in the street and in the desert with BB guns. This does not promote safety, it says we want to attract young professionals, family entertainment, good schools, parks, hiking and recreation, swimming pool, access and low crime rate in the Guiding Principles. All this is furthered by a balance between family-friendly community that people can have at least a small yard. Mr. Adler continued on with his comments that in maintaining financial stability you’re going to have growth. Since we have very little space left, it's going to be higher density which many people are not in favor of. Concerned about the clustering and any other part in the draft that encourages it, as opposed to leaving the current process, and agrees with other commissioners as to why it has to be in here. Not sure that is what the general public would in fact want. This should go back to the Committees and do as they choose. What are the major causes for concerns we have about clustering, maybe in the update the commission can see where it's worked well or need some tweaking. All these are great ideas. Transfer of development rights is a great way for people Planning & Zoning Commission http://orovalley.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=2230 4 of 6 12/28/2015 3:29 PM Attachment # 7 to have high density in one location and preserve other parcels that the Town doesn't have to buy. Transfer development rights is probably the best thing we can do. Clustering is much more effective for infrastructure and resources. It's a win-win that the conservation people thinks is good idea, the development community still get to develop their property. - More specific provisions being made for recreation for youth, the Town of Oro Valley itself provided some low cost recreational activities for youth. When people said they wanted a community center, people thought this is what the community center was going to do. We do allow for little league and soccer but none of it is provided by the Town or through the Community Center. Guiding Principles talk about family entertainment, activities for all ages, attracting young professionals, opportunities to interact and amenities. These are listed in the Guiding Principles as things people wanted but don't see a whole lot of in the actions. Page 22, CC.2. Provide equitable and appropriate park facilities and services for residents of all ages in the community. It would be nice to include a provision for equitable low cost appropriate park facilities and services. Page 69, number 28: Youth civic engagement and involvement, this is the place where the above provision could be added. Page 70, number 45: Study and evaluate the feasibility of the development of public recreation or community education facilities in the community. This can be more specific, maybe include things that are listed from the Guiding Principles. Mr. Adler, stated the committees had some control on the criteria to amend the General Plan. This is where we can hold the applicant's feet to the fire for things that were important to the community. These criteria's are not in the current Plan and originated by careful reading of the General Plan. The Committees took the comments from the community and Mr. Adler believes what is in the draft is fair and actually reflect the interpretation of what the Guiding Principles say. Diane Bristow, Oro Valley resident, distributed a hand out to the Commission on Type 1 versus Type 2 - Acreage table. Existing is 5 acres or larger to trigger a Major General Plan Amendment and the proposed is 20 acres of larger. Staff notes Marana has a threshold of 80 acres of larger and Pima County has 640 acres or larger. Ms. Bristow used a conversion table to compare all the square miles in Oro Valley, Marana and Pima County into acres. Don Bristow, Oro Valley resident, commented that the chart shows a shortage of land so we should be looking at it very critically. The only possibility for it to be looked at critically is not to be raising the allowable acreage to 40 acres. Keeping the acreage down is still in harmony with other communities. We need to look at where we are today and what we have to work with it. Chairman Rodman commented that the 40 acres is suitable to give all the attention that is need in terms of how land is developed. Planning & Zoning Commission http://orovalley.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=2230 5 of 6 12/28/2015 3:29 PM Attachment # 7 4. Page 7 of Attachment 1 - Targeted Topics, number 1: On balance, the request is consistent with the Vision, Goals, and Policies of the General Plan, and will not adversely impact the community as a whole or a portion of the community, text should be added to include unreasonably adversely impact the community. The way it currently stands we are going to hear people say that this will adversely impact the community. Letter c: Impact other public services including police, fire, parks, water and drainage unless careful analysis and explanation of anticipated impacts is provided to the Town for review. Some kind of statement that the Town would also approve these services. This statement is just saying that it has been provided. PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Leedy and seconded by Commissioner Barrett to adjourn the August 4, 2015 Planning and Zoning regular session meeting at 7:44 PM. MOTION carried, 6-0. Planning & Zoning Commission http://orovalley.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=2230 6 of 6 12/28/2015 3:29 PM Attachment # 7 Town Council Regular Session Item # 3. a. Meeting Date:01/20/2016 Requested by: Bayer Vella Submitted By:Chad Daines, Development Infrastructure Services Department:Development Infrastructure Services Information SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. (R)16-05, DECLARING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.15 AND OTHER RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED (OVZCR) RELATING TO NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, PROVIDED AS EXHIBIT "A" WITHIN THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a procedural item to declare the draft ordinance a matter of public record. The draft ordinance has been posted online and made available in the Town Clerk's Office. If the final version is adopted, as approved by Town Council, it will be made available in the same manner. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Once adopted by Town Council, this proposed resolution will become a public record and will save the Town on advertising costs since the Town will forgo publishing the entire draft ordinance in print form. The current draft version of the ordinance has been posted on the Town's website and a printed copy is available for public review in the Town Clerk's Office. Once adopted, the final version will be published on the Town's website. FISCAL IMPACT: The Town will save on advertising costs by meeting publishing requirements by reference, without including the pages of the amendments. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (adopt or deny) Resolution No. (R)16-05, declaring the proposed amendments to Section 22.15 and other related sections of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised related to neighborhood meetings, attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and filed with the Town Clerk, a public record. Attachments (R)16-05 Declaring Public Record C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@F408F586\@BCL@F408F586.doc RESOLUTION NO. (R)16-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, DECLARING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE “ZONING CODE”, CHAPTER 22 OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED AT SECTIONS 22.15, 22.2.d, 22.3, 22.5 AND CHAPTER 24 OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED AT SECTION 24.4 ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT “A” AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, that the proposed amendments to the “Zoning Code”, Chapter 22 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised at Sections 22.15, 22.2.D, 22.3, 22.5, and Chapter 24 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised at Section 24.4, three copies of the proposed amendment which are on file in the office of the Town Clerk, is hereby declared to be a public record, and said copies are ordered to remain on file with the Town Clerk. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 20th day of January, 2016. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ____________________________________ Dr. Satish I. Hiremath, Mayor ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________ Julie K. Bower, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: __________________________Date: C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@F408F586\@BCL@F408F586.doc Exhibit “A” Additions are shown in ALL CAPS font, deletions shown in strikethrough font ______________________________________________________________________ Section 22.15 Public Participation A. Purpose This section provides requirements for neighborhood meetings for proposed development projects. The purpose of promoting public participation in the development review process is to: 1.Build trust through effective public outreach and communication. 2.Promote fair and open dialogue between stakeholders, applicants, staff, board and commission members, and the Town Council. 3.Inform and educate stakeholders regarding the development process, review criteria, and planning and zoning regulations. 4.Provide stakeholders with opportunities to ask questions, identify issues, and forge solutions early in the development process. 5.Promote transparent conveyance of agreed upon solutions to staff, boards and commissions, and Town Council. 6.Promote consistent implementation of agreed upon solutions through the development review process. B. Applicability 1. General Neighborhood meetings are required for the following development applications: a.Major and minor general plan amendments. b.Rezonings. c.Conditional use permits. d.Preliminary plats. e.CONCEPTUAL SITE Development and landscape plans, excluding FINAL SITE PLANS, FINAL PLATS AND landscape plans not associated with a CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN development plan or plat. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@F408F586\@BCL@F408F586.doc f.Any other proposed action that results in significant change in the development intensity or compatibility with existing development as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. 2. Exceptions If a project entails more than one (1) of the aforementioned development applications, a single public participation process may be followed, unless substantial changes have occurred to the proposal or significant issues are identified. When the neighborhood meeting requirements are met for major and minor General Plan amendments or a rezoning, further meetings may not be required if the following conditions are met: a.No substantial changes to the approved concept or Tentative Development Plan. b.There are no unresolved issues related to the application, as defined in subsection B.3 of this section. 3. Exemption from Neighborhood Meeting Requirements The Planning and Zoning Administrator may determine that a neighborhood meeting is not required in accordance with the following criteria: a.There are no residential uses or zones within six hundred (600) feet of the subject property, excluding areas designated as right-of-way, open space or drainage easement. b.If it is determined that the project/proposal is: i.Consistent with similarly situated property; ii.Not substantially affecting adjacent land use, streetscape, or views; or iii.Substantially conforms to an approved Tentative Development Plan. Any project exempted under this section found to have unresolved neighborhood issues or concerns at any point in the development review process may be required to adhere to the neighborhood meeting requirements. C. Administration Neighborhood meetings shall be organized by Town Planning and Zoning Department staff in the manner specified in the Public Participation and Notification Policy maintained by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. THIS POLICY IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND PERIODIC UPDATE BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@F408F586\@BCL@F408F586.doc D. Public Outreach Plan (POP) 1.The applicant must submit a POP that meets the requirements established by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. 2.The POP must be submitted after pre-application review and before neighborhood meetings are scheduled. 3.The POP must include: a.A description of the project. b.Identification of interested stakeholders, including homeowners associations that are affected by the proposal. c.A proposed neighborhood meeting process. 4.The POP must incorporate the Neighborhood Meeting Requirements noted in subsection F of this section. The applicant may propose an alternative process if it is designed to include key stakeholders in a meaningful way, and is consistent with subsection A of this section, Purpose, and the Public Participation and Notification Policy. Any alternative proposal will be subject to Planning and Zoning Administrator approval. At a minimum, the POP must contain educational and issue identification and resolution elements, as defined in the Public Participation and Notification Policy. 5.The POP is subject to Communication Administrator review. E. Public Outreach Report 1.The applicant must submit a Public Outreach Report as part of the project application. 2.At a minimum, The Public Outreach Report must include: a.A list of neighborhood meetings, noting when and where they were held; the number of people that attended; and copies of sign-in sheets. b.A list of meeting notification methods used. c.Copies of comment letters, petitions, and other pertinent information received from residents and other interested parties. d.A summary of the issues and concerns that were raised. e.A list of solutions that were agreed upon. f.A list of issues that were not resolved, with an explanation of why solutions were not achieved. F. Neighborhood Meeting Requirements 1. Number of Meetings a.A minimum of two (2) neighborhood meetings are required in the following sequence. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@F408F586\@BCL@F408F586.doc WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS: i.One (1) meeting may be sufficient if the project is of very limited scope AND NO RELEVANT PUBLIC CONCERNS HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED, as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. ii.THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WILL ANNOUNCE It should be determined at a THE meeting if additional MEETING(S) ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION OR TO ALLOW FOR MORE DISCUSSION ON THE REQUEST. time or information is needed to develop solutions. The decision about whether to hold an additional meeting should be made at this meeting. iii. If the project type, layout, or previously agreed upon mitigation solutions are substantially changed after meeting with neighbors, an additional meeting may be required as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. i.The first meeting is an educational session with neighbors, other stakeholders and the project planner to review and discuss the process and applicable planning and zoning regulations. ii.The second meeting is an opportunity for the applicant to present the project, solicit feedback, and address issues and concerns. 2. Meeting Location Neighborhood meetings must be held in a facility that: a.Is accessible to the general public, such as a Town-owned facility, school, house of worship, or community recreation center; and b.Provides access for persons with disabilities. 3. Scheduling a.Neighborhood meetings should typically be scheduled on a weekday evening so that working residents may attend, but may be adapted to neighborhood needs, as appropriate. b.The educational session and applicant presentation FIRST meeting must be scheduled prior to formal submittal of the application. c.THE SECOND MEETING IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO A FORMAL TOWN PUBLIC MEETING OR HEARING. d.SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS MAY BE HELD DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND RESIDENT’S POSITION RELATIVE TO THE REQUEST. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@F408F586\@BCL@F408F586.doc 4. Meeting Notification a.Notice shall include BE PROVIDED TO all persons and entities identified in the Public Outreach Plan. AT A MINIMUM, PUBLIC NOTICE SHALL BE PROVIDED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING, INCLUDING: i.A DESCRIPTION AND THE LOCATION, DATE AND TIME OF THE MEETING SHALL BE MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1,000 FEET FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 600 FEET FOR ALL OTHER APPLICATIONS. THE NOTIFICATION AREA MAY BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOODS OR SUBDIVISIONS WHICH MAY BE IMPACTED BY THE REQUEST, AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. ii.SIGN(S) SHALL BE POSTED ON OR NEAR THE PROPERTY AND SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF THREE (3) FEET BY FOUR (4) FEET IN AREA. iii.OTHER ADDITIONAL METHODS IDENTIFIED IN THE PUBLIC OUTREACH PLAN, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. b.Neighborhood meeting notifications must be: i.Prepared by the applicant using a Town-approved letter format. The letter must include a description and tentative timeline for the review and public meeting/hearing process. ii.Submitted to the project planner for review and verification one (1) week prior to mailing. b.If any portion of a subdivision falls within the required notification area, the entire subdivision (as defined by subdivision name or unit number) may be required to be notified if the impacts of the proposal would have impacts affecting the entire subdivision or neighborhood, as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. c.In addition to the aforementioned, other meeting notification methods may be utilized for projects of broad scope. 5. Facilitation a.A Town-approved facilitator may be utilized to assist with neighborhood meetings, as defined in the Public Participation and Notification Policy. b.If professional facilitation services are required as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator, the applicant is responsible for the fees incurred for such services. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@F408F586\@BCL@F408F586.doc Other Related Zoning Code Changes Section 22.2.D. General Plan Amendment Procedures 2.a.Minor Amendment iv.Neighborhood Meetings SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.15. a)At least one (1) neighborhood meeting must be provided prior to submittal of a formal application for all proposed changes to the Land Use Map. b)Town policies for notification of General Plan amendments must be followed to achieve a neighborhood meeting. c)Additional meetings for text amendments may be required at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Administrator. 2.b.Major Amendment iv.Neighborhood Meetings SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.15. a)At least two (2) neighborhood meetings must be provided prior to the submittal of a formal application for all changes to the Land Use Map. If there are any substantive changes to the application after formal submittal, an additional neighborhood meeting will be required. b)Neighborhood meetings must occur not more than two (2) months prior to submittal. The meetings must be facilitated by Town of Oro Valley staff. c)Town policies for notification of General Plan amendments must be followed in notifying property owners of a neighborhood meeting. Section 24.4 Planned Area Development E.Review Process The rezoning review shall follow the procedures of Section 22.3 AND SECTION 22.15, with the following additions/modifications: 1.Neighborhood Meetings: C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@F408F586\@BCL@F408F586.doc The applicant is required to meet with interested residents of adjacent neighborhoods prior to the Town scheduling the proposal for Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. The purpose of the preliminary neighborhood review shall be to provide direct information to area residents and land owners, resolve potential conflicts, assist in expediting Town review and provide for the preservation of the welfare of community residents. The applicant shall notify all citizens’ participation groups and neighborhood associations on record with the Town and located within one (1) mile of the PAD boundary, the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Department and all property owners within six hundred (600) feet of the rezoning. Notice of the application and meeting shall be by mail. A representative from the Planning and Zoning Department shall be invited to the neighborhood meeting. Notice of the neighborhood/applicant meeting shall be mailed no less than fifteen (15) days prior to the meeting date. Documentation of the attendees and minutes of the meetings shall be provided by the applicant to Town staff and the Commission. 2.1.Public Hearings A minimum of two (2) public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be required in order to ensure adequate review time for Commissioners and interested members of the public. The final Commission public hearing shall not be scheduled prior to the submittal of the final PAD development plan. Section 22.3 Amendments and Rezonings C.NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.15. (ADD NEW SUBSECTION C AND RENUMBER BALANCE OF SECTION) Section 22.5 Use Permits C.NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.15. (ADD NEW SUBSECTION C AND RENUMBER BALANCE OF SECTION) Town Council Regular Session Item # 3. b. Meeting Date:01/20/2016 Requested by: Bayer Vella Submitted By:Chad Daines, Development Infrastructure Services Department:Development Infrastructure Services Information SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)16-02, AMENDING SECTION 22.15 AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE REGARDING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the amendment, as provided in Attachment 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In November, 2014, Town Council initiated this Zoning Code amendment regarding neighborhood meetings and an update to the Public Participation and Notification Policy (Policy). The overarching goal was to align the Zoning Code and the Policy with current neighborhood meeting practices. Councilmembers Zinkin and Hornat were assigned to work with staff on development of the amendment and update. This work resulted in the following three draft documents: Zoning Code Amendment (Attachment 1): This item is a formal amendment to the Zoning Code. As such, this will be the only item voted on by Town Council. Key topics are as follows: • Maintains the requirement for two meetings, with limited exceptions • Removes neighborhood meeting content requirements and moves to the Policy • Amends the timing requirements for meetings • Adds requirements for mailed notice and sign posting, 15 days prior to the meeting • Establishes the notification radius for mailed notices to align with other public hearing and meeting requirements Policy Update (Attachment 2): The Policy update, which is intended as a standard operating procedure for staff, will be adopted administratively to allow this document to be updated as best practices evolve. Discussion, direction and feedback from Town Council is requested. Key topics are as follows: • Amends meeting content requirements to reflect current practices • Allows for alternative formats for third and subsequent meetings • Requires educational materials to be posted on the Project Website • Provides for enhanced notification methods in appropriate cases Meeting Survey (Attachment 3): The survey will be adopted administratively to allow for refinement over time. Discussion, direction and feedback from Town Council is requested. The Meeting Survey was designed with the intent of garnering resident input on neighborhood meetings, with the goal of continuous feedback. The Zoning Code Amendment, Policy Update and Meeting Survey were considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a Study Session on November 16, 2015 and a Public Hearing on December 1, 2015. These attached documents incorporate the consensus input from the Commission, which is outlined in the Background section of this report. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Zoning Code Amendment as provided in Attachment 1. This item is a formal amendment to the Zoning Code and as such, will be the only item voted on by Town Council. The Policy (Attachment 2) and the Meeting Survey (Attachment 3) will be adopted administratively to enable refinement over time. Discussion, direction and feedback on these documents from Town Council is requested. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The current Zoning Code language and Policy were adopted in 2009 following input from a committee comprised of advisory board members, elected officials and interested parties. The 2009 Policy is provided as Attachment 4 for reference. The neighborhood meeting process has evolved over time, necessitating revisions to the Zoning Code and Policy. The primary goal of the amendments is to align the Zoning Code and Policy with current neighborhood meeting practices. This section of the report has been divided into subsections addressing the three documents related to the request; Zoning Code Amendment, Policy Update, and Meeting Survey. The below subsections include elements recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their November 16, 2015 Study Session and December 1, 2015 Public Hearing. Zoning Code Amendment (Attachment 1) As previously stated, this will be the only item formally voted on by Town Council. The amendment addresses the following topics: Meeting Content and Number of Meetings The Zoning Code Amendment removes the meeting content requirements, which have been amended and incorporated into the Policy to allow for continual refinement as best practices evolve. The Zoning Code amendment maintains the current requirement for two neighborhood meetings, with limited exceptions. Timing of Meetings The current Zoning Code requires two neighborhood meetings, both of which must occur prior to formal submittal of the application. The amendment allows the first meeting to occur prior to formal submittal, the second meeting prior to public hearings and allows subsequent meetings during the public hearing process. The amended timing of meetings enables staff to review the formal submittal after the first meeting and come prepared to discuss specific project details and code requirements at second and subsequent meetings. This timing also allows residents to be involved throughout the process, rather than only being involved at the beginning stages. Public Notice The current Zoning Code does not provide a specific notification radius nor timing requirement for mailed notices. The amendment establishes the notification radius for mailed notices at 1,000 feet for general plan amendments and 600 feet for all other development applications and requires the notice be mailed within 15 days of the meeting. Staff's practice has been to use these distances for neighborhood meeting notices and the amendment merely codifies current practices for mailed notices. These distances match the notification radius for public hearings, ensuring that the same residents will be notified of all meetings throughout the process. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed expanding the notification boundary to 2,500+ feet (approximately 1/2 mile) as suggested by one Commissioner. The Planning and Zoning Commission did not recommend expanding the notice boundary beyond the current practices, based on the following considerations: The Planning and Zoning Commission considered three representative examples of notification boundaries (Attachment 5). As can be seen from these examples, the number of residents notified ranges from 483 to 673, a significant number of residents in each case Expanding the notice boundary to 2,500+ feet (approximately 1/2 mile) would have the effect of requiring notice to properties in excess of a square mile for all applications The Zoning Code permits the Planning and Zoning Administrator to expand the notice boundary to include entire subdivisions or areas impacted by the request. The notice boundary is regularly expanded based on this provision The notification distances significantly exceed State Law requirements for public hearings, which requires only a newspaper advertisement and no mailed notice The current Zoning Code also does not formally require sign postings on the property, although it has been staff practice to post properties. The amendment establishes a requirement to post 3 foot by 4 foot signs on the property, 15 days prior to the meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed further increasing the size of the signs posted on the property and requiring the applicant to pay for the cost of installing and maintaining the sign over the course of the project, which is a common practice in other jurisdictions. If this approach is supported, a separate amendment should be initiated to comprehensively address the sign posting requirements throughout the Zoning Code to include not only neighborhood meetings, but also sign posting requirements for all public hearings before advisory boards and Town Council. The amendment provides reference to other additional methods of public notice approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator as appropriate. These additional methods are further outlined in the Policy. Related Amendments References throughout the Zoning Code to neighborhood meetings have been amended to refer to the Public Participation section, eliminating conflicting and incomplete requirements for neighborhood meetings. Policy (Attachment 2) As previously stated, this document will be adopted administratively. Discussion, direction and feedback from Town Council is requested. The Policy addresses the following topics: Meeting Content The current Zoning Code and 2009 Policy outline specific meeting content requirements as follows: Meeting 1 (Educational Session): This meeting is intended to be devoted entirely to education on existing conditions, zoning, general plan, application processing and criteria used in evaluation of the proposal. The applicant may not participate in this educational session and the specific development proposal is not discussed. Meeting 2 (Applicant Presentation): This meeting is intended for the applicant to present the specific development proposal, identify issues and strive to find mutually acceptable solutions. This meeting approach has been used in the past and has frustrated residents, who leave the first meeting without understanding the specific project being proposed by the applicant. The primary focus for residents at the first neighborhood meeting is to gain an understanding of the project and how it may impact their property. The current process does not provide project details until the second neighborhood meeting, which delays resident understanding and discussion of the development proposal. The amended meeting content requirements in the Policy reflect current practices in conducting neighborhood meetings which provide for staff education and applicant presentation at the first meeting. The second and subsequent meetings then become an opportunity to focus on issues raised at the first meeting. The amended Policy allows for alternative formats for third and subsequent meetings to include traditional format meetings, open houses, small group meetings and on-site meetings. These alternative approaches are helpful in tailoring meetings to the particular issues involved with a specific case. In terms of small group format meetings, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that if a small group format meeting is organized by the Town, then notice should be provided to the entire area and the meeting should be open to all residents, with meeting results posted on the Project Website. The Policy clarifies that the applicant is still able to meet privately with individuals or groups of residents to understand concerns or to resolve issues. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that adjacent residents to a development request be given priority to provide input or ask questions. The Policy provides that the meeting facilitator will ask for a show of hands from adjacent residents who will be given priority, followed by residents of the larger community. Project Website The Policy includes the requirement that the Town establish and maintain a Project Website to educate and inform residents of relevant codes, policies, review criteria and the decision process for an application. The Policy requires the following information be provided on the Project Website: Meeting format and time allotted for staff comments, applicant presentation, audience input and questions General Plan designations, Vision Statement and applicable Goals and Policies Zoning classifications and standards including permitted uses, setbacks, building heights, open space and landscaping Reference to review and decision making criteria, including process for a decision Web link to General Plan, Zoning Code and other applicable documents Process steps following the meeting The Policy requires that this information be written in non-technical terms that are clear and understandable by the general public. The Policy further requires that this information will be referenced at the first neighborhood meeting and an offer made to meet with persons interested in a deeper level of education. Public Notice In addition to the mailed notice and sign postings required by the Zoning Code Amendment, the Policy provides additional methods of public notice that the Planning and Zoning Administrator may require as appropriate, including: Computer generated telephone calls to residents Email notifications List-serve or neighborhood website notifications Social media Explorer Newspaper or Vista publication for cases of broader community impact Meeting Survey (Attachment 3) This survey will be adopted administratively. Discussion, direction and feedback from Town Council is requested. In summary, the survey asks residents to rate the neighborhood meeting with regard to the following: Adequacy of meeting room and facilities Meeting was conducted fairly Information was easy to understand Clear and understandable responses were provided to questions Adequate time was provided to ask questions and voice concerns The Meeting Survey is intended to garner resident input on the neighborhood meeting process, with the goal of continuous improvement and meeting the needs of residents. The Planning and Zoning Commission provided no comments relative to the Meeting Survey. Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session and Public Hearing On November 16, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a productive study session on the updates, with discussion focused on four areas: • Enhanced notification methods and approaches • Enhanced information and education • Small group meetings • Support of on-going facilitation training for staff On December 1, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on the updates. Staff presented modified Code and Policy language which incorporated the areas of consensus. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Zoning Code amendment (Attachment 1), based on the finding that the amendment reflects current practices and provides for future best practices to be employed for neighborhood meetings. The Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Reports and Draft Minutes are provided as Attachments 6 and 7, respectively. Public Participation The draft Zoning Code amendment, Policy update and Meeting Survey have been posted on the Town website and available for public comment since September, 2015. Emails from residents and letters from Metropolitan Pima Alliance and Southern Arizona Homebuilders Association are provided as Attachment 8. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to adopt Ordinance No. (O)16-02, providing for a Zoning Code amendment to Section 22.15 and other sections related to neighborhood meetings. OR I MOVE to deny Ordinance No. (O)16-02, providing for a Zoning Code amendment to Section 22.15 and other sections related to Neighborhood Meetings, finding that ___________________________. other sections related to Neighborhood Meetings, finding that ___________________________. Attachments Attachment 1 - (O)16-02 Amending Chapters 22 & 24 of the Zoning Code Attachment 2 - Standard Operating Policy Attachment 3 - Meeting Survey Attachment 4 - 2009 Standard Operating Procedure Attachment 5 - Notification Radius Examples Attachment 6 - Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Reports Attachment 7 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Attachment 8 - Resident and Industry Comments C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@D4115814\@BCL@D4115814.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/052212 ORDINANCE NO. (O)16-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AMENDING CHAPTER 22, REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES, SECTIONS 22.15, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION; 22.2.D, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCEDURES; 22.3 AMENDMENTS AND REZONING; 22.5 USE PERMITS AND CHAPTER 24, SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SECTION 24.4 PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES AND RULES OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; PRESERVING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES THAT HAVE ALREADY MATURED AND PROCEEDINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEGUN THEREUNDER WHEREAS, on March 13, 1981, the Mayor and Council approved Ordinance (O)81-58, which adopted that certain document entitled “Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR); and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend Chapter 22, Review and Approval Procedures, Sections 22.15, Public Participation, 22.2.D General Plan Amendment Procedures, 22.3 Amendments and Rezoning, 22.5 Use Permits and Chapter 24 Supplementary District Regulations, Section 24.4 Planned Area Development, of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised to reflect current practices for conducting neighborhood meetings; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will reflect current neighborhood meeting practices, allow for alternative meeting formats, enhance notification, enhance information and education materials; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting on December 1, 2015 and voted to recommend approval of amending Chapter 22, Review and Approval Procedures, Sections 22.15, Public Participation, 22.2.D General Plan Amendment Procedures, 22.3 Amendments and Rezoning, 22.5 Use Permits and Chapter 24 Supplementary District Regulations, Section 24.4 Planned Area Development of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised; and WHEREAS,the Mayor and Council have considered the proposed amendments and the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendations and find that they are consistent with the Town's General Plan and other Town ordinances and are in the best interest of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley that: SECTION 1.That certain document entitled Chapter 22, Review and Approval Procedures, Sections 22.15, Public Participation, 22.2.D General Plan Amendment Procedures, 22.3 Amendments and Rezoning, 22.5 Use Permits and Chapter 24 Supplementary District Regulations, Section 24.4 Planned Area Development, of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, reflecting current C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@D4115814\@BCL@D4115814.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/1024082 neighborhood meeting practices, allowing for alternative meeting formats, enhancing notification and enhancing information and education materials and declared a public record on January 20, 2015 is hereby adopted SECTION 2.All Oro Valley ordinances, resolutions or motions and parts of ordinances, resolutions or motions of the Council in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of the resolution or any part of the General Plan Amendment adopted herein is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 20th day of January, 2016. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Dr. Satish I. Hiremath, Mayor ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: Julie K. Bower, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: Date: C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@D4115814\@BCL@D4115814.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/1024083 EXHIBIT “A” Additions are shown in ALL CAPS font, deletions shown in strikethrough font ______________________________________________________________________ Section 22.15 Public Participation A. Purpose This section provides requirements for neighborhood meetings for proposed development projects. The purpose of promoting public participation in the development review process is to: 1.Build trust through effective public outreach and communication. 2.Promote fair and open dialogue between stakeholders, applicants, staff, board and commission members, and the Town Council. 3.Inform and educate stakeholders regarding the development process, review criteria, and planning and zoning regulations. 4.Provide stakeholders with opportunities to ask questions, identify issues, and forge solutions early in the development process. 5.Promote transparent conveyance of agreed upon solutions to staff, boards and commissions, and Town Council. 6.Promote consistent implementation of agreed upon solutions through the development review process. B. Applicability 1. General Neighborhood meetings are required for the following development applications: a.Major and minor general plan amendments. b.Rezonings. c.Conditional use permits. d.Preliminary plats. e.CONCEPTUAL SITE Development and landscape plans, excluding FINAL SITE PLANS, FINAL PLATS AND landscape plans not associated with a CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN development plan or plat. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@D4115814\@BCL@D4115814.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/1024084 f.Any other proposed action that results in significant change in the development intensity or compatibility with existing development as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. 2. Exceptions If a project entails more than one (1) of the aforementioned development applications, a single public participation process may be followed, unless substantial changes have occurred to the proposal or significant issues are identified. When the neighborhood meeting requirements are met for major and minor General Plan amendments or a rezoning, further meetings may not be required if the following conditions are met: a.No substantial changes to the approved concept or Tentative Development Plan. b.There are no unresolved issues related to the application, as defined in subsection B.3 of this section. 3. Exemption from Neighborhood Meeting Requirements The Planning and Zoning Administrator may determine that a neighborhood meeting is not required in accordance with the following criteria: a.There are no residential uses or zones within six hundred (600) feet of the subject property, excluding areas designated as right-of-way, open space or drainage easement. b.If it is determined that the project/proposal is: i.Consistent with similarly situated property; ii.Not substantially affecting adjacent land use, streetscape, or views; or iii.Substantially conforms to an approved Tentative Development Plan. Any project exempted under this section found to have unresolved neighborhood issues or concerns at any point in the development review process may be required to adhere to the neighborhood meeting requirements. C. Administration Neighborhood meetings shall be organized by Town Planning and Zoning Department staff in the manner specified in the Public Participation and Notification Policy maintained by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. THIS POLICY IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND PERIODIC UPDATE BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@D4115814\@BCL@D4115814.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/1024085 D. Public Outreach Plan (POP) 1.The applicant must submit a POP that meets the requirements established by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. 2.The POP must be submitted after pre-application review and before neighborhood meetings are scheduled. 3.The POP must include: a.A description of the project. b.Identification of interested stakeholders, including homeowners associations that are affected by the proposal. c.A proposed neighborhood meeting process. 4.The POP must incorporate the Neighborhood Meeting Requirements noted in subsection F of this section. The applicant may propose an alternative process if it is designed to include key stakeholders in a meaningful way, and is consistent with subsection A of this section, Purpose, and the Public Participation and Notification Policy. Any alternative proposal will be subject to Planning and Zoning Administrator approval. At a minimum, the POP must contain educational and issue identification and resolution elements, as defined in the Public Participation and Notification Policy. 5.The POP is subject to Communication Administrator review. E. Public Outreach Report 1.The applicant must submit a Public Outreach Report as part of the project application. 2.At a minimum, The Public Outreach Report must include: a.A list of neighborhood meetings, noting when and where they were held; the number of people that attended; and copies of sign-in sheets. b.A list of meeting notification methods used. c.Copies of comment letters, petitions, and other pertinent information received from residents and other interested parties. d.A summary of the issues and concerns that were raised. e.A list of solutions that were agreed upon. f.A list of issues that were not resolved, with an explanation of why solutions were not achieved. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@D4115814\@BCL@D4115814.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/1024086 F. Neighborhood Meeting Requirements 1. Number of Meetings a.A minimum of two (2) neighborhood meetings are required in the following sequence. WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS: i.One (1) meeting may be sufficient if the project is of very limited scope AND NO RELEVANT PUBLIC CONCERNS HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED, as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. ii.THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WILL ANNOUNCE It should be determined at a THE meeting if additional MEETING(S) ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION OR TO ALLOW FOR MORE DISCUSSION ON THE REQUEST. time or information is needed to develop solutions. The decision about whether to hold an additional meeting should be made at this meeting. iii. If the project type, layout, or previously agreed upon mitigation solutions are substantially changed after meeting with neighbors, an additional meeting may be required as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. i.The first meeting is an educational session with neighbors, other stakeholders and the project planner to review and discuss the process and applicable planning and zoning regulations. ii.The second meeting is an opportunity for the applicant to present the project, solicit feedback, and address issues and concerns. 2. Meeting Location Neighborhood meetings must be held in a facility that: a.Is accessible to the general public, such as a Town-owned facility, school, house of worship, or community recreation center; and b.Provides access for persons with disabilities. 3. Scheduling a.Neighborhood meetings should typically be scheduled on a weekday evening so that working residents may attend, but may be adapted to neighborhood needs, as appropriate. b.The educational session and applicant presentation FIRST meeting must be scheduled prior to formal submittal of the application. c.THE SECOND MEETING IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO A FORMAL TOWN PUBLIC MEETING OR HEARING. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@D4115814\@BCL@D4115814.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/1024087 d.SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS MAY BE HELD DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND RESIDENT’S POSITION RELATIVE TO THE REQUEST. 4. Meeting Notification a.Notice shall include BE PROVIDED TO all persons and entities identified in the Public Outreach Plan. AT A MINIMUM, PUBLIC NOTICE SHALL BE PROVIDED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING, INCLUDING: i.A DESCRIPTION AND THE LOCATION, DATE AND TIME OF THE MEETING SHALL BE MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1,000 FEET FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 600 FEET FOR ALL OTHER APPLICATIONS. THE NOTIFICATION AREA MAY BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOODS OR SUBDIVISIONS WHICH MAY BE IMPACTED BY THE REQUEST, AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. ii.SIGN(S) SHALL BE POSTED ON OR NEAR THE PROPERTY AND SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF THREE (3) FEET BY FOUR (4) FEET IN AREA. iii.OTHER ADDITIONAL METHODS IDENTIFIED IN THE PUBLIC OUTREACH PLAN, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. b.Neighborhood meeting notifications must be: i.Prepared by the applicant using a Town-approved letter format. The letter must include a description and tentative timeline for the review and public meeting/hearing process. ii.Submitted to the project planner for review and verification one (1) week prior to mailing. b.If any portion of a subdivision falls within the required notification area, the entire subdivision (as defined by subdivision name or unit number) may be required to be notified if the impacts of the proposal would have impacts affecting the entire subdivision or neighborhood, as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. c.In addition to the aforementioned, other meeting notification methods may be utilized for projects of broad scope. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@D4115814\@BCL@D4115814.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/1024088 5. Facilitation a.A Town-approved facilitator may be utilized to assist with neighborhood meetings, as defined in the Public Participation and Notification Policy. b.If professional facilitation services are required as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator, the applicant is responsible for the fees incurred for such services. Other Related Zoning Code Changes Section 22.2.D. General Plan Amendment Procedures 2.a.Minor Amendment iv.Neighborhood Meetings SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.15. a)At least one (1) neighborhood meeting must be provided prior to submittal of a formal application for all proposed changes to the Land Use Map. b)Town policies for notification of General Plan amendments must be followed to achieve a neighborhood meeting. c)Additional meetings for text amendments may be required at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Administrator. 2.b.Major Amendment iv.Neighborhood Meetings SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.15. a)At least two (2) neighborhood meetings must be provided prior to the submittal of a formal application for all changes to the Land Use Map. If there are any substantive changes to the application after formal submittal, an additional neighborhood meeting will be required. b)Neighborhood meetings must occur not more than two (2) months prior to submittal. The meetings must be facilitated by Town of Oro Valley staff. c)Town policies for notification of General Plan amendments must be followed in notifying property owners of a neighborhood meeting. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@D4115814\@BCL@D4115814.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/1024089 Section 24.4 Planned Area Development E.Review Process The rezoning review shall follow the procedures of Section 22.3 AND SECTION 22.15, with the following additions/modifications: 1.Neighborhood Meetings: The applicant is required to meet with interested residents of adjacent neighborhoods prior to the Town scheduling the proposal for Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. The purpose of the preliminary neighborhood review shall be to provide direct information to area residents and land owners, resolve potential conflicts, assist in expediting Town review and provide for the preservation of the welfare of community residents. The applicant shall notify all citizens’ participation groups and neighborhood associations on record with the Town and located within one (1) mile of the PAD boundary, the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Department and all property owners within six hundred (600) feet of the rezoning. Notice of the application and meeting shall be by mail. A representative from the Planning and Zoning Department shall be invited to the neighborhood meeting. Notice of the neighborhood/applicant meeting shall be mailed no less than fifteen (15) days prior to the meeting date. Documentation of the attendees and minutes of the meetings shall be provided by the applicant to Town staff and the Commission. 2.1.Public Hearings A minimum of two (2) public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be required in order to ensure adequate review time for Commissioners and interested members of the public. The final Commission public hearing shall not be scheduled prior to the submittal of the final PAD development plan. Section 22.3 Amendments and Rezonings C.NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.15. (ADD NEW SUBSECTION C AND RENUMBER BALANCE OF SECTION) C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@D4115814\@BCL@D4115814.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/10240810 Section 22.5 Use Permits C. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.15. (ADD NEW SUBSECTION C AND RENUMBER BALANCE OF SECTION) ATTACHMENT 2 DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE STANDARD OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURES NUMBER SUBJECT Public Participation and Notification Policy DEPARTMENT / DIVISION DIS Planning PAGE 1 of 5 ISSUE DATE: 1/20/16 I. PURPOSE: The intent of this Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is to provide information relative to the generalized content and structure of neighborhood meetings. The Zoning Code provides for Public Participation Plans and enables the Planning and Zoning Administrator to approve customized methods for neighborhood meeting structure and content. The purpose of this SOP is to ensure a level of consistency in the execution of neighborhood meetings and to also establish consistency with regard to the expectations of the public concerning neighborhood meetings. It should be noted that the SOP is intended to be a guide and not a set of rigid requirements based on the fact that neighborhood meetings are often tailored to respond to the unique aspects of a particular case. The Planning and Zoning Administrator may implement changes to the content and structure of neighborhood meetings based on circumstances and issues particular to an application. II. REFERENCES OVZCR 22.15 Public Participation III. PROCEDURES: 1. OVZCR 22.15 requires a minimum of two neighborhood meetings for most development applications. The Zoning Code also provides exemptions from the neighborhood meeting requirements under certain limited conditions. 2. Meeting Notification: Notice will be provided in accordance with Section 22.15.F.4 of the Zoning Code, including: a. Mailed Notice: A notice will be provided to adjacent property owners in accordance with Section 22.15.F.4 of the Zoning Code. Page 2 of 5 ATTACHMENT 2 b. Property Posting: Sign(s) will be posted on or near the property in accordance with Section 22.15.F.4 of the Zoning Code and the following: 1) The number and location of signs must be as approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator as part of the Public Outreach Plan. Sign locations may be off-site if necessary to provide visibility from a public right-of-way. 2) The signs must include a generalized description of the request in terms which are clear and understandable by the general public and must include reference to the Town’s project website. The specific wording of the sign will be reviewed and approved by the Town prior to the signs being posted. c. Other Public Notice Methods: The Planning and Zoning Administrator will require or provide additional methods of public notice, when appropriate, including: 1) Computer generated telephone calls to residents within the affected area. 2) Email notifications 3) List-serve or neighborhood website notifications. 4) Social media or other electronic methods which provide notice to residents within the affected area 5) The Town will use the Explorer Newspaper or Vista publication with water bills to augment normal public notice in cases of broader impact, subject to available budget. 3. Project Website: The Planning and Zoning Administrator will establish a project page on the Town’s website which shall be updated throughout the process. The website will include following project related information: a. Summary description and associated project related plans and details written in non-technical terms that are clear and understandable by the general public. b. Meeting dates, times and locations for all neighborhood meetings and public hearings. c. Project milestones, including all submittals. d. Educational and background information relevant to the project. This information shall be posted a minimum of 15 days prior to the first neighborhood meeting date and shall include: 1) Meeting format and time allotted for staff comments, applicant presentation and audience input and questions. 2) General Plan designation(s), existing and proposed (if applicable). Page 3 of 5 ATTACHMENT 2 3) General Plan Vision and applicable Goals and Policies. 4) Zoning classification(s), existing and proposed (if applicable). 5) Zoning district standards, existing and proposed (if applicable), including permitted uses, setbacks, building heights, open space and landscaping buffer yards. 6) Reference to review and decision making criteria. 7) Process for decision on the request. 8) Web link to the General Plan, Zoning Code and other applicable policies and regulations. 9) Process steps following meeting, including additional neighborhood meetings, public hearings and dates for recommendation and decisions on the request. 4. Focus on immediately adjacent neighbors first: As immediately adjacent neighbors to a proposed project are most impacted, priority will be given first to these residents at neighborhood meetings. This will be determined by the facilitator asking for immediate residents to raise hands. Questions and input will then be taken from these residents, followed by residents of the larger community. 5. Meeting Sequence: The following outlines the typical sequence of neighborhood meetings: a. First Meeting: 1) Staff welcomes the group and outlines the intent and purpose of the meeting, including ground rules and flow of the meeting. 2) Staff summarizes information regarding to the general plan designations, key policies, review criteria, zoning, traffic, drainage, water, schools and other relevant topics. Handouts will be provided on this information. 3) Staff references the education and background information available on the project webpage. Staff emphasizes its importance and discusses how this information is used in decision making by the Town and how residents can obtain more detailed education regarding this information. An offer is made to meet with persons interested in a deeper level of education. 4) Staff will inform residents that there is a potential to craft special conditions to customize the proposal as appropriate. 5) The applicant provides a detailed overview of the development proposal and addresses conformance with the policies and criteria. Page 4 of 5 ATTACHMENT 2 6) Questions and comments from the audience are taken in roundtable format, with priority given first to residents in the immediate area of the request. Comments are recorded and reflected in the meeting summary notes. 7) Staff concludes the meeting by summarizing the main issues raised, which will be the focus of the second meeting, if applicable. b. Second Meeting: 1) Staff welcomes the group and outlines the intent and purpose of the meeting, including ground rules and flow of the meeting. 2) Staff provides a brief overview regarding the process and a summary of the topics raised at the first meeting and any relevant Town information, which will be the focus of this meeting. 3) The applicant provides a detailed response to the main topics raised, including any proposed modification of the application to address resident concerns. 4) Comments and input from the audience are taken, with priority given first to residents in the immediate area of the request. 5) Staff concludes the meeting by summarizing any agreements reached and outlining any remaining issues. Staff indicates whether there will be any further meetings based on the outcome of the second meeting. c. Third and Subsequent Meetings: If applicable, these meetings may occur after the required ones and may utilize any format designed to further understanding of the project and related resident comments and concerns. These formats may include: 1) Traditional formats outlined above. 2) Open house style meetings with stations focused on specific topical areas such as water traffic, drainage and land use. 3) Staff facilitated methods to explore issue identification and possible solutions. 4) Small group meetings between the applicant and neighborhoods and/or specific groups of residents are subject to the following when arranged by the Town: a) Notice of small group meetings will be provided to all residents within the notification boundary. b) Meetings are open to all residents. Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT 2 c) The meetings will remain focused on specific localized concerns which are the topic of the meeting. d) The results of the small group meeting will be posted on the Project Website, including any agreements reached between the applicant and the residents. e) The meeting location will meet the requirements of the Zoning Code. f) Nothing herein will be construed as preventing the applicant from informally contacting or meeting with groups or individual residents to understand and address concerns. 5) On-site meetings to discuss potential development impacts and view land features or other site attributes. AUTHORIZED Paul Keesler, Director Development and Infrastructure Services Neighborhood Meeting Survey ____________________________________________________________ Meeting the needs of our constituents is important to us. To assist us in providing the highest quality customer service, we encourage you to fill out this survey and include any comments and/or suggestions. Facilities Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree The meeting room was appropriate for tonight’s meeting (seating, able to hear, able to see, etc). Staff Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree The information provided was easy to understand. The meeting was conducted in a fair and efficient manner. I received a clear and understandable response to my question(s). The handouts provided were helpful in understanding the proposed development. Applicant Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree The information provided was easy to understand. I received an informed response to my question(s). Meeting Components Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Information regarding the Town review process and standards was sufficient. The extent of project details enabled me to understand the proposal. Adequate time was provided to allow participants to ask questions and voice concerns. The three meeting components above were well executed. If not, please describe below. General Comments (What was done well? What could be improved? Etc...) OPTIONAL ___________________________ ____________________ _______________________________ Customer Name (Please Print) Phone Number Email Thank you for taking the time to help us improve! Your engagement continues to make the Town of Oro Valley a great community. Please stay involved with the development process by logging on to www.orovalleyaz.gov Project __________________ Date_______________ Attachment 3 12/22 Attachment 4 SOP# Policy: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES Public Participation and Notification Policy Copies to: All Planners Effective: December 4,2009 This SOP establishes policy and protocol for conducting neighborhood meetings, as further defined in Section 22.15 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR). ROLES AND PROCEDURES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING FACILITA TION L Neighborhood Meeting Facilitation Facilitators serve an important role in neighborhood meetings for development projects. A facilitator may be defined as: • "Someone who helps a group of people lInders/and /heir common objec/ives and assis/s /hem /0 plan /0 achieve /hem wi/hall/ taking a particlilar position in the discZlssion. " (Source: Wikipedia hl/pj/en. wikipedia.org/wiki/ Facilita/or) • "One who contribwes s/rZicture and process to interactions so groups are able /0 jill1c/ion effectively and make high-quality decisions. " (Source: Ingrid Bens) It is appropriate for Planning and Zoning staff (P&Z staff) or volunteer or professional facilitators to facilitate various neighborhood meetings. The Planning and Zoning Director will determine the most appropriate facilitation for a particular project. Three different tiers have been defined for facilitation approach. This assessment may be revised as the neighborhood meeting process evolves. The three tiers are: Tier 1: Facilitator is a Planning and Zoning staff member • The list of issues is relatively short, and it appears that they can be fairly easily resolved • The project does not involve a change in land use or development of a project with a land use that is significantly different in intensity or character relative to adjacent uses • A low level of neighborhood interest is anticipated Tier2: Facilitator is a Town-approved volunteer or Town staff(including Planning and Zoning, Communications, and Constituent Services) with specific facilitation experience • The development project is more complex, with greater potential to impact neighbors Page 1 of 5 12/22 Attachment 4 • The project may involve more than one change in use from the land use map or current zoning, or a new use requiring a Conditional Use Permit that will have significant effects on adjacent properties • The project involves a change in land use or development of a project with a land use that is significantly different in intensity or character • A Tier 2 project may be designated as a Tier 3 at any point in the process if deemed necessary by the Planning and Zoning Director There would be no facilitation costs incurred by the Applicant in Tier 2. Tier 3: Facilitator is a credentialed professional who is engaged for exceptional circumstances in highly complex projects • The project is very complex and generates a very high level of neighborhood interest • The project involves a change in·Ta.nd use or development of a project with a land use that is significantly different in intensity or character relative to adjacent uses over a significant area of land • The project would significantly impact residents beyond the immediate neighborhood • Involves a General Plan Amendment as well as rezoning. • The applicant is responsible for the fees incurred for facilitation services under Tier 3 Town-approved, volunteer facilitators must meet the following requirements: • Demonstrate the ability and willingness to serve as a neutral third party to assist ( participants in identifying, discussing, and working toward resolution of issues and concerns that are raised through the public participation process • Agree to follow defined facilitation principles, as defined by the International Association of Facilitators (www.iaf-world.org) • Attend a facilitator briefing conducted by Town staff. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate skill and Imowledge of group process techniques. Experience or formal training and accreditation in group facilitation from a recognized training source is required • Participate in an interview with a selection panel • Participate in periodic review and sharing sessions with Town staff. The sessions are intended to help facilitators and staff keep their skills current, discuss challenges and identify ways for improving the process, and address other relevant issues II. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PROCESS The Public Outreach Plan (POP), referenced in OVZCR, Section 22.2.D, outlines the neighborhood meeting sequence and format. In general, most development projects will require two or more neighborhood meetings. However, the two required meeting elements described below may be combined for projects that are smaller in scope or which have a low level controversy or issues related to them. The determination shall be at the sole discretion of the Plmming and Zoning Director. The neighborhood meeting sequence and goals are described below. Page 2 of5 12/22 Attachment 4 1. Educational Session The first meeting is an educational session, conducted by the project planner, to assist the neighbors in developing a solid understanding of the applicable planning process and regulations. This meeting should be conducted prior to formal submittal, where possible, so that Planning and Zoning requirements are understood. The goals of this meeting are to: • Provide information to interested parties regarding: o Existing site conditions, including a map and tentative development plan o Existing zoning and entitlement conditions for the subject property o Oro Valley Zoning Code requirements that relate to the project, including a chart of permitted uses and district descriptions, development regulations, applicable overlay districts, and any envirolU11ental overlays or regulations applicable to the property o Review and approval process o Pertinent General Plan goals and policies o Board and commission evaluation criteria o Other relevant information • Provide an opportunity for interested parties to ask questions; request clarification, and enhance their understanding of the review and approval process; and to clarify which issues are discretionary and may be negotiated through the public participation process, and which are not. Neighbors are asked to keep discussion about issues and concerns regarding the specific proposal for the next meeting. The applicant may be present at the meeting to observe. The focus on this session is education rather than detailed description of the proposal and issue identification. The planner must provide the applicant with copies of any handouts that were distributed and a summary of the meeting. If a facilitator is needed for future meetings, they should be invited to attend to observe this meeting. The date and time of the Issues Identification Meeting should be announced to the group. 2. Applicant Presentation Meeting This next meeting includes neighbors, staff and the applicant and is facilitated according to the Tier guidelines noted under Section II. The goals of this meeting are to: • Lay the groundwork for good communication between the neighbors and applicant • Demonstrate how the project design conforms to applicable codes and General Plan criteria • Present the proposed development project or conceptual plan • IdentifY any issues related to the proposal • Discuss possible alternatives, solutions, and mitigation strategies • Strive to reach mutually agreeable solutions Page 3 of5 12/22 Attachment 4 If issues and concerns are resolved between all or some neighbors and the applicant, the solutions may be recorded in writing to become possible conditions of approvaL If the ( applicant or neighbors need additional time to consider the issues or develop solutions, a follow-up meeting should be proposed. III. GUIDELINES FOR FACILITATORS, STAFF, AND APPLICANT 1. Planner's role and function: • Define the meeting agenda • Explain, reiterate and clariry public review process, P&Z requirements, general plan policies and evaluation criteria, as needed, throughout the process • Suggest appropriate design or mitigation techniques • Inform the group oflimitations on proposed solutions and conditions, for instance, if they are not consistent with P&Z regulations • Develop an evaluation form to distribute at the meeting • Collect the evaluation forms and draft a brief meeting summary 2. Applicant's role aud function: • Fully explain the proposed project, including land use, site layout, function and daily operations and target market • Listen to neighbor's issues and concerns and propose possible solutions • Be prepared to respond to questions about how the project meets specific general plan policies and review criteria • Include project team members with decision making authority 3. Facilitator's role and fuuction: • Assist the planner to define the meeting agenda • Clariry participants' roles • Establish his or her responsibility as the meeting leader, including: • Timekeeping and following the agenda • Establishing and enforcing meeting ground rules • Maintaining a clear record of the discussion • Utilize the P&Z staff to respond to issues regarding the development process .and regulations and to simpliry planning jargon, and the applicant to respond to issues regarding the development application • Assist the group in breaking complex issues up into separate, identifiable ones • Promote balanced participation by group members • Guide the discussion toward a mutually agreeable solution, when possible • Ensure that solutions are fully understood and accurately recorded • Assist the group in determining whether additional meetings are needed Page 4 of5 ( 12/22 Attachment 4 IV. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERJALS Neighborhood meeting participants are responsible for providing the following: Applicant: • Copies of a project fact sheet, which will include an area map, project description, zoning district and general plan designation, and contact information for the applicant staff • Reduced II"x 17" copies of the development proposal • Graphics that effectively depict the proposal, such as: white boards, PowerPoint presentations, three-dimensional models, view shed analyses, and other appropriate visualization techniques Planner: • Sign-in sheet • Comments cards for attendees • Copies of the agenda • Evaluation forms Facilitator: • A brief list of meeting ground rules v. MEETING FOLLOW-UP The project planner will provide a summary of the neighborhood meetings for the staff report that includes: • A list of the issues and concerns that were discussed • A brief description of how issues and concerns were resolved, or the reasons that they were not resolved Agreed upon solutions and appropriate signatures must be provided to the project planner. The planner will determine if the elements are consistent with the Town Zoning Code and other applicable policies. If they are consistent, the elements will be incorporated into the Staff Report as conditions. If they are not consistent, they may only be included as a proposed condition if the applicant signs an appropriate Proposition 207 Date Page 5 of5 Ta n g e r i n e R o a d 1 s t A v e n u e Ka i N o r t h Re z o n i n g 592 Residents Notified 60 0 f o o t b o u n d a r y Attachment 5 Na r a n j a D r i v e La m b e r t L a n e L a C h o l l a B l v d Ge n e r a l P l a n Am e n d m e n t 483 Residents Notified 1, 0 0 0 f o o t b o u n d a r y Attachment 5 67 3 R e s i d e n t s N o t i f i e d Ma r a c a y C o n c e p t u a l Si t e P l a n Mo o r e R o a d L a C a n a d a D r i v e 60 0 f o o t b o u n d a r y Attachment 5 Zoning Code Amendment Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report CASE NUMBER: OV1501056 MEETING DATE: December 1, 2015 AGENDA ITEM: 3 STAFF CONTACT: Chad Daines, Principal Planner cdaines@orovalleyaz.gov (520) 229-4896 Applicant: Initiated by Town Council Request: Zoning Code Amendment – Public Participation Recommendation: Recommend approval of the Zoning Code amendment as provided in Attachment 1 SUMMARY: Town Council has initiated this amendment to update the Zoning Code to reflect current practices for conducting neighborhood meetings. On November 5, 2014, Town Council assigned Councilmembers Zinkin and Hornat to work with staff to review the proposed changes. The Planning and Zoning Commission held a Study Session on November 16th, with discussion focused on the following four areas: • Enhanced public notice for neighborhood meetings to: - Include clear and understandable sign postings on the property - Allow or require the use of social media, list-serves and other electronic methods of notice - One Commissioner suggested the notification radius should be expanded - One Commissioner suggested using the Explorer Newspaper for notice • Enhanced information and education to: - Provide information on project webpage to include relevant policies, requirements, review criteria and process details ATTACHMENT 6 OV1501056 Public Participation Page 2 of 6 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - Expanding discussion at the first neighborhood meeting to include reference to the background information available on the project webpage, how this information is used in decision making and how residents can obtain more detailed education regarding this information • Clarification that small group meetings must be organized and attended by town staff. Notice and access to these small groups must be provided to all residents within the notification boundary and meetings should be open to all residents • Provide facilitation ongoing training for planning staff members The proposed Zoning Code revisions are provided in Attachment 1 and the proposed revisions to the Public Participation and Notification Policy (Policy) are provided in Attachment 2 (included for discussion purposes as opposed to formal approval). These attachments have been updated in response to some of the issues raised at the Study Session. • The 2009 Public Notification and Participation Policy is provided as Attachment 3. • A draft Neighborhood Meeting Survey which is intended to receive resident feedback is provided as Attachment 4. This is included for discussion purposes as opposed to formal approval. • The November 16th Planning and Zoning Commission staff report is provided as Attachment 5 for background purposes. This item is scheduled for discussion and possible recommendation to Town Council. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION This report focuses on changes to the draft Zoning Code amendment and Policy (intended to be used as a standard operating policy) as discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session. Please refer to the November 16th Planning and Zoning Commission staff report (Attachment 5) for detailed information and background on the overall amendment. The discussion at the Study Session focused on the following four topics: 1. Enhanced Notification The Commission discussed a number of approaches and methods to enhance notification to residents of a neighborhood meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission to update the Zoning Code amendment and Policy to address the following: • Add a formal requirement for sign posting on the subject property. ATTACHMENT 6 OV1501056 Public Participation Page 3 of 6 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report • Signs should provide information that is clear and understandable by the general public and information should be more visible • Use of additional methods of public notification in appropriate cases to include social media, list-serves, email notifications and computer generated telephone calls As the apparent consensus of the Commission was to include these items, the Zoning Code amendment and Policy has been updated accordingly. Several additional methods to enhance notification were discussed, however, were not clearly a consensus of the Commission. These areas are as follows: • One Commissioner suggested expanding the notification boundary for all applications to 2,500 feet. - The current draft includes the requirement to notify property owners within 1,000 feet of a General Plan Amendment, and property owners within 600 feet for all other applications of a neighborhood meeting - These distances exceed State Law requirements for public hearings, which only requires a newspaper advertisement and no mailed notice for General Plan Amendments and Rezoning applications - These distances are derived from the notification radius currently required by the Zoning Code to notify residents of public hearings or public meetings before advisory boards and commissions and Town Council. Using the same notice radius for neighborhood meetings and public hearings ensures the same residents are notified consistently throughout the process. - The Zoning Code permits the Planning and Zoning Administrator to expand the notification boundary to include entire subdivisions or areas impacted by a request. The notice boundary is regularly expanded to include impacted areas and regularly exceeds the minimum radius specified in the Zoning Code - Attachment 6 depicts three case examples of mailed notice for comparative purposes and includes the number of residents notified in each example. As can be seen from the examples, the number of residents notified ranges from 483 to 592, a significant number of residents in each case. Staff believes the proposed radius distances, coupled with the property posting, provides sufficient notice to impacted properties. Expanding the notice boundary to 2,500 feet would have the effect of requiring notice to properties in excess of a square mile for all applications, which in staff’s view is excessive. ATTACHMENT 6 OV1501056 Public Participation Page 4 of 6 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report • The Commission discussed increasing the size of signs posted on the property and requiring the applicant to pay for the cost of installing and maintaining the sign over the course of the project. - Having the developer install larger signs and update those signs throughout the course of the project is common in other jurisdictions - The Zoning Code amendment (Attachment 1) has been updated to reflect the apparent consensus of the Commission to increase the size of the signs. The amendment now requires the sizes be three (3) feet by four (4) feet in area - If the Commission and Town Council are supportive of further increasing the size of signs, staff would recommend a separate amendment be initiated to comprehensively address the sign posting requirements throughout the Zoning Code to include not only neighborhood meetings, but also sign posting requirements for all public hearings before advisory boards and commissions and Town Council • One Commissioner discussed using the Explorer Newspaper for public notice. - The Explorer newspaper does not meet the statutory requirements for public notice as it not a subscription newspaper and only is printed weekly - The Town could use the Explorer in addition to the Territorial Newspaper. However, the cost for newspaper advertisements in the Explorer are significantly higher than the Territorial Newspaper and use of the Explorer would exceed the Department budget allocation for public notices. Staff has budgeted for Explorer advertisements for larger and/or controversial cases 2. Enhanced Information and educational materials Mr. Adler provided the Commission a detailed presentation of educational materials he had used in past efforts to educate neighborhoods on relevant policies, regulations, review criteria and the decision process. The Commission discussed approaches to provide this information to residents and methods to enhance education. It was the apparent consensus of the Commission to amend the Policy to include: - The need to post background and educational materials on the project website to include relevant general plan policies, general plan designations and zoning classifications, development standards, review criteria and decision process(es) - These materials should be posted before the notice is sent to residents for the first neighborhood meeting ATTACHMENT 6 OV1501056 Public Participation Page 5 of 6 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report - The meeting facilitator should reference this information at the first neighborhood meeting, explain how this information is used in decision making and explain how residents can obtain more detailed education regarding this information The Policy has been updated to reflect the above consensus items from the Commission. 3. Small group meetings The Commission expressed concern with small group meetings as follows: - Small group meetings with participants selected by the developer or a community activist tend to include more vocal residents and leaves other residents out of the process - Small group meetings should be organized and attended by town staff - Notice should be given to all affected residents - Small group meetings should be open for attendance by all residents The above items were a consensus of the Commission and the Policy has been amended to reflect these items. 4. Ongoing facilitation training of planning staff This is an ongoing need as facilitation methods and approaches improve. The Department plans on providing facilitation training for all planners on an ongoing basis. Public Comments: Comments have been received from the Metropolitan Pima Alliance concerning the radius of notification letters (Attachment 7) CONCLUSION In summary, the amended Zoning Code and amended Policy reflect current practice in the conduct of neighborhood meetings, which has been more favorably received by residents than the current approach established by the Zoning Code. The modified sequencing of meetings enables residents to gain an understanding of the Town process and proposed development in the first meeting and then allows for subsequent meeting to focus and on resident issues and strive for issue resolution and provide opportunities for consensus. The amended Policy also enables flexible ATTACHMENT 6 OV1501056 Public Participation Page 6 of 6 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report approaches and methods to educate, discuss solutions to neighborhood issues, which is the primary objective of the neighborhood meeting process. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the finding that the amendment will update the Zoning Code to reflect current practices for neighborhood meetings and provide for future best practices to be employed for neighborhood meetings, it is recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission take the following action: Recommend approval to the Town Council of the requested Zoning Code Amendment as provided in Attachments 1. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: The Planning and Zoning Commission may wish to consider the following suggested motion: I move to recommend approval of the Zoning Code Amendment in Attachment 1 related to neighborhood meetings, based on the findings in the staff report. OR I move to recommend denial of the Zoning Code Amendment in Attachment 1 related to neighborhood meetings, based on _______________________________________. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Zoning Code Amendment 2. Proposed Public Participation and Notification Policy 3. 2009 Participation and Notification Policy 4. Neighborhood Meeting Survey 5. November 16th Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report 6. Example Notice Maps 7. Metropolitan Pima Alliance Letter ___________________________________________ Bayer Vella, AICP Planning Division Manager ATTACHMENT 6 Zoning Code Amendment Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report CASE NUMBER: OV1501056 MEETING DATE: November 16, 2015 AGENDA ITEM: 1 STAFF CONTACT: Chad Daines, Principal Planner cdaines@orovalleyaz.gov (520) 229-4896 Applicant: Initiated by Town Council Request: Zoning Code Amendment – Public Participation Recommendation: Study Session – Discussion and direction only SUMMARY: Town Council has initiated this amendment process to update the Zoning Code to reflect current practices for conducting neighborhood meetings. On November 5, 2014, Town Council assigned Councilmembers Zinkin and Hornat to work with staff to review the proposed changes. The current provisions of the Zoning Code outline the timing and sequencing of neighborhood meetings. It also enables the Planning and Zoning Administrator to approve alternate methods which achieve meaningful input and are consistent with the intent. Over time, the neighborhood meeting process has evolved necessitating revisions to the Zoning Code and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for clarity and to create alignment with current practices. The current Zoning Code is specific and detailed in terms of the meeting content and sequencing of meetings. Although standardization is important, it is equally important to retain a certain level of flexibility to tailor the neighborhood meeting process to be effective in addressing the particular aspects and issues associated with a specific development application. The proposed Zoning Code revisions are provided in Attachment 1 and the proposed revisions to the SOP are provided in Attachment 2. The SOP is intended to be adopted administratively by the Planning and Zoning Administrator as a management tool. It is provided as an attachment to this report for informational purposes only. Also provided as information and for feedback purposes is a Neighborhood Survey form, which is also not subject to Commission vote. ATTACHMENT 6 OV1501056 Public Participation Page 2 of 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report As this item is scheduled for a Study Session for discussion and direction only, no formal action from the Commission will be taken. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Current Zoning Code and SOP The current Zoning Code language and SOP were adopted in 2009 following input from a committee comprised of advisory board members, elected officials and interested parties. The 2009 SOP is provided as Attachment 3 for reference. The neighborhood meeting process has evolved over time, necessitating minor revisions to the Zoning Code and SOP, which are outlined below. The Zoning Code and 2009 SOP outline a specific timing and sequencing of neighborhood meetings as follows: Meeting 1 (Educational Session): This meeting is intended to provide information on existing conditions, zoning, general plan, application processing and criteria used in evaluation of the proposal. The applicant may not participate in this education session. Meeting 2 (Applicant Presentation): This meeting is intended for the applicant to present the specific development proposal, identify issues and strive to find mutually acceptable solutions. Both meetings are currently required to occur prior to formal submittal of the application. This approach has been used in past neighborhood meetings and has frustrated residents who leave the first meeting without a complete understanding of the specific project being proposed by the applicant. The primary focus for residents at neighborhood meetings is to gain an understanding of the project and how it may impact their property and the current process does not provide project details until the second neighborhood meeting. This structure delays necessary time for residents and the developer to interact. Proposed Zoning Code and SOP Over time, a common approach has evolved to provide a staff overview/education and applicant presentation at the first neighborhood meeting. The second and subsequent meetings then become an opportunity to focus on issues raised by residents at the first meeting and to strive for issue resolution. ATTACHMENT 6 OV1501056 Public Participation Page 3 of 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report This alternative approach has become the normal method approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator as it provides residents an understanding of both the Town process and the proposed development at the first meeting and enables the second and subsequent meeting to focus on resident issues. Although alternative approaches are enabled by the Zoning Code, this amendment has been initiated to reflect this common approach to neighborhood meetings which has evolved over time. The specific changes proposed in the Zoning Code amendment and amended SOP are as follows: • Elimination of the specific meeting content and sequencing requirements, which have been moved to the amended SOP. The amended content requirements in the SOP enables staff overview and applicant presentation at the first meeting and provides for second and subsequent meetings to focus on resident issues. • This approach of providing more detail in the SOP versus the zoning Code enables the Town to make improvements to the meeting content and structure without requiring a Zoning Code amendment. This approach is recommended because best practice in meeting facilitation evolve and are not static. Additionally, approaches to neighborhood involvement vary, depending on the specific issues involved with a particular case. • The amended SOP also allows alternative formats for third and subsequent meetings to include open houses, small group meetings, consensus workshops and on-site meetings. These alternative approaches are helpful in tailoring meetings to provide detailed information particular to a case, focus on issues unique to a development and provide effective methods to resolve resident issues. • Amends the timing of meetings to require the first meeting to occur prior to formal submittal, the second meeting prior to public hearings and allowing subsequent meetings during the public hearing process to address issues raised and in an effort to create solutions. This enables residents to be involved throughout the project as it evolves, rather than only being involved at the beginning stages of the process. • Includes a formal requirement for a mailed notice at least 15 days prior to each meeting. • Deletes language within the General Plan and PAD sections of the Zoning Code to provide a single Zoning Code section addressing neighborhood meetings for clarity and simplicity. • A Neighborhood Meeting Survey form has been developed (Attachment 4) to receive resident input on neighborhood meetings with the goal of continuous ATTACHMENT 6 OV1501056 Public Participation Page 4 of 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report improvement of the neighborhood meeting process to best serve resident’s needs. • The SOP and Neighborhood Survey have been provided for discussion and feedback, but are not subject to Commission vote. CONCLUSION In summary, the amended Zoning Code and amended SOP reflect current practice in the conduct of neighborhood meetings, which has been more favorably received by residents than the approach established by the Zoning Code. The modified sequencing of meetings enables residents to gain an understanding of the Town process and proposed development in the first meeting and then allows for subsequent meeting to focus and on resident issues and strive for issue resolution and consensus. The amended SOP also enables flexible approaches and methods to find solutions to neighborhood issues, which is the primary objective of the neighborhood meeting process. RECOMMENDATION: As this is a Study Session, this item is for discussion and direction to staff only with no formal action taken by the Commission. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Zoning Code Amendment 2. Proposed Public Participation and Notification Policy 3. 2009 Participation and Notification Policy 4. Neighborhood Meeting Survey ___________________________________________ Bayer Vella, AICP Planning Division Manager ATTACHMENT 6 MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION December 1, 2015 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAŇADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chairman Rodman called the December 1, 2015, Regular Session of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 PM. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bill Rodman, Chairman Melanie Barrett, Commissioner Greg Hitt, Commissioner Tom Drazazgowski, Commissioner Charlie Hurt, Commissioner Bill Leedy, Vice-Chairman ABSENT: Frank Pitts, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT: Joe Hornat, Council Member Lou Waters, Vice-Mayor Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Rodman led the Planning and Zoning Commission members and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. CALL TO AUDIENCE Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, stated he believes strongly that the Town of Oro Valley should rely on planning principals rather than personal judgment. Communications that are written from staff of the Development and Infrastructure Services to the Commission are filled with ambiguities, statements and politics rather than planning principals. Most of the significant issues having to do with planning and the Town of Oro Valley have been initiated by residents. He expects more from the Planning Commission, Conceptual Design Review Board, staff and people we elect to represent the community. These people should be held to a higher standard. This involves relying on what's been adopted, what's required by code and what's been ratified by the ATTACHMENT 7 citizens of Oro Valley. So many decisions are made based on feelings and quite frankly he doesn't care how you feel. He cares about compliance and what makes sense in the community. The trust in government is at the lowest level he has ever seen and he doesn't know if it's repairable. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Member Hornat, provided the following updates: - Thank you to Commissioner Pitts and Chairman Rodman for their service on the Planning Commission - Two candidates have been selected to serve on the Planning and Zoning Commission - Town Council, November 4th meeting Approval of the Your Voice, Our Future 90% draft Approval of Nakoma Sky, with the conditions that the architecture needing work before Conceptual Design Review Board Approval of the Fry's Fuel Station as recommended by the Commission -Town Council, November 18th Approval of changes to Senior Care Definitions, Uses and Zoning Districts as recommended by the Commission Not Approved was the request to reconsider Nakmona Sky Not Approved was the request to consider a property purchase on Magee and Oracle Lengthy discussion on the personnel actions taken by Town Council regarding Council Member Zinkin Certification of the November 3rd Election Results by the Town Clerk with no changes REGULAR SESSION AGENDA 1. REVIEW AND/OR APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 20, 2015 SPECIAL SESSION MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Hitt requested a correction to his name on the page 1. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Leedy and seconded by Commissioner Hitt to approve of the October 20, 2015 Special Session meeting minutes as amended. MOTION carried, 6-0. ATTACHMENT 7 2. PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE VERDE CATALINA TOWNHOMES PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ORACLE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 600’ NORTH OF MAGEE ROAD, OV914-005 Rosevelt Arellano, provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Site Plan - Large Lot Zoning Versus Town Home Zoning - Timeline - PAD Development Standards - General Plan Conformance - Public Participation - Planning and Zoning Commission - Summary Chairman Rodman opened the public hearing. Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, stated that there have been a number of variances before the Board of Adjustment in this community. The intention was to have this property develop similar to the property immediately to the east. He believes this property should be rezoned with what the Town intends to do in the future. At some point in time the Town of Oro Valley is going to deal with redevelopment. There will be no more property available for development and we will have to deal with trying to select property to be redeveloped. This property would be a good candidate for redevelopment, it is a blight on the community and has demonstrated this through the variances requested. Chairman Rodman closed the public hearing. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Leedy and seconded by Commissioner Hitt to recommend approval of a rezoning from R1-144 to Verde Catalina Townhomes Planned Area Development (PAD), based on the findings that it is consistent with Section 24.4.H, the land use map of the General Plan and will provide standards which reflect existing development patterns. MOTION carried, 6-0. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 22.15 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND OTHER RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE. THE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT PROVIDES CLARIFICATION ON THE NUMBER AND ATTACHMENT 7 SEQUENCING OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, ADDS A TIMING REQUIREMENT FOR MAILED NOTICE TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS AND OTHER CHANGES TO ALIGN THE ZONING CODE WITH PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, OV1501056 Chad Daines, Principal Planner, provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Objectives of a Neighborhood Meeting Code - Background - Summary of Current Requirements - Experience: Hierarchy of Audience Needs - Case Example - Cell Tower - Case Example - Major General Plan Amendment - Current and Proposed Changes - Benefits of Amendments - Summary of Study Session Discussion - Enhanced Public Notice - Sign Posting - Current and Proposed - Notification Radius - Enhanced information and education - Small group meetings - Facilitation training - Summary and Recommendation Vice-Chair Leedy questioned whether the Town or staff at any time take a position of advocacy on how best to overcome public opposition when meeting with applicants and/or developers or/and does staff at any time take a position of advocacy with members of the community. Mr. Daines responded that staff strives to remain neutral in neighborhood meetings. The goal in conducting neighborhood meetings is to ensure fair and open dialogue. Commissioner Hurt questioned whether the Town or staff suggest facilitators when there is an impasse or is the facilitation done by staff. Bayer Vella, Planning Manager, responded that the common practice of facilitation is provided by staff. There have been very limited examples where a professional facilitator has been brought in. If the facilitator does not have a basic understanding of planning principals, it's a very tough spot to be in. ATTACHMENT 7 Commissioner Hurt stated that although staff is neutral at neighborhood meetings, ultimately staff will make a recommendation on the case. Mr. Vella responded that it's always a challenge even though staff does their best to be neutral at neighborhood meetings. Staff will ultimately make a recommendation and if that recommendation happens to be in favor of the developer, that does leave an impression with many of the neighbors that staff favors the developer. This demonstrates the fine line we walk and it's a very challenging one. Vice-Chair Leedy voiced his concern with the misperception that staff, this Commission and Town Council is a rubber stamp for applicants in this community. Mr. Leedy believes that perception is in large part if not entirely a function of a lack of knowledge of the number of applicants or applications that come before the Town that never see the light of day with respect to a staff report, an action from this Commission or an action from Town Council. Would this be an accurate statement? Mr. Danies responded that many times a developer will come in and have a pre- application meeting or their first neighborhood meeting. What they hear at the neighborhood meeting determines if they move forward with application. Not all applications move beyond that first neighborhood meeting. Chairman Rodman voiced his concern with the Policy and Procedures, 4.c.4: small group meetings between the applicant and neighborhoods and/or specific groups of residents. Chairman Rodman suggested clarification that the policy applies to small group meetings arranged by the Town staff. Chairman Rodman opened the public hearing. Dave Perry, Oro Valley resident and President and CEO of the Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce, believes the most fundamental problem the business community has with neighborhood meetings and with the process as a whole is that it takes too long. So he hopes whatever is done has the effect of reducing the length of time it takes to get something done while fully involving the public and arriving at mutual agreed upon outcomes. We do need better public noticing for proposed zoning changes and neighborhood meetings. He liked some of what he saw here tonight with bigger signs. We need to do a better job with broader media notification of meetings and events. Mr. Perry thinks we still need to be selective at the discretion of staff about use that media when appropriate. Mr. Perry suggested using "The Vista", which arrives in our water bill every month. One of the questions before you is if the notification should be widened from the current 1,000 - 600 square foot notification requirement, he doesn't believe this should happen. He suggest a creation of a primer, something that is broadly outlined but can be modified to specific cases that describes the current proposal. Let’s put the valid issues in front of the people right off the bat, because when ATTACHMENT 7 we get to the end the valid issues are raised. Right sizing is important, something deserve a lot of attention, detail, notification and meetings but some things don't. It's important that staff have the option of making some of those kinds of judgments. Staff does an outstanding job at balancing the applicant’s interests and the interests of neighbors that often don't have any idea what is happening. Should we think about a member of staff being assigned on a case by case basis as an ombudsman? Someone who is not directly working with the developer, someone who understands the code, understands the issues and can work with those people in the public. Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, commented that in terms of the Standing Operating Policy (SOP), he has always felt that the content and structure of the educational meeting should be part of the ordinance. There is nothing in the staff proposal that has to do with conditional approval. The ability for the community to add conditions of approval is central and this ordinance has to make a statement in regards to this. The community has the right to understand and staff has an ethical obligation to give the community the information, if it takes longer than the allotted time, tough. Staff is either going to honor this obligation or they are not. Mr. Adler commented that what works is people being knowledgeable and trusting government. Shirl Lamonna, Oro Valley resident, commented that she feels that everybody has property rights, not just the developers. There is absolutely no guarantees that when a developer comes in that he has to be given the authority to have his property rezoned or whatever it might be. In Oro Valley there is no such thing as being fairly balanced, the developers clearly have the upper hand on what goes on with development in this Town and it's sad that the constituents don't have better education. Ms. Lamonna encourages the neighborhood meeting process so constituents can learn about the issues. She thinks it's important that when staff speaks to the constituents that all the facts are presented to them. Another concern is Listserv not having a large number of people receiving notifications, as well as people do not automatically go to the website for information. The Town's website is not user friendly and needs some improvement. Ms. Lamonna went on to question whether the general plan signs use five inch letters as required by code. Don Bristow, Oro Valley resident, commented that he agrees with Mr. Adler. Mr. Bristow commented that he has attended a number of these meetings and the public walks away still feeling uneducated. To expect the citizens to be as educated about the codes and regulations as the developer who hires outside professionals is a ridiculous consideration. The citizens expect to be educated by the Town but walk way being let down. Mr. Bristow's concern with the proposed zoning code amendment and staff deciding when and if the meeting format will be changed is taking away from the process from what it used to be. Mr. Bristow agrees with the previous speaker about the Town website needing improvement, it is harder and harder to find ATTACHMENT 7 things. The language in the small group meeting policy needs to be cleaned up, the language is conflicting. Another concern is that everything is neutral is untrue. Chairman Rodman closed the public hearing. Mr. Daines responded to the public speaker's questions as follows: When a question about the development proposal arises at a neighborhood meeting, staff refers the question to the applicant. In a lot a cases, especially at the first meeting, staff hasn't had the opportunity to review the application, and may be learning about it for the first time at the meeting. It is the applicant's application and it is their responsibility to answer the questions related to what they are proposing. Staff indicates that they regularly reflect resident concerns in the conditions of approval or special area policies that ultimately get recommended by staff to the Commission and Town Council. Staff tries to respond to the diversity of issues involved in large cases. You might have one area that is focused on one aspect like lot size and another area that is completely looking at something different like commercial uses. In terms of education, staff does not just place a stack of handouts on the back table. Staff reviews the development standards and makes sure that residents understand what is being proposed by the developer. In terms of Staff selecting certain policies, there are over 200 policies in the General Plan and staff is trying to make that simpler on the residents by providing the applicable policies to the request. In terms of the level of information, neighborhood meeting is conducted in 1.5 hours. Staff takes 30 minutes on the presentation and the applicant takes another 30 minutes that leaves the balance of time to hear from our residents. Some of the information gets summarized in an effort to get to what's really important and hear from the residents about their concerns. Staff does not go through how a neighborhood can force a super majority vote. Staffs goal is to be neutral. We have had neighborhoods ask, and we provided information on the code. In terms of General Plan Lettering on sign postings, the font size is 5 inches, they are measured before the signs are posted. ATTACHMENT 7 Vice-Chairman Leedy proposes striking the word educate out of Section A: Purpose, number 3. As well as striking the text, "building trust through" out of Section A: Purpose, number 1 and insert the word utilize. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Leedy to recommend a continuance of the Zoning Code Amendment until the next meeting. Motion died for a lack of a second. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Leedy to recommend approval of the Zoning Code Amendment subject to the changes to Section A: Purpose, number 1, inserting the word "utilize" and number 3, striking the text, "building trust through". Motion died for a lack of a second. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Leedy and seconded by Commissioner Hurt to recommend approval of the Zoning Code Amendment in Attachment 1 related to the neighborhood meetings, based on the findings in the staff report. MOTION carried, 6-0. PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Bayer Vella, Planning Manager, presented the Planning Update that included the following: - Thank you to Chairman Rodman for his service and leadership to the Commission - Two new members will be at the next meeting - Items on the January 5th agenda ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Leedy and seconded by Commissioner Drazazgowski to adjourn the December 1, 2015, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 8:08 PM. MOTION carried, 6-0. ATTACHMENT 7 November 16, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Page 1 of 5 MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION November 16, 2015 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAŇADA DRIVE STUDY SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Rodman called the November 16, 2015 Study Session of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 PM. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bill Rodman, Chairman Melanie Barrett, Commissioner Greg Hitt, Commissioner Bill Leedy, Vice-Chairman Frank Pitts, Commissioner EXCUSED: Tom Drazazgowski, Commissioner Charlie Hurt, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT: Lou Waters, Vice-Mayor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Rodman led the Planning and Zoning Commission members and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS No Council Liaison present. STUDY SESSION AGENDA 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 22.15 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND OTHER RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE INCLUDING THE NUMBER AND SEQUENCING OF ATTACHMENT 7 November 16, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Page 2 of 5 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, MAILED NOTICE TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS AND OTHER RELATED CHANGES, OV1501056 Commissioner Barrett arrived at 6:05 PM. Chad Daines, Principal Planner, provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Objective of a Neighborhood Meeting Code Bayer Vella, Planning Manager, presented a brief synopsis on the background of Neighborhood Meetings. Mr. Daines, continued with the presentation that included the following: - Summary of Current Requirements - Experience: Hierarchy of Audience Needs - Case Example -Cell Tower - Case Example - Major General Plan Amendment - Summary of Changes - Benefits of Amendments - Recommendation Commissioner Pitts commented that the neighborhood meeting process is moving in the right direction. He would like to see a better attendance and substance at the neighborhood meetings. He applauds staff but believes we can fine tune a little more. Commissioner Pitts would also like information provided to the residents so they know about the upcoming meetings. In addition, advertising in the Explorer Newspaper, extending the time period of the property notice, expanding notice radius as well as providing a link on the Town's website with the upcoming neighborhood meeting information. Commissioner Hitt, questioned if the changes made to the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) was brought before stake holders for comments. Mr. Daines responded that Town Council initiated this item in November 2014 and assigned Councilmember Zinkin and Councilmember Hornat to work on developing these changes. Commissioner Hitt questioned the proposed ordinance, item 3: Exemption from Neighborhood Meeting Requirements. Letter b, and questioned if all the requirements need to be met for an exception. Mr. Daines responded that the exemption from neighborhood meeting requirements would have to meet all the requirements to be exempt. ATTACHMENT 7 November 16, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Page 3 of 5 Commissioner Barrett commented she was happy to see the timing requirement of the notice was 15 days. Commission Barrett went on to comment she would like to see the property signs more readable. Mr. Vella commented the idea behind the update is to reflect what we are doing today. This was the objective when we first sat down with Councilmember Hornat and Councilmember Zinkin and worked on the re-draft. There will be instances that will be different that will not be reflected in the SOP. There will be deviations to the SOP in terms of the way the process goes, but the bulk of the applications will follow the SOP. Chairman Rodman commented that he has attended a number of neighborhood meetings where he has seen the meetings handled differently depending on what the issues were. In every single case the people had the opportunity to participate in the meetings, after the meetings and even one-on-ones. He found staff accommodating every possible way to communicate with the neighbors about what was going on. In most of those cases, the applicant was very accessible as well. Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, commented this is not a study session. Mr. Adler went on to comment that there are some profound differences between his point of view and the Town's point of view. It has nothing to do with notice, it has to do with how people are prepared when they confront the applicant. He would like to provide some graphic evidence what he considers educational and what the staff considers to be an overview. Mr. Adler went on to comment that waiting for people to ask questions is not how you educate, you anticipate questions and you provide the information. Mr. Adler provided educational and background material that he used in past neighborhood meetings. Mr. Adler reviewed each component with the Commission. Mr. Adler commented that neighborhood meetings are about getting the citizens to understand so they can participate at the applicant meeting. What he cares about is people understanding the process and what they need to know about this process in order to help them engage with the developer on an equal playing field. Mr. Adler appeals to the Commission to look over the handouts and incorporate more of what's in the handouts so that the ordinance treats people the way they should be treated. Don Bristow, Oro Valley resident, stated he is in support of Bill Adler's comments 100%. He has been approached by other residents asking what questions they should be asking the developer. The public needs to be educated in a way they can come before the Commission and speak intelligently about the things the Commission is supposed to be looking at. The property signs need to big enough to be read. Some of the issues mentioned tonight are important from a communications standpoint but don't address the issue of getting the citizens involved. ATTACHMENT 7 November 16, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Page 4 of 5 Commissioner Barrett questioned Mr. Adler as to whom does he propose the material he provided be given too. Mr. Adler responded he was not proposing anything, he was communicating what he did because what is being done is unsatisfactory to him. Chairman Rodman questioned if maybe some if not all of the material handed out by Mr. Adler could find its way into the SOP. Vice-Chair Leedy commented that he has attended numerous neighborhood meetings and his opinion is the process is working reasonably well. Could the process be better, always yes, but he has yet to witness a single instance in which staff limited or hesitated in making information available when it was asked for. Vice-Chair Leedy suggested enhancing the notification process with some sophisticated email notification software or a more effective use of social media. Information could be added to the website closer to what Mr. Adler is proposing so that people can be informed. Commissioner Pitts commented he agrees with more information at the meetings is needed. Training the staff is essential in addition to the developer footing the bill for the material. Commissioner Pitts went on to comment that he agrees with Commissioner Barrett regarding the property signs needing to be larger and more readable in addition to a link on the Town's website providing information about the upcoming meeting and the proposed development. Commissioner Barrett commented that she would like to see Town staff take a more of a backseat roll at the neighborhood meetings. It would be appropriate for the developer to advocate for their own positions, as well as the neighbors advocating for their positions and the Town staff acting more as a facilitator. Chairman Rodman stated that in the SOP, under the second meeting, number4: Questions and comments for the audience are taken with the goal of achieving consensus between the applicant and the residents. Chairman Rodman commented that should not be our goal, he doesn't believe it should be in the SOP. Our goal is to come to a solution. Mr. Vella commented that staffs focus is to be objective and the applicant's responsibility is to carry the freight for their application. Our goal is not to develop consensus between both parties, our goal is to develop consensus that there is a direction from the crowd. Commissioner Barrett stated she likes the idea of letting the residents know what is being proposed at the first meeting instead of it being informational. In the small group meetings her concern is one group taking sides over other groups. As this was a discussion item, no action was taken by the Commission. PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) ATTACHMENT 7 November 16, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Page 5 of 5 Bayer Vella, Planning Manager, updated the Commission on the following: - Town Council upcoming meetings - Planning and Zoning Commission upcoming meetings ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Hitt and seconded by Commissioner Barrett to adjourn November 16, 2015 Study Session Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 7:56 PM. MOTION carried, 5-0. ATTACHMENT 7 Bayer - why does the staff report indicate that - within PURPOSE - that "customized methods " are desirable at times. but the intent is to achieve "consistency". Consistency in format and consistency in "expectations". How can consistency be achieved if customizing, and "tailoring" methods or approach is okay? Any serious reader of your report is left thinking as I do that the Town's commitment is anything but clarity. It goes on to say that the PA may change "content and structure".... but we want consistency. We also want "flexibility". What is the point in having an ordinance, when a commitment to something is not even made? You leave alone one intent is to "inform and educate", and then believe that creating a project page on a web site somewhere is how that is to be accomplished. This continues to say clearly that the Town really doesn't understand what is actually effective. Subsequently, at a possible second meeting, the report says that a "reference" will be made to the project page. Referencing something is your approach to education and informing. Educate is not achieved with a reference. Somewhere along the line staff will indicate "allowable" uses, but no inclusion of the term in the code "permitted" and "conditionally permitted". No discussion is included of conditions proposed by the neighbors...only remarks or "comments". You are intentionally ignoring the one manner in which the neighbors can achieve or "forge solutions". By adding conditions. The report indicates that staff will provide explanations of General Plan designations or Code Districts, whereas my information provides information on all with a highlight on what is proposed. What if the neighbors wish to discuss an alternative designation or district? Staff indicates that an "offer will be made" to meet with anyone who wishes to go deeper. So, you acknowledge that you are not informing unless someone asks for it. That's the central purpose of having a meeting! The report indicates that staff will provide "baseline" information. What kind of commitment to inform is that? The meeting format wishes to have the staff discussion coupled with a developer discussion with no Q&A until both are completed. What facilitator seriously interested in education uses a process such as that? This whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. Please give a copy of this summary to the Commissioners at the start of the item. Thank you. Bill The revised meeting draft makes assumptions as to consensus arrived at by the P&Z Commission. There were no votes; a clear majority was not obtained on ANY issue. It continues to be my opinion that Town ATTACHMENT 8 Staff prefers a mechanism that is convenient, easier and less demanding for THEM. The preference is definitely not in the interest of the community or residents within any neighborhood. The most conspicuous of these assumptions is in the posting of relevant information on a Town website versus handing the information out at a meeting and reviewing it page by page. Handing material out has the advantage of allowing neighbors to have the information with them outside of formal meetings and can be used in discussion between neighbors in preparation for formal meetings. The draft says that "reference" to the web site information will be made. "Reference" ? The Town simply wishes to avoid any process that requires education. I think it is obvious why. No one has any experience or knowledge of the subject. Mr Leedy of the Commission expressed the opinion - which I didn't hear from anyone else - that residents have a responsibility to inform themselves. Becoming aware of an issue is not the same as becoming knowledgeable or educated on the issue. Mr Leedy I hope understands this, but misstated the matter. The draft makes a statement that current practice with regard to meetings has received satisfaction from neighbors to a greater degree than the process in the ordinance. It is a fact that the Town has NEVER organized a neighborhood educational process including one meeting for education, and a second for Q&A with the applicant. NEVER. Certainly never within the current DIS department staff's tenure. Therefore, to make a statement that current practice is superior is misleading. The minutes I handed out to the Commission & Staff that conveyed "discussion" items from that neighborhood meeting I facilitated at the Suffolk Hills HOA isn't referenced at all, and I consider equally important to other educational material. IN particular is Conditional Approval which I emphasized. Why? I believe this is intentional. Much of the material I produced for Staff and the Commission that I used in my facilitation underscored the necessity of compliance of proposals - be they amendments or re zonings - with the goals, policies and vision of the General Plan. This isn't referenced in your draft, and I believe this is intentional. Town Staff continues to prefer to believe that familiarization with adopted documents is secondary to Q&A with the applicant. As I said to the Commission and to the Town on numerous occasions, Citizens don't know what questions to ask. If information detail is not provided in hard copy, reliance upon questions to indicate satisfaction is either naïve or misleading. The draft report continues to reference "current practices", and I strongly dispute this. Current practices has resulted in neighbors seeking direct consultation with the applicant, and avoiding the Town altogether. Even a single Council member has involved himself as a facilitator ... a person without credentials or, as far as I know, approval of the Town Staff. Current practices include an Open House format that has no built in ability to provide detailed information, or answer questions from any individual in attendance. Again, it is an easier format for the Town; totally dependent upon questions provided by citizens rather than information provided by the Town. This isn't progress. ATTACHMENT 8 I was told by e mail that this revised draft would approximate or incorporate my experience "as best as I can", but I must say that what I've read ignores a huge amount of critical detail. Bill _____________________________________________________________________________________ In addition to everything that was said, my concern about permitting - even encouraging - neighbor meetings directly with the developer is the responsibility the Town has to supervise the process. Unless the Town facilitates all meetings they are not controlling the information that is shared or accepted. The Town - in my view - cannot forfeit it's responsibility for the community welfare. Agreements that are made tentatively outside of Town supervision lack critical Town engagement. This happened on the Kai property. People not associated with the Palisades HOA were not invited or accepted to attend. Development along major thoroughfares is a Town - wide interest. So, I disagree with any conclusions implied or stated last night that separate neighbor meetings with developers cannot be controlled. The participation by a Council member - in the case of Kai and LaCholla - is not authorized by code and should not be permitted. Council members are not professional planners or even professional mediators. Please do not incorporate meetings that are not organized and facilitated by the Town in to your revision. As to the educational component, I presume I made a case for my approach. That was a different time when developers were controlling the meeting format. But I maintain that the Town cannot wait for questions to be asked, but needs to hand out information to be explained and kept for future reference right through the design stage. Ms Barret acknowledged that she went to a meeting wanting to know one thing, and left when that one thing was answered. I would maintain that she could have gotten that answer without going to a meeting, simply over the phone or e mail contact with the Town. We do not want to encourage neighbors to operate with only one thing in mind...denial ... traffic...density...etc. The permitting process needs to be understood as comprehensive including many factors some of greater importance to some than others. I've not had a problem with this in the manner that I provide information. People without exception understand why the General Plan is an important part of the decision making process; why permitted uses is in the code and available to be understood; why a description of a land use designation or a zoning district is relevant. I implore you to change your preferred terminology from over view, and consistent with today's process to terminology that reflects a concentrated effort to inform. Of course, this is why two separate meetings is prescribed in the code...because a concentrated effort is necessary...not an skim, or glance. Anyway, it's in your hands to adjust or not to what was heard from me as well as members of the Commission, not all of whom where heard from. Bill ATTACHMENT 8 From: Diane Peters [mailto:tucson_cowgirl@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 11:50 AM To: Bower, Julie <jbower@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: P&Z Mtg. Tonight Julie, I would have sent the attached letter sooner, but I recently returned from vacation to learn of a P&Z meeting tonight regarding the Neighborhood Meeting Ordinance. Would you kindly see to it that the P&Z Commissioners each have a copy of the attached letter since I may not be able to make the meeting tonight. It discusses problems with the Neighborhood Meeting Ordinance not being followed and issues with the Open House format as well. Thank you. Respectfully, Diane Peters TO: Chad Daines FROM: Diane Peters and Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan DATE: September 16, 2014 TOPIC: September 10th Neighborhood Meeting We wanted to make you aware of our feelings on the Open House format at Wednesday night’s Neighborhood Meeting. Positioning town staff, the applicant, and the landowner at various stations around the room is a terrible format for a variety of reasons which we will outline below. Also, we understand that the town staff has already been made aware in the past (by Bill Adler) that this format is not conducive to residents’ active participation in the process, which is the whole point of the Neighborhood Meeting. The Open House format forces residents to stand in line for a long time in order to ask their question. I stood in line for over 20 minutes to ask just ONE QUESTION of James Kai. After that, I wasn’t about to spend another 20 minutes standing in yet another line. Additionally, with this format, the other 70-100 people in attendance don't get to hear the other residents questions or the answers. Part of the Neighborhood Meeting Ordinance is that citizens are allowed to SHARE their questions and concerns with the other residents in attendance. The Open House format violates that portion of the ordinance. In the “Purpose” section of the ordinance, #2 states that there must be an “open dialogue between stakeholders, applicants, staff…” While a “dialogue” might just be between two people, an “open dialogue” refers to the entire audience. The questions and answers must be open to the entire room. ATTACHMENT 8 A member of Citizen Advocates told me that she spoke with you (Chad Daines) about her displeasure with the Open House format. You told her that at the other two Neighborhood Meetings with the Q&A format, many people were frustrated that they had to wait so long to ask their question. How is that worse than residents having to stand in line-after-line for 20 minutes each to get their questions answered? At 20 minutes per station, it would take a person an hour to get three questions answered at three separate stations. In my experience waiting to talk with James Kai, the person in front of me asked about 10 questions. This was unfair to me who had only one question. With the Q&A format, each person is allowed to ask one question at a time. We believe that the town and Oland deliberately circumvented us by changing the format and that it was done by design because it's easier for the developer. We all saw how heated the last two Neighborhood Meetings were and how Paul Oland was worn down towards the end of the last meeting. Another member of Citizen Advocates spoke with both Oland and Daines after the meeting and was told by both that they didn’t receive our memo/questions until late in the afternoon and therefore they weren’t prepared to address them at the meeting. We feel compelled to point out that in the Q&A format of the previous meetings, Oland did not receive the questions from the audience in advance yet he was still expected to answer them during the meeting. In fact, in the SOP section of the ordinance, under III. Guidelines, #2 Applicant’s Role, it says that the applicant must “be prepared to respond to questions about how the project meets specific general plan policies and review criteria.” THAT was the exact content of our memo, yet Oland was allowed to dodge those questions that evening, in yet another violation of the ordinance. We understand that the “Neighborhood Meeting Ordinance” was created by the Planning Administrator and Bill Adler and that it was approved along with a Standard Operating Procedure document that describes the approved format and content of these meetings. Why did the town staff ignore the SOP? Inconvenience for the staff? Inconvenience for the applicant? Feedback from some of the members of our citizens group: 1. Something didn’t smell right about that session. Whoever designed it was brilliant…divide everyone into groups, long waits to discuss each topic, and when you get to the head of the line, the expert would filibuster on one topic. I mentioned to Oland and Daines that this meeting was not going to cut it. We want a separate meeting with them. ~ Mr. Rick Hines 2. I didn’t like the format, the way they broke up the groups. Cowardly move on their part. Questions and answers should be heard by everyone. ~ Ms. Carol Sapone 3. Last night’s Neighborhood Meeting was totally one-sided, all advantaged to the “seller” having the floor. It was arranged for the WLB to do all the talking as opposed to anyone in the audience being able to confront them on anything. ~ Mr. Jim Dixon 4. I was so disappointed in the meeting. This was not a Neighborhood Meeting. It did not meet the requirement for neighbors to SHARE their concerns and questions. It was more of a presentation and then divide and deflate the audience. It was a waste of time. Time in line for one question was often 20 minutes or more. ~ Anonymous ATTACHMENT 8 5. Last night’s meeting was strategic. Having us ask our questions to various individuals stationed at various locations in the room was a divide-and-conquer tactic. No one knows what’s going on because no one can hear the questions and answers. ~ Mr. Cameron Servick 6. Hearing the questions and answers from other attendees is as important as having your own questions answered. I also believe that the Open House format was decided upon when it was learned that an organized group had questions and were demanding specific answers. ~ Ms. Roslyn Nemke 7. There were some new residents at the meeting who were hearing the proposal for the first time. We didn’t get a chance to hear their questions and concerns. ~ Mr. Don Burdick 8. Staff changed the format to ease pressure which violates the Neighborhood Ordinance. No education. No information sharing. ~ Bill Adler (our advisor) 9. Residents have good reason to be upset with the Town. They were completely blinded-sided by staff. This station-format meeting was the last public meeting before going to the P & Z, and a completely new plan was introduced, and the public wasn't allowed to have an open Q & A session. To be fair, the residents should be allowed another Town meeting regarding the new proposal. The break-out stations format doesn't allow all the residents to equally participate in all Q & A sessions. Apparently, the assumption by staff is that not all residents are interested in the total picture, just certain elements. With this format, residents leave with limited knowledge. This format results in a lack of transparency for the residents and benefits only the applicant. It also makes it seems that each station is already finalized for presentation to the P & Z. The staff spends unlimited time with the applicants, but always want to restrict allowable time for the residents’ meetings. ~ Don Bristow (our advisor) Good Morning Commissioners. Sorry for the lateness of this correspondence, but I have been traveling a lot the last month and just now have time to put this together. Having served nearly 10 years on the P&Z, I spent many hours in neighborhood meetings. I have always been an advocate of Commissioners attending these meetings as it gives you better perspective of the issues as seen by those who are geographically close to the proposed change. But more times than not, in fact many more times than not, these valuable neighborhood meetings become nothing more than a ‘public hearing’ for those who simply want a forum to put forth their own personal agenda about development in general. And what was intended to be a much deserved opportunity for the neighbors to learn and to be heard, is hijacked by those who do not live in the neighborhood. There are 6 or 7 usual suspects who seem to appear at all neighborhood meetings regardless of where they live. These meetings are NOT being held as an open forum of development policies. There is a relatively simple resolution to this problem which I would like very much for you to consider. When the notices are mailed out to the neighborhood residents, a small (3x5) colored card can be included in these mailings. This card will be an ‘identifier’ that this is actually someone in the ATTACHMENT 8 ‘neighborhood’ and the subject of the meeting. The color of the card should be changed from meeting to meeting. Only three of four colors would be necessary. During the conduct of the ‘neighborhood meeting’ only those persons with a card (neighbors) will be allowed to speak. If individuals outside of the affected area wish to provide input they may submit their comments in writing to the planner responsible for the project. But they will not be allowed to otherwise participate in the ‘neighborhood’ meeting. I am fully aware that there will be objections to this proposal and some will be loud and passionate. But the present conduct of these meetings isn’t working as planned. It is a neighborhood meeting and it should be conducted as such. Oro Valley is well known for its community outreach efforts. And sadly there are some who abuse this effort on a routine basis. I do agree with the suggestion that a better job should be done to ‘educate’ the neighbors. But I do not agree that the Town should the sole teacher of the resident. There is an inherent responsibility of land owners to do their homework. Thanks for your time and service to our community!! Don Cox Oro Valley Resident ATTACHMENT 8 November 12, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Cañada Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Subject: Public Participation Zoning Code Amendments Dear Commissioners: We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the Public Participation Zoning Code and the diligent work put forth to develop a vision and future direction for the community of Oro Valley. Metropolitan Pima Alliance (MPA) is a land use advocacy organization representing 140 members involved in both commercial and residential development. MPA advocates for balanced land use policies that stimulate economic development. We are writing to express our concern in regards to the meeting notification requirement amendments in the current draft. While there are certain amendments that we find appropriate and could place Oro Valley in a position for future success, we believe the 1000 foot requirement for meeting notifications for General Plan Amendments is overly aggressive and should be reduced to a maximum of 600 feet. Town Staff currently argues that Your Voice, Our Future promotes development given the modifications made to the General Plan amendment triggers, however, by adjusting the distance requirement the public process becomes unnecessarily more difficult. This arbitrarily designed additional distance negates the modifications made to General Plan amendment triggers and discourages future development given the added complexity. A resident living 1000 feet away, by definition, cannot be called a neighbor. The community and statewide standard requires that neighbors within a maximum radius of 600 feet be notified, further supporting that 1000 feet is an arbitrary distance that results in more costs imposed on the developers than necessary. We ask that a more reasonable distance be explored and justification be provided. We look forward to collaborating with Staff in the process to ensure that the final amendments address the Town’s needs while also making Oro Valley attractive to development and outside investment. If you have any questions or comments please contact Amber Smith at 520-878-8811 or amber@mpaaz.org. Sincerely, Amber Smith, Executive Director Metropolitan Pima Alliance ATTACHMENT 8 December 1, 2015 Oro Valley Planning & Zoning Commission Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Cañada Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737 RE: Public Participation Zoning Code Amendment Dear Commissioners, The Southern Arizona Home Builders Association (SAHBA) and the Metropolitan Pima Alliance (MPA) do not support the proposed public participation and neighborhood meeting zoning code changes. The current changes, particularly those to the small group meetings, do not meet the original intent of staff to codify current practices while providing much needed flexibility to the development process in Oro Valley. While other jurisdictions are exploring opportunities to reduce costs, and improve and expedite the development process to facilitate economic development and job creation, this effort does the opposite. Furthermore, adhering to additional disclosure or public participation requirements should result in some level of increased certainty which does not exist in the proposed changes. The proposed changes to the small group meetings are particularly concerning. Why does the Town believe they know better than a neighbor(s) what their potential concerns are, or how to best alleviate these concerns? How will these restrictions be enforced and what is the consequence if a developer meets privately with a neighbor or two? The apparent intent to provide neighborhood activists with unmitigated influence over development activity throughout the entire town while simultaneously denying adjacent neighbor(s) the opportunity to alleviate their concerns privately with a developer is egregious. In summary, the proposed zoning code changes are detrimental to economic development in Oro Valley. Providing diverse housing and business types to meet Oro Valley’s needs is already a complicated and expensive endeavor for developers and home builders. The proposed changes needlessly exacerbate this challenge. We encourage the Commission to not approve these proposed zoning code changes and work to improve regulation and processes that facilitate economic development. Thank you for time and consideration. Shawn Cote, Government Affairs Associate Amber Smith, Executive Director Southern Arizona Home Builders Association Metropolitan Pima Alliance cc: Oro Valley Planning & Zoning Commission, Mr. Bayer Vella ATTACHMENT 8 Town Council Regular Session Item # 4. Meeting Date:01/20/2016 Requested by: Amanda Jacobs Submitted By:Amanda Jacobs, Town Manager's Office Department:Town Manager's Office Information SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING A VETERANS AND FIRST RESPONDERS MEMORIAL PARK RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On November 25, 2015, Town Council received a memo from resident Dick Eggerding requesting the consideration of a "Memorial Public Art Project." After receiving Mr. Eggerding's request, the Agenda Committee placed the item on tonight's agenda for discussion and possible direction to staff. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The purpose of the Veterans and First Responders Memorial Park is to honor the men and women who have served our community and country in times of need. Currently, there are no Veterans and First Responders Memorial Parks in the state of Arizona, making this a unique opportunity for Oro Valley. If Council moves forward with this proposal, staff would recommend creating a task force to determine the feasibility of building a Veterans and First Responders Memorial Park in Oro Valley. The task force will be responsible for the following: Determining the project scope. For example, will the project include artwork and memorial plaques for Oro Valley residents only? Determining the estimated cost of the project Determining ongoing maintenance (if applicable) FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE (approval to / to not) direct staff to determine the feasibility of building a Veterans and First Responders Memorial Park and return to Town Council in spring of 2016. Town Council Regular Session Item # 5. Meeting Date:01/20/2016 Requested by: Amanda Jacobs Submitted By:Amanda Jacobs, Town Manager's Office Department:Town Manager's Office Information SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY USE OF A-FRAME SIGNS AND OUTDOOR DISPLAYS UNTIL FEBRUARY 6, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the temporary use of A-frame signs and outdoor displays be extended for one year until February 6, 2017, while the economy continues to recover and staff works with the business community for an alternative or permanent solution. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR) does not permit outdoor displays or A-frames; however, on September 21, 2011, Council approved the temporary use of outdoor displays and A-frames for Oro Valley businesses. As part of the temporary relief, certain fees and administrative reviews are waived and the only requirement is a permit for tracking purposes. On January 15, 2014, Council approved a two-year extension which is set to expire on February 1, 2016. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Since Council approved the temporary use of A-frame signs and outdoor displays, the following permits have been received: A-frames: 83 businesses Outdoor displays: 26 businesses Fees and administrative reviews have been waived for outdoor displays. A one-time $50 fee is charged for users of A-frame signs and an over-the-counter (or walk-in) review is completed prior to permit issuance. FISCAL IMPACT: The Town currently collects a one-time $50 permit fee for A-frames and waives the permit fee for outdoor displays. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (approve/deny) extending the temporary use of A-frame signs and outdoor displays until February 6, 2017. During this time, staff and the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce will work with the business community for alternative or permanent solutions. Attachments A-Frame Permits Outdoor Display 1 S1 1 0 0 1 7 4 SI G N A F R A M E AR I Z O N A F A M I L Y P R O T E C T I O N - A F R A M E S I G N E N T R A D A D E O R O 2 S1 1 0 0 1 7 8 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - S E Q U E L S U P S C A L E R E S A L E E N T R A D A D E O R O 3 S1 1 0 0 1 8 6 SI G N A F R A M E SI G N - A - F R A M E P E R M I T - M A S S A G E E N V Y 4 S1 1 0 0 1 8 7 SI G N A F R A M E SI G N - A F R A M E F O R K O K O F I T C L U B 5 S1 1 0 0 1 8 8 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - C A L I F O R N I A D E S I G N C E N T E R S T E A M P U M P V I L L A G E 6 S1 1 0 0 1 9 6 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N U P S S T O R E 5 8 0 9 7 S1 1 0 0 1 9 8 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E S I G N F O R P U S C H E R I D G E C L E A N E R S 8 S1 1 0 0 1 9 9 SI G N A F R A M E SI G N - S T O N E C A N Y O N P R O P E R T I E S - I N F O C E N T E R 9 S1 1 0 0 2 0 0 SI G N A F R A M E SA H U A R O C A F E A F R A M E 10 S1 1 0 0 2 0 1 SI G N A F R A M E SI G N - A F R A M E F O R J A Z Z E R C I S E 11 S1 1 0 0 2 0 4 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - E U R O P E A N W A X C E N T E R O R A C L E C R O S S I N G S S U I T E 1 12 S1 1 0 0 2 0 6 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E S I G N - W A L K - I N S W E L C O M E / M A S S A G E S P E C I A L S S U I T E 1 0 0 13 S1 1 0 0 2 1 0 SI G N A F R A M E SA F F R O N I N D I A N B I S T R O - A - F R A M E 14 S1 1 0 0 2 1 3 SI G N A F R A M E SO U T H W E S T K I T C H E N A F R A M E S I G N 15 S1 1 0 0 2 2 0 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E S I G N - M O U N T A I N V I S T A R E A L E S T A T E 16 S1 1 0 0 2 2 5 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - G R E A T C L I P S R O O N E Y R A N C H 17 S1 1 0 0 2 3 7 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - R E S O L U T I O N S M E D I C A L S P A E S C O N D I D A P L A Z A 18 S1 1 0 0 2 4 0 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E - O V F I T N E S S 2 4 S U I T E 1 6 0 19 S1 1 0 0 2 4 2 SI G N A F R A M E TR O U V A I L L E S A L O N A N D S P A A F R A M E 20 S1 1 0 0 2 4 7 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E S I G N - T H E G A P M I N I S T R I E S 21 S1 1 0 0 2 4 8 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E S I G N - T H E L O O P T A S T E O F C H I C A G O 22 S1 1 0 0 2 5 1 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N C A R R A B B A S I T A L I A N G R I L L O R A C L E C R O S S I N G S 23 S1 1 0 0 2 5 3 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - S H E F F I E L D S D I A M O N D S O R A C L E C R O S S I N G S S U I T E 1 24 S1 2 0 0 0 0 2 SI G N A F R A M E FR A M E D T O P E R F E C T I O N - T E M P S T O R E L O C A T I O N A - F R A M E S I G N O R 25 S1 2 0 0 0 0 3 SI G N A F R A M E OR A N G E L E A F Y O G U R T A - F R A M E S I G N O R A C L E C R O S S I N G S 26 S1 2 0 0 0 0 9 SI G N A F R A M E SI G N - A F R A M E S I G N F O R P E T E R P I P E R P I Z Z A 27 S1 2 0 0 0 1 1 SI G N A F R A M E SI G N - A F R A M E S I G N F O R B O D Y W O R K S P I L A T E S 28 S1 2 0 0 0 1 2 SI G N A F R A M E SI G N - A F R A M E F O R H & R B L O C K R O O N E Y R A N C H 29 S1 2 0 0 0 2 1 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - J A Z Z E R C I S E O R O V A L L E Y P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N 30 S1 2 0 0 0 3 7 SI G N A F R A M E FR I E N D S O F T H E O V L I B R A R Y B O O K S H O P P E T O O 31 S1 2 0 0 0 5 9 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E S I G N - B R A K E M A S T E R S V A L V O L I N E L U B E O I L A N D F I L T E 32 S1 2 0 0 0 6 2 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E S I G N Q U I K T R I P 33 S1 2 0 0 0 6 8 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E F O R T H E B A C K A L L E Y C H I R O P R A C T I C 34 S1 2 0 0 0 7 5 SI G N A F R A M E MY G Y M C H I L D R E N S F I T N E S S A F R A M E S I G N 35 S1 2 0 0 0 7 7 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - P E T S M A R T A D O P T I O N 36 S1 2 0 0 0 7 8 SI G N A F R A M E PA N D A 1 A F R A M E S I G N 37 S1 2 0 0 0 9 5 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N T O S C A N A S T U D I O A N D G A L L E R Y S U I T E A 38 S1 2 0 0 0 9 8 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - I K N O W W I R E L E S S 39 S1 2 0 0 1 0 0 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - O R O V A L L E Y E Y E C A R E 40 S1 2 0 0 1 1 7 SI G N A F R A M E SI G N - A - F R A M E S I G N F O R P I Z Z A H U T 41 S1 2 0 0 1 3 0 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - R O C K R I D G E A P A R T M E N T S - S P E C I A L S 42 S1 2 0 0 2 3 1 SI G N A F R A M E FR I E N D S O F T H E L I B R A R Y O N E A F R A M E S I G N 43 S1 2 0 0 2 3 4 SI G N A F R A M E FR I E N D S O F T H E L I B R A R Y - J E W E L R Y S A L E O R O V A L L E Y L I B R A R Y 44 S1 2 0 0 2 4 3 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - A R I Z O N A B E D S S P E C I A L S 45 S1 3 0 0 0 0 3 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E S I G N - W E L C O M E B A C K M E R C Y C A R E J A N 4 2 0 1 3 - F E B 4 46 S1 3 0 0 0 1 6 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - T H E J O I N T 47 S1 3 0 0 0 3 0 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E S I G N P E R M I T F O R P R I V A T E P R O P E R T Y O N L Y 48 S1 3 0 0 0 3 6 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - A M E R I C A N F A M I L Y I N S U R A N C E 49 S1 3 0 0 0 5 0 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - N O R T H W E S T W O M E N ' S I M A G I N G 50 S1 3 0 0 0 7 4 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E - A L A B U Z Z C A F E 51 S1 3 0 0 0 8 7 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E - F R U I T S H A C K S M O O T H I E S & Y O G U R T 52 S1 3 0 0 1 3 0 SI G N A F R A M E RU B S M A S S A G E S T U D I O - A F R A M E 53 S1 3 0 0 1 3 8 SI G N A F R A M E BR A K E M A X C A R E C A R E - A F R A M E 54 S1 3 0 0 1 4 8 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - S O U T H E R N A R I Z O N A U R G E N T C A R E 55 S1 3 0 0 1 5 2 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - U N I Q U E L Y N A I L S S U I T E # 1 3 1 56 S1 3 0 0 1 5 4 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - E L C H A R R O C A F E 57 S1 3 0 0 1 7 9 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E S I G N F O R T H E T U R T O R I N G C E N T E R 58 S1 3 0 0 1 8 9 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - G O O D W I L L D O N A T I O N S L A C A N A D A 59 S1 3 0 0 1 9 0 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - G O O D W I L L D O N A T I O N S L A C A N A D A 60 S1 3 0 0 2 0 2 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - F L E E T F E E T 61 S1 3 0 0 2 3 6 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E S I G N - S W E E T R E P E A T S 62 S1 4 0 0 0 1 5 SI G N A F R A M E JU S T B R A K E S - A F R A M E 63 S1 4 0 0 0 1 7 SI G N A F R A M E BR A K E M A X - A - F R A M E 64 S1 4 0 0 0 1 8 SI G N A F R A M E SI G N - A - F R A M E A L F O N S O G O U R M E T O L I V E O I L 65 S1 4 0 0 0 2 5 SI G N A F R A M E SI G N - A - F R A M E S I G N - F L E T C H E R ' S T I R E A N D A U T O S E R V I C E I N C 66 S1 4 0 0 0 3 3 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E - I N T E R I O R E X P R E S S I O N S P L A C E M E N T 67 S1 4 0 0 0 3 5 SI G N A F R A M E A - F R A M E T I T L E S E C U R I T Y A G E N Y J O I N T V E N T U R E W I T H 1 S T A M E R I C 68 S1 4 0 0 0 4 1 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - P L A N E T S M O O T H I E S U I T E 1 0 8 69 S1 4 0 0 0 6 3 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S I G N - F U W A R E F L E X O L O G Y S T E 1 0 1 70 S1 4 0 0 0 7 5 SI G N A F R A M E A - F R A M E L A N E F A M I L Y C H I R O P R A C T I C S T E # 1 0 3 71 S1 4 0 0 0 9 3 SI G N A F R A M E SI G N - A - F R A M E S I G N - M A T T R E S S F I R M 72 S1 4 0 0 1 1 4 SI G N A F R A M E AF R A M E - A B E T T E R U N U T R I T I O N 73 S1 4 0 0 1 2 6 SI G N A F R A M E A- F R A M E S H E A R E X P R E S S I O N S 74 S1 4 0 0 1 4 7 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E S I G N - L A B E L L A C O N S I G N M E N T 75 S1 4 0 0 1 7 0 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E S I G N - W A L G R E E N S 76 S1 4 0 0 1 9 0 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E - S O U T H E R N A Z A R T S G U I L D 77 S1 4 0 0 2 1 7 SI G N A F R A M E VI L L A S A T S A N D O R A D O - A F R A M E S I G N 78 S1 5 0 0 0 1 7 SI G N A F R A M E T M O B I L E A F R A M E 79 S1 5 0 0 0 2 4 SI G N A F R A M E SI L K E X P R E S S I O N S A F R A M E S I G N 80 S1 5 0 0 0 5 7 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E S I G N T H E R U G S T O R E 81 S1 5 0 0 0 6 2 SI G N A F R A M E A F R A M E S I G N T H E T U T O R I N G C E N T E R 82 S1 5 0 1 6 1 4 SI G N A F R A M E NO R T H W E S T P E T C L I N I C A F R A M E S I G N # 1 0 1 E X P I R E S 2 - 1 - 1 6 83 S1 6 0 0 0 5 9 SI G N A F R A M E SI G N A F R A M E - S O U T H E R N A R I Z O N A U R G E N T C A R E 1 MB 1 1 0 0 5 4 8 10 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 1 OU T D O O R D I S P L A Y P L A Y I T A G A I N S P O R T S 2 MB 1 1 0 0 5 5 7 10 / 2 5 / 2 0 1 1 OU T D O O R D I S P L A Y P E R M I T - T O D A Y S P A T I O O R A C L E C R O S S I N G S 3 MB 1 1 0 0 5 6 3 10 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 1 BI G 5 S P O R T I N G G O O D S - O U T D O O R D I S P L A Y 4 MB 1 1 0 0 5 7 1 11 / 0 2 / 2 0 1 1 OU T D O O R D I S P L A Y F O R A C E H A R D W A R E 1 S T A V E 5 MB 1 1 0 0 5 7 3 11 / 0 2 / 2 0 1 1 OU T D O O R D I S P L A Y - L I F E T I M E M A R T I A L A R T S 6 MB 1 1 0 0 5 8 1 11 / 0 4 / 2 0 1 1 OU T D O O R D I S P L A Y - B I G O T I R E S 7 MB 1 1 0 0 5 8 2 11 / 0 4 / 2 0 1 1 TR A D E R J O E ' S O U T D O O R D I S P L A Y 8 MB 1 1 0 0 5 9 5 11 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 1 FI N A L E I I - O U T D O O R D I S P L A Y S T E A M P U M P V I L L A G E S U I T E 1 1 1 9 MB 1 1 0 0 6 0 2 11 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 1 OU T D O O R D I S P L A Y F O R F R I E N D S O F O R O V A L L E Y L I B R A R Y 10 MB 1 1 0 0 6 0 7 11 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 1 OU T D O O R D I S P L A Y - B I K E M A S T E R S O R O V A L L E Y M A R K E T P L A C E S U I T 11 MB 1 1 0 0 6 5 8 12 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 1 FR Y S F O O D A N D D R U G S T O R E # 1 1 7 O U T D O O R D I S P L A Y 12 MB 1 1 0 0 6 5 9 12 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 1 FR Y S F O O D A N D D R U G S T O R E # 1 8 O U T D O O R D I S P L A Y 13 MB 1 2 0 0 0 0 6 01 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 2 TH E G R E A T O U T D O O R S - O U T D O O R D I S P L A Y P L A Z A E S C O N D I D A 14 MB 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 01 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 2 OU T D O O R D I S P L A Y F O R R A Z M A T A Z - 15 MB 1 2 0 0 0 1 3 01 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 2 OU T D O O R D I S P L A Y F O R T R E K B I C Y C L E S O F T U C S O N 16 MB 1 2 0 0 0 1 6 01 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 2 OU T D O O R D I S P L A Y F O R W A L M A R T 17 MB 1 2 0 0 0 2 7 01 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 2 OU T D O O R D I S P L A Y F O R S W E E T R E P E A T S C H I L D R E N ' S R E S A L E B O U T I Q U E 18 MB 1 2 0 0 0 6 9 02 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 2 OU T D O O R D I S P L A Y - O R O V A L L E Y B I C Y C L E R A N C H O V I S T O S O C E N T E R 19 MB 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 02 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 2 PI M A A C E H A R D W A R E I N C O U T D O O R D I S P L A Y 20 MB 1 2 0 0 2 7 9 05 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 2 OU T D O O R D I S P L A Y - P I E R 1 O R O V A L L E Y R E T A I L C E N T E R B L K 2 21 MB 1 2 0 0 2 9 4 05 / 2 5 / 2 0 1 2 DI C K S S P O R T I N G G O O D S - O U T D O O R D I S P L A Y O R O V A L L E Y M A R K E T P L 22 MB 1 3 0 0 1 3 3 02 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 3 OU T D O O R D I S P L A Y - B I G O T I R E S D I S P L A Y T I R E S 23 MB 1 3 0 0 3 6 7 05 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 3 DO L L A R T R E E S T O R E # 4 1 6 1 - O U T D O O R D I S P L A Y 24 MB 1 3 0 0 5 6 7 08 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 3 SP R O U T S F A R M E R S M A R K E T O U T D O O R D I S P L A Y 25 MB 1 3 0 0 7 3 9 10 / 2 5 / 2 0 1 3 OU T D O O R D I S P L A Y - O R O V A L L E Y E Y E C A R E S U I T E 1 4 5 26 MB 1 5 0 0 4 5 4 05 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 5 OU T D O O R D I S P L A Y - T H E H A P P Y S A G U A R O Town Council Regular Session Item # 6. Meeting Date:01/20/2016 Requested by: Bayer Vella Submitted By:Bayer Vella, Development Infrastructure Services Department:Development Infrastructure Services Information SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 2, 2015 DIRECTION PROVIDED TO STAFF REGARDING POTENTIAL ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS LIMITING SIGN LIGHTING RECOMMENDATION: This is a Town Council initiated reconsideration. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On January 6, 2016, Town Council requested reconsideration of direction provided to staff at the December 2, 2015 meeting, where staff was instructed to further research and process a zoning code amendment to limit the brightness of signs. The focus of the discussion was on the challenges associated with setting and enforcing standards for wall signs that use LED lights. The December meeting minutes are included as Attachment 1. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: An overview of the processes in determining an appropriate sign lighting standard and the status of the project is provided in Attachment 2, which is a copy of the December 2, 2015 Town Council staff report. FISCAL IMPACT: To proceed with the code amendment, the fiscal impact entails approximately $3,000 in new equipment. Additional consultant fees will apply (approximately $3,000). SUGGESTED MOTION: Not applicable. Town Council may provide staff with additional direction. Attachments Attachment 1 - 12/2/15 Town Council meeting minutes Attachement 2 - 12/2/15 Town Council meeting staff report MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION December 2, 2015 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hiremath called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT:Satish Hiremath, Mayor Lou Waters, Vice Mayor Brendan Burns, Councilmember Bill Garner, Councilmember Joe Hornat, Councilmember Mary Snider, Councilmember Mike Zinkin, Councilmember PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Hiremath led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Communications Administrator Misti Nowak announced the upcoming Town meetings and events. COUNCIL REPORTS and Spotlight on Youth Councilmember Hornat reported that he and Vice Mayor Waters attended the American Kennel Club Dog Show held at Naranja Park a couple of weekends ago, where Vice Mayor Waters presented the best of show. He stated it was a great event and was very well attended. Councilmember Hornat attended the 107th Arizona Town Hall held in Mesa, Arizona, where they addressed what actions would help to successfully manage the current and future water needs of the state. Councilmember Hornat attended the Veterans Day Event at Pusch Ridge Page 1 of 9Town Council Regular Session 01/08/2016http://orovalley.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=2342 Christian Academy with the Legion Color Guard. He said it was a great event and very patriotic. Councilmember Zinkin encouraged citizens to contact their congressman regarding the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) which authorized federal surface transportation programs through fiscal year (FY) 2020. Councilmember Snider encouraged citizens to participate in the Amphi Schools Stuff the Amphi Bus event held December 5-13, 2015. Councilmember Snider recognized Hannah Semon, Senior at Ironwood Ridge High School, for her outstanding grades and her service and contributions to the community. DEPARTMENT REPORTS Economic Development Director Amanda Jacobs introduced Dick Eggerding and Sasha Case as the Arts and Culture Ambassadors. Dick Eggerding and Sasha Case introduced the artwork on display in the Council Chambers which included pieces of artwork created by students from Immaculate Heart School, Wilson Elementary School, Copper Creek Elementary, Basis, and Painted Sky Elementary. ORDER OF BUSINESS Mayor Hiremath reviewed the order of business and stated that the order would stand as posted. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. Letter of Appreciation - Oro Valley Police Department Chiesa, George 2. Councilmember Zinkin - 2015 NLC Congress of Cities Trip Report Zinkin 2015 NLC Congress of Cities Trip Report 3. Councilmember Hornat - 2015 Arizona Town Hall Trip Report Hornat 2015 Arizona Town Hall Trip Report CALL TO AUDIENCE No comments were received. Page 2 of 9Town Council Regular Session 01/08/2016http://orovalley.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=2342 CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Zinkin requested that items (B) and (F) be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Councilmember Garner requested that item (E) be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Waters and seconded by Councilmember Garner to approve Consent Agenda items (A), (C-D), (G-H). MOTION carried, 7-0. A. Minutes - November 18, 2015 11/18/15 Draft Minutes B. Fiscal Year 2015/16 Financial Update through September 2015 Attachment A - General Fund Attachment B - Highway Fund Attachment C - Bed Tax Fund Attachment D-1 CC & Golf Fund Attachment D-2 Troon Cash Flow Attachment D-3 Troon F&B Attachment D-4 Troon Memo Attachment E - Summary All Funds Attachment F - Gen Fund Local Sales Tax Councilmember Zinkin inquired about the Fiscal Year 2015/16 Financial Update through September 2015 and discussed his concerns with the Community Center and Golf Fund revenues, Capital Improvement Projects and funding. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the Fiscal Year 2015/16 Financial Update through September 2015. MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Garner and seconded by Councilmember Zinkin to accept item (B). Page 3 of 9Town Council Regular Session 01/08/2016http://orovalley.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=2342 MOTION carried, 7-0. C. Approval of the 2016 regular Town Council meeting schedule Draft 2016 Schedule D. Approval of Council liaison assignments Council Liaison Assignments 2016 E. Resolution No. (R)15-70, authorizing and approving a one (1) year extension to the lease between the Town of Oro Valley and Town West Realty, Inc. (R)15-70 Police Substation Lease Extension Town West document Councilmember Garner asked for clarification regarding the proposed lease agreement including the total square footage and cost for the property located at Mountain View Plaza. Deputy Chief Larry Stevens clarified the square footage of the property was 1,200 square feet at $16.00 per square foot of rental space. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the proposed lease extension for the Police Department Substation. MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Snider and seconded by Vice Mayor Waters to approve item (E). MOTION carried, 6-1 with Councilmember Zinkin opposed. F. Resolution No. (R)15-71, providing Notice of Intent to increase water rates, fees and charges for the Oro Valley Water Utility (R)15-71 Notice of Intent to Increase Water Rates Water Rates Report Councilmember Zinkin requested clarification and understanding of item (F). Water Utility Director Philip Saletta explained the purpose for the Notice of Intent to increase water rates, fees and charges for the Oro Valley Water Utility. Page 4 of 9Town Council Regular Session 01/08/2016http://orovalley.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=2342 MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Zinkin and seconded by Councilmember Garner to approve item (F). MOTION carried, 7-0. G. Council approval of M3S Sports' request for in-kind support for the Arizona Distance Classic H. (Re)appointments to various boards and commissions: Board of Adjustment (BOA), Conceptual Design Review Board (CDRB), Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), Storm Water Utility Commission (SWUC) and Water Utility Commission (WUC) Reappointment Requests Application - Ellen Guyer Application - Tim Overton Application - Robert Swope Application - Thomas Gribb Application - Thomas Kibler Application - Robert Milkey Resume - Robert Milkey REGULAR AGENDA 1. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF VICE MAYOR Councilmember Hornat nominated Vice Mayor Lou Waters to serve as Vice Mayor for 2016, seconded by Councilmember Snider. MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Hornat and seconded by Councilmember Snider to approve the nomination of Vice Mayor Lou Waters as Vice Mayor for 2016. MOTION carried, 6-0. Councilmember Zinkin abstained. 2. PRESENTATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE TOWN'S ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDIT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2015 Page 5 of 9Town Council Regular Session 01/08/2016http://orovalley.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=2342 FY 2014-15 CAFR Audit Communication Letter Town Finance Director Stacey Lemos gave an overview of the Town's annual financial audit for fiscal year ending June 30, 2015 and introduced Mr. Corey Arvizu, CPA and Partner with Heinfeld, Meech & Co., P.C. Mr. Arvizu gave an overview of the process and highlights regarding the completed financial audit for the Town for fiscal year ending June 30, 2015. Discussion ensued amongst Council, staff, and Mr. Arvizu regarding the annual financial audit for fiscal year ending June 30, 2015. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Waters and seconded by Councilmember Zinkin to accept the Town's financial audit for fiscal year ending June 30, 2015. MOTION carried, 7-0. 3. PRESENTATION BY THE TOWN’S INSURANCE CONSULTANT, CBIZ, REGARDING THE EMPLOYEE SELF-FUNDED HEALTHCARE PLAN PERFORMANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 Human Resource Director Gary Bridget gave a brief introduction of the Self-Funded Healthcare Plan Performance for Fiscal Year 2014- 15 and introduced CBIZ Senior Vice President Oscar Diaz. Mr. Diaz gave an overview of the Self-Funded Healthcare Plan Performance that included the following: - Self-funding of program and its advantages - Three Year History of Total Medical Plan Costs - Historical Cost Drivers - Future Strategy Considerations to Mitigate Increases in Future Costs Discussion ensued amongst Council, Mr. Diaz and staff regarding the Employee Self-Funded Healthcare Plan Performance for Fiscal Year 2014-15. 4. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN, GOLF COURSE SETBACK REDUCTIONS AND CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR A PROPOSED 28-LOT SHORT-TERM RENTAL DEVELOPMENT Page 6 of 9Town Council Regular Session 01/08/2016http://orovalley.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=2342 LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF HOHOKAM VILLAGE DRIVE IN THE STONE CANYON COMMUNITY Attachment 1 - Conditions of Approval Attachment 2 - CDRB Staff Report Attachment 3 - Draft CDRB Meeting Minutes Attachment 4 - Conceptual Site Plan Attachment 5 - Golf Course Architect’s Recommendation Attachment 6 - Conceptual Landscape Plan Senior Planner Rosevelt Arellano gave an overview of the proposed Conceptual Site Plan, Golf Course Setback Reductions and Conceptual Landscape Plan for a Proposed 28-Lot Short-Term Rental Development that included the following: - Purpose - Conceptual Site Plan - Landscape Plan - Public Participation - Summary / Recommendation Zach Hilgart, Civil Engineer, representing the applicant, spoke regarding the proposed business plan for item #4. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Waters and seconded by Councilmember Hornat to approve the Conceptual Site Plan and Landscape Plan for the 28-lot short-term rental development, subject to the conditions in Attachment 1, finding that the request is consistent with the Rancho Vistoso PAD and Design Principals, and Standards of the Zoning Code. Stone Canyon Golf Casitas Conceptual Site Plan and Landscape Plan Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 1. The Final Site Plan shall incorporate pedestrian easements for all proposed sidewalks and trails. Page 7 of 9Town Council Regular Session 01/08/2016http://orovalley.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=2342 MOTION carried, 7-0. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Waters and seconded by Councilmember Zinkin to approve the golf course setback reductions for the 28-lot short-term rental development, finding that the request meets the intent of the Golf Course Overlay Zone District. MOTION carried, 7-0. Mayor Hiremath recessed the meeting at 7:57 p.m. Mayor Hiremath reconvened the meeting at 8:05 p.m. 5. PRESENTATION AND APPROVAL OF THE JAMES D. KRIEGH PARK CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN Conceptual Design Property Line Parks and Recreation Director Kristy Diaz-Trahan gave an overview of the James D. Kriegh Park Conceptual Site Plan that included the following: - The Property - Review - Conceptual Site Plan Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the proposed James D. Kriegh Park Conceptual Site Plan. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Waters and seconded by Councilmember Snider to approve the James D. Kriegh Park Conceptual Site Plan as presented. MOTION carried, 7-0. 6. SIGN LIGHTING CODE AMENDMENT UPDATE AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION Senior Planning Technician Patty Hayes gave an overview of the sign lighting code amendment update that included the following: - Purpose - Signs - Typical Sign for Nit Measurement - Typical Wall Sign for Kelvin Measurements - Direction and Next Steps Page 8 of 9Town Council Regular Session 01/08/2016http://orovalley.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=2342 Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the sign lighting code amendment update and possible direction. The following individual spoke on item #6. Oro Valley resident Gil Alexander Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding the sign lighting code amendment update and possible direction. MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Garner and seconded by Vice Mayor Waters to direct staff to work with Oro Valley resident Gil Alexander to determine the most effective way to measure sign brightness and also develop a sign lighting standard. MOTION carried, 6-1 with Mayor Hiremath opposed. 7. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE NOVEMBER 18, 2015 PERSONNEL ACTION REGARDING COUNCILMEMBER ZINKIN Councilmember Zinkin recused himself from item (7). Councilmember Garner presented item #7. MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Garner and seconded by Councilmember Burns to reconsider the November 18, 2015 personnel action regarding Councilmember Zinkin. MOTION failed, 2-4 with Mayor Hiremath, Vice Mayor Waters, Councilmember Hornat, and Councilmember Snider opposed. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No future agenda items were requested. CALL TO AUDIENCE Oro Valley resident Gil Alexander spoke about the Wilson Robotics Competition to be held at Wilson Elementary on December 5, 2015. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Snider and seconded by Vice Mayor Waters to adjourn the meeting at 9:07 p.m. MOTION carried, 6-0. Page 9 of 9Town Council Regular Session 01/08/2016http://orovalley.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=2342 Print Return Previous Next Item # 6. Town Council Regular Session Meeting Date:12/02/2015 Requested by:Patty Hayes Submitted By:Patty Hayes, Development Infrastructure Services Department:Development Infrastructure Services Information SUBJECT: SIGN LIGHTING CODE AMENDMENT UPDATE AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION RECOMMENDATION: This item is for discussion purposes with the possibility of receiving additional direction from Town Council. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to explain the processes in determining an appropriate sign lighting standard and the status of the project. It also enables Town Council to provide any direction as warranted. Council directed staff during the April 3, 2015 Council meeting to establish standards for sign lighting in response to concerns about the increased brightness of illuminated signs. Recently-installed wall signs and gas station signs appear to be brighter than signs installed in the past, which highlighted the fact that the Zoning Code does not provide standards for the amount of light allowed to be emitted from a sign. To proceed, staff needs the following additional steps to affix appropriate standards for Oro Valley: 1. Purchase equipment (Nit Gun and Kelvin Meter) 2. Field work with bucket truck to create list of sign brightness measurements for businesses in the area 3. Gauge the appropriate permissible level of light based on infield measurements 4. Arrange a Planning & Zoning Commission and Town Council site tour BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Staff researched lighting sign code standards for the City of Tucson, Pima County and Marana. Staff also employed a consultant who was a participant in the County and City of Tucson lighting code update in 2012. Signs using light emitting diodes (LED) are the principal concern, which includes either exposed or concealed lighting. Exposed LED’s (lights without a cover) are used for message boards such as gas station fuel prices and movie theater listings. These types of LED signs are measured in Nits. A device named the Nit Gun is used to measure this type of lighting. The City/County standard is 200, which is considered a "reasonable" standard. Page 1 of 3Agenda 01/08/2016http://lexicon.orovalleyaz.gov/agenda_publish.cfm?id=0&mt=ALL&get_month=1&get_... Concealed LED’s are primarily installed inside the letter of a wall sign and are hidden behind an opaque material such as a white or colored plexiglass where the light is allowed to shine through but the actual light source (the LED) is obscured. A colored plexiglass-type of material does not allow a significant amount of light through a letter of a sign; however, white plexiglass does allow enough light to be emitted which can cause a sign to appear very bright. White light coming from a wall sign is measured in Kelvin temperature. A Kelvin meter is the tool used to measure this type of sign brightness. The City/County standard is 4,400 Kelvin (K), but can possibly be lowered to 4,000 K which may or may not be appropriate for Oro Valley. To judge what is a proper standard for Oro Valley, our aim is to gather a list of businesses in or near Oro Valley that meet regionally-established or proposed lighting standards. Staff attempted to research permit records of signs in other jurisdictions to help us establish this list, but the information on paper was incomplete. As a result, we concluded that staff must physically measure a representative sample of white wall signs in order to objectively categorize sign brightness. During our research we learned that none of the jurisdictions with established sign lighting standards have the tools or equipment to measure sign brightness in the field. At first, we found this to be odd; however, after diving into this process ourselves, we now understand the costs and difficulties associated with measuring sign lighting. Staff, with the assistance of the consultant, proceeded to investigate how to obtain the tools needed to measure both Nits and Kelvin. Staff discovered that a Nit gun and Kelvin meter can cost an average of $1500 each, and can include annual recalibration costs of $300. Our consultant arranged for us to borrow a Nit gun from a local observatory, which allowed us to read the light brightness from fuel station signs. We also learned that Kelvin meters are primarily manufactured for photography uses and not specifically for the types of measurements needed for our purpose. There is a new Kelvin meter coming into the market in early 2016, which was designed by a sign lighting manufacture and should be better suited to measure sign brightness. In the interim, we rented a Kelvin meter from a photography business which led to the discovery that in order to read a Kelvin temperature of a sign, we must be in very close proximity to the light source. This is true with the photographer’s Kelvin meter, as well as the soon to be released sign Kelvin meter. Most letters of a sign are very high up on the wall of a business. In order to reach those signs, staff must use the Town’s bucket truck and associated trained staff to conduct the light reading. The bucket truck is normally used to maintain traffic lights in the Town. Driving the Town’s bucket truck into shopping centers to reach up to the letters of a wall sign and obtain a reading, with the proper meter, is the only method that will allow us to provide sign brightness measurement numbers. Those numbers are the only way to determine if the established regional standards would be acceptable for Oro Valley or if we prefer different standards. Staff is requesting direction from Council to determine if we should proceed with the purchase of the proper meters and field study. FISCAL IMPACT: To proceed with the code amendment, the fiscal impact entails approximately $3,000 worth Page 2 of 3Agenda 01/08/2016http://lexicon.orovalleyaz.gov/agenda_publish.cfm?id=0&mt=ALL&get_month=1&get_... AgendaQuick©2005 - 2016 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved of sign brightness measuring tools and roughly $300 a year in annual calibration costs. SUGGESTED MOTION: This item is for discussion purposes with the possibility of receiving additional direction from Town Council. Attachments No file(s) attached. Page 3 of 3Agenda 01/08/2016http://lexicon.orovalleyaz.gov/agenda_publish.cfm?id=0&mt=ALL&get_month=1&get_... Town Council Regular Session Item # 7. Meeting Date:01/20/2016 Requested by: Councilmember Burns & Councilmember Zinkin Submitted By:Mike Standish, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office Information SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF THE CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECK BOX FROM THE TOWN'S JOB APPLICATION FORM RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Councilmember Burns and Councilmember Zinkin have requested that the item be placed on the agenda for discussion. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to ______________________________________ Town Council Regular Session Item # 8. Meeting Date:01/20/2016 Requested by: Councilmember Zinkin & Councilmember Garner Submitted By:Julie Bower, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office Information SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO AMEND THE SIGN CODE REGARDING WINDOW SIGNS RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Councilmember Zinkin and Councilmember Garner have requested that the item be placed on the agenda for discussion. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to ________________________________