Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (13)Council Meeting Regular Session March 2, 2016 1 Town Council Meeting Announcements 2 3 Upcoming Meetings 4 Upcoming Meetings (continued) 5 6 7 Innovation Park Amended Final Plat Town Council March 2, 2016 8 Location Town of Oro Valley Good even Mr. Mayor, members of the council. 9 Final Plat .71 acres subdivided into 3 lots Average lot size: 10,300 sq. ft. Minimum lot size proposed 8,448 sq. ft. Building height: 25’ feet, 2-story 10 Final Plat .71 acres subdivided into 3 lots Average lot size: 10,300 sq. ft. Minimum lot size proposed 8,448 sq. ft. Building height: 25’ feet, 2-story 11 Town of Oro Valley Recommendation Amended Final Plat conforms to the design elements as approved in the Development Plan Recommend approval 12 13 Fiscal Year 2015/16 Financial Update Through Dec. 2015 March 2, 2016 14 OVERVIEW General Fund Highway Fund Bed Tax Fund Community Center Fund Water Utility Fund Stormwater Utility Fund 15 GENERAL FUND REVENUES 16 GENERAL FUND REVENUES (continued) 17 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Total expenditures estimated under budget at year-end by 2.1%, or $688,000 Personnel savings = $139,000 Department O&M and capital savings = $74,000 Transfer to CIP Fund reduced to reflect decrease in one-time revenues Council-approved uses of contingency = $319,000 Estimated year-end fund balance = $9.9 million 31% of adopted expenditures 18 Revenues HIGHWAY FUND Total revenues estimated over budget at year-end by 6.3%, or $200,000 Overage due primarily to PAG reimbursements for contract administration of roadway projects State shared highway user revenues estimated on budget Expenditures Estimated slightly under budget at year-end (by 0.2%, or $12,000) due to personnel savings Maintaining pavement preservation at budgeted $1.35 million Estimated year-end fund balance = $1.8 million 19 COMMUNITY CENTER FUND Revenues Contracted operating revenues estimated under budget by 31.7%, or $1.5 million based on updated Troon forecast Town operating revenues estimated slightly under budget by 2.2%, or $14,000 due to revised tennis court and facility rental income Half-cent sales tax revenues estimated on budget at $2 million Expenditures Contracted operating expenditures estimated under budget by 16.4%, or $1 million based on updated Troon forecast Town operating expenditures estimated on budget at $688,000 Year-end fund balance estimated at $244,000 20 Total year-end revenues estimated on budget Year-end expenditures estimated slightly under budget (by 0.5%, or $5,600) due to personnel savings Estimated year-end fund balance = $333,000 Stormwater Utility Fund Revenues and expenses estimated on budget at year-end Bed Tax Fund BED TAX FUND and STORMWATER UTILITY FUND 21 WATER UTILITY FUND Total year-end revenues estimated under budget by 6.9%, or $1.2 million $700,000 due to reduced water usage $500,000 due to lower project costs and associated loan proceeds for Advance Meter Infrastructure Project Total expenses estimated under budget by 6.4%, or $1.2 million Due to capital project savings, operating savings as result of reduced water usage, and personnel savings 22 Questions? 23 24 Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria Code Amendment Town Council March 2, 2016 Thank you chair, members of the commission My name is …. Our purpose here tonight is to consider... As you may recall, last year the Commission considered and provided a recommendation to Town Council on the Planning Division Work Plan. One of the top priorities on the work plan was direction for staff to assess the Conditional Use Permit evaluation criteria Goal Review the existing criteria and identify areas where the criteria could be strengthened to provide for the effective evaluation of Conditional Uses. Staff feels the existing criteria is comprehensive and provides adequate flexibility, however; opportunities exist to strengthen the criteria. As part of the WorkPlan item, Town Council asked staff to consider adding efficiency to the CUP process by combining the rezoning and CUP processes’. - will discuss further later. 25 Purpose Zoning Code Amendment on Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria Used to review and decide conditional use permit requests Planning Workplan item FY 2013/2015 Purpose Statement 26 Permitted uses Uses permitted by right Conditional uses Uses requiring additional examination Ensure compatibility Future project Update Conditional/Permitted Use Table What is a Conditional Use Permit? 27 Existing CUP Evaluation Criteria The granting of such conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Damage or nuisance arising from noise, smoke, odor, dust, vibration or illumination Hazard to persons and property from possible explosion, contamination, fire or flood Hazard occasioned by unusual volume or character of traffic That the characteristics of the use proposed in such use permit are reasonably compatible with the types of use permitted in the surrounding area. I’ll quickly cover the existing criteria… The first criteria address whether or not a proposed use will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare…and serves as the broad “Catch-all”. Provides the Commission the flexibility to consider “anything” related to the conditional use, ranging from water use to lighting. Proposed Code Amendment Impacts on adjoining properties are effectively mitigated Hours of operation Consistent with goals and policies of General Plan Lambert Ln. La Cañada Dr. Staff looked at other jurisdictions and the associated CUP review criteria of each. Thru that research staff determined our existing criteria is very similar to criteria of other jurisdictions and is comprehensive and provides much of the necessary flexibility; After discussion with the PZC at the Sept. 2 PZC hearing, the PZC agreed there were three areas that could strengthen the criteria. Ensuring impacts on adjoining property are effectively mitigated. - Though the impacts of a proposed conditional use are often considered during the CUP review process… - This criteria adds specificity to the existing criteria to ensure that those impacts will be reviewed and effectively mitigated. Consistent with Goals and Policies of the General Plan - In addition to being consistent with the underlying zoning district and specific use requirements, this criteria ensures the conditional use is consistent with broader Community objectives of the General Plan The General Plan has over 200 goals/policies, many of which relate to Community design including: Neighborhood compatibility Buffers Mitigation of traffic impacts Minimizing light impacts Important to review CUP’s against these goals and policies. Hours of Operation - Some conditional uses have odd/extended hours of operation: - This criteria allows those hours to be considered and mitigated during the review process. 29 Section 22.5.A That the granting of such conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. In arriving at this determination, the factors which shall be considered shall include the following: a.    Damage or nuisance arising from noise, smoke, odor, dust, vibration or illumination; b.    Hazard to persons and property from possible explosion, contamination, fire or flood; c.    Hazard occasioned by Uunusual volume or character of traffic.   That the characteristics of the use proposed in such use permit are reasonably compatible with the types of use permitted in the surrounding area AND SUFFICIENT MITIGATION MEASURES ARE EMPLOYED TO MINIMIZE IMPACT ON ADJOINING PROPERTIES. That the hours of operation of the proposed use will not adversely impact neighboring properties. That the proposed use is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan. The burden of proof for satisfying the aforementioned requirements shall rest with the applicant. Proposed Code Amendment Language 30 Summary and Recommendation Update the Town’s current review criteria Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 32 Methodology Evaluated the Town’s current practice Surveyed nine Arizona communities Findings Core criteria cover a broad spectrum of issues Lack of specificity 33 CUP Review Criteria comparison 34 35