Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (84)         AGENDA  ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION May 6, 2015 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   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   INFORMATIONAL ITEMS   1. Letters of Appreciation - Development and Infrastructure Services Department   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. Certificates of Appreciation to outgoing members of the Youth Advisory Council   2. Proclamation - Building Safety Month 2015   CONSENT AGENDA  (Consideration and/or possible action)   A. Minutes - April 15, 2015 and April 22, 2015   B. Fiscal Year 2014/15 Financial Update through February 2015   C. Resolution No. (R)15-33, authorizing and accepting a donation from the Steven M. Gootter C. Resolution No. (R)15-33, authorizing and accepting a donation from the Steven M. Gootter Foundation for the purchase of 12 automated external defibrillators (AEDs)   D. Request for approval of a final plat and license agreement for the Estates at Capella subdivision, located south of Naranja Drive approximately one-quarter mile west of La Cholla Boulevard   E. Resolution No. (R)15-34, authorizing Verizon Communications, Inc. to sublease the ground lease, entered with the Town of Oro Valley, to American Tower and subsequently lease back from American Tower a portion of the site located at 551 W. Lambert Lane   REGULAR AGENDA   1. PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTIONS AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY, ADOPTING SPECIAL AREA POLICIES RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND DELETING THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION PERTAINING TO 191 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHWEST CORNERS OF THE LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE INTERSECTION A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)15-31, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP, ADOPTING SPECIAL AREA POLICIES AND DELETING THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION FOR 182.7 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE B. RESOLUTION NO. (R)15-32, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP, ADOPTING SPECIAL AREA POLICIES AND DELETING THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION FOR 8.2 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE   2. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION REGARDING COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUES FOR TOWN COUNCIL-AUTHORIZED PROJECTS   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 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: 4/29/15 at 5:00 p.m. by mrs 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 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:05/06/2015   Submitted By:Julie Bower, Town Clerk's Office Information Subject Letters of Appreciation - Development and Infrastructure Services Department  Attachments San Dorado M Tupper From: Joe Commisto   Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 9:17 AM  To: King, Chuck  Cc: Moore, Mark; Celey, Ken; Keesler, Paul; Laws, David; Gray, Jennifer; McGuire, Tim  Subject: San Dorado    To All, today is my last day with Mark‐Taylor Development, Inc. and prior to leaving I wanted to express  my thanks for all of the cooperation we have received from the TOV. The project had it’s share of  challenges and hopefully these were dealt with by MTD in a professional manner, and although the  project is not complete we are a month or so from final completion and acceptance and from our  standpoint the TOV personnel all acted in very professional manner. And I would like to add a special  thanks to Tim McGuire who in my opinion is a terrific building inspector. I believe we should all be proud  of this landmark project and one we can all be proud of. Thanks again!    Regards,    Joe Commisto     Project Manager  6623 North Scottsdale Rd.  Scottsdale,  AZ 85250      Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 8:46 AM  To: Dull, Gary  Subject: Re: Light, Horizon Heights    Thanks, Gary. It’s actually unusual in this day and age for city officials anywhere to have the time to deal with minor things such as this, much less to care enough to follow through on them, understanding that such things are not as minor to the people they affect. We are so fortunate to live in a city like Oro Valley. There are so few of them around. Mike ps: As to pool closing time, I could count the number of times I’ve seen someone in that pool during the two years we’ve lived here on one hand.     Town Council Regular Session Item # 1. Meeting Date:05/06/2015   Certificates of Appreciation Information Subject Certificates of Appreciation to outgoing members of the Youth Advisory Council Summary Town Council Regular Session Item # 2. Meeting Date:05/06/2015   Proclamation - Building Safety Month Information Subject Proclamation - Building Safety Month 2015 Summary Attachments Proclamation (!)~ o/tkJlta;y~ ®ro ~all~\!, Arizona Jrndcttmtfinn BUILDING SAFETY MONTH -MAY, 2015 WHEREAS, our Town's continuing efforts to address the critical issues of safety, energy efficiency, water conservation, and resilience in the built environment that affect our citizens, both in everyday life and in times of natural disaster, give us confidence that our structures are safe and sound ; and, WHEREAS, our confidence is achieved through the devotion of vigilant guardians-building safety and fire prevention officials architects engineers builders tradespeople laborers and others in the const ru ction indllstry- who work year -round to ensure the safe construction of buildings; and, WHEREAS, these guardians-dedicated members of the International Code Council-use a governmental consensus process that brings together local, state and federal officials with expertise in the built environment to create and implement the highest-quality codes to protect Americans in the buildings where we live, learn , work, wors hip , play ; and , WHEREAS, the International Codes, the most widely adopted building safety, energy and fire prevention codes in the nation, are used by most U.S. cities , counties and states; these modern building codes also include safeguards to protect the public from natural disasters such as hurricanes , snowstorms , tornadoes, wildland fires, floods .and earthquakes ; and , . WHEREAS, Building Safety Month is to remind the public about the critical role of our communities' often unknown guardians of public safety---our local code officials-who assure us of safe , efficient and livable buildings; and, WHEREAS, "Resilient Communities Start with Building Codes" the theme for Building Safety Month 2015 , encourages all Americans to raise awareness of the importance of building safe and resilient construction ; fire prevention ; disaster mitigation , water safety and conservation; energy efficiency and new technologies in the construction industry. Building Safety Month 2015 encourages appropriate steps everyone can take to ensure that the places where we live , learn, work , worship and play are safe and sustainable, and re cogn izes that coun tless lives have been saved due to the implementation of safety codes by local and state agencies; and , WHEREAS, each year , in observance of Building Safety Month, Americans are asked to consider projects to improve building safety and sustainability at home and in the community, and to acknowledge the essential service provided to all of us by local and state building departments , fire prevention bureaus and federal agencies in protecting li ves and property; and , WHEREAS, Oro Valley will be utilizing Building Safety Month to in itiate an offer to provide courtesy pool and spa safety inspections for its citizens; and, NOW, THEREFORE, I, Dr. Satish I. Hiremath , Mayor of Oro Valley, hereby proclaim the month of May 2015 as Building Safety Month and encourage our cit iz ens in Building Safety Month activities. Dated this 6th day of May , 2015 ATTEST : lk,~/~(:t Dr. Satish I. Hiremath , Mayor Town Council Regular Session Item # A. Meeting Date:05/06/2015   Requested by: Julie Bower Submitted By:Mike Standish, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office Information SUBJECT: Minutes - April 15, 2015 and April 22, 2015 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 April 15, 2015 and April 22, 2015 minutes. Attachments 4/15/15 Draft Minutes 4/22/15 Draft Minutes 4/15/15 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 1 MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION April 15, 2015 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 (Attended via phone) Joe Hornat, Councilmember Mary Snider, Councilmember Mike Zinkin, Councilmember EXECUTIVE SESSION - Pursuant to A.R.S. Sections 38-431.03(A)(3), 38-431.03(A)(4) and 38-431.03(A)(7) in order to receive legal advice and in order to consider its position and instruct the Town Attorney and designated representatives regarding the Town’s position relating to the El Conquistador Country Club land purchase, contract negotiations regarding same and pending litigation involving Arrett & Lamonna v. Oro Valley MOTION:A motion was made by Councilmember Zinkin and seconded by Vice Mayor Waters to go into Executive Session at 5:01 p.m. pursuant to A.R.S. Sections 38- 431.03(A)(3), 38-431.03(A)(4) and 38-431.03(A)(7) in order to receive legal advice and in order to consider its position and instruct the Town Attorney and designated representatives regarding the Town's position relating to the El Conquistador Country Club land purchase, contract negotiations regarding same and pending litigation involving Arrett & Lamonna v. Oro Valley. MOTION carried, 7-0. Mayor Hiremath said the following staff members would join Council in Executive Session: Town Manager Greg Caton, Town Attorney Kelly Schwab, Legal Services Director Tobin Sidles and Town Clerk Julie Bower. 4/15/15 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 2 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 Joe Hornat, Councilmember Mary Snider, Councilmember Mike Zinkin, Councilmember ABSENT:Bill Garner, 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 clarified that no matter what Oro Valley businesses charged for sales tax, the state would collect the proper amount of sales tax (currently 2.5%) at the end of the month from each business. Councilmember Hornat said he reviewed the 2008 Naranja Park Bond proposal and said that he was previously incorrect when he said the plan was "all green" because the original plan included a bmx track and a skate park. Vice Mayor Waters reported that he attended the Canyon Del Oro High School ceremonial soccer game at Naranja Park on Saturday morning at 8:00 a.m. and the park was very well attended by both kids and parents. Councilmember Snider recognized Jacob "Bubba" Mustain, 3rd grader at Copper Creek Elementary, for achieving good grades, being kind to others and leading by example. DEPARTMENT REPORTS No reports were received. 4/15/15 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 3 ORDER OF BUSINESS Mayor Hiremath said Regular Agenda item #1 would be continued to a future meeting at the request of the applicant and Regular Agenda item #3 would be removed from the agenda at the request of Councilmember Zinkin and Councilmember Burns. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1.Letter of Appreciation - Development and Infrastructure Services Department 2.Letter of Appreciation - Oro Valley Police Department CALL TO AUDIENCE Oro Valley resident Don Barnett was concerned with the condition of the bunkers at the Hilton El Conquistador Country Club and urged Council to fix the bunkers. Oro Valley resident Paul Emmert said the Town's website claimed that tourism contributed to nearly 100% of Bed Tax revenues and about 1/3 of Sales Tax revenues and asked where the data was that supported this forecast. Oro Valley resident Don Bristow disagreed with Town Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission Members regarding their understanding of the General Plan and Town Zoning Codes and proposed that a future discussion should take place to discuss the balance of citizen concerns vs. business level of signage. Oro Valley resident Geri Ottoboni spoke about the proposed Pima County Bond election slated for November 3, 2015 and was concerned with the total amount of the proposed bond and what it would cost taxpayers if approved by the voters. Councilmember Zinkin directed staff to look into the bunker issue at the Hilton El Conquistador Country Club golf course and directed staff to verify that the tax information on the Town's website was correct as it related to how much sales tax was generated from tourism. PRESENTATIONS 1.Proclamation - PowerTalk 21 Day Mayor Hiremath proclaimed Monday April 21 as PowerTalk 21 Day in the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona. 2.Charles Huang, Distinguished Finalist - 20th Annual Prudential Spirit of Community Awards 4/15/15 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 4 Councilmember Snider introduced Charles Huang, Senior at Basis Oro Valley. Mayor Hiremath recognized Mr. Huang for recently being named as one of the state's top honorees for the Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program. Mr. Huang exemplified the value of volunteer community service and was a role-model to other youth as well as adults within the community. 3.Recognition of Historic Expository Writing Contest Winners Parks and Recreation Director Kristy Diaz-Trahan recognized the following contest winners: 1st Place – Karsen Garrity 2nd Place – Madison Santiago 3rd Place – Zoe Kaber 4.Presentation by Brent DeRaad, President/CEO of Visit Tucson President and CEO of Visit Tucson, Brent DeRadd, gave an overview of Visit Tucson's recent accomplishments. -Metro Tucson Visitor Industry -Visit Tucson 2014-15 Revenue -Metro Tucson Hotel/Resort Performance -Marketing Campaigns -Oro Valley Initiatives -Oro Valley - Return on Investment -2015-16 Oro Valley Priorities CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Zinkin requested to remove items (A-C) from the Consent Agenda for discussion. D.Resolution No. (R)15-28, authorizing and approving a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Grant Agreement with the City of Tucson, allowing for one (1) officer to be assigned to the Pima County HIDTA Investigative Task Force E.Resolution No. (R)15-29, authorizing and approving an Employment Agreement for the Town Magistrate, George Dunscomb F.Resolution No. (R)15-30, authorizing and approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Tucson for participation in the Regional Transportation Data Network (RTDN) System 4/15/15 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 5 MOTION:A motion was made by Vice Mayor Waters and seconded by Councilmember Snider to approve Consent Agenda items (D-F). MOTION carried, 6-0. A.Minutes -April 1, 2015 Councilmember Zinkin requested to amend Consent Agenda item (C) of the 4/1/15 draft minutes by adding his comments that there would be ample opportunity for public input regarding the La Cholla Road widening project. MOTION:A motion was made by Councilmember Zinkin and seconded by Councilmember Burns to approve the April 1, 2015 minutes as amended. MOTION carried, 6-0. B.Appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Councilmember Zinkin introduced Mr. Huff and thanked him for volunteering to serve on the Historic Preservation Commission. MOTION:A motion was made by Councilmember Zinkin and seconded by Councilmember Snider to approve item (B). MOTION carried, 6-0. C.Resolution No. (R)15-27, authorizing and approving a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Grant Agreement with the City of Tucson, allowing for two (2) officers to be assigned to the Pima County/Tucson Metropolitan Counter Narcotics Alliance (CNA) Councilmember Zinkin asked if raises to salaries, fringe benefits and/or overtime expenses were included in the reimbursement. Lieutenant John Teachout said the grant would fully reimburse all expenses. MOTION:A motion was made by Councilmember Zinkin and seconded by Councilmember Snider to accept item (C). MOTION carried, 6-0. REGULAR AGENDA 1.PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTIONS AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY, ADOPTING SPECIAL AREA POLICIES RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT AND DELETING 4/15/15 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 6 THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION PERTAINING TO 191 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHWEST CORNERS OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)15-31, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP, ADOPTING SPECIAL AREA POLICIES AND DELETING THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA FOR 182.7 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE B. RESOLUTION NO. (R)15-32, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP, ADOPTING SPECIAL AREA POLICIES AND DELETING THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA FOR 8.2 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE Mayor Hiremath said Regular Agenda item #1 would be continued to a future meeting at the request of the applicant. 2.PRESENTATION OF TOWN MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015/16 Town Manager Greg Caton gave an overview of the budget timeline. Finance Director Stacey Lemos and Mr. Caton presented the recommended budget and outlined the following: -Budget Snapshot -Strategic Plan Budget Focus Areas -Fiscal Responsibility -Communication -Economic Development -Parks, Recreation and Cultural Development -Community Infrastructure and Services -New Initiatives -Financial Overview -Revenue Projections -Capital Improvement Program (CIP) -Awards and Accolades 3.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION REGARDING THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE COUNCIL FOREWORD Mayor Hiremath removed item #3 from the agenda at the request of Councilmember Zinkin and Councilmember Burns. 4/15/15 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 7 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Zinkin requested a future agenda item for the May 20, 2015 Council meeting to discuss and take possible action regarding Personnel Policy #14 - Overtime, seconded by Councilmember Burns. CALL TO AUDIENCE No comments were received. ADJOURNMENT MOTION:A motion was made by Vice Mayor Waters and seconded by Councilmember Snider to adjourn the meeting at 7:17 p.m. MOTION carried, 6-0. 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 15th day of April, 2015. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this ______ day of ______________________, 2015. ____________________________ Julie K. Bower, MMC Town Clerk 4/22/15 Minutes, Town Council Study Session 1 MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION April 22, 2015 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE STUDY SESSION AT OR AFTER 4:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hiremath called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT:Satish Hirmath, Mayor Lou Waters, Vice Mayor Brendan Burns, Councilmember Bill Garner, Councilmember Joe Hornat, Councilmember Mary Snider, Councilmember Mike Zinkin, Councilmember Mayor Hiremath requested a moment of silence for Kelsey, the daughter of Michael Lauria, Executive Director of the Children’s Museum, who passed away Saturday. 1.FY 2015/16 Town Manager’s Recommended Budget Department Overviews Greg Caton, Town Manager announced there would be presentations from the following operational departments - Water Utility, Development and Infrastructure Services (DIS) and Parks and Recreation. Water Utility Philip Saletta, Water Utility Director, gave an overview of the proposed Water Utility budget that included the following: - Oro Valley Water Utility Funds - Operating Fund Budget - Operating Fund Budget - Personnel - Operating Fund Budget - O&M - Operating Fund Budget - Capital - Impact Fee Funds - All Water Utility Budgets 4/22/15 Minutes, Town Council Study Session 2 Following the presentation, there were questions and comments from Council regarding the Water Utility budget. Development and Infrastructure Services Paul Keesler, DIS Director, gave an overview of the following proposed DIS Department budget structure and highlights: - Department Overview - By the Numbers - Budget Highlights - O&M - Budget Highlights - Personnel Following the presentation, there were questions and comments from Council regarding the DIS budget. Parks and Recreation Kristy Diaz-Trahan, Parks and Recreation Director, gave an overview of the following proposed Parks and Recreation budget highlights: - Strategic Plan Implementation - Parks and Recreation Department - Administration Division - Aquatics Division - Park Maintenance Division - Park Maintenance Division Projects - Recreation Division - Cultural Services Division Following the presentation, there were questions and comments from Council regarding the Parks and Recreation budget. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Zinkin requested a later start time for the April 29th study session. The majority of Council agreed to change the start time to 4:30 p.m. for the April 29th study session. ADJOURNMENT MOTION:A motion was made by Vice Mayor Waters and seconded by Councilmember Snider to adjourn the meeting at 6:16 p.m. MOTION carried, 7-0. 4/22/15 Minutes, Town Council Study Session 3 Prepared by: ___________________________ Michelle Stine Senior Office Specialist I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the study session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 22nd day of April 2015. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this ____ day of ___________________, 2015. __________________________ Julie K. Bower, MMC Town Clerk Town Council Regular Session Item # B. Meeting Date:05/06/2015   Requested by: Stacey Lemos Submitted By:Wendy Gomez, Finance Department:Finance Information SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2014/15 Financial Update through February 2015 RECOMMENDATION: This item is for information only. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In the General Fund (see attachment A), revenues collected through February totaled $20.4 million or 63.3% of the budget amount of $32.3 million. Year-to-date expenditures through February totaled $20.6 million or 63.4% of the budget amount of $32.5 million. The FY 2014/15 General Fund budget includes a transfer out of one-time revenues in the amount of $2.7 million to the General Government CIP Fund for capital projects. Please note that year-to-date expenditures now include approximately two-thirds of this budgeted transfer out to the General Government CIP Fund of about $1,740,000. In the Highway Fund (see attachment B), revenues collected through February totaled $2.0 million or 66.4% of the budget amount of $3.0 million. Year-to-date expenditures through February totaled $2.0 million or 47.0% of the budget amount of $4.4 million. It is important to note that the Highway Fund budget includes the planned use of $1.4 million in reserves, as all construction sales tax revenues are now fully accounted for in the General Fund. In the Bed Tax Fund (see attachment C), revenues collected through February totaled $497,114 or 52.4% of the budget amount of $949,000. Year-to-date expenditures through February totaled $506,811 or 52.7% of the budget amount of $961,000. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: GENERAL FUND Attachment A shows General Fund revenues and expenditures through February, as well as year-end estimates for each category. The estimated year-end projections in the General Fund are as follows: Revenues                                                    $31,631,838 Less: Expenditures                                              ($31,728,692) Est. Decrease in Fund Balance                   ($   96,854) General Fund Revenues Local sales tax collections in the General Fund total $10.0 million or 63.7% of the budget amount of $15.7 million. Sales tax collections in the General Fund are estimated to come in below budget by approximately $314,000 or 2.0% based on current collections-to-date trending slightly below budgeted levels. Please see Attachment E for a monthly tracking of General Fund local sales tax collections, including construction and utility sales tax.   License and permit revenues are estimated to come in under budget by about $310,000 or 17.2% due primarily to single family residential (SFR) permitting trends. A total of 135 SFR permits are projected for FY 14/15, compared to the 200 that were budgeted.  Federal grant revenues are estimated to come in over budget by about $65,000 or 10.9% due to grant funds received for a Police DUI Tahoe and hosting of collision investigation training classes funded by the Governor's Office of Highway Safety. State grant revenues are estimated to come in under budget by about $175,000 or 10.9%. Of this amount, approximately $105,000 reflects RTA reimbursements for Transit, which corresponds to estimated expenditure savings. Capacity of $75,000 was placed in the budget for potential funding of a new school resource officer and is not expected to be utilized this fiscal year. Corresponding personnel savings of $75,000 is included in the Police Department's year-end estimated expenditures.     Charges for Services revenues are estimated to come in over budget by about $122,000 or 7.2% due to revenue trends at the Aquatic Center, zoning & subdivision fees, engineer plan review fees and user fee revenues for field and court rentals.   Fine revenues are estimated to come in under budget by $40,000 or 22.2% based on current trends and citation filings.  Staff will continue to monitor revenue collections and may adjust the year-end estimates based on actual trends. General Fund Expenditures Expenditures are estimated to come in under budget by approximately $728,000 or 2.2% due primarily to projected operations and maintenance (O&M) savings by departments, as well as projected personnel vacancy savings. Due to the observed slowdown in revenue collections, with a considerable amount classified as one-time, the estimated transfer to the General Government CIP Fund for one-time capital projects has been reduced by $120,000, which will not affect current year budgeted projects, but rather the banking of funds for the future PD Property ID and Substation Building. The timeline on this project is likely to be extended out further, as efforts on securing a building location are still underway.             HIGHWAY FUND Highway Fund Revenues State shared highway user revenue funds (HURF) total $1.8 million or 66.3% of the budget amount of $2.8 million. Highway Fund revenues in total are expected to come in over budget by about $140,000 or 4.7% due primarily to HURF revenues.  These revenues are up more than 8% over last fiscal year due to economic growth and Senate Bill 1487, which allocated additional monies to HURF for FY 14/15. The year-end estimate for HURF revenues was provided by the League of Arizona Cities & Towns. Highway Fund Expenditures Expenditures are estimated to come in on budget at this time. BED TAX FUND Bed Tax Revenues Bed tax revenues total $494,782 or 52.4% of the budget amount of $945,000 and are estimated to come in on budget at this time. Bed Tax Fund Expenditures Expenditures are estimated to come in on budget at this time. Please see Attachments A, B, and C for additional details on the General Fund, Highway Fund and Bed Tax Fund respectively. See Attachment D for a fiscal year-to-date consolidated summary of all Town funds. In addition, as noted earlier, Attachment E includes a breakdown of monthly local sales tax collections for the General Fund. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: This item is for information only. Attachments Attachment A - General Fund Attachment B - Highway Fund Attachment C - Bed Tax Fund Attachment D - Summary All Funds Attachment E - GF Local Sales Tax ATTACHMENT A February YTD Financial Status General Fund % Budget Completion through February --- 66.7% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget REVENUES: LOCAL SALES TAX 9,983,544 15,676,905 63.7% 15,362,467 -2.0% LICENSES & PERMITS 1,014,281 1,805,547 56.2% 1,495,226 -17.2% FEDERAL GRANTS 462,665 597,365 77.5% 662,549 10.9% STATE GRANTS 784,306 1,607,300 48.8% 1,432,155 -10.9% STATE/COUNTY SHARED 6,754,363 10,303,762 65.6% 10,303,762 0.0% OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL 10,000 15,000 66.7% 15,000 0.0% CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,206,416 1,688,995 71.4% 1,810,679 7.2% FINES 92,333 180,000 51.3% 140,000 -22.2% INTEREST INCOME 44,835 81,125 55.3% 90,000 10.9% MISCELLANEOUS 75,502 135,000 55.9% 135,000 0.0% TRANSFERS IN - 185,000 0.0%185,000 0.0% TOTAL REVENUES 20,428,245 32,275,999 63.3% 31,631,838 -2.0% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget EXPENDITURES: COUNCIL 148,055 207,022 71.5% 207,022 0.0% CLERK 251,409 497,102 50.6% 391,102 -21.3% MANAGER 466,753 721,724 64.7% 721,724 0.0% HUMAN RESOURCES 224,662 371,998 60.4% 371,998 0.0% FINANCE 470,425 748,060 62.9% 737,182 -1.5% INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 890,806 1,432,374 62.2% 1,432,374 0.0% GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 1,090,954 1,867,600 58.4% 1,805,600 -3.3% LEGAL 446,150 756,855 58.9% 743,405 -1.8% COURT 478,802 789,826 60.6% 789,826 0.0% DEV & INFRASTRUCTURE SVCS 2,770,485 4,564,803 60.7% 4,275,679 -6.3% PARKS & RECREATION 1,741,368 2,722,617 64.0% 2,722,617 0.0% POLICE 9,682,711 14,885,819 65.0% 14,759,198 -0.9% TRANSFERS OUT 1,901,497 2,890,965 65.8%2,770,965 -4.2% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 20,564,076 32,456,765 63.4% 31,728,692 -2.2% SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) (135,830) (180,766) (96,854) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 11,534,023 Plus: Surplus / (Deficit)(96,854) ENDING FUND BALANCE **11,437,169 * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision ** Ending fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision FY 2014/2015 Year End Estimate * Budget Year End Estimate * Actuals thru 2/2015 Actuals thru 2/2015 Budget F:\BUDGET ANALYST\Financial Reports 2014-2015\3Q\Feb\Feb FY15 Monthly Report 04/21/2015 ATTACHMENT B February YTD Financial Status FY 2014/2015 % Budget Completion through February --- 66.7% Actuals thru 2/2015 Budget % Actuals to Budget Year End Estimate * YE % Variance to BudgetREVENUES: LICENSES & PERMITS 38,746 52,000 74.5% 58,333 12.2% STATE/COUNTY SHARED 1,825,734 2,754,947 66.3% 2,882,445 4.6% CHARGES FOR SERVICES 86,328 129,493 66.7% 129,493 0.0% INTEREST INCOME 12,523 19,250 65.1% 25,000 29.9% MISCELLANEOUS 6,259 10,000 62.6%10,000 0.0% TOTAL REVENUES 1,969,590 2,965,690 66.4% 3,105,271 4.7% Actuals thru 2/2015 Budget % Actuals to Budget Year End Estimate * YE % Variance to BudgetEXPENDITURES: ADMINISTRATION 331,113 610,478 54.2% 610,478 0.0% TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 334,791 537,275 62.3% 537,275 0.0% PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT 412,951 1,219,002 33.9% 1,219,002 0.0% STREET MAINTENANCE 676,930 1,053,631 64.2% 1,053,297 0.0% TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 291,274 934,276 31.2%934,276 0.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,047,060 4,354,662 47.0% 4,354,328 0.0% SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) (77,470) (1,388,972) (1,249,057) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 4,175,161 Plus: Surplus / (Deficit)(1,249,057) ENDING FUND BALANCE **2,926,104 * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision ** Ending fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision Highway Fund F:\BUDGET ANALYST\Financial Reports 2014-2015\3Q\Feb\Feb FY15 Monthly Report 04/21/2015 ATTACHMENT C February YTD Financial Status % Budget Completion through February --- 66.7% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget REVENUES: BED TAXES 494,782 944,571 52.4% 944,571 0.0% INTEREST INCOME 2,332 4,125 56.5%6,000 45.5% TOTAL REVENUES 497,114 948,696 52.4% 950,571 0.2% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget EXPENDITURES: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 339,268 608,457 55.8% 608,157 0.0% TRANSFERS OUT 167,543 352,543 47.5%352,543 0.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 506,811 961,000 52.7% 960,700 0.0% SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) (9,697) (12,304) (10,129) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 425,099 Plus: Surplus / (Deficit)(10,129) ENDING FUND BALANCE **414,970 * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision ** Ending fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision FY 2014/2015 Year End Estimate * Budget Year End Estimate * Bed Tax Fund Budget Actuals thru 2/2015 Actuals thru 2/2015 F:\BUDGET ANALYST\Financial Reports 2014-2015\3Q\Feb\Feb FY15 Monthly Report 04/21/2015 ATTACHMENT D Co n s o l i d a t e d Y e a r - t o - D a t e F i n a n c i a l R e p o r t t h r o u g h F e b r u a r y , 2 0 1 5 FY 2014/201 5 FY 1 4 / 1 5 C a p i t a l L e a s e s / Left in Accounts Be g i n B a l . T r a n s f e r O u t Thru Feb 2015 Ge n e r a l F u n d - Un a s s i g n e d 9 , 9 2 5 , 9 8 8 2 0 , 4 2 8 , 2 4 5 - 2 0 , 4 2 8 , 2 4 5 1 , 9 0 5 , 1 5 4 1 3 , 9 8 8 , 2 0 5 4 , 5 2 9 , 4 4 4 1 4 1 , 2 7 3 - - 20,564,076 9,790,156 Ge n e r a l F u n d - A s s i g n e d 1 , 6 0 8 , 0 3 5 1,608,035 Hi g h w a y F u n d - R e s t r i c t e d 4 , 1 7 5 , 1 6 1 1 , 9 6 9 , 5 9 0 - 1 , 9 6 9 , 5 9 0 - 1 , 1 5 8 , 1 9 9 3 9 2 , 4 4 8 4 9 6 , 4 1 4 - - 2,047,060 4,097,691 Se i z u r e & F o r f e i t u r e - S t a t e 5 2 6 , 9 0 1 9 8 , 5 5 4 - 9 8 , 5 5 4 - 7 , 4 1 1 8 6 , 2 3 0 1 0 9 , 1 8 1 - - 202,822 422,633 Se i z u r e & F o r f e i t u r e - J u s t i c e 3 4 9 , 7 2 4 1 5 , 2 9 0 - 1 5 , 2 9 0 - 8 0 , 1 6 0 3 2 , 3 8 1 1 2 8 , 3 7 5 - - 240,917 124,098 Be d T a x F u n d - C o m m i t t e d 4 2 5 , 0 9 9 4 9 7 , 1 1 4 - 4 9 7 , 1 1 4 1 6 7 , 5 4 3 1 5 5 , 1 5 7 1 8 4 , 1 1 1 - - - 506,811 415,402 Im p o u n d F e e F u n d 7 , 3 4 6 2 5 , 2 0 0 - 2 5 , 2 0 0 - 1 7 , 3 2 9 - - - - 17,329 15,217 Mu n i c i p a l D e b t S e r v i c e F u n d 5 3 3 , 9 2 8 1 1 3 , 4 7 8 3 2 9 , 6 2 7 4 4 3 , 1 0 5 - - 1 3 , 3 0 1 - - 847,433 860,733 116,300 Or a c l e R o a d D e b t S e r v i c e F u n d 2 8 1 1 5 6 , 3 6 3 2 , 0 0 0 1 5 8 , 3 6 3 - - 2 , 4 9 5 - - 154,356 156,851 1,793 Al t e r n a t i v e W a t e r R e s o u r c e s D e v I m p a c t F e e F u n d 3 , 3 3 6 , 0 9 9 5 6 5 , 0 6 0 - 5 6 5 , 0 6 0 - - 3 9 , 1 2 7 8 2 , 0 8 8 - - 121,215 3,779,943 Po t a b l e W a t e r S y s t e m D e v I m p a c t F e e F u n d 4 , 5 0 5 , 6 3 5 2 9 4 , 9 4 2 - 2 9 4 , 9 4 2 - - - - - 48,263 48,263 4,752,314 To w n w i d e R o a d w a y D e v e l o p m en t I m p a c t F e e F u n d 2 , 7 9 1 , 1 6 6 5 7 8 , 7 4 8 - 5 7 8 , 7 4 8 - - - 2 2 8 , 9 6 3 - - 228,963 3,140,951 Pa r k s & R e c r e a t i o n I m p a c t F e e F u n d 2 1 , 5 5 5 6 7 , 4 2 8 - 6 7 , 4 2 8 - - - - - - - 88,984 Li b r a r y I m p a c t F e e F u n d 1 1 4 , 7 9 8 - - - - - - 2 0 , 0 0 0 - - 20,000 94,798 Po l i c e I m p a c t F e e F u n d 2 0 5 , 9 3 6 3 1 , 5 0 8 - 3 1 , 5 0 8 - - - - - - - 237,444 Ge n e r a l G o v e r n m e n t I m p a c t F e e F u n d 3 , 5 0 2 2 - 2 - - - - - - - 3,504 Na r a n j a P a r k F u n d 7 3 7 , 0 5 6 - - - - - - 5 3 3 , 4 2 0 - - 533,420 203,636 Ge n e r a l G o v e r n m e n t C I P F u n d 1 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 7 4 0 , 5 3 2 1 , 7 4 0 , 5 3 2 - - - 7 5 6 , 1 5 8 - - 756,158 2,484,374 Wa t e r U t i l i t y 11 , 8 2 3 , 3 4 2 1 0 , 4 2 0 , 7 4 7 - 1 0 , 4 2 0 , 7 4 7 3 , 1 1 9 1 , 8 2 5 , 1 1 0 3 , 4 6 8 , 1 7 9 1 , 8 8 0 , 5 5 9 - 741,172 7,918,138 14,325,951 St o r m w a t e r U t i l i t y 50 3 , 4 7 4 4 4 2 , 5 7 6 - 4 4 2 , 5 7 6 - 2 1 0 , 4 2 2 3 1 4 , 1 9 9 1 4 5 , 3 7 1 - - 669,992 276,058 Fl e e t F u n d 8 4 , 9 4 9 1 , 1 0 1 , 1 8 0 - 1 , 1 0 1 , 1 8 0 - 5 1 , 1 6 1 3 9 3 , 2 4 8 5 2 5 , 6 2 7 - - 970,036 216,093 Be n e f i t S e l f I n s u r a n c e F u n d 5 8 4 , 5 0 9 1 , 5 4 6 , 6 3 2 - 1 , 5 4 6 , 6 3 2 - - 1 , 8 7 4 , 0 4 5 5 , 9 0 5 - - 1,879,950 251,190 Re c r e a t i o n I n - L i e u F e e F u n d 6 , 1 9 0 - - - - - - - - - - 6,190 To t a l 4 3 , 7 7 0 , 6 7 4 3 8 , 3 5 2 , 6 5 8 2 , 0 7 2 , 1 5 9 4 0 , 4 2 4 , 8 1 7 2 , 0 7 5 , 8 1 6 1 7 , 4 9 3 , 1 5 4 1 1 , 3 2 9 , 2 0 7 5 , 0 5 3 , 3 3 4 - 1,791,223 37,742,735 46,452,756 Fu n d R e v e n u e Ot h e r F i n So u r c e s / T f r s To t a l I n Debt Service T o t a l O u t Pe r s o n n e l O & M C a p i t a l C o n t i n g e n c y F: \ B U D G E T A N A L Y S T \ F i n a n c i a l R e p o r t s 2 0 1 4 - 2 0 1 5 \ 3 Q \ F e b \ A t t a c h m e n t D - S u m m a r y A l l F u n d s 04/21/2015 ATTACHMENT E Ge n e r a l F u n d L o c a l S a l e s T a x C o l l e c t i o n s FY 2014/201 5 CA T E G O R Y J U L Y A U G S E P O C T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R AP R MAY J U N E T O T A L Co n s t r u c t i o n S a l e s T a x 3 5 3 , 2 5 7 3 6 5 , 8 7 7 3 4 3 , 0 7 1 3 1 7 , 5 9 5 2 9 1 , 8 1 6 2 9 3 , 0 3 2 3 5 8 , 7 7 3 2 6 5 , 0 7 5 2,588,496 Ut i l i t y S a l e s T a x 2 6 9 , 7 7 2 2 9 9 , 1 5 4 2 9 2 , 4 5 6 2 6 1 , 3 3 3 1 3 5 , 9 6 6 1 9 7 , 3 4 1 2 2 7 , 7 4 2 2 6 8 , 0 3 9 1,951,803 Re t a i l S a l e s T a x 3 9 2 , 4 1 7 4 1 4 , 6 3 9 3 8 3 , 8 5 3 3 9 0 , 5 6 7 4 1 5 , 3 8 8 5 0 7 , 9 4 9 6 6 7 , 7 3 2 4 1 1 , 3 0 1 3,583,846 Al l O t h e r L o c a l S a l e s T a x * 23 1 , 6 0 3 1 , 0 2 6 9 6 9 4 5 0 , 4 4 4 2 8 5 , 4 4 3 3 4 7 , 6 7 9 3 1 5 , 8 2 4 227,740 1,860,728 TO T A L 1 , 2 4 7 , 0 4 9 $ 1 , 0 8 0 , 6 9 6 $ 1 , 0 2 0 , 3 4 9 $ 1 , 4 1 9 , 9 3 9 $ 1 , 1 2 8 , 6 1 3 $ 1 , 3 4 6 , 0 0 1 $ 1 , 5 7 0 , 0 7 1 $ 1 , 1 7 2 , 1 5 5 $9,984,873 $ * N o t e : D o e s n o t i n c l u d e c a b l e f r a n c h i s e f e e s o r s a l e s t a x a u d i t r e v e n u e s F: \ B U D G E T A N A L Y S T \ F i n a n c i a l R e p o r t s 2 0 1 4 - 2 0 1 5 \ 3 Q \ F e b \ A t t a c h m e n t E - G e n F u n d L o c a l S a l e s T a x 04/21/2015 Town Council Regular Session Item # C. Meeting Date:05/06/2015   Requested by: Daniel G. Sharp Submitted By:Colleen Muhr, Police Department Department:Police Department Information SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R)15-33, authorizing and accepting a donation from the Steven M. Gootter Foundation for the purchase of 12 automated external defibrillators (AEDs) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Steven M. Gootter Foundation is donating 12 automated external defibrillators (AEDs) to the Oro Valley Police Department. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: AEDs are lifesaving devices administered to sudden cardiac victims within the first 10 minutes of a cardiac event. Police officers are often the first on the scene when a cardiac event is reported. Sudden cardiac events are unpredictable, so placing AEDs in patrol vehicles with officers who have been trained on these devices increases the probability that the victim can be saved. FISCAL IMPACT: No immediate fiscal impact. Future costs are projected to include regular maintenance and replacement parts as recommended by the manufacturer. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (adopt or deny) Resolution No. (R)15-33, authorizing and accepting a donation from the Steven M. Gootter Foundation for the purchase of 12 automated external defibrillators (AEDs). Attachments (R)15-33 AED's Donation AED Donation & Acceptance Agreement RESOLUTION NO. (R)15-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND ACCEPTING A DONATION FROM STEVEN M. GOOTTER FOUNDATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWELVE (12) AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATORS (AED’s) WHEREAS, The Town of Oro Valley desires to acquire twelve (12) AED’s to be placed in police vehicles; and WHEREAS, The Steven Gootter Foundation desires to donate twelve (12) AED’s as herein described to the Town as provided for in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Town of Oro Valley to enter into the AED Donation and Acceptance Agreement in order to receive twelve (12) automated external defibrillators to be placed in police vehicles. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, that: 1.The Chief of Police and other administrative officials, or their designees, are hereby authorized to take such steps as necessary to execute and implement the terms of the AED Donation and Acceptance Agreement. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 6th day of May, 2015. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA ____________________________________ Dr. Satish I. Hiremath, Mayor ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________________________________________ Julie K. Bower, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director _________________________________________________________________ Date Date 2 EXHIBIT “A” 17467422.1 19322367 AED DONATION & ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”), is entered into, effective the date stated below, by and among: Parties: STEVEN M. GOOTTER FOUNDATION, an Arizona non-profit corporation (“Gootter Foundation”); and ___________________________________________ , (“You”). [Organization Name] The Gootter Foundation agrees to donate money for the purchase of twelve (12) automated external defibrillators (“AEDs”) (the “Donation”), and You agree to accept the Donation, under the following terms: 1. Gootter Foundation Tasks. The Gootter Foundation will send payment for the purchase price of the AEDs to its chosen dealer or manufacturer (“Dealer”), with instruction to the Dealer to deliver the AEDs directly to You. 2. Your Tasks. You will register each of the AEDs with the Arizona Department of Health Services Bureau of Emergency Medical Services & Trauma System’s “Save Hearts in Arizona Registry & Education” program (“SHARE”), by filling out and submitting the on-line registration form on the SHARE website. 3. Maintenance Schedule. You agree to maintain the manufacturer’s recommended schedule of care and maintenance for the AEDs. _____YOUR INITIALS 4. Organization. If You are accepting the Donation on behalf of an organization, You represent and warrant that the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement by You is within Your power and authority and has been duly authorized by all necessary action by the organization on whose behalf You execute this Agreement. If You are executing this Agreement on behalf of an organization, then any reference to “You” shall also refer to such organization and its partners, members, shareholders, directors, officers, employees, agents, and contractors. 5. INDEMNITY & WAIVER. YOU AGREE TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND, AND HOLD THE GOOTTER FOUNDATION HARMLESS FOR, FROM, AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, DEMANDS, LIABILITIES, COSTS, EXPENSES, DAMAGES, LOSSES, CAUSES OF ACTION, AND SUITS OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER ARISING FROM OR RELATING TO THE CARE, STORAGE, MAINTENANCE, PERFORMANCE, OR USE OF ANY OF THE AEDs (“CLAIMS”). YOU HEREBY WAIVE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS YOU MAY HAVE AT ANY TIME AGAINST THE GOOTTER FOUNDATION AND ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, REPRESENTATIVES, OR CONTRACTORS. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION 5, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU ARE AN ARIZONA PUBLIC INSTITUTION AND THAT ANY INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION IN THIS SECTION 5 MAY BE LIMITED, IF AT ALL, BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, BY ARTICLE 9, SECTIONS 5 AND 7 OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION, A.R.S. §35-154, AND A.R.S. §41-621. _____YOUR INITIALS 6. YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT IT IS YOUR SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROPERLY CARE FOR, STORE, MAINTAIN IN GOOD WORKING ORDER, USE, AND TEST THE AEDs ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF THE AEDs’ MANUFACTURER, AND THAT THE GOOTTER FOUNDATION HAS NOT, WILL NOT, AND NEED NOT PROVIDE 19322367 2 OVERSIGHT, TRAINING, OR OTHER HELP FOR THIS RESPONSIBILITY. YOU AGREE TO NOTIFY THE GOOTTER FOUNDATION IN WRITING EACH TIME AN AED IS DEPLOYED, AND REPORT ON THE INCIDENT AND OUTCOME. ______YOUR INITIALS 7. WARRANTIES. THE GOOTTER FOUNDATION HEREBY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES, AND GUARANTEES OF ANY KIND OR NATURE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE CONDITION, VALUE, OR QUALITY OF THE AEDs AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, MARKETABILITY, USAGE, OR FITNESS OF ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE WITH RESPECT TO THE AEDs. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL SURVIVE THE EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT. _______YOUR INITIALS 8. Attorney’s Fees. Any party who commences or defends an action against the other party to enforce any of the terms of this Agreement or because of a breach by either party of any of its terms, and is successful in such prosecution or defense, whether in litigation, arbitration, or otherwise, shall recover from the losing or defaulting party reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution or defense of such action. 9. Governing Law. Any and all matters in dispute between the parties to this Agreement, whether arising from or relating to the Agreement itself, or arising from alleged extra-contractual facts prior to, during or subsequent to the Agreement, including, without limitation, fraud, misrepresentation, negligence or any other alleged tort or violation of the contract, shall be governed by, construed, and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Arizona, regardless of the legal theory upon which such matter is asserted. 10. Jurisdiction and Venue. Any action, arbitration, audit, hearing, investigation, litigation, or suit (whether civil, criminal, administrative, judicial or investigative, whether formal or informal, whether public or private) commenced, brought, conducted, or heard by or before, or otherwise involving, any governmental body or arbitrator arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of the State of Arizona, County of Pima. 11. Binding Effect. This Agreement is binding upon the heirs, personal representatives, administrators, agents, successors and assigns of the respective parties. 12. Gender and Number. Whenever used in this Agreement, the singular shall include the plural and the plural shall include the singular, the male shall include the female gender and a trust, partnership, firm, company or corporation, all as the context and meaning of this Agreement require. 13. Headings. The descriptive headings of the several sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and do not constitute a part of this Agreement. 14. Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the parties with respect to the matters contained herein and no prior agreement or understanding pertaining to any such matter shall be effective for any purpose. No provision of this Agreement may be amended or added except by an agreement in writing signed by the parties and/or their respective successors. 15. Counterparts; Fax/Electronic Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Facsimile or electronic signatures shall be as effective as original signatures. 16. Severability. In the event that any one or more of the provisions or parts of a provision contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect in any 19322367 3 jurisdiction, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision or part of a provision of this Agreement or any other jurisdiction, but this Agreement shall be reformed and construed in any such jurisdiction as if such invalid or illegal or unenforceable provision or part of a provision had never been contained herein and such provision or part shall be reformed so that it would be valid, legal, and enforceable to the maximum extent permitted in such jurisdiction. Wherefore, the parties execute this Agreement effective this ___ day of ____________, 20___. STEVEN M. GOOTTER FOUNDATION: YOU: By: Andrew Messing, [Organization Name] President By: [Signature] [Print Name] [Title] Your Address: Your Telephone Number: Your Email Address: Town Council Regular Session Item # D. Meeting Date:05/06/2015   Submitted By:Michael Spaeth, Development Infrastructure Services Department:Development Infrastructure Services Information SUBJECT: Request for approval of a final plat and license agreement for the Estates at Capella subdivision, located south of Naranja Drive approximately one-quarter mile west of La Cholla Boulevard RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the final plat, subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 1, and approval of the license agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant requests approval of a Final Plat for the Estates at Capella subdivision (Attachment 2). The plat features 120 lots, private streets and common areas. The Final Plat has been reviewed for conformance with the approved rezoning and meets all zoning requirements. Several conditions to address minor engineering issues have been included in Attachment 1. The applicant also requests approval of a license agreement (Attachment 3) between Meritage Homes and the Town to permit landscaping and irrigation within the Naranja Drive right-of-way. The license agreement has been reviewed by staff and meets Town requirements. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The Final Plat requires Town Council approval prior to being officially recorded by Pima County. Previous Approvals April 2014:              Town Council approved rezoning from R1-144 to R1-7 July 2014:               Town Council approved applicant's request for modified review process September 2014:  Town Council approved applicant's request for reduced side setbacks April 2015:              Final Site Plan approved Proposed Improvements  48 acres subdivided into 120 lots Lot sizes ranging from 6,546 sq. ft. to 13,266 sq. ft.  Average lot size of 7,898 sq. ft. Common area preserved as Environmentally Sensitive Open Space Two recreation areas The rezoning approved in April 2014 included the applicant's request for use of the modified review process, which allowed the applicant to proceed directly to the Final Site Plan step. The applicant's Final Plat conforms with the approved Tentative Development Plan. Several conditions have been added to Attachment 1 to address minor engineering issues. Concurrent with the applicant's request for a final plat is a request to enter into a license agreement between Meritage Homes and the Town for landscaping and irrigation within the Naranja Road right-of-way. The license agreement (Attachment 3) has been reviewed by staff and meets all Town requirements. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE TO APPROVE the Final Plat, as depicted in Attachment 2, and license agreement, as included in Attachment 3, for the Estates at Capella subdivision, subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 1, finding that it meets the Town requirements. OR   I MOVE TO DENY the Final Plat and license agreement for the Estates at Capella subdivision, finding that _______________. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ATTACHMENT 2 - FINAL PLAT ATTACHMENT 3 - LICENSE AGREEMENT Attachment 1 Conditions of Approval Town Council May 6, 2015 Planning Conditions 1. Revise the misspelling on “continued on sheet 2” on the cover sheet. Sheet 4 2. Revise the “Poppy Trail” label to reference the easement as a “non-motorized public recreation easement”. Engineering Conditions General Comments 1.Address all redlined comments within the attached Final Plat. Provide a comment response letter and return all redlined originals back to the Town of Oro Valley. 2.The Final Plat is deemed “Conditionally Approved”. Please make the following corrections to the final submittal of the Final Plat. 3.Please change the redlined “reference number” G140043 to read G1400113 as redlined in the lower right hand corner of each sheet. 4.Please provide a missing icon “STAR” where redlined on Lot 67 on Sheet 5/8 indicating the proposed locations of driveways on corner lots. 5.Please reference the start and end of a designated line as shown with a red dot within plan set sheets 2/8 and 5/8. 6.Please return updated Final Plat plan set sheets with the redlined Final Plat (2nd Submittal) with the next submittal. Sheet 1 of 8 7.General Note #3 specifies that C.A. “A” and C.A. “C” both contain “Public Sewer Easements”. If this is a miss-type, please make any needed changes. Sheet 4 of 8 8.Please replace the “100-year Flood Plain Line” where redlined just west of the eastern parcel boundary line. This 100-year Flood Plain Line was shown on the 1st Submittal, but has been removed on this 2nd Submittal. Please make any needed changes. Sheet 5 of 8 9.The horizontal distance between the 100-year Flood Plain Line and the back lot line of Lot 57 (C151) does not appear to match the distance between these two (2) identities on Sheet 8/8. Please make any needed corrections. APPROYALS 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_. CLERK, TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT TOWN ENGINEER PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WATER UTILITY DIRECTOR ASSURANCES DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE ASSURANCES IN THE FORM OF FROM TITLE SECURITY AGENCY OF ARIZONA 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 THE SUBDIVISION. BY: -;-M-;-;A""YO"'R,----""'T""OWN""""""OF"""'OR"'O""""'VA"'"L'""'LE=Y DATE ASSURANCES IN THE FORM OF FROM, TITLE SECURITY AGENCY OF ARI ZONA HAVE BEEN PROVI OED TO GUARANTEE THE RESEED I NG OF THI S SUBDIVISION IN THE EVENT THE PROJECT IS ABANDONED. WATER ADEQUACY THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY HAS BEEN DESIGNATED BY THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT WATER RESOURCES AS HAVING AN ASSURED WATER SUPPLY, PURSUANT TO LEGEND ._---- ------- -- -- • -• D • 0 N.A.E. P.U .E. C.A. EHS IP SVT BCSM * FINAL PLAT THE ESTATES AT CAPELLA 224-11-0580 OV 1 21 4-33 I DktUN~4U!8~IV~~ED2 ~ I _ _ _----' __ _ 224-11-0590 UNSUBDIVIDED Seq. 1998112081 4 224-11-061J J UNSUBDIVIDED - -------L ~ .-l~ ,-SS9'56'53"E (BASIS OF BEARINGS) NARANJA DRIVE (PUBUC STREET) 26"_4~0::...c.4~7_' ____ -- 1262.52' -j-BK.l0, PG. 57, ROAD MAPS 1377.95' 'DQ;6C _ ---_. SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY FND PROPERTY LI NE RLS CENTER LINE N ~ COR. 100 YR. FLOOD LI NE SEC. 9 EROSION HAZARD SET-BACK LINE EASEMENT LINE SECTION LINE MATCH LINE INDICATES BRASS DISK SURVEY MONUMENT STAMPED TO BE SET BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UPON COMPLETI ON OF ROAD CONSTRUCTI ON FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED 1/2" IRON PARCEL PIN TO BE SET BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UPON COMPLETI ON OF IMPROVEMENTS NO ACCESS EASEMENT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT COMMON AREA EROSION HAZARD SETBACK IRON PIN SIGHT VlSIBLITY TRIANGLE BRASS CAPPED SURVEY MONUMENT LOT GENERAL ACCESS LOCATION 0 ~ LJ') LJ') 0 to ~ ~ :;: , LJ') .;j- ~ S o o z N C.A.·B· 5049 123456 CJ..-A,- 28 27 29 26 30 25 31 24 32 23 33 22 34 47 80 71 81 72 82 83 112 84 13 S1Rnr 107 106 105 104 103 \-_ S19'4S'20"E 121.74' SHEET 3 Sll 'l 7' 49"W L..--~ 30' FND BCSM RLS 37400 NE COR. SEC. 9 LA CHOLLA 311 PROPERTY LLC 224-20-001 B UNSUBDIVIDED 30'-Seq. 94116150 \--~g~:1;~:lS"E -- S10'44'53"W 1--264.92' - SHEET 4 S06'5S'34"E 469.47' -- - - I ~ r \-t-. \ ~ I .!"' -a\~. I 'in I 3" = 1 MILE LOCATION MAP A PORT! ON OF SECTION 9 T12S, R13E, G & S.R.M., TOWN OF ORO VA LLEY, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA ARS §4S-S76 AND HEREBY CERTIFIES IN WRITING TO SUPPLY WATER TO THIS SUBDIVISION. N16 '3S'10"E 1 92.56' 114 102 SHEET 7 I ~\~ 0 ·ca,·\J. 1 S BY: .,.,.,.,.=-:=c-=:c-::-==:c-- WATER UTILITY DIRECTOR RECORDING DATA STATE OF ARIZONA) FEE __ _ )SS COUNTY OF PIM A) No. __ _ THI S I NSTRUMENT WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT THE REQUEST OF THE WLB GROUP, INC., ON THIS DAY OF , 20~ AT M. IN SEQUENCE NO. , THEREOF. F. ANN RODRIGUEZ, PIMA COUNTY RECORDER B~ _~ __________ _ DEPUTY FOR PIMA COUNTY RECORDER CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE BOUNDARY SURVEY SHOWN ON THIS PLAT WAS PERFORMED UNDER MY DIRECTION AND THAT ALL EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SURVEY MONUMENTS AND MARKERS SHOWN ARE CORRECTLY DESCRIBED . I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECTION. t.t-zo . j PETER D. COTE, R.L.S., No. 44121 DATE: I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECTION AND THAT THE 100-YEAR FLOOD PRONE LIMITS AND EROSION HAZARD SETBACKS AS NOTED WERE REVIEWED ~~~"- UNDER MY DIRECTION. COREY THOMPSON , P.E., NO. 22217 The WLB Group DATE: EXPIRES 9/30/2016 Engineering ' Planning • Surveying Landscape Architecture· Urban Design Offices located in Tucson, Phoeni x, F!agstaff, AZ. and Las Vegas, NV. 4444 East Broad~oy Tucson, Arizona (520) 881-7480 85 N46'08'25"E 115 LA CHOLLA 311 PROPERTY LLC 245.01'-1 C.A:A- S29'22'lS"E 353.76' } \ 'fill J FND ACP RLS 14145 E ~ COR. SHEET INDEX SHEET 1 SHEETS 2 - 7 SHEET 8 COVER SHEET PLAN SHEETS FLOODPLAIN UNSUBDIVIDED 224-20-002E NOS'51 , 44"E 106 .10' 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 N 44 :~::~~~9~8=L~CA:·~C·~~r-~1 LA CHOLLA 311 PROPERTY LLC 224-20-002D UNSUBDIVIDED Seq. 94116150 CASAS ADOBES BAPTIST CHURCH 224-20-002B GENERAL NOTES 1. THE GROSS AREA OF THIS SUBDIVISION IS 48.S91 ACRES . THE DENSITY IS 2.47 UNITS PER ACRE . AREA OF LOTS IS 21.720 ACRES. THE AREA OF PRIVATE STREETS (C.A. "A") IS 8.034 ACRES. 2. TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS IS 120. 3. COMMON AREA SIZE (ACRES) USE: C.A. "A" 8.034 PRIVATE STREETS, PUBLIC UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS. C.A . "B" 6.829 CRITICAL OPEN SPACE. SITE PLAN 1"=200' C.A. "CO 11.030 OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE, PUBLIC UTILITIES, AND PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS. C.A. "0" 0.910 RECREATION AREA PER SECTION 27.10(F)(2)(b), DRAINAGE, AND PUBLIC UTILITIES 4. ALL STREETS ARE PRIVATE. MILES OF PRIVATE STREETS =1.26 MILES S. THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS 6,S46 S.F. (0.lS0 AC.), PER SECTION 27.10(F)(2)(b) 6. THE MAXIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS 13,266 S.F. (0.30S AC.) 7. THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS 7,898 S.F. (0.181 AC.) 8. MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING HEIGHT IS LIMITED TO 2S FEET. 9. BUILDING SETBACK PROVISIONS: FRONT-20 FEET PER SECTION 27.10(F)(2)(b) SIDE-S FEET, 7.S FEET FOR PRIVATE STEET SIDE REAR-20 FEET OJYNER LA CHOLLA 311 PROPERTY, LLC 6088 WEST ARI ZONA PA VI Ll ONS DRI VE BLDG. #2 MARANA, AZ 85743 (520) 791-2409 ATTN: JAMES KAI JAMES.KA I flKAI ENTERPRI SES. COM DEYELOPER MERITAGE HOMES 3275 W. INA RD . SUITE #220 TUCSON, AZ 85741 (520) 225-6800 ATTN: JEFF GROBSTEl N JEFF.GROBSTElNIlMERITAGEHOMES.COM 10. NO ADDITIONAL ON STREET PARKING IS PROVIDED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. VEHICULAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS SUBDIVISION IS 4.0 SPACES PER LOT (2 RESIDENT AND 2 GUEST SPACES) 11. EXIS TING ZONING : Rl-7 12. NO FURTHER SUBDIVISION OF ANY LOT OR PARCEL SHOWN SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIl. 13. THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS PROJECT IS THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST, GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. SAID BEARING BEING: N89'S6'S3"E, AS SHOWN HEREON . 14 . 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. lS. THE PROPERTY OWNER, HIS SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS, OR A DEDICATED HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION AGREES TO 1) KEEP ALL COMMON 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. 16. THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SERVED BY ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY (OVWU) WHICH HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS HAVING AN ASSURED 100-YEAR WATER SUPPLY BY THE 01 RECTOR OF WATER RESOURCES . 17. UTILITIES WILL BE LOCATED UNDERGROUND IN CONFORMANCE WITH ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION AMENDED GENERAL ORDER U-48. 18. THE LANDSCAPING WITHIN ALL PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE AND PLANTING GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC SEWERS OF THE ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS 2012, SUBSECTION 7.7 . 19. NO PERMITS FOR PERMANENT STRUCTURES (I.E. MASONRY WALLS, FENCES, ETC .) ON OR THROUGH THE PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT WILL BE ISSUED WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN CONSENT OF PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT. 20 . NO FINAL INSPECTION FOR ANY LOT WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHALL BE APPROVED UNTIL A BUILDING CODE OFFICIAL HAS VERIFIED THAT CONSTRUCTION ON THE LOT IS COMPLETE AND SIDEWALKS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED, PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE. 21. A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT. BEFORE BEGINNING ANY SANITARY SEWER WORK ON THI S PROJECT. 22. CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION FROM PIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IS REQUIRED BEFORE BEGINNING ANY SANITARY SEWER WORK ON THIS PROJECT. APPROVAL OF THIS FINAL PLAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY. CONTINUED ON SHHET 2 /' /' DEDICATION SEC. 9 Wi., THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY WARRANT THAT Wi. ARE AU. AND THE ONLY PARl1ES HAVING ANY RECORD 11M INTEREST IN THE LAND SHOIIN ON THIS PLAT AND Wi. CONSENT TO THE SUBDIVISION OF SPJD LAND IN THE MANNER SHOIIN HEREON. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OUR SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, DO HEREBY SAVE THE TOWN OF ORO VA LLEY, ITS 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 WATER, WHETHER SURFACE FLOOD, OR RAINFALL. IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT NATURAL DRAINAGE SHALL NOT BE ALTERED, DISTURBED, OR OBSTRUCTED OTHER THAN AS SHOWN HEREON WITHOUT THE WRITIEN APPROVAL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL. GRANTOR HEREBY IRREVOCABLY GRANTS AND DEDICATES EASEMENTS TO PIMA COUNTY FOR ACCESS, INSTALLATION, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT OF PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEMS IN ALL COMMON AREAS "A" DESIGNATED BY THIS PLAT. WE HEREBY CONVEY TO THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY AND PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES EASEMENTS AS SHOWN HEREON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCESS, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE, CONSTRUCTION, AND REPLACEMENT OF PUBLIC SEWERS. PRIVATE DRAINAGEWAYS AND COMMON AREAS, AS SHOWN HEREON, ARE RESERVED FOR THE PRI VATE USE AND CONVENIENCE OF ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION, THEIR GUESTS AND INVITEES, AND (EXCEPT FOR DRAINAGE WAYS), AND ARE GRANTED AS EASEMENTS TO ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANIES AND PIMA COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ACCESS, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SEWERS. TITLE TO THE LAND OF ALL PRIVATE DRAINAGEWAYS AND COMMON AREAS SHALL BE VESTED IN AN ASSOCIATION OF INDIVIDUAL OWNERS AS ESTABLISHED BY COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED IN SEQUENCE NO. IN THE OFFICE OF THE PIMA COUNTY RECORDER. EACH AND EVERY OWNER WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHALL BE A MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION, WHICH WILL ACCEPT ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONTROL, MAINTENANCE, SAFETY AND LIABILITY OF ALL DRAINAGEWAYS AND COMMON AREAS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN HEREON . TITLE SECURITY AGENCY OF ARIZONA, INC., AN ARIZONA CORPORATION AS TRUSTEE UNDER TRUST NUMBER 201401-T AS TRUSTEE ONLY AND NOT OTHERWI SE. NOTARY STATE OF ARIZONA) )ss COUNTY OF PIMA ) FEE __ No. __ _ BENEFl CI ARY OF TRUST 201401-T: MERITAGE HOMES 3275 W. INA RO. SUITE #220 TUCSON, AZ 85741 OATE ON THIS, THE DAY OF , 2015, BEFORE ME, THE UNDERSIGNED PERSONALL Y APPEARED, 1lli0 ACKNO\\liDGED SELF TO BE _____ TITLE SECURITY AGENCY OF ARIZONA, INC. AND BEING AUTHORIZED SO TO DO, EXECUTED THE FORGOING INSTRUMENT FOR THE PURPOSE THEREIN CONTAINED BY SELF AS TRUST om GER. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 0V1214-29 G140043 0V114-027 REF: 0V913-oo2 NOTARY PUBUC OV1214-33 FINAL PLAT THE ESTATES AT CAPELLA LOTS 1 THROUGH 120 AND COMMON AREAS "A" (PRIVAlE SlREETS, PUBUC SEVIER AND PUBUC UTiUTlES). "B" (CRITICAl OPEN SPACE), "C" (OPEN SPACE. DRAINAGE. PUBUC UTiUTIES AND PUBUC SEVIER EASEMENTS), AND "0" (RECREATION AREA. DRAINAGE AND PUBUC UTiUTlES) BEING A P<RTlON (J' SECTION 9 TOI\toISHIP 12 SOUTH. RANGE 13 EAST. G II s.R.M, TOYtN (J' am VAIl£Y, PIMA COUNlY. ARIZONA MARCH 2015 1"=40' SHEET 1 OF 8 SEQ. #: 45 68 •• • o w (/) I CAPJUCORN .-.... C.A .• 'A""--- N89'59' 44"W 5.48' 5.48' \II 0.00' ~ ... . \ ... <1.1_ ~ ci _0 'I:l 91 10, 0 "I ~t.! : Z-q;j 01, 01. U ::= "I {'f1 : C/) . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : SEE SHEET 6 ... : . I i C,A, "c' o • 46,726 S.F. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . / 1 r;,~,/I 0 ..... '-.25't 25.1.();'-1.073 ACRES S89'59' 44"E.. 140.00' .::. I-S89 '56'53"E--132.79' -, I . -70.00' 70.00' I ~ . II LOT B5 II II. ~ t.;; r-- - - - - ---, r-______ ~. o-___ ~~S~8n'~59~'4~4~"~E~~2~0~4~ .. 4y5'---~__o· 1 70.00' 70.00' 64.45' I-10.00' / I 0 0 I <o.i<l ·"'11.() "1 " , , -0 b------i 1------1 1------'0 t') 0 I 8,848 S.F. I 1-~ ~ ~ 0 I I 0 C! I I I I 0 I ~ R I 0.20 acres I I;:: b b f::{ .~ ~ LOT 120 I I LOT 119 ~ a LOT 118 I I I I ~ I I ~: 10' PUc IL. .. ./ ___ Ii ~ ", ~ ~ 8,400 S.F. ~: 8,400 S.F. I" T 8,400 S.F. tlJ: LOT 117 tlJ: LOT 116 T ) -0.19 acres 0.19 acres w' 0.19 acres <0"0 8,400 S.F. <0"0 7,734 S.F. w' W ~ 0 0.19 acres ~ 0.18 acres • , C54 0 • woo' 0 C! <0 10 -• 0 W <0 <0 0 / C A "c" . p"" C/) <0 P :::J.~ ~ :::J P N P N ~ r ~/ • 1 12~930 S.F. ~ DJ ~ ""....: t:1 "L""O a r a.. 0 g a.. a r oro 1 ~ • • 'I:l ~ I:::J~O svr DETAIL ~ 0 N a 0 0 a ""/ 8 1-::-, 2.903 ACRES r:t!i!J tI) Ii 0 €5\. C"-l' P r I "0 b b "0 r I r I 00' / ·1t::J svr DETAIL "K" ~ /:!t ",,~:\SEE ",EEl 4 a ~ L ~ a 0 ~ ~ L ~ L / / /1) ~J/~ CSSSEE.2S;.~~,\c.~J) §ill~ C'~122.03'f-~-=-70.00'---=---~70.00-.-I-~ z-::::70.00 .. I------70.00'~---~-64.4;~z-1 r--.. ~ \ g b C! SEE DETAIL N. CAPJUCORN STRB'I' ~ f =J, 487.95' . . . . . . . . . . . ... · ... . · ". . · .. LOT 87 ..t. LOT BB / ~ g~"O~~N~~~ S~9"59'44~E~~~U ~~=~-~~~S-89-"-59~44~"~E~~~f~~~-~~~~~-~=~-~~~~~-O ... ~~ .......... . f~ / "rv"J /I It.! 5l ~ IHIS SHEET 15836' (PRIVATE STREET) ___ --:.N1 _ 620.1_0' _ .Nl __ _ f\) //:'\ / / I ~ 'r A-_. _ _ _ _ _ _ I ~ 't(-f},/ ~~ / \ ~ / S89'59' 44"E CO~~ON AREA "A" 778.46' (J'J , u DRAINAGE ESMT DETAIL 1"=20' 11 ...... / '?-~~ / I ~ I 349,940 S.F. I.() I.() 0-' / fJ'? / I" ,PS.? S89'59' 44"E t 8...034 ACRES cr, cr W 70.00' 70.00' 70.00,;J ~~ ~ :::: :::: ~ :::: :::: 1 I. [=--=--=--=--=-~ --; --~ --------I C,A, "B" ~ ~ I I I ~ I I I I g g I I ~ I I I . 60,092 S.F. I ...... I I C! 0 I I I I a.. I I I lad I I a.. I I I 1.380 ACRES I ~ I I ~ ~ tlJ I tlJ I a tlJ I tlJ I ~ ~ I 1"0 tlJ I tlJ / ~ I I LOT B6 W LOT 87 r I" LOT BB ~ .I LOT B9 ~ .I LOT 90~ ~.1 LOT 91 ~ .I LOT 92 I I LOT 93 ~.1 ~ LOT 94 ~.1 LOT 95 ~ ~ \. r;V1 I 10,170 S.F. ~ 8,943 S.F. ~ L 8,400 S.F. b g 8,400 S.F. ; g 8,400 S.F. ; g 8,400 S.F. ; g 8,400 S.F. ~ ,!iJ 8,400 S.F. ; g 8,400 S.F. ; g 8,400 S.F. ; <0• ~ ('V/ W I 0.23 acres ~ 0.21 acres • • 0.19 acres a d 0.19 acres a a 0.19 acres a a 0.19 acres a a 0.19 acres <0 <0 0.19 acres a 0.19 acres a 0.19 acres o / = I a (0 (0 • N • N • N • N ..--P N P N P -I ~ P r b or gr gr gr a a gr gr g a:: ~ ~ I. C,A, "c" S: g S P ~ I r I r I r I ~ ~ r I r I r ~::Jft1 I / . 129,912 S.F. g L ______ 3 L _______ ~ ~------~ L ______ ~ L ______ ~ L ______ ~ L _______ ~ ~-------~ L ______ ~ L ______ ~ .lo.J 0 8 iE I • -2.983 ACRES z 70 00' 70.00' -... 10.00' , , 70.00' 70.00' 70.00' - -10.00' ~ 0 0 I~ IE /,. 70.00 70.00 70.00' ~ -G!/;/ U/~ EHS FOLLOWS BANK/ 'EHL58 N89'59'44"WI40.00' N89'59'44"W 350.00' !fl U PROTECTION EHL57 ~ ~ \ ------ 70.00' 70.00' N89'59' 44"W 355.00' 1 • • :' 0. 0. : "00 •• . . . .... . ... '1' . . . . . . . . . ..... ~ _ 44.66, .. 1-~ 161.B6' -J EHL56 20' BUFFER YARD ----------------------------------------------------------~~~~~~--~~~--~~~~~~~~~--~~--------------------------------------------------~~~~~~----~~--.~------------------------------------------~ ................ . t N89'59'44"W 1461.86' The WLB Group lA CHOllA 311 PROPERTY llC 224-20-0010 Seq,94116150 Zoning: R1-144 Engineering -Planning -Surveying Landscape Architecture. Urban Design Offices located in Tucson. Phoenix. Flagstaff, AZ. and Las Vegas. NV. 4444 East Broad~ay Tucson, Arizona (520) 881-7480 C.A. "B" LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING CAl 32.94' S04'44'36"E CA2 48.52' SI9'OO'15"E CA3 159.86' S27'32'20"E CM 62.29' S29'29'36"E CA5 67.13' S09'12'11 "E CA6 76.43' S19'13'52"W CA7 90.04' S23'01'20"W CA8 57.70' SI2'58'39"W CA9 40.56' SI4'43'28"E CA 10 20.60' S07'26'10"E CAll 30.65' S23'36'32"W CA 12 142.03' S30'53'59"W CA 13 49.67' SOI'OO'36"E CA14 26.41' S25'46'37"E CA 15 45.33' S71'45'25"E CA16 72.24' S50'57'13"E CA 17 46.25' SI7'05'53"E CA 18 33.88' S30'04'19"E CA19 35.67' S48'35'37"E CA20 5.45' S35'36'22"E CA21 16.40' S81 '53'1 O"E CA22 35.13' S46'01'25"E CA23 68.22' S09'34' 44"W CA24 63.34' S04'18'27"W CA25 57.14' N22'42'26"E CA26 109.04' N39'31'38"E "A27 125.25' N45'54'24"E A28 52.50' N34'08'06"E CA29 1 30.99' N24'10'46"E A30 66.76' Nl1'40'55"E CA31 71.30' N02'51 '34"W A32 55.82' NI3'42'00"E C.A. "B" LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING K;A33 46.83' N04'07'32"W K;A34 58.38' N28'39'36"W K;A35 43.64' N55'03'15"W K:A36 21.16' N59'34' 30"W K;A37 NOT USED K:A38 11.60' NI6'08'00"W CA39 33.93' N67'46'16"W K:A40 41.49' N64'32'47"W CMl 40.62' N46'57'09"W K;A42 42.58' NI8"38'59"W CA43 29.87' Nll'59' 44"E K;M4 33.12' N29'10'25"E CA45 38.64' N53'24'30"E K:A46 29.44' N30'41'17"E CA47 145.88' N18'34'14"E K;A4B 75.71' NI6'47'35"E K:A49 31.32' N14'01'26"W K;A50 50.78' NI9'17'55"E CA51 35.98' N32'44'55"E K;A52 34.20' Nl0'29'30"E CA53 38.66' N02'43'09"E K;A54 30.44' N22'07'35"W CA55 75.81' N33'52'57"W K:A56 64.93' N31"32'52"W CA57 24.84' NOI '00'34"W K;A5B 15.55' N27'45'03"E "A59 23.91' NI8'35'53"W A60 15.45' NOO'15'51"E CA61 24.07' NI6'14'17"E A62 28.16' Nl0'56'33"W A63 95.21' A64 94.41' N49'41 '21 "w COMMON AREA "B" CURVE TABLE CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD DIST. CACI 158.35' 1562.00' 5"48'31" N32"42'07"E 158.28' CAC2 113.38' 1612.00' 4"01'48" N33"03'28"E 113.36' C.A. "B" LINE TABLE LINE LENGIH BEARING CA65 79.85' N40'32'29"W CA66 80.56' N21'OI'56"W CA67 56.10' N0213'36"W CA68 115.31' N08'59'31"E CA69 87.33' N02'49'28"E CA70 72.12' N09'04'32"W CA71 91.78' N12'38'54"W CAn 48.26' N01'25'21"E CA 73 2.72' N08'01'58"E CA 74 29.55' N02'27' 48"W CA75 51.54' N02'24'11"E CA76 79.83' N22'08'27"E CA 77 40.81' N29'35' 49"E CA78 43.40' N02'11'45"E CA79 57.85' N09'26'28"W CA80 90.64' N19'53' 48"W CA81 29.26' N29'43'48"W CA82 51.94' N05'39' 48"W CA83 49.17' NI8'10'08"E CA84 57.97' N21'31'23"E CA85 49.43' NI2'47'57"E CA86 53.40' N06'01' 47"E CA87 19.01' NOO'15'51"E CA88 41.57' N39'02'23"W CA89 46.25' N38'11 '06"W CA90 21.16' NI4'25'10"W CA91 22.98' NOO'03'07"E EROSIAN HAZARD LINE TABLE LINE LENGIH BEARING EHLI 22.04' S06'57'52"E EHL2 26.05' S40'57'10"E EHL3 20.90' S06'52'39"W EHL4 22.78' S24'36'59"E EHL5 28.77' S37'20'38"E EHL6 24.46' S23'22'35"E EHL7 27.82' S48'27'10"E EHL8 30.95' SI5'54'05"E EHL9 43.55' S32'28'51"E EHL10 21.14' S3418'38"E EHL11 20.27' S18'OI'25"E EHL12 23.58' N6919'OI"W EHL13 31.87' S78'12'16"W EHL 14 26.84' S34'24'37"W EHL15 21.09' S55'44'32"W EHL16 25.07' S09'45'45"W EHL17 14.75' S22'01'57"E EHL18 31.10' S42'05'16"E EHL19 26.26' S66'OO'OO"W EHL20 55.74' S34'01'59"E EHL21 31.81' SI0'06'53"W EHL22 51.17' N85'II'51"W EHL23 38.74' S60'37'02"W EHL24 33.19' S23'38'39"W EHL25 28.15' S02'51' 40"W EHL26 26.19' S21'42'01 "E EHL27 38.14' S37'59'55"E EHL28 23.67' S21'11'55"W EHL29 47.48' S09'39'12"E EHL30 17.28' S3215'29"E EHL31 44.24' S04'08'05"W EHL32 39.09' S29'26' 40"W EROSIAN HAZARD LINE TABLE LINE LENGIH BEARING EHL33 30.80' SI3'28'38"W EHL34 9.70' S11'22'59"E EHL35 36.38' S14 '09'13"W EHL36 39.15' S11'44'56"E EHL37 30.41' S37'45'13"E EHL38 33.57' S69'22'16"E EHL39 49.04' S25'13'01"E EHL40 36.38' S53'17'27"E EHL41 47.79' S38'45'15"E EHL42 16.37' S61'56'14"E EHL43 33.61' S48'03'46"E EH L44 14.15' S63'29'08"E EHL45 9.57' S43'58'55"E EHL46 23.19' S56'18'39"E EHL47 132.24' S05'12'22"E EHL48 51.63' S31'56'19"W EHL49 46.92' S05"31'56"E EHL50 22.02' S15'57' 48"E EHL51 25.42' S70'34'05"E EHL52 17.34' S59"57'51 "E EHL53 26.58' S42'35'25"E EH L54 18.48' S32'05'29"E EHL55 33.76' S15'OI'24"E EHL56 16.34' N12'21' 37"E EHL57 13.25' N0610'11"E EHL58 10.90' N03'49'07"W EHL59 156.97' N08'23'02"E EHL60 59.20' N39'04'52"W EHL61 26.79' N33'48'16"W EHL62 29.10' N46'28'03"W EHL63 5.32' N21'12'06"W EHL64 2.25' N65'21'39"W CASAS ADOBES BAPTIST CHURCH 224-20-002B Seq" 90153118 Zoning: R1 -144 OV1214-33 FINAL PLAT THE ESTATES AT CAPELLA LOTS 1 THROUGH 120 AND COMMON AREAS "A" (PRIVAlE SIREEIS, PUBUC SEWER AND PUII.IC UllUllES), "B" (aullCAI.. <PEN SPACE). "C" (OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE, PUII.IC UllUllES AND 0V1214-29 G140043 0V114-027 REF: 0V913-002 PUBUC SEWER EASEMENTS~ AND "0" (REmEAllON MfA, DRAINAGE AND PlIllC UllUllES) IENG A pamON (F SECll~ 9 TOYfISHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST, G Ie 5.R. ... TOYItI (F CRO VAI..l.EY, PIMA CWfIY, ARIDA MARQi 2015 SHEET 6 OF' 8 SEQ. #: •• ~ • o w U') FLOOD LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH FL1 7.21' FL2 75.16' FL3 17.63' FL4 41.34' FL5 22.01' FL6 53.'5' FL7 19.60' FL8 11.13' FL9 9.78' FL10 16.08' FL11 9.91' FL12 20.81' FL13 4.79' FL14 50.00' FL15 17.65' FL16 17.57' FL17 25.45' FL18 14.27' FL19 43.35' FL20 28.84' FL21 51.60' FL22 18.16' FL23 25.87' FL24 18.15' FL25 31.65' FL26 20.51' FL27 57.86' FL28 52.58' FL29 22.21' FL30 25.92' FL31 19.84' FL32 23.28' FL33 16.75' FL34 59.42' FL35 20.70' FL36 73.69' FL37 12.88' FL38 83.11 ' FL39 118.71 ' FL40 20.87' FL41 29.37' FL42 50.88' FL43 9.03' FL44 46.73' FL45 69.63' FL46 35.55' FL47 27.15' FL48 61.09' FL49 25.66' FL50 32.40' FL51 10.44' FL52 5.60' FL53 74.04' FL54 14.98' FL55 28.00' FL56 86.96' FL57 37.87' FL58 29.23' FL59 26.95' FL60 17.34' FL61 20.12' FL62 32.26' FL63 12.32' FL64 55.64' FL65 16.11' FL66 24.83' FL67 72.79' FL68 34.55' FL69 9.01' FL70 49.87' FL71 25.42' FL72 20.79' FL73 11.96' FL74 25.06' FL75 16.96' FL76 25.52' FL77 75.95' FL78 34.21' FL79 3.89' FL80 16.03' The WLB Group BEARING N82'22' 42DE N28'06'17"E N 42'35' 42DE N10'39'58"W N41'32'44"W NOS' 4' 40"W N08'33'15"W NOT45'18"E N5T19'34"E N70'07'44DE NOO'17' 48"E N71'29'24"W N1'i1'54"W N56'" '54"W S78'42'04"W N54'57'03"W N44'46' 40"W N65'Ol' 45"W N36'14'23"W N58'02'36"W N20'10'50"W N61'04'36"W N76'31'17"W N22'55'29"W N1S15'47"E NOS03'10"E N24'30'29DE N 03"59' 44 DE N11'42'51"W N2TOO'00"W N08'59'37DE N34'05'50DE N2S16'26"W N39'07' 40"W N18'08'04"E S8T07'06"E N69'46'OODE N09'30'37DE N32'28'06"W N71" 6' 41"E N34'37'04-E S74'06'06"E N56'56"5"E N05'32'04"W N30'47'36"W N19'53'23"W N42'30'09"W N32'35' 42"W N03'27'06DE N31'57'" "w N'5'50'13"W N26'44'44DE N89'59' 44"W N33'38'39"W N22'42'26DE N39'31'38"E N18'30'32"E N13'33' 46"E N38'54'02DE N80'05'28-E N07'25'27"E N26'31'15"E N41'50'00"E N2T15'51"E N12'45'56"E N 32'05' 42DE N21'13'11"E N05'25'31"E N42'54'31"W NO' '33' 46"E N39'22'52DE N21'34'21"E N05'31'47"E Nll'29' 49"W N42'48'50DE N23'12'53"W N35'02'35"W N24'38'34DE N69'22'52"W N37'56" 9"E FLOOD LINE TABLE LINE FL81 FL82 FL83 FL84 FL85 FL86 FL87 FL88 FL89 FL90 FL91 FL92 FL93 FL94 FL95 FL96 FL97 FL98 FL99 FL100 FLl0l FL102 FL103 FL104 FL105 FL106 FL107 FL108 FL109 FLll0 FL111 FL112 FL113 FLl14 FLl15 FL116 FL117 FLl18 FL119 FL120 FL121 FL122 FL123 FL124 FL125 FL126 FL127 FL128 FL129 FL130 FL131 FL132 FL133 FL134 FL135 FL136 FL137 FL138 FL139 FL140 FL141 FL142 FL143 FL144 FL145 FL146 FL147 FL148 FL149 FL150 FL151 FL152 FL153 FL154 FL155 FL156 FL157 FL158 FL159 FL160 LENGTH BEARING 17.11' N19'05'13"E 6.29' N06'26'34DE 6.88' N83'56' 45"W 17.01' S48'38'26"W 10.76' S73'33" 5"W 81.'6' S31'45'18"W 49.91' N56'l1'54DW 85.21' N31'33'10"E 32.01' N09'08'15"E 20.81' N64'34'56"W 10.73' S54'54'26"W 28.88' N42'20'58"W 51.00' N61'17'41"W 15.59' N16'18'04-W 29.74' N28'23'16"E 45.62' N20'28'09"W 21.03' N03'45'04DE 52.72' N30'02'47DE 97.46' N24 '15' 49"E 24.82' N36 '01' 42"E 71.73' N23'16'24"E 19.74' N19'27'36"E 93.77' N08'29'17"E 61.30' N08'35'26DE 46.85' N35'48'OODE 36.85' NOO'47' 43"W 34.86' N16'27'10DW 24.94' N35'41'08"W 19.84' N54'20'24"W 31.73' N6T02'14"W 36.65' N21'05'04"W 54.43' N04'49'04"W 47.24' N27'45'26DE 130.80' N08'04'31"E 39.78' N05'59'05DE 79.53' N3T17'02"W 32.29' N35'19'04"W 44.26' N44'59'20"W 58.20' N25'52'32"W 61.95' N20'13'51DW 56.47' N06'46' 49 DE 41.52' N 03'52' 40DE 28.90' N61'45'39"E 27.55' N19'12'38"E 25.50' N26'56'12"W 41.98' N42'04'33"W 128.61' N06'29'35"W 16.70' NOO'00'16"E 49.60' N61'26'16"E 13.22' N50'03'06DE 25.71' N05'03'06DE 7.48' N39'56'54"W 29.54' N02'03'39DE 26.68' N06'44'16"E 36.44' Nl3'57'05"E 26.09' N27'07'16"E 42.27' N12'42'24"W 51.19' N19'26'26"W 15.31' NOO'OO'OODE 24.24' N31 '18'14"E 26.51' N31'48' 41"E 20.78' NOT20'02DE 67.14' N09'36'10"W 106.17' N24'34'55"W 23.03' N37'17'04"W 17.27' N12'09'54"W 71.88' N14 '49'25"E 38.75' N17'13' 47"E 21.54' N06'03'09DE 21.57' N02'22'25"W 47.18' N05'07'16"W 10.63' N20'l1'04DW 9.69' N4T53'06"W 10.44' N59'19'50"W 16.74' N42'18'29"W 17.42' N22'24'32"W 12.46' N06'29'27"W 10.83' N53'49'12"W 52.70' S89'23' 46"W 37.01' N11'54' 46-W Engineering -Planning -Surveying Landscape Architecture. Urban Design Offices located in Tucson. Phoenix. Flagstaff, AZ. and Las Vegas. NV. 4444 East Broad~ay Tucson, Arizona (520) 881-7480 NARANJA DRIVE 66.31' FL TIE I.. "I" FL51 FL5n-"~ .. FL49--,\ 246.01' FL TIE---l FL113--.J FLl12--\ FL48 -\ FL47 .... FL111 ~. • FL46 .1 FL110 -/-' FL45~ FL44~ \ FL43-............ ~ FLl09 ' A. FL108/'r----... FL107 FL1 06 '-..-"',1 ." . .,) ~ ... : FL41 ~ ~ FL40~'f~ '\ FL42 FL105 ./r----J FL39 • , FL104-' I , .. ,', .... . ...... : .. FL1 03 ---i '" . I ~)·'l· \ FL38 " FL37 "". FL36 "'-I FL35-t-__ ~.~, FL34 ~ FL33 .. __ ~ FL32 -r--__ .' FL31-jr-_-J FL30 -.-__ ..:.: FL102 --; FL101 __ / FL1 00 --..".' FL99--/ I FL29 --\ FL28 : 1 FL27_! FL98 -t FL97 -----\ FL96_ FL26 -t----.;' FL25 -1----' FL24 -+--.:..' FL23 FL22A. FL21-' FL20~.~ FL19 ~ FL18~ FL15 FL17 ,:.~ FL16 -FL1 FLl FL11 FL10 FL9 FL8 FL69 FL68 l-~ FL67 ---J~-:- 72.91' FL TIE FL66 _~/-.... .... FL65 ----1--..1 FL64 FL63 FL62 FL61 FL60 FL59 FL58 FL57-' ) FL56-, ... FL5~' FL53 FL5~,_l 151.31' FL TI E I-- R6 ... L52 R"7 ':. ... ; '~I"\ r .. " ........ FL85 FL84 FL83 RR ':.,:'0,: R' ''':{) 1=~ .:~ '0' ....... ,' .. ~ ., ... :"0.0 R'" . . . .,. '0' ~ • .i ,., · ... 0 r ,... :. "S" . .... "..,.0.0 . 40 .. , .°0 "'R 0,,\.\ " .... ' .... ...... '0' '- .i 'i .: '" .: .... "1' ·'i·.::. '~i"':)' .: ! :~: '" I' I O:{"7 .. " I ·~1··~1· I j 'Y " ... ::"!8 1"\:0 .. • 00" .:_ "0 ·:~o '-' . .~ 0: '.... : 'VI", ., . "",.:- •• , .y ., " ... '"., .. , .: ";:"i" •• , z" .. ),) 'Y6 ,,:, . I --~-"'- ~ I / ,:;. , .. ,,~:.:) 66 f;-' v; I ""/ ,", 7~~ . '., , ~. : ... I ~ ~ - ( --<- 'H,"', II '71=; ")' !) , ,,: , ,. J ": .: :~ : ;:) .: :;:0 .: .: ! ! '- " .. (" ::' .I "'1 i R ... f;R v',.: f;", -';'~ "lfl , . .0:' .: ,. ! .0:" ,0) i.: .. ••• , '0, i " .., .~ .'.' .~ .. ""1 ,. ,' .... i ::' .0.0 ____ 139.44' FL TI~E .=t===-"'=ti FL160 FL159 FL158 FL15 .~ .~ f; ,.: ,', ""I or:. ; ,,}~ .: .. '-"" "., I" ..... . : ....... I', .: .::. "i" - 1", • .,. . ., .: .. " ... ,", ,', . . . . ........ I- :;:. °i , .... j .::.1. .: :~ i~ --' '\ ': .'. R : I.h.: .: fl''' : 00:"" I) ': ': : : .: .. .: ! ! ! "i .~ ,0) .... .: .: ", " j i " ... .: .: .. ! ! : .'.' '; ': '" ,) : : .... \ '''J .. , . ~. , ) I I \ \ \ "7 ,. , .! 0 , . .: ,., . . : .: .. R . .. " \ FL156 FL155 FL154 FL153 FL152 FL151 FL150 FL149 FL148 FL147 FL146 FL145 FL144 L143 , FL142 FL141 ,,;.--t-FL140 I----t-FL139 - -- - \ FL137 FL136 I f-----T-J'i 6 " "7 : , _-r-FL138 J FL135 FL134 FL133 FL132 FL131 ./------ I \ \ 'j 0"7 . . ,. .! ('11'~ : 0° .... : ~ i'j'" . .... : ...... .: i'j ,; : • '''1' .: i'j'Y . " : . , ... \ " ---~ FL130 ~" FL129 FL128 FL127 FL126 FL125 FL124 FL123 FL122 FL121 I-----l, ..... ...._-, FL120 .: .OJ''' : \ .. ::. \ FLl19 FLl18 __ ~-FLl17 \ ._~ FLl16 I--~-FLl15 I '" FL114 --1150.83' FL TIE I-- 0V1214-29 G140043 0V114-027 REF: 0V913-002 OV1214-33 FINAL PLAT THE ESTATES AT CAPELLA LOTS 1 THROUGH 120 AND COMMON AREAS "A" (PRIVAlE SIREEIS, PUBUC SEYO AND PUII.IC UllUllES), "B" (aullCAI.. OPEN SPACE), ·C· (OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE, PUII.IC UllUllES AND PUBUC SEYO EASEMENTS~ AND -0" (REmEAllON MEA. DRAINAGE AND PlBlC UllUllES) IEING A pamON (F SECllON 9 TOYfISHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST, G a 5.R. ... TOYItI (F CRO VAI..l.EY, PIMA aunY, ARIZONA MARQi 2015 1"=..0' SHEET 8 OF 8 SEQ. #: •• ~ • o w U') LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ("License') made and entered into by and between the Town of Oro Valley. Pima County, Arizona, a Body Polit ic . hereinafter called the •. LICENSOR" and Meritage Homes of Arizona, Inc .. an Arizona corporation hereinafter called the "LICENSEE:' WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Licensor is the owner of that certain real property hereinafter described, sa id real property having been dedicated as p ub lic right -or-way for Naranja Dr. (the "Naranja Right-of-Way"); and WHEREAS , a portion the Naranja Right-or-Way is to be encroached upon by the installation and maintenance of landscaping and irrigation (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS. Licensee requesting authorization for installation and maintenance of the Improvements within the Naranja Right-of-Way; and WHEREAS , the Licensor has agree to authorize the installation and maintenance of the Improvements within the Naranja Right -of-Way. NOW, THEREFORE,for and in consideration of the sum of One ($1.00) Dollar and the faithful perfonnance by the Licensee or his heirs and assigns; Licensor does hereby grant and demise to the Licensee, his heirs and assigns , a pennit, license and privilege, for the period of t ime hereinafter mentioned and subject to the conditions hereinafter co nt ained, to enter in upon the Nara nj a Right -of-Way as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. THIS LICENSE is subject to the follow ing terms and conditions.to-wit: I. This license is granted for the purpose of installation and maintenance of the Improvements within the Naranja Right-or-Way. 2. The Licensee shall only be pennined to use the aforesaid land for the stated purpose. 3. Notwithstanding any other agreement or condition . it is expressly agreed that the license may be revoked by the Licensors upon Ninety (90) days wrinen notice to the Licensee. 4. Following any revocation of this License, Licensee will remove the Improvements from the Naranja Right-of-Way. at no expense to Licensor and to the satisfaction of the Licensor and will restore the Naranja Right-of-Way to the pre-license condition or as may be mutually agreed. 5. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as granting title to the land belonging to Licensor, or as vesting in the Licensee any right of entry to said land after the termination of this License. 6. This License may be transferred to the Licensee's successo rs and assigns upon written approval of Licensor subsequent to written request of the Licensee. This License shall run for a period of25 years. 7. Licensee shall be responsible fo r a ll costs of installation , maintenance , and repair of the imp rovements during the term of the License. The Impro vements shall not interfere with safe sight distance. Licensee will indemnify Licensor for injury or damage pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 below. 8. During the term of th e License, the Licensee shall indenmify, defend and hold hamlless Licensor, its officers, departments, employees and agents ("Licensor Parties") from and against any and all suits, actions , legal or administrative proceedings. claims , demands or damages of any kind or nature arising out of the installation o r construction of the Improvements by Licensee or Licensee 's failure to comply with any obligations of Licensee hereunder, except any loss or damage which is caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of any Licensor Parties. 9. The licensee w ill abide by all app li cable local , state and federal ordinances , statutes, and reg ulations. 10. Approval of this License is subject to compliance with all condit ion s and provisions of the approved plans and specifications for the Improvements, which by this reference are incorporated and made a part hereof. Signatures appear on following page. IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties hereto have caused this License Agreement to be executed this __ day of .2015. LICENSEE: MERJTAGE HOMES OF ARJlONA, INC., an Arizona Corporat ion By: Name: _____________ _ Its: LICENSOR: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Dr. Salish I. Hiremath, Mayor ATTEST: Julie K. Bower, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Tobin Sid le s, Legal Serv ices Director c- '.~ h I I I I I I I- , r -, r - \ \ \ I r I I I I I I 'I • ! I I 4.~ I, I I ~ 'j \ , I ! 1 Town Council Regular Session Item # E. Meeting Date:05/06/2015   Requested by: Kelly Schwab Submitted By:Caroline Standiford, Legal Department:Legal Information SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R)15-34, authorizing Verizon Communications, Inc. to sublease the ground lease, entered with the Town of Oro Valley, to American Tower and subsequently lease back from American Tower a portion of the site located at 551 W. Lambert Lane RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Verizon Communications, Inc. is interested in subleasing a ground lease, previously entered into with the Town of Oro Valley, to American Tower Corporation. Verizon subsequently plans to lease back a portion of the site located at 551 W. Lambert Lane from American Tower Corporation. For Verizon Communications, Inc. and American Tower Corporation to complete their transaction, the Town will need to consent to the ground lease's sublease and subsequent lease back pursuant to Section 12 of the Communications Site Lease Agreement.  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: On July 1, 2013, Verizon Communications, Inc. (then Alltel Communications of the Southwest Limited Partnership) entered into a ground lease agreement with the Town of Oro Valley. On February 5, 2015, Verizon Communications, Inc. entered into an agreement with American Tower Corporation regarding a portion of Verizon's tower portfolio. The Town of Oro Valley's ground lease and the site located at 551 W. Lambert Lane are part of that portfolio. Verizon Communications is looking to sublease the ground lease for that site to American Tower Corporation, then lease back portion of the site from American Tower to retain certain rights to continue to use the portion of the site. To complete this transaction, Verizon Communications, Inc. and American Tower Corporation need the Town's consent to the ground lease sublease and lease-back.  FISCAL IMPACT: While the Town will not see a fiscal impact from the subleasing of the groundlease and subsequent leaseback, it is important to note what monies the Town is receiving from the original lease agreement with Verizon Communications. The Town and Verizon Communications are in the second renewal term and per the original agreement, upon each renewal term the rent paid by Verizon Communications is expected to increase 25%. The Town receives $1,875.00 rent payment per month from Verizon Communications. The rent payment will not be effected by the sublease or the leaseback.  SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (approve or deny) Resolution No. (R)15-34, authorizing Verizon Communications, Inc. to I MOVE to (approve or deny) Resolution No. (R)15-34, authorizing Verizon Communications, Inc. to sublease the ground lease, entered with the Town of Oro Valley, to American Tower and subsequently lease back from American Tower a portion of the site located at 551 W. Lambert Lane. Attachments (R)15-34Sublease for American Tower and Verizon Communications  Consent C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@8009522A\@BCL@8009522A.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/040312 RESOLUTION NO. (R)15-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, AUTHORIZING VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., TO SUBLEASE THE GROUND LEASE, ENTERED INTO WITH THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, TO AMERICAN TOWER AND SUBSEQUENTLY LEASEBACK A PORTION OF THE SITE LOCATED AT 551 W. LAMBERT LANE, ORO VALLEY FROM AMERICAN TOWER WHEREAS, on July 1, 2003, the Town entered into a ground lease agreement, referred to as the Communications Site Lease Agreement, with Verizon Communications Inc, (then Alltel Communications of the Southwest Limited Partnership); and WHEREAS, Subsequently, Verizon Communications, Inc., purchased Alltel’s assets in 2008; and WHEREAS, Verizon Communications, Inc, desires to sublease the ground lease to American Tower Corporation and subsequently lease back a portion of the site located at 551 W. Lambert Lane in Oro Valley from American Tower Corporation; and WHEREAS, the Town owns the site located at 551 W. Lambert Lane; and WHEREAS, In accordance with Section 12 of the Communications Site Lease Agreement, Verizon Communications, Inc., and American Tower Corporation is requesting the consent of the Town of Oro Valley for Verizon Communications, Inc., to sublease the ground lease to American Tower Corporation and leaseback the ground lease from American Tower Corporation, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, that: SECTION 1. The request to consent to Verizon Communications, Inc., to sublease of the ground lease to American Tower Corporation and to subsequently leaseback a portion of the site located at 551 W. Lambert Lane from American Tower Corporation is hereby approved. SECTION 2. The Mayor and Council of the Town Oro Valley are hereby authorized to take such steps as are necessary to execute and implement the consent for Verizon Communications, Inc., to sublease the ground lease to American Tower Corporation and to subsequently leaseback a portion of the site located at 551 W. Lambert Lane from American Tower Corporation PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 6th day of May, 2015. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 6\@BCL@8009522A\@BCL@8009522A.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/040312 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@8009522A\@BCL@8009522A.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/040312 EXHIBIT “A” March 02, 2015 Town of Oro Valley, AZ 11000 N. La Canada Dr Oro Valley, AZ 85737 AMERICAN TOWER- COII~OIlATION Re: Notice of and consent to sublease of Ground Lease 89163 ("Ground Lease") and subsequent leaseback of a portion of Site 212974, located at 551 W. Lambert Lane, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737 (the "Site") Dear Town of Oro Valley, AZ: On February 5, 2015, Verizon Communications Inc. ("Verizon") entered into an agreement ("Agreement") with American Tower Corporation ("American Tower") regarding a portion of Verizon's tower portfolio (the "Portfolio"), including the right for American Tower to manage and operate the Portfolio. Your Ground Lease and the Site associated with the Ground Lease are part of the Portfolio. American Tower and Verizon expect the initial transactions contemplated under the Agreement ("Transaction") to close on or before May 1,2015. As part of the Transaction, Verizon's affiliate party to the Ground Lease will: (i) sublease the Ground Lease to American Tower or one of its affiliates and (ii) leaseback a portion of the Site from American Tower or one of its affiliates and retain certain rights to continue using such portion of the Site (such sublease and leaseback hereinafter referred to as the "Ground Lease Sublease and Leaseback"). The purpose of this letter is to provide notice of and request your consent to the Ground Lease Sublease and Leaseback. Please sign below and return this letter to us in the enclosed self-addressed pre-paid envelope.· Thank you for your cooperation and prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please call 877-362-1658 or send an email to land@AmericanTower.com. Sincerely, Justine D. Paul ATC Site Number: 418754 ATC Lease Number: VZL89163 VZ Site Number: 212974 VZLease Number: 89163 960 AMERICAN TOWER- (:OllPOAATION The undersigned consents to the Ground Lease Sublease and Leaseback as set forth above. Town of Oro Valley, AZ By: ______________________________ __ Print Name: Title: _________________ _ Date: ------------------------------------ ATC Site Number: 418754 ATC Lease Number: VZL89163 VZ Site Number: 212974 VZLease Number: 89163 960 Margaret Salemi Executive Director Network March 18, 2015 ~ver;zon Verizon One Verizon Way Bask i ng Ridge, NJ 07920 Office 908 559 -1945 Mobile 908 477-7089 Margaret.Saiemi@verizonwireiess.com Re: Consent to Sublease of Ground Lease ("Ground Lease") and Subsequent Leaseback of a Portion of Communications Site ("Site") Dear Landlord: As you know, on February 5, 2015, Verizon Communications inc. ("Verizon") entered into an agreement ("Agreement") with American Tower Corporation ("American Tower") regarding a portion of Verizon's tower portfolio (the "Portfolio"). Your Ground Lease and the Site associated with the Ground Lease are part of the Portfolio. As part of the transaction, the Verizon entity that is party to the Ground Lease may: (I) sublease the Ground Lease to American Tower or one of its affiliates and (iI) lease back a portion of the Site from American Tower or one of its affiliates and retain certain rights to continue using such portion of the Site (such sublease and lease back hereinafter referred to as the "Ground Lease Sublease and Leaseback"). Recently, you received notice of or a request to consent to the Ground Lease Sublease and Leaseback. Piease work with American Tower on any questions you may have about the Agreement or your Ground Lease. We would also li ke to confirm that the Ground Lease will remain unchanged after the Ground Lease Sublease and Leaseback becomes effective. Please accept this letter as confirmation that the Ground Lease Sublease and Leaseback and your consent thereto will not change the current status of your Ground Lease nor any of the terms, conditions, rights or respons ibilities set forth therein. if you have additional questions, please call (877)362-1658 or send an email toland@AmericanTower.com. if, however, the above Information has sat i sfactorily answered your remaining questions, we ask that you please sign the letter acknowledging your consent to the Ground Lease Sublease and Leaseback. Sincerely, cell hl r-tnership d/b/a Verlzon Wireless BY:)?' . '-h~ Margaret S"fIemi Executive Director The undersigned consents to the Ground Lease Sublease and Leaseback as set forth above. [Landlord Name] By: ______________ _ Print Name :, ______________ _ Title: _______________ _ Date: ________________ _ COI-221517140v2 Town Council Regular Session Item # 1. Meeting Date:05/06/2015   Requested by: Bayer Vella Submitted By:Chad Daines, Development Infrastructure Services Department:Development Infrastructure Services Information SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTIONS AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY, ADOPTING SPECIAL AREA POLICIES RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND DELETING THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION PERTAINING TO 191 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHWEST CORNERS OF THE LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE INTERSECTION A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)15-31, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP, ADOPTING SPECIAL AREA POLICIES AND DELETING THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION FOR 182.7 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE B. RESOLUTION NO. (R)15-32, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP, ADOPTING SPECIAL AREA POLICIES AND DELETING THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION FOR 8.2 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the requested amendments. These items were continued by Town Council on December 10, 2014, and the applicant was encouraged to meet with area residents to address their concerns. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The requests pertain to 191 acres at the southwest and northwest corners of the La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive intersection. The proposed amendments are comprised of three parts: 1. Amendment to the Land Use Map to Master Planned Community. The proposed development contains a variety of residential and non-residential land uses as depicted on the proposed Long Range Conceptual Master Plan (Attachment 3). The previous Long Range Conceptual Master Plan is included as Attachment 4 for comparative purposes. 2. Adoption of Special Area Policies proposed by the applicant (Attachment 5). 3. Deletion of the Significant Resource Area designation. The applicant's narrative, response to Code evaluation criteria and market study are provided as Attachment 6. In addition, the Current and Proposed General Plan Land Use Maps are provided as Attachments 7 and 8. The requests were considered by Town Council on December 10, 2014. The Town Council minutes from the December 10 public hearing are provided as Attachment 9. At the conclusion of the public hearing, Town Council continued the requests and encouraged the applicant to meet with area residents to address issues raised at the hearing.   Subsequent to the December 10 public hearing, the applicant met four times with an organized group of residents. In the end, a lengthy list of Special Area Policies has been developed. The majority  of the list addresses issues that are best resolved upon rezoning when a tentative design will be presented. The functional purpose of a Major General Plan Amendment has been exceeded. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: At the Town Council public hearing on December 10th, Council identified six areas of concern which are listed below, followed by the applicant's response.   1. Increase the depth of the buffer and single-story height limit along southern boundary:  The applicant has modified the plan to increase the depth of the single-story height limit to 300 feet (measured from the northern right-of-way line of Lambert Lane) and also to include most of the area west of Cross Road (the road extending from La Cholla to Lambert and is adjacent to Casas Church) which is provided as Attachment 3. The applicant has further proposed Special Area Policies applicable to the 53-acre medium density residential parcel on the north side of Lambert Lane to restrict the density on this parcel to three homes per acre, require a 6,600 square foot minimum lot size and require 10,000 square foot lots along Lambert Lane, with a minimum of 15 feet between homes.   2. Provide more in-depth traffic analysis: The applicant has proposed a Special Area Policy requiring a Master Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) during the Planned Area Development rezoning, which is already a Code requirement. This Master TIA will identify necessary improvements required to support each phase of the project as it is developed. The Master TIA will also identify traffic control methods to minimize traffic impact to Cañada Hills Drive, as determined by the Town Engineer. The applicant has proposed a Special Area Policy prohibiting traffic across La Cholla Boulevard directly from this development to Cañada Hills Drive. The applicant has also proposed a Special Area Policy which requires award of the contract for the La Cholla Boulevard widening prior to issuance of a grading permit within the development.   3. Eliminate the Senior Care use:  The applicant has eliminated senior care as a stand alone use and has proposed a Special Area Policy which only allows senior care uses when operated in conjunction with the expansion of the Casas Church.   4. Reduce the commercial area at the northwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive:  The applicant has not reduced the size of commercial area at the northwest corner of this intersection. However, the applicant has proposed Special Area Policies to reduce the intensity of the planned commercial by limiting this corner to C-N Neighborhood Commercial zoning and prohibiting supermarkets, gas stations, convenience stores, auto service centers, and alcohol and guns/ammunition sales as a primary use. The applicant has further proposed to limit building height on this corner to 24 feet.   5. Clarify the location of the Casas Church expansion:  The Long Range Conceptual Master Plan has been modified to reflect the boundary of possible church expansion.    6.Work with the neighborhood to further resolve issues: Since the December 10 public hearing, the applicant has met four times with an organized group of residents. Listed below are changes proposed by the applicant to address their concerns. The Casas Church expansion area has been noted on the plan. The commercial area at the northwest corner of Lambert Lane and La Cholla Boulevard has been increased in size, which resulted in the recreation area being reduced and reconfigured into two areas, with a new recreation area provided to the north. Senior Care uses have been deleted from the plan, unless operated in conjunction with the Casas Church expansion. The amount of land restricted to single-story building height was expanded to include a 300 foot boundary measured from the northern right-of-way line of Lambert Lane and also to include most of the area west of Cross Road. Prohibits apartments within the property. Requirement for specific commercial zoning districts in each commercial area (C-N north of Naranja Drive and C-1 on the two commercial areas south of Naranja Drive). Prohibits specific commercial uses. Requirement for Planned Area Development (PAD) zoning, including master studies. Expansion of the single-story home restriction area in the southwest portion of the development. Restricts the density of the medium density residential parcel along Lambert Lane to a maximum density of 3 homes per acre, requires a minimum lot size of 6,600 square feet and requires 10,000 square foot lots along Lambert Lane, with 15 feet between homes. Maximum number of residential homes is 500 homes, with an additional 70 homes if the two commercial areas at La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive are developed as residential. Requirement for a master trails plan. Clarifies the location and limitation of the Casa Church expansion. Enhanced buffer yard along the 200 foot natural open space area on the western boundary adjacent to existing residences. Requires award of the La Cholla Boulevard widening contract prior to issuance of grading permits. Prohibits traffic across La Cholla Boulevard directly from this development to Cañada Hills Drive. The above agreements address a majority of comments expressed by residents and Town Council at the December 10, 2014 public hearing.  At the last meeting with residents, all parties indicated consensus with the above agreements, with the exception of minimum lot size. At this last meeting, the applicant and the residents also agreed not to raise new or additional issues and agreed to honor the process of the negotiation. However, since the last meeting, several residents have continued raising new issues of concern including traffic mitigation at La Cholla and Cañada Hills Drive, limitations on timing of development and questions concerning the La Cholla Boulevard improvements. Attachment 10 includes comments which have been received following the last meeting with residents. The following are staff responses to these issues recently raised by area residents: Traffic mitigation at Cañada Hills Drive:  The Special Area Policies require a Master TIA which will identify traffic control methods to minimize impact to Cañada Hills Drive. Staff believes the Master TIA will enable the Town Engineer to make sound, engineering-based determinations on the scientific methods to minimize impacts, without the inclusion of additional language which is not based on engineering principles. The applicant has proposed an additional Special Area Policy prohibiting traffic from crossing La Cholla Boulevard directly from the development to Cañada Hills Drive. The Town Engineer does not support this policy as it usurps his authority to ensure public safety, as outlined by Town Code. For this reason, the attached Resolutions do not include the policy proposed by the applicant. Limitation on the timing of development: Consensus was reached at the last meeting with the residents on a Special Area Policy, which required roadway improvements to support each phase as the project develops. It was not the consensus of the residents and applicant to further restrict development timing. The applicant has proposed a Special Area Policy requiring the contract for the widening of La Cholla Boulevard be awarded prior to issuance of a grading permit for the development. Questions concerning La Cholla Boulevard improvements: One resident has questioned whether funding is available for the La Cholla Boulevard improvements. The Town Engineer has confirmed that the is available for the La Cholla Boulevard improvements. The Town Engineer has confirmed that the widening of approximately five miles of La Cholla Boulevard has been fully funded at $25,000,000. The Town is currently entering the design phase which will continue until July 2017. Funding for the design phase is $2,000,000. The construction, which is funded at $23,000,000, is expected to begin in July 2017, with an expected completion by July 2019. In summary, the applicant and the residents engaged in a meaningful negotiation, which resulted in addressing a number of concerns raised by Town Council and the residents at the December 10 public hearing.   Staff would caution that many of the Special Area Policies addressing use limitations, building heights and other standards are more appropriately addressed at the rezoning and design phase based on a specific development plan and go significantly beyond the normal scope of a general plan amendment. These policies have a high likelihood of resulting in unintended consequences and it is anticipated that amendments to these policies will be necessary over the course of development of this project, based on the ultimate design of individual projects. Significant Resource Area Deletion The applicant proposes deletion of the Significant Resource Area designation, which exists on portions of the property. This designation, adopted with the original General Plan in 2005, proceeded the Town's adoption of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) regulations in 2011. The ESL regulations establish comprehensive environmental conservation standards and regulations.  As the comprehensive standards established by the ESL regulations provide for a superior level of resource protection, the Commission recommends approval of the applicant's request to delete the Significant Resource Area designations on the property. The ESL Planning Map for the area is provided as Attachment 11 and establishes the following conservation categories on the property: Critical Resource Area:  Resources including washes and riparian area, with a 95% open space requirement. Resource Management Area Tier 1:  Lower resource value lands with lower intensity growth expectations in the General Plan, with a 66% open space requirement. Resource Management Area Tier 2:  Lower resource value lands with moderate growth expectations in the General Plan, with a 25% open space requirement. The amendment, if approved, will result in the Critical Resource Areas remaining at 95% open space and the balance of the property designated Resource Management Area Tier 2, requiring 25% open space. General Plan Amendment Evaluation / Planning Commission Review and Action The amendments were considered at two public hearings on October 7, 2014, and November 20, 2014.  Discussion at these public hearings focused on density, market demand, amendment review criteria and neighborhood compatibility. At the conclusion of these hearings, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the amendments based on a finding that the requests are consistent with the General Plan Vision and many Goals and Policies, including: Support for higher density residential and commercial near major arterial streets. Support for commercial uses and services in proximity to residential neighborhoods. Master planning of large parcels of land. Establishment of a complementary relationship between development and roads. In regard to the four amendment criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission found the amendments to be in compliance. The applicant's response to the Code evaluation criteria is provided as Attachment 6. Staff analysis of the applicant's response is provided on Attachment 12 and within the Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report, Attachment 13. The Neighborhood Meeting Summary Notes are Zoning Commission Staff Report, Attachment 13. The Neighborhood Meeting Summary Notes are provided as Attachment 14. A letter from Amphitheater School District is provided as Attachment 15. The Planning and Zoning Commission minutes are provided as Attachment 16. Public Participation Three formal neighborhood meetings and one open house on the proposal were held as follows: April 15, 2014 (75 attendees) August 13, 2014 (65 attendees) September 10, 2014 Open House (90 attendees) October 20, 2014 (40 attendees) In addition to the above formal neighborhood meetings, the applicant has met on four occasions with an organized group of residents to address issues following the December 10 public hearing. Letters and emails received prior to December 10, 2014, were included as an attachment to the December 10 Town Council communication. FISCAL IMPACT: Development of retail, office or employment uses on the property should have a long-term positive impact on revenues to support Town-provided services and reduce sales tax leakage to other communities. SUGGESTED MOTION: Agenda Item A I MOVE to adopt Resolution No. (R)15-31, approving the Major General Plan Amendment requested under case OV1114-002, specifically the land use map shown on Attachment 8, adoption of the Special Area Policies shown on Attachment 5 and deletion of the Significant Resource Area, based on a finding that the amendments are consistent with the General Plan Vision, Goals and Policies and in compliance with the four amendment criteria in the Zoning Code.                                                                                      OR I MOVE to deny the Major General Plan Amendment requested under case OV1114-002, based on a finding that____________________________. Agenda Item B I MOVE to adopt Resolution No. (R)15-32, approving the Major General Plan Amendment requested under case OV1114-003, specifically the land use map shown on Attachment 8, adoption of the Special Area Policies shown on Attachment 5 and deletion of the Significant Resource Area, based on the findings that the amendments are consistent with the General Plan Vision, Goals and Policies and in compliance with the four amendment criteria in the Zoning Code.                                                                                      OR I MOVE to deny the Major General Plan Amendment requested under case OV1114-003, based on a finding that_____________________________. Attachments (R)15-31 Southwest La Cholla and Naranja - Agenda Item A (R)15-32 Northwest La Cholla and Naranja - Agenda Item B Attachment 3 - Current Concept Plan Attachment 3 - Current Concept Plan Attachment 4 - Previous Concept Plan Attachment 5 - Applicant Proposed Special Area Policies Attachment 6 - Applicant Narrative and Response to Criteria Attachment 7 - Current General Plan Attachment 8 - Proposed General Plan Attachment 9 - Town Council Minutes December 10, 2014 Attachment 10 - Recent Resident Comments Attachment 11 - ESL Planning Map Attachment 12 - General Plan Amendment Criteria and Policy Analysis Attachment 13 - Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report Attachment 14 - Neighborhood Meeting Summary Notes Attachment 15 - School District Letter Attachment 16 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes RESOLUTION NO. (R)15-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RLDR, 0-0.3 HOMES/ACRE), LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR 0.4 TO 1.2 HOMES/ACRE), MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR 2.1-5.0 HOMES/ACRE), NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/OFFICE, PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC, OPEN SPACE AND SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA TO MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY (MPC) COMPRISED OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OFFICE, CASAS CHURCH EXPANSION AND PARK. THE APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO ADOPT SPECIAL AREA POLICIES RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND DELETE THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS PERTAIN TO 182.7 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley residents ratified the Oro Valley General Plan on November 8, 2005; and WHEREAS, Paul Oland of WLB Group, (“applicant”) is requesting a Major General Plan Amendment to change the future land use map from Rural Low Density Residential (RLDR, 0- 0.3 Homes/acre), Low Density Residential (LDR 0.4 to 1.2 homes/acre), Medium Density residential (MDR 2.1-5.0 homes/acre), Neighborhood Commercial/Office, Public/Semi-Public, Open Space and Significant Resource Area to Master Planned Community (MPC) comprised of low density residential, medium density residential, high density residential, neighborhood commercial office, casas church expansion and park. The applicant also proposes to adopt Special Area Policies related to the development and delete the Significant Resource Area designation. The proposed amendments pertain to 182.7 acres at the southwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive; and WHEREAS, pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-461, et seq. and OVZCR, Section 22.2, the Planning and Zoning Commission held two (2) duly noticed public hearings, the first on October 7, 2014, and the second on November 20, 2014, at which the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the application requesting Major General Plan Amendment to change the future land use map from Rural Low Density Residential (RLDR, 0-0.3 Homes/acre), Low Density Residential (LDR 0.4 to 1.2 homes/acre), Medium Density residential (MDR 2.1-5.0 homes/acre), Neighborhood Commercial/Office, Public/Semi-Public, Open Space and Significant Resource Area to Master Planned Community (MPC) comprised of low density residential, medium density residential, high density residential, neighborhood commercial office, casas church expansion and park. The applicant also proposes to adopt Special Area Policies related to the development and delete the Significant Resource Area designation. The proposed amendments pertain to 182.7 acres at the southwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja; and 2 WHEREAS, pursuant to Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Section 22.1, General Plan Amendment Procedures, upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission of any amendment to the General Plan, a public hearing before the Mayor and Council shall be scheduled; and WHEREAS, Mayor and Council duly considered the proposed Major General Plan Amendment to change the future land use map from Rural Low Density Residential (RLDR, 0-0.3 Homes/acre), Low Density Residential (LDR 0.4 to 1.2 homes/acre), Medium Density residential (MDR 2.1- 5.0 homes/acre), Neighborhood Commercial/Office, Public/Semi-Public, Open Space and Significant Resource Area to Master Planned Community (MPC) comprised of low density residential, medium density residential, high density residential, neighborhood commercial office, casas church expansion and park. The applicant also proposes to adopt Special Area Policies related to the development and delete the Significant Resource Area designation. The proposed amendments pertain to 182.7 acres at the southwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley that: SECTION 1. The Mayor and Council hereby adopts the Major General Plan Amendment to change the future land use map from Rural Low Density Residential (RLDR, 0-0.3 Homes/acre), Low Density Residential (LDR 0.4 to 1.2 homes/acre), Medium Density residential (MDR 2.1- 5.0 homes/acre), Neighborhood Commercial/Office, Public/Semi-Public, Open Space and Significant Resource Area to Master Planned Community (MPC) comprised of low density residential, medium density residential, high density residential, neighborhood commercial office, casas church expansion and park. The proposed amendments pertain to 182.7 acres at the southwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive as depicted on Exhibit “A”. The applicant also proposes to adopt Special Area Policies related to the development (Exhibit “B”) and delete the Significant Resource Area designation. The proposed Long Range Conceptual Master Plan is provided as Exhibit “C”. SECTION 2. 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 6th day of May, 2015. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Dr. Satish I. Hiremath, Mayor 3 ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: Julie K. Bower, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: Date: 4 Exhibit “A” RURAL LOW DENSITY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIA L 2 l OW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1 5 Exhibit “B” Special Area Policies La Cholla and Naranja Southwest and Northwest 1.Planning unit boundaries are shown graphically. The actual boundaries extend to the centerline of adjacent rights-of-way or property boundaries as depicted on the Long Range Conceptual Master Plan dated April 22, 2015 and approved during the General Plan Amendment process. 2.Lands outside the Critical Resource Areas shall be considered Resource Management Area Tier 2. 3.At the time of rezoning, a master plan shall be prepared through the use of a Planned Area Development (PAD) zoning for the entire site, including: a. A Master Land Use Plan, which will formalize the Long Range Conceptual Master Plan dated April 22, 2015 and approved during the General Plan amendment process, and which will correspond to descriptions of the various land use categories proposed in the PAD. b. A Master Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), which will outline roadway improvements that are anticipated to be necessary as the PAD develops. The Master TIA shall be updated with each individual Conceptual Site Plan proposed within the PAD, determining which, if any, roadway improvements are necessary to mitigate each development’s impacts. The TIA shall identify and substantiate traffic control methods to minimize or mitigate potential traffic impacts to Canada Hills Drive, which is a private roadway. The ultimate alignment of subdivision access roads and use of proposed traffic control methods are entirely subject to Town Engineer review and approval. 6 c. A Master Recreation & Trails Plan, which will schematically show bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the PAD. The Plan will also include schematic programming for the different recreational area nodes shown on the Long Range Conceptual Master Plan dated April 22, 2015 and approved during the General Plan Amendment process. d. A Master Environmentally Sensitive Open Space (ESOS) plan showing the placement of required open space within the entire future Planned Area Development area. ESOS within Resource Management Areas shall be located along adjacent Critical Resource Areas to the greatest extent practical, outside of Neighborhood Commercial – Office parcels. e. A Master Utilities Plan, which will show anticipated trunk utility extensions needed throughout the PAD. 4. The total maximum of permitted units is 500 for all areas designated as residential (including townhomes). The Neighborhood Commercial - Office properties at La Cholla and Naranja shall have a back-up designation of Medium Density Residential (MDR) (2.1 – 5.0 homes per acre), allowing an additional 70 units. The back-up designation of MDR may only be utilized once the remainder of the Master Planned Community residential parcels have been developed. 5. No apartments shall be permitted. 6. No Senior Care facilities shall be permitted, unless operated in conjunction with the expansion of the Casas Church. 7. No crematoriums shall be permitted. 7 8. Gun and ammunition sales shall not constitute the primary use within a business within the development. 9.For the northwest corner of La Cholla and Naranja Drives designated as Neighborhood Commercial - Office, all C-N uses enabled in Town zoning are permitted, except as provided below: a. Supermarkets, car washes, gas stations, auto service centers and convenience stores such as Circle K, 7-11 or similar are prohibited. b. Drive thru uses and other convenience uses subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. c. Back-up designation of Medium Density Residential (2.1 – 5.0 homes per acre) is permitted, with a cap of 30 units. d. Maximum building height shall be limited to 24 feet. e. Packaged alcohol sales shall not constitute the primary use within a business. 10.For the southwest corner of La Cholla and Naranja Drives designated as Neighborhood Commercial - Office, all C-1 uses enabled in Town zoning are permitted, except as provided below: a. Broadcasting station, fabric store, medical marijuana dispensary, video store, appliance repair, laundromat, car washes, auto service centers, convenience stores such as Circle K, 7-11 or similar, theater, or a major communications facility are prohibited. b. Drive thru uses and other convenience uses are subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. c. Back-up designation of Medium Density Residential (2.1 – 5.0 homes per acre) is permitted, with a cap of 40 units. d. Packaged alcohol sales shall not constitute the primary use within a business. e. Dry cleaners limited to drop off / pick up only, are permitted. 8 11.A 200 foot natural open space buffer shall be provided on the west boundary adjacent to existing residential areas as shown on the Long Range Conceptual Master Plan dated April 22, 2015 and approved during the General Plan amendment process. No trails shall be provided within this buffer area. 12.Homes shall be restricted to single story, not to exceed 20 feet in height along the west and south as denoted on the Long Range Conceptual Master Plan dated April 22, 2015 and approved during the General Plan amendment process. Expansions of the Casas Church campus in these areas shall be restricted to 25 feet in height. 13.Areas designated Medium Density Residential shall include perimeter buffer yards with enhanced vegetation (density and size) to screen lots along arterial roadways. Sizable native vegetation that is required to be transplanted, as specified in the zoning code, shall be placed in buffer yards. 14.The Park areas within the Master Plan shall count toward the recreation area acreage required by Town Code for residential development within the Master Plan. The Park areas shall be improved by the developer with a commensurate level of amenities as required by the Zoning Code. 15.The development shall substantially conform to the Long Range Conceptual Master Plan dated April 22, 2015 and approved during the General Plan Amendment process. 16. These Special Area Policies represent agreed upon elements as part of the general plan amendment to be reflected in the required Planned Area Development zoning. These Special Area Policies should not be construed as the complete list of standards and requirements applicable to the Planned Area 9 Development.Additional development standards and requirements will be comprehensively addressed during the subsequent rezoning process. 17.Areas designated Low Density Residential shall include a perimeter buffer yard with enhanced vegetation (density and size) along the entire eastern edge of the 200 foot natural open space area adjacent to existing residences. Sizable native vegetation that is required to be transplanted as specified in the Zoning Code shall be placed in that eastern edge buffer yard. The intent of this enhanced buffer yard is to fill in any significant gaps in the native tree canopy within the 200 foot natural open space area, as viewed from the existing residences to the west. The enhanced buffer yard shall meet the Town’s 10 foot Bufferyard ‘A’ requirements. 18.Grading permits for the development shall not be issued until the contract for the Regional Transportation Authority’s widening of La Cholla Boulevard has been awarded to a contractor. 19.The 53 acre Medium Density Residential parcel on the north side of Lambert Lane shall be restricted to a maximum density of 3 homes per acre, requires a minimum lot size of 6,600 square feet and requires a minimum of 10,000 square foot longs along the north side of Lambert Lane with a minimum of 15 feet between homes. 10 Exhibit “C” RESOLUTION NO. (R)15-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR 2.1-5.0 HOMES/ACRE) AND SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA TO MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY (MPC) COMPRISED OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OFFICE. THE APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO ADOPT SPECIAL AREA POLICIES RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND DELETE THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS PERTAIN TO 8.2 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley residents ratified the Oro Valley General Plan on November 8, 2005; and WHEREAS, Paul Oland of WLB Group, (“applicant”) is requesting a Major General Plan Amendment to change the future land use map from Medium Density Residential (MDR 2.1-5.0 homes/acre) and Significant Resource Area to Master Planned Community (MPC) comprised of Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial Office. The applicant also proposes to adopt Special Area Policies related to the development and delete the Significant Resource Area designation. The proposed amendments pertain to 8.2 acres located at the northwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive; and WHEREAS, pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-461, et seq. and OVZCR, Section 22.2, the Planning and Zoning Commission held two (2) duly noticed public hearings, the first on October 7, 2014, and the second on November 20, 2014, at which the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the application requesting Major General Plan Amendment to change the future land use map from Medium Density Residential (MDR 2.1-5.0 homes/acre) and Significant Resource Area to Master Planned Community (MPC) comprised of Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial Office. The applicant also proposes to adopt Special Area Policies related to the development and delete the Significant Resource Area designation. The proposed amendments pertain to 8.2 acres located at the northwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Section 22.1, General Plan Amendment Procedures, upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission of any amendment to the General Plan, a public hearing before the Mayor and Council shall be scheduled; and WHEREAS, Mayor and Council duly considered the proposed Major General Plan Amendment to change the future land use map from Medium Density Residential (MDR 2.1-5.0 homes/acre) and Significant Resource Area to Master Planned Community (MPC) comprised of Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial Office. The applicant also proposes to adopt Special Area Policies related to the development and delete the Significant Resource Area designation. The proposed amendments pertain to 8.2 acres located at the northwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive; 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley that: SECTION 1. The Mayor and Council hereby adopts the Major General Plan Amendment to change the future land use map from Medium Density Residential (MDR 2.1-5.0 homes/acre) and Significant Resource Area to Master Planned Community (MPC) comprised of Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial Office. The proposed amendments pertain to 8.2 acres located at the northwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive as depicted on Exhibit “A”. The applicant also proposes to adopt Special Area Policies related to the development (Exhibit “B”) and delete the Significant Resource Area designation. The Long Range Conceptual Master Plan is provided as Exhibit “C”. SECTION 2. 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 6th day of May, 2015. 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: 3 Exhibit “A” RURAL LOW DENSITY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIA L 2 l OW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1 4 “Exhibit B” Special Area Policies La Cholla and Naranja Southwest and Northwest 1.Planning unit boundaries are shown graphically. The actual boundaries extend to the centerline of adjacent rights-of-way or property boundaries as depicted on the Long Range Conceptual Master Plan dated April 22, 2015 and approved during the General Plan Amendment process. 2.Lands outside the Critical Resource Areas shall be considered Resource Management Area Tier 2. 3.At the time of rezoning, a master plan shall be prepared through the use of a Planned Area Development (PAD) zoning for the entire site, including: a. A Master Land Use Plan, which will formalize the Long Range Conceptual Master Plan dated April 22, 2015 and approved during the General Plan amendment process, and which will correspond to descriptions of the various land use categories proposed in the PAD. b. A Master Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), which will outline roadway improvements that are anticipated to be necessary as the PAD develops. The Master TIA shall be updated with each individual Conceptual Site Plan proposed within the PAD, determining which, if any, roadway improvements are necessary to mitigate each development’s impacts. The TIA shall identify and substantiate traffic control methods to minimize or mitigate potential traffic impacts to Canada Hills Drive, which is a private roadway. The ultimate alignment of subdivision access roads and use of proposed traffic control methods are entirely subject to Town Engineer review and approval. 5 c. A Master Recreation & Trails Plan, which will schematically show bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the PAD. The Plan will also include schematic programming for the different recreational area nodes shown on the Long Range Conceptual Master Plan dated April 22, 2015 and approved during the General Plan Amendment process. d. A Master Environmentally Sensitive Open Space (ESOS) plan showing the placement of required open space within the entire future Planned Area Development area. ESOS within Resource Management Areas shall be located along adjacent Critical Resource Areas to the greatest extent practical, outside of Neighborhood Commercial – Office parcels. e. A Master Utilities Plan, which will show anticipated trunk utility extensions needed throughout the PAD. 4. The total maximum of permitted units is 500 for all areas designated as residential (including townhomes). The Neighborhood Commercial - Office properties at La Cholla and Naranja shall have a back-up designation of Medium Density Residential (MDR) (2.1 – 5.0 homes per acre), allowing an additional 70 units. The back-up designation of MDR may only be utilized once the remainder of the Master Planned Community residential parcels have been developed. 5. No apartments shall be permitted. 6. No Senior Care facilities shall be permitted, unless operated in conjunction with the expansion of the Casas Church. 7. No crematoriums shall be permitted. 6 8. Gun and ammunition sales shall not constitute the primary use within a business within the development. 9.For the northwest corner of La Cholla and Naranja Drives designated as Neighborhood Commercial - Office, all C-N uses enabled in Town zoning are permitted, except as provided below: a. Supermarkets, car washes, gas stations, auto service centers and convenience stores such as Circle K, 7-11 or similar are prohibited. b. Drive thru uses and other convenience uses subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. c. Back-up designation of Medium Density Residential (2.1 – 5.0 homes per acre) is permitted, with a cap of 30 units. d. Maximum building height shall be limited to 24 feet. e. Packaged alcohol sales shall not constitute the primary use within a business. 10.For the southwest corner of La Cholla and Naranja Drives designated as Neighborhood Commercial - Office, all C-1 uses enabled in Town zoning are permitted, except as provided below: a. Broadcasting station, fabric store, medical marijuana dispensary, video store, appliance repair, laundromat, car washes, auto service centers, convenience stores such as Circle K, 7-11 or similar, theater, or a major communications facility are prohibited. b. Drive thru uses and other convenience uses are subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. c. Back-up designation of Medium Density Residential (2.1 – 5.0 homes per acre) is permitted, with a cap of 40 units. d. Packaged alcohol sales shall not constitute the primary use within a business. e. Dry cleaners limited to drop off / pick up only, are permitted. 7 11.A 200 foot natural open space buffer shall be provided on the west boundary adjacent to existing residential areas as shown on the Long Range Conceptual Master Plan dated April 22, 2015 and approved during the General Plan amendment process. No trails shall be provided within this buffer area. 12.Homes shall be restricted to single story, not to exceed 20 feet in height along the west and south as denoted on the Long Range Conceptual Master Plan dated April 22, 2015 and approved during the General Plan amendment process. Expansions of the Casas Church campus in these areas shall be restricted to 25 feet in height. 13.Areas designated Medium Density Residential shall include perimeter buffer yards with enhanced vegetation (density and size) to screen lots along arterial roadways. Sizable native vegetation that is required to be transplanted, as specified in the zoning code, shall be placed in buffer yards. 14.The Park areas within the Master Plan shall count toward the recreation area acreage required by Town Code for residential development within the Master Plan. The Park areas shall be improved by the developer with a commensurate level of amenities as required by the Zoning Code. 15.The development shall substantially conform to the Long Range Conceptual Master Plan dated April 22, 2015 and approved during the General Plan Amendment process. 16. These Special Area Policies represent agreed upon elements as part of the general plan amendment to be reflected in the required Planned Area Development zoning. These Special Area Policies should not be construed as the complete list of standards and requirements applicable to the Planned Area 8 Development.Additional development standards and requirements will be comprehensively addressed during the subsequent rezoning process. 17.Areas designated Low Density Residential shall include a perimeter buffer yard with enhanced vegetation (density and size) along the entire eastern edge of the 200 foot natural open space area adjacent to existing residences. Sizable native vegetation that is required to be transplanted as specified in the Zoning Code shall be placed in that eastern edge buffer yard. The intent of this enhanced buffer yard is to fill in any significant gaps in the native tree canopy within the 200 foot natural open space area, as viewed from the existing residences to the west. The enhanced buffer yard shall meet the Town’s 10 foot Bufferyard ‘A’ requirements. 18.Grading permits for the development shall not be issued until the contract for the Regional Transportation Authority’s widening of La Cholla Boulevard has been awarded to a contractor. 19.The 53 acre Medium Density Residential parcel on the north side of Lambert Lane shall be restricted to a maximum density of 3 homes per acre, requires a minimum lot size of 6,600 square feet and requires a minimum of 10,000 square foot longs along the north side of Lambert Lane with a minimum of 15 feet between homes. 9 Exhibit “C” LONG RANGE CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN LA CHOLLA NARANJA SOUTHWEST / NORTHWEST (OV1114-002 & OV 1114-003) Attachment 3 PREVIOUS CONCEPT PLAN LA CHOLLA NARANJA SOUTHWEST / NORTHWEST (OV1114-002 & OV 1114-003) Attachment 4 Special Area Policies Town Council Draft May 6, 2015 Attachment 5 La Cholla and Naranja Southwest and Northwest 1. Planning unit boundaries are shown graphically. The actual boundaries extend to the centerline of adjacent rights-of-way or property boundaries as depicted on the Long Range Conceptual Master Plan dated April 22, 2015 and approved during the General Plan Amendment process. 2. Lands outside the Critical Resource Areas shall be considered Resource Management Area Tier 2. 3. At the time of rezoning, a master plan shall be prepared through the use of a Planned Area Development (PAD) zoning for the entire site, including: a. A Master Land Use Plan, which will formalize the Long Range Conceptual Master Plan dated April 22, 2015 and approved during the General Plan amendment process, and which will correspond to descriptions of the various land use categories proposed in the PAD. b. A Master Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), which will outline roadway improvements that are anticipated to be necessary as the PAD develops. The Master TIA shall be updated with each individual Conceptual Site Plan proposed within the PAD, determining which, if any, roadway improvements are necessary to mitigate each development’s impacts. The TIA shall identify and substantiate traffic control methods to minimize or mitigate potential traffic impacts to Canada Hills Drive, which is a private roadway. The ultimate alignment of subdivision access roads and use of proposed traffic control methods are entirely subject to Town Engineer review and approval. c. A Master Recreation & Trails Plan, which will schematically show bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the PAD. The Plan will also include schematic programming for the different recreational area nodes shown on the Long Range Conceptual Master Plan dated April 22, 2015 and approved during the General Plan Amendment process. d. A Master Environmentally Sensitive Open Space (ESOS) plan showing the placement of required open space within the entire future Planned Area Development area. ESOS within Resource Management Areas shall be located along adjacent Critical Resource Areas to the greatest extent practical, outside of Neighborhood Commercial – Office parcels. e. A Master Utilities Plan, which will show anticipated trunk utility extensions needed throughout the PAD. 4. The total maximum of permitted units is 500 for all areas designated as residential (including townhomes). The Neighborhood Commercial - Office properties at La Cholla and Naranja shall have a back-up designation of Medium Density Residential (MDR) (2.1 – 5.0 homes per acre), allowing an additional 70 units. The back-up designation of MDR may only be utilized once the remainder of the Master Planned Community residential parcels have been developed. 5. No apartments shall be permitted. 6. No Senior Care facilities shall be permitted, unless operated in conjunction with the expansion of the Casas Church. 7. No crematoriums shall be permitted. 8. Gun and ammunition sales shall not constitute the primary use within a business within the development. 9. For the northwest corner of La Cholla and Naranja Drives designated as Neighborhood Commercial - Office, all C-N uses enabled in Town zoning are permitted, except as provided below: a. Supermarkets, car washes, gas stations, auto service centers and convenience stores such as Circle K, 7-11 or similar are prohibited. b. Drive thru uses and other convenience uses subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. c. Back-up designation of Medium Density Residential (2.1 – 5.0 homes per acre) is permitted, with a cap of 30 units. d. Maximum building height shall be limited to 24 feet. e. Packaged alcohol sales shall not constitute the primary use within a business. 10. For the southwest corner of La Cholla and Naranja Drives designated as Neighborhood Commercial - Office, all C-1 uses enabled in Town zoning are permitted, except as provided below: a. Broadcasting station, fabric store, medical marijuana dispensary, video store, appliance repair, laundromat, car washes, auto service centers, convenience stores such as Circle K, 7-11 or similar, theater, or a major communications facility are prohibited. b. Drive thru uses and other convenience uses are subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. c. Back-up designation of Medium Density Residential (2.1 – 5.0 homes per acre) is permitted, with a cap of 40 units. d. Packaged alcohol sales shall not constitute the primary use within a business. e. Dry cleaners limited to drop off / pick up only, are permitted. 11. A 200 foot natural open space buffer shall be provided on the west boundary adjacent to existing residential areas as shown on the Long Range Conceptual Master Plan dated April 22, 2015 and approved during the General Plan amendment process. No trails shall be provided within this buffer area. 12. Homes shall be restricted to single story, not to exceed 20 feet in height along the west and south as denoted on the Long Range Conceptual Master Plan dated April 22, 2015 and approved during the General Plan amendment process. Expansions of the Casas Church campus in these areas shall be restricted to 25 feet in height. 13. Areas designated Medium Density Residential shall include perimeter buffer yards with enhanced vegetation (density and size) to screen lots along arterial roadways. Sizable native vegetation that is required to be transplanted, as specified in the zoning code, shall be placed in buffer yards. 14. The Park areas within the Master Plan shall count toward the recreation area acreage required by Town Code for residential development within the Master Plan. The Park areas shall be improved by the developer with a commensurate level of amenities as required by the Zoning Code. 15. The development shall substantially conform to the Long Range Conceptual Master Plan dated April 22, 2015 and approved during the General Plan Amendment process. 16. These Special Area Policies represent agreed upon elements as part of the general plan amendment to be reflected in the required Planned Area Development zoning. These Special Area Policies should not be construed as the complete list of standards and requirements applicable to the Planned Area Development. Additional development standards and requirements will be comprehensively addressed during the subsequent rezoning process. 17. Areas designated Low Density Residential shall include a perimeter buffer yard with enhanced vegetation (density and size) along the entire eastern edge of the 200 foot natural open space area adjacent to existing residences. Sizable native vegetation that is required to be transplanted as specified in the Zoning Code shall be placed in that eastern edge buffer yard. The intent of this enhanced buffer yard is to fill in any significant gaps in the native tree canopy within the 200 foot natural open space area, as viewed from the existing residences to the west. The enhanced buffer yard shall meet the Town’s 10 foot Bufferyard ‘A’ requirements. 18. Grading permits for the development shall not be issued until the contract for the Regional Transportation Authority’s widening of La Cholla Boulevard has been awarded to a contractor. 19. Traffic shall not be allowed to cross La Cholla Boulevard directly from the development to Cañada Hills Drive. 20. The 53 acre Medium Density Residential parcel on the north side of Lambert Lane shall be restricted to a maximum density of 3 homes per acre, requires a minimum lot size of 6,600 square feet and requires a minimum of 10,000 square foot longs along the north side of Lambert Lane with a minimum of 15 feet between homes. QUIKTRIP STORE #1481 ORACLE/ORANGE GROVE Pima County, AZ DUE DILIGENCE PACKAGE 06.22.2011 Prepared for: La Cholla Commons Narrative for Major General Plan Amendments November 6, 2014 Prepared By: The WLB Group, Inc. 4444 East Broadway Blvd. Tucson, Arizona 85711 Contact: Paul Oland 520.881.7480 gpoland@wlbgroup.com WLB No. 110028-A-002 &199032-A-008 Casas Adobes Baptist Church 10801 N La Cholla Blvd. Tucson, Arizona 85742 The Kai Family 2305 W Ruthrauff Rd., Unit B9 Tucson, Arizona 85705 The Lin Family c/o Greg Wexler 6088 W Arizona Pavilions Dr Ste 1 Tucson, Arizona 85743 T/F Naranja Group LLC PO Box 31987 Tucson, Arizona 85751 i TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Project Summary ............................................................................................................. 1 B. Property Data .................................................................................................................. 1 C. General Plan Amendment Criteria .................................................................................. 2 D. General Plan Policy Conformance .................................................................................... 8 Exhibits  Location Map  Aerial Photograph  Pima Association of Governments – Transportation Analysis Zones  Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations  Land Use Master Plan 1 A. Project Summary The La Cholla Commons property is located along the west side of La Cholla Boulevard between Glover Road and Lambert Lane. The General Plan currently contemplates a mix of uses including 5 RAC residential, commercial/office, and public/semi-public facilities. The proposal is to comprehensively plan this 1.5 mile frontage of La Cholla Boulevard. The designation of the entire corridor is proposed as Master Planned Community, with the intention of allowing future rezoning for a mix of residential, neighborhood commercial, and office uses. Future uses would be oriented to provide convenient and appropriate services to the surrounding neighborhood as well as future residents. This amendment proposal is to change the designated land use from Medium Density Residential (MDR), Rural Low Density Residential (R-LDR), Public/Semi-Public (PSP), and Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO) to Master Planned Community (MPC). The Master Planned Community Designation is best suited for this location because it will allow a complimentary mix of uses and ensure cohesive, well planned development along length of La Cholla Boulevard The proposed amendment in land uses is supported by several factors, including its location on La Cholla Boulevard (a major, regional arterial roadway with future widening to a four -lane divided arterial with sidewalks and multi-use paths), location adjacent to two major signalized arterial intersections, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. The General Plan envisions this area as a mix of residential densities and commercial uses. The Master Planned Community will continue that vision but in a comprehensive manner. B. Property Data Location: The property is located immediately west of La Cholla Boulevard, south of Glover Drive, and north of Lambert Lane. Area of Properties/General Plan Amendment: North of Naranja Drive: 8± acres. South of Naranja Drive: 186± acres Assessor Parcel Numbers: North of Naranja Drive: Portions of 224-11-061J, 224-11-061H, 224-11-061G, 224-11- 060A, A portion of 224-11-038C South of Naranja Drive: Portions of 224-20-001B, 224-20-001C, 224-20-002B, 224-20- 002D, 224-20- 002E, 224-23-001A 2 Existing Land Uses: The proposed development surrounds the Casas Adobes Baptist Church and school, which will serve as a core for future development. The remainder of the site is vacant. Existing Zoning: The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential District, R1 -144. Existing Oro Valley General Plan Designations: Various portions of the property are designated as Rural Low Density Residential (R-LDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), Public/Semi-Public (PSP), and Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO). Requested Oro Valley General Plan Designations: The requested land use designation for the property is Master Planned Community (MPC). C. General Plan Amendment Criteria In accordance with Section 22 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, t he disposition of the General Plan amendment proposed shall be based on consistency with the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan, with special emphasis on compliance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed change is necessary because conditions in the community changed to the extent that the plan requires amendment or modification.  In the subsequent year following the approval and adoption of the Town of Oro Valley 2005 General Plan, the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) was formed as part of the 2006 Pima County Transportation Bond initiative. The RTA is currently in the Design Phase to improve La Cholla Boulevard to a four-lane desert parkway between Overton Road and Tangerine Road. The La Cholla Corridor , as it is referenced, is one of the Region’s key north-south corridors presented and approved in the 2006 Pima County, Transportation bond initiative passed by the voters; connecting Tangerine Road to Interstate 10 (through an improved connection at Ruthrauff Road). In 2013 the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts were approximately 7,400 along La Cholla Boulevard between Naranja Drive and Lambert Lane. Future Traffic Conditions (2040), established by the RTA, place the ADT counts for La Cholla Boulevard between Naranja Drive and Lambert Lane at 21,830, and 23,164 for La Cholla Boulevard between Naranja Drive and Tangerine Road. The formation and implementation of the RTA, and the changing transportation condition of La Cholla Boulevard to a major north- south corridor, will increase the viability and accessibility of the site, creating demand for a variety of uses along its route.  The Town of Oro Valley is growing, not only in size but also in desirability. Since the year 2000, the population of Oro Valley has increased 25%, to just over 40,000 residents (Source: US Census). The rise in popularity, and the increased desire for communities to establish a live, work, play environment, leads to the need to adjust land uses to allow for flexibility and variety in each land use aspect. Locating neighborhood scale commercial in close proximity to residential users can encourage 3 more walking and biking, reducing vehicle miles traveled in the community, and increasing employment opportunities.  An in-depth residential market analysis, demonstrating the changing market conditions, is further explained within the section of criteria #3 of this narrative.  A market study has been prepared, analyzing the current and expected viability of the various land uses proposed. A draft of the study is attached to this document as an appendix. 2. The proposed change is sustainable by contributing to the socio-economic betterment of the community, while achieving community and environmental compatibility.  If approved, the property will be designated as a Master Plan Community. The Master Plan will set standards and themes to ensure that the development is compatible with the surrounding uses. It is anticipated that Naranja Drive on the north and Lambert Lane on the south will be improved as part of the project. La Cholla Boulevard improvements are planned as part of the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority’s (RTA) initiative which once completed will adequately accommodate traffic associated with the proposed land uses. Public facilities and infrastructure already exist, and/or are planned to be constructed nearby, thus accounting for the additional burden on public infrastructure that may be associated with this project. T his development will contribute to the long-term socio-economic betterment of the community by providing convenient retail and offices uses close to existing consumers and future residents.  This proposed development will achieve community and environmental compatibility by providing open space in and along the washes and recreational areas throughout the site. Connections to the proposed trails through the development and connecting to the existing trail/path system will be provided. It is intent of the owner that future development fully comply with the requirements outlined in the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance (ESLO). The development will also include landscape buffers to further soften the appearance of future development from neighboring residents. The proposed natural and functional open space trails combined with walkable land uses will result in synergy, and the promotion of the desired live, work, play environment.  The Master Plan will include aesthetic themes and standards which will ensure future development is compatible with its surroundings.  The Master Plan provides a transition in density from east to west. On both the south and western boundaries larger lots, a buffer yard, or a combination of both will provide a transition from this development to the larger lot developments nearby. 4 3. The proposed change reflects market demand which leads to viability and general community acceptance.  The Town of Oro Valley is growing, not only in size but also in desirability. Since the year 2000, the population of Oro Valley has increased 38%, to just over 40,000 residents (Source: US Census). Along La Cholla Boulevard, residential developments are in various stages of construction and platting, including the neighboring developments of Saguaros Viejos (118 lots) on the north side of Naranja Drive, Meritage on Naranja (120 lots) on the south side of Naranja Drive, and Rancho de Plata (50 lots) and Rancho del Cobre (68 lots) to the north near Glover Rd. Over the last 12 months (August 2013 to July 2014) over 180 residential building permits have been pulled within Town limits, which is in line with the average of 183 per year over the last decade (Source: Orange Reports, The Sales and Permit Report – August 2014, Volume 319). The market area applicable to this project has an expected annual growth rate of roughly 2% (Source: Valbridge Property Advisors, Draft Market Demand Report – October 2014). This number is derived from analyzing growth over a period of 10 years, 2000 -2010, and establishing a trend projection. During this time period, the country experienced an economic recession and real estate bubble, which contributed to the low growth rate projection. The graph below measures modeled demand for production type housing at an annual growth rate of 5%, against production home inventory that is known to exist or be in the platting process and assumed to be absorbed at a rate of 2 homes per month, per community phase (currently absorption rates are around 3 homes per month). The table clearly shows that a supply shortage will likely exist starting in 2020. 5 Given that the land planning, design, platting, and construction process typically takes 3-4 years in Oro Valley, it is imperative that additional home sites be planned for now in order to avoid a shortage. The graph below shows the anticipated housing supply with this project’s anticipated start of 2018. Supply needs to stay slightly ahead of demand, and this project will accomplish this goal for a couple more years, but demand is still anticipated to outpace supply by 2022 even with this project. Real Estate websites such as Zillow and Movoto, show home prices having increased 5-7% over the last 12 months (Source: www.zillow.com – 9/19/2014); coupled with The Town of Oro Valley recently being ranked as one of the top 10 safest suburbs, and continually providing a nationally ranked education system, it is clear that increased market demand within the community will need to be addressed through land use amendments to the General Plan.  As part of 2006 Pima County Transportation Bond, approved by the voters, the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) modeled future trends to determine the transportation needs of the region. In 2005, the use of census information along with conventional transportation models led to the development of Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ). Pima County was divided into 859 TAZ’s. Using historical trends in housing, employment, and land use, PAG anticipated the needs for the year 2040 for each TAZ. Between Overton Road and Moore Road, along La Cholla Boulevard, there are 8 zones (Refer to Traffic Analysis Zones Exhibit). The table below displays each of the 8 TAZ, their respective 2005 population, their expected 2040 population, their respective 2005 employment total, and their expected 2040 employment total: 6 Zone # 2005 – Population 2040 – Population 2005 – Employment Total 2040 – Employment Total 689 178 3,286 4 1,051 681 291 446 46 6 656 104 811 169 278 651 2,576 2,311 85 49 621 78 508 1 642 617 2,634 2,928 305 512 584 2,745 3,057 214 307 564 1,459 2,291 151 182 Source: Pima Association of Governments  The data above demonstrates that total housing along the La Cholla Corridor between Overton Road and Moore Road is anticipated to increase over 55%, while total employment is anticipated to increase almost 210% along the same stretch. The proposed Master Planned Community site is within Zone #621. This zone in particular, shows significant increases in both housing and total employment by the year 2040.  The proposed change in land use accurately reflects the anticipated demand that will follow the future development of the La Cholla Corridor as demonstrated in the planning models conducted by the Pima Association of Governments. The transformation of La Cholla Boulevard into a major north-south arterial will lead to increased viability of the site, and demand a variety of uses, both residential and commercial, to not only serve those residents within the immediate vicinity, but those traveling both north and south to other destinations.  Section C-1 of this document provides statements and a graph regarding market supply and historically modeled demand.  A market study is being prepared, analyzing the current and expected viability of the various land uses proposed. A draft of the study is attached to this document as an appendix. 4. The amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole, or a portion of the community without an acceptable means of mitigating these impacts through the subsequent zoning and development process.  This General Plan amendment request seeks to change the existing land use designation to Master Planned Community, allowing for neighborhood scale flexibility and innovative planning of a mix of residential and commercial uses. The site is located along a future north-south corridor, La Cholla Boulevard, and between two 7 major arterial roadways, Lambert Lane and Naranja Drive. Specific impacts along the projects perimeter will be addressed during the rezoning phase of the entitlement process or during subsequent detailed development proposals.  This property is ideal and appropriate for neighborhood scale commercial and residential development with the location between two major arterial roads.  The General Plan envisions this area as a mix of non-low density residential and commercial uses. The Master Planned Community will continue that vision but in a comprehensive manner.  Amphitheater School District has funded plans to construct a new elementary school in the southwest portion of Rancho Vistoso. This, along with the significant increase in education-related property taxes that this development will generate, will allow the School District to continue to provide the high quality of education that Oro Valley residents have come to expect. 8 D. General Plan Policy Conformance A number of Oro Valley’s General Plan policies will be met by this development. Below are a few key points: 1. Land Use  This proposed commercial development will not encroach into the wash areas and leave these areas as natural undisturbed open space. (Policy 1.1.3)  This development will be low scale, neighborhood oriented, and compatible with surrounding current and future residential uses. La Cholla Boulevard is proposed to be improved by the Regional Transportation Authorit y (RTA) to a four lane desert parkway. These improvements have the ability to support the human -scale commercial development proposed, while providing the Town with sales tax revenue. (Policy 1.2.1)  The area surrounding the subject property has been lar gely developed with single family residential uses. Locating compatible activity centers and residential neighborhoods are encouraged. (Policy 1.3.1)  The southeastern and northeastern corners of the site are located at two major intersections along the La Cholla Boulevard arterial. The General plan encourages the development of commercial and higher density residential units near major arterials. (Policy 1.3.2)  The General Plan encourages the clustering of commercial development at specific nodes or villages. The location of the site at the intersection of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive would provide an ideal location for neighborhood oriented commercial development. (Policy 1.3.4)  The Town encourages the use of Master Planning. This request is part of a larger overall area to be designated as Master Planned Community. The location, fronting 1.5 miles along La Cholla Boulevard, is ideal for the use of comprehensive planning consistent with the General Plan. (Policy 1.3.5)  The project will decrease density from east to west. The project will include buffer yards, larger lots, or a combination to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties to the west and south across Lambert Lane. (1.4.7)  The Town will require master planning for projects which exceed 40 acres in size. (1.4.11) 2. Community Design  Once the land use is designated as a Master Plan Community, the use of a Planned Area Development (PAD) zoning designation will be pursued. The purpose of Planned Area Development (PAD) zoning is to improve and protect the public health, safety, and welfare by pursuing unified planning and development and provide for development proposals, which are superior to that which may occur under 9 conventional zoning regulations. Elements associated with a PAD include architecture, landscaping, and site design standards to ensure a consistent and quality design along the corridor and through out the site. The designs will take into consideration the surrounding neighborhoods, and current Town of Oro Valley Design Guidelines to ensure that future development is compatible. (Policy 2.1.1) 3. Economic Development  With the location along La Cholla Boulevard, and proximity to established residential units, the proposed neighborhood oriented commercial development will not only help to prevent expenditure leakage, but also provide local options for residents (both current and new) to obtain basic services without the need for a vehicle. (Policy 3.1.1) 4. Cost of Development  The dedication for right-of-way along La Cholla will be donated for the La Cholla corridor improvements. As previously mentioned, the RTA will improve the La Cholla Boulevard corridor. The development will provide required widening and improvements along both Naranja Drive and Lambert Lane. (Policy 4.1.1 and Policy 4.1.4) 5. Public Facilities, Services, and Safety  Municipal facilities are already located nearby, and therefore able to service this development without imposing a significant burden. (Policy 6.1.1) o Below are the driving distances to public facilities from the subject property:  Fire Stations  1.3 miles southeast - Golder Ranch Fire Station 376  2.1 miles northwest - Northwest Fire Station 339  2.7 miles northeast - Golder Ranch Fire Station 375  Police Stations  1.0 mile east - Oro Valley Main Police Station  Schools  0 miles - Casas School  0.3 miles northwest - Wilson K-8 School  0.5 miles west - Ironwood Ridge High School  1.6 miles east - Copper Creek Elementary School  2.8 miles northeast - Painted Sky Elementary School 10  Town Hall  1.0 mile east  Parks  0.5 miles east - Lambert Lane Park (undeveloped)  1.5 miles south - Linda Vista Neighborhood Park  1.8 miles east - Naranja Town Site Park  2.0 miles east - CDO River Front Park  2.8 miles southwest - Arthur Pack Regional Park o Additionally, utilities are already available to the property. o Efficient and safe vehicular and non -motorized traffic circulation is a primary design consideration and amenity to the proposed master planned community. (Policy 5.1.5) o The Town encourages development design and orientation that promotes and facilitates multi-modal transportation access, particularly in and around major activity centers. The proposed Master Plan will promote multi-modal transportation access by providing a walking and biking friendly community. Facilities such as sidewalks, trails, bikes lanes and paths will be evaluated with the plan. 6. Open Space and Natural Resources Conservation  The site designates the multiple washes as Critical Resource areas. The remainder of the site is designated Resource Management Area Tier 2 or is already developed. The site will comply by leaving the washes and additional areas on-site as natural undisturbed open space. (Policy 11.2.7)  The future development will locate buildings, parking, and associated amenities outside of the wash areas to the greatest extent possible. Other open space areas will be provided and will enhance the pedestrian mobility of the Master Plan Community area. (Policy 11.2.9)  The future development will comply with the requirements contained in the ESLO, by providing adequate buffers consistent with the site characteristics. (Policy 11.2.12)  The future development will only use vegetation on the Recommended Plant List and prohibit certain invasive, allergenic, and nuisance species within the development. (Policy 11.2.15)  This development will meet the Native Plant Preservation Plan guidelines from the Town. (Policy 11.2.16)  To protect the views on Naranja Drive and La Cholla Blvd., both of which are designated scenic corridors by the Town of Oro Valley, the future building masses and heights will be evaluated to ensure view protection is consistent with Town policies. (Policy 11.3.1) 11  This proposed development maintains the character of the views along Naranja Drive and La Cholla Boulevard by providing landscape buffers and underground utilities. (Policy 11.3.2)  To ensure the proposed development blends and/or enhances the natural environment, all utilities will be placed underground. This will help protect the views from surrounding properties and roads. (Policy 11.3.3)  To protect the scenic night sky in the community, the proposed development will meet the requirements established in the Town of Oro Valley Outdoor Lighting Code. To control obtrusive aspects of outdoor lighting usage, this proposed development will have reduced and/or shielded lighting. Additionally, the surrounding public will benefit from portions of the open space on-site not receiving active illumination at night. (Policy 11.4.2) 7. Water Resources  The wash areas on the site will be designated as open space in compliance with the ESLO. (Policy 12.1.1)  This development will be served by Oro Valley Water Utility, which participates in the Central Arizona Project (C.A.P.) and other regional groundwater protection initiatives. (Policy 12.2.1)  Future development will include water conservation features, including water efficient irrigation system and drought tolerant vegetation. (Policy 12.3.2) 8. Housing  Under the heading of encouraging and maintaining a range of housing opportunities, the General Plan states the following, which aligns very well with this proposal, “The Town shall encourage the development of a variety of types of homes to accommodate the varied needs of residents, including single -family attached and detached, townhomes, small apartments (3-4 units), condominiums, active retirement communities and congregate care housing…” (Policy 7.2.1)  “The Town shall allow and encourage master planned communities that offer high - quality neighborhoods with a variety of residential densities and appropriately located commercial uses to serve the community.” (Policy 7.2.3) 12 APPENDIX: MARKET ANALYSIS Neighborhood Demographics Neighborhood Population Growth Projection: 2000 2010 2013 2018 Population Year 2000 2010 2013 2018 30,000 28,000 26,000 24,000 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 23,768k 26,420k 26,685k 27,230k Neighborhood Population Summary Compared to Tucson MSA: Population Neighborhood Tucson MSA 2010 Census 26,420 980,263 2013 Estimate 26,685 1,003,140 2018 Projection 27,230 1,032,970 Gross Population Change 2010 - 2013 1.0%2.3% 2013 - 2018 2.0%3.0% Average Annual Population Change 2010 - 2013 0.3%0.2% 2013 - 2018 0.4%0.6% Median Age (2013)47.1 38.0 Households 2013 Estimate 10,572 397,760 2018 Projection 10,816 410,226 Avg. New HH/Year 2013-2018 49 2,493 2013 - 2018 % Change 2.3%3.1% Avg. Annual Change 2013 - 2018 0.5%0.6% Average Household Size (2013)2.52 2.46 Source: U.S. Cenus Bureau, Cenus 2010 Population Summary Neighborhood Projected Household Growth: 2000 2010 2013 2018 Households Year 2000 2010 2013 2018 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 8,799k 10,421k 10,572k 10,816k Neighborhood Income Statistics compared to Tucson MSA: Neighborhood Tucson MSA Average HH Income $95,350 $60,355 Median HH Income $77,834 $43,502 Per Capita Income $38,013 $24,459 Household Income $0 - $15,000 6.2%15.4% $15,000 - $24,999 5.4%12.1% $25,000 - $34,999 6.0%12.6% $35,000 - $49,999 11.3%15.2% $50,000 - $74,999 18.7%18.8% $75,000 - $99,999 16.1%10.3% $100,000 - $149,999 22.2%9.9% $150,000 - $199,999 7.3%3.0% $200,000 +6.9%2.6% Source: U.S. Cenus Bureau, Cenus 2010 Income Neighborhood Growth: Household Income: 2013-2018 Annual Growth Rate Population Households Median Household Income Owner Occupied Housing Units Pe r c e n t 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.41 0.46 3.79 0.57 2013 Household Income <$15K 6.2% $15K - $24K 5.4% $25K - $34K 6.0% $35K - $49K 11.3% $50K - $74K 18.7% $75K - $99K 16.1% $100K - $149K 22.2% $150K - $199K 7.3% $200K+ 6.9% % Owner Occupied 75.1%55.0% % Renter Occupied 17.8%34.0% % Vacant 7.1%11.0% Median Home Value $224,073 $146,486 Source: U.S. Cenus Bureau, Cenus 2010 Housing (2013) 2013-2018 Annual Growth Rate Population Households Median Household Income Owner Occupied Housing Units Pe r c e n t 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.41 0.46 3.79 0.57 <$100K $100-199K $200-299K $300-399K $400-499K $500K+ 2013 Home Value 3.2% 37.2% 34.4% 15.7% 5.1% 4.4% • • • • • • Employment Demographics Neighborhood Employment Total Businesses:1,227 Total Employees:4,610 Total Residential Population:26,685 Employee/Residential Population Ratio:0.17 Source: Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. Number 90 364 130 48 23 10 156 688 19 186 36 9 108 42 74 215 423 60 24 31 307 2,388 77 49 157 194 24 382 1,505 291 4,610 Businesses Employees Source: Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. Employment by Industry Government 4 0.3%6.3% Totals 1,227 100%100% Education Institutions & Libraries 21 1.7%8.3% Other Services 592 48.2%32.6% Motion Pictures & Amusements 29 2.4%3.4% Health Services 54 4.4%4.2% Legal Services 9 0.7%0.5% Services Summary 720 58.7%51.8% Hotels & Lodging 5 0.4%1.7% Automotive Services 10 0.8%1.1% Insurance Carriers & Agents 17 1.4%0.7% Real Estate, Holding, Other Investment 104 8.5%6.7% Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Summary 138 11.2%9.2% Banks, Savings & Lending Institutions 8 0.7%1.3% Securities Brokers 9 0.7%0.5% Eating & Drinking Places 22 1.8%1.6% Miscellaneous Retail 54 4.4%4.7% Auto Dealers, Gas Stations, Auto 3 0.2%0.2% Apparel & Accessory Stores 9 0.7%2.3% Furniture & Home Furnishings 15 1.2%0.9% Home Improvement 7 0.6%0.4% General Merchandise Stores 5 0.4%4.0% Food Stores 11 0.9%0.8% Wholesale Trade 43 3.5%3.4% Retail Trade Summary 126 10.3%14.9% Transportation 13 1.1%1.0% Communication 7 0.6%0.5% Utility 2 0.2%0.2% Agriculture & Mining 34 2.8%2.0% Construction 104 8.5%7.9% Manufacturing 36 2.9%2.8% Number Percent Percent Net Worth and Age Cohorts Percentage Source: U.S. Census Bureau Average Net $960,806 Median Net $278,009 $250,000-$500,000 1,836 17.4% $500,000+3,780 35.8% $100,000-$149,999 744 7.0% $150,000-$249,999 990 9.4% $50,000-$74,999 530 5.0% $75,000-$99,999 432 4.1% $15,000-$34,999 476 4.5% $35,000-$49,999 321 3.0% Total 10,572 100.0% <$15,000 1,462 13.8% Wealth People Neighborhood Net Worth Profile 75+ 78 24 12 84 69 145 898 1,309 $250,001 $1,008,277 Net Worth by Household Age Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri Forecasts for 2013 and 2018. Average Net Worth $50,051 $165,872 $284,084 $923,231 $1,200,203 $1,205,730 Median Net Worth $15,548 $28,882 $64,905 $250,001 $250,001 $250,001 $150,000-$249,999 5 58 150 247 273 113 $250,000+1 98 316 1,307 1,646 1,350 $50,000-$99,999 16 128 263 213 139 118 $100,000-$149,999 6 76 125 165 137 167 $15,000-$34,999 27 117 148 80 56 24 $35,000-$49,999 5 47 113 70 47 26 Total 117 861 1,488 2,349 2,553 1,894 <$15,000 57 338 372 267 253 97 <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2013 and 2018. Median Household Income -$77,834 $93,730 $15,896 3.79% Median Household Income for Householder 55+-$70,385 $89,107 $18,722 4.83% Median Home Value -$224,073 $245,839 $21,766 1.87% Average Home Value -$254,609 $278,344 $23,735 1.80% % Householders 55+51.0%54.5%58.0%3.5 1.25% Owner/Renter Ratio 4.8 4.2 4.3 0.1 0.47% Median Age 46.0 47.1 48.3 1.2 0.50% Households 10,421 10,572 10,816 244 0.46% Total Population 26,420 26,685 27,230 545 0.41% Population 50+11,361 12,213 12,979 766 1.22% 2013- 2018 2013- 2018 Demographic Summary Census 2010 2013 2018 Change Annual Rate 75+1,835 6.9%2,003 7.5%2,311 8.5% 65+4,571 17.3%5,139 19.3%6,077 22.3% 85+414 1.6%481 1.8%533 2.0% 80-84 604 2.3%618 2.3%662 2.4% 75-79 817 3.1%904 3.4%1,116 4.1% 70-74 1,127 4.3%1,328 5.0%1,635 6.0% 65-69 1,609 6.1%1,808 6.8%2,131 7.8% 60-64 2,084 7.9%2,249 8.4%2,414 8.9% 55-59 2,264 8.6%2,414 9.0%2,433 8.9% 50-54 2,442 9.2%2,411 9.0%2,055 7.5% Total(50+)11,361 43.0%12,213 45.8%12,979 47.7% Census 2010 2013 2018 Total Population Number % of Total Pop Number % of Total Pop Number % of Total Pop Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2013 and 2018. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2013 and 2018. Average HH Income $107,326 $91,934 $53,622 $90,044 Median HH Income $88,236 $76,230 $38,605 $70,385 6.4% $200,000+249 9.8%107 5.6%23 1.8%379 6.6% $150,000-$199,999 221 8.7%120 6.3%25 1.9%366 14.4% $100,000-$149,999 645 25.3%391 20.6%124 9.5%1,160 20.2% $75,000-$99,999 408 16.0%353 18.6%67 5.1%828 12.5% $50,000-$74,999 424 16.6%433 22.9%216 16.5%1,073 18.6% $35,000-$49,999 252 9.9%173 9.1%297 22.7%722 6.9% $25,000-$34,999 124 4.9%84 4.4%210 16.0%418 7.3% $15,000-$24,999 91 3.6%138 7.3%170 13.0%399 100% <$15,000 140 5.5%94 5.0%178 13.6%412 7.2% Total 2,553 100%1,894 100%1,309 100%5,756 2013 Households by Income and Age of Householder 55+ 55- 64 Percent 65- 74 Percent 75+Percent Total Percent Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2013 and 2018. Average HH Income $125,455 $108,636 $68,934 $106,335 Median HH Income $103,545 $90,717 $47,055 $89,107 8.2% $200,000+274 10.6%144 6.5%39 2.7%457 7.3% $150,000-$199,999 275 10.6%191 8.6%49 3.4%515 19.1% $100,000-$149,999 853 33.0%618 27.8%264 18.1%1,735 27.7% $75,000-$99,999 524 20.2%550 24.7%123 8.4%1,197 8.7% $50,000-$74,999 282 10.9%365 16.4%215 14.7%862 13.7% $35,000-$49,999 156 6.0%125 5.6%267 18.3%548 3.9% $25,000-$34,999 84 3.2%69 3.1%206 14.1%359 5.7% $15,000-$24,999 44 1.7%84 3.8%116 7.9%244 100% <$15,000 95 3.7%78 3.5%180 12.3%353 5.6% Total 2,588 100%2,223 100%1,460 100%6,271 2018 Households by Income and Age of Householder 55+ 55- 64 Percent 65- 74 Percent 75+Percent Total Percent Total $66,339,358 $29,263,457 $3,744,785 $5,972,262 $726,509 $944,887 $2,264,313 $206,623 $1,670,706 $1,740,655 $7,196,668 $1,004,468 $1,238,730 $1,248,091 $335,145 $70,165 $899,450 $37,075,901 $11,781,133 $7,021,068 $5,977,735 $7,492,424 $1,588,431 $3,215,110 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Medicare Payments $708.70 Long Term Care Insurance $150.25 Other Health Insurance (3)$304.12 Blue Cross/Blue Shield $1,114.37 Commercial Health Insurance $664.12 Health Maintenance Organization $565.43 Other Medical Supplies (2)$85.08 $3,506.99Health Insurance Eyeglasses and Contact Lenses $118.06 Hearing Aids $31.70 Medical Equipment for General Use $6.64 Prescription Drugs $680.73 Nonprescription Vitamins $95.01 Medicare Prescription Drug Premium $117.17 Convalescent or Nursing Home Care $19.54 Other Medical services (1)$158.03 Nonprescription Drugs $164.65 Eyecare Services $68.72 Lab Tests, X-Rays $89.38 Hospital Room and Hospital Services $214.18 $2,768.02 Physician Services $354.22 Dental Services $564.91 Medical Care Average Amount Spent $6,275.01Health Care Medical Expenditures 2013 2018 Population by Age 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Pe r c e n t 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 11 -11 ., • • Multifamily Supply Supply: Property Location Total Units Year Built Unit Types Avg. Rent Units Overall Occ. Golf Villas 10950 N La Canada 231 1999 1BR/1BA $957 50 90%1.25 mi 1.1 mi 2BR/2BA $1,082 140 3BR/2BA $1,297 41 La Reserve Villas 10700 N La Reserve 240 1988 1BR/1BA $725 64 92%3.55 mi 3.6 mi 2BR/2BA $825 148 3BR/2BA $925 28 Oro Vista 1301 W Lambert 138 2006 1BR/1BA $719 32 93%1.15 mi 1.6 mi 2BR/2BA $852 82 3BR/2BA $1,104 24 Catalina Crossing 9095 N Oracle 97 1985 1BR/1BA $565 66 92%3 mi 3.65 mi 2BR/1BA $785 1 2BR/2BA $809 18 3BR/2BA $950 12 TH Push Ridge 9901 N Oracle 144 1998 1BR/1BA $729 48 85%2.8 mi 3.15 mi 2BR/1BA $889 8 2BR/2BA $864 60 3BR/2BA $959 28 Rock Ridge 10333 N Oracle 319 1995 1BR/1BA $710 96 89%3 mi 3.15 mi 2BR/2BA $808 192 3BR/2BA $995 31 Villas at San Dorado 10730 N Oracle 274 2014 1BR/1BA $1,000 102 35% 2BR/2BA $1,242 136 3BR/2BA $1,490 36 Le Mirage 9777 N Thornydale 168 1995 1BR/1BA $624 60 96%2.2 mi 2.7 mi 2BR/2BA $744 76 3BR/2BA $919 32 Total/Average 1,611 1BR/1BA $754 84% 2BR/2BA $903 3BR/2BA $1,080 Existing Multifamily Lambert Naranja Demand: Households 10,572 x Current Renter rate x 25% 2,643 x .95 frictional vacancy x.95 Rental Unit Demand 2,511 Existing Units 1,611 Residual Demand for Rental Units 900 Household Growth Projection 2013-2023 1,750 x Projected Renter rate x 30% Renter Growth Projection 525 x .95 frictional vacancy x.95 Future Renter Demand 499 Total Rental Units Demanded 2013-2023 1,399 Multifamily Projects Under Construction 0 Residual Demand for Multifamily Units Thru 2023 1,399 Multifamily Residual Demand Conclusion:  Demand is strong  However, scale and market demand is not met by complexes under construction.  Area has seasonal empty-nesters in a population weighted to older age cohorts.  Recommend casita apartments such as Tucson Rental Homes and Avilla, NOT stacked 2 and 3 story garden units with higher density. Single Family Housing Price $250,000 $500,000 20% Down $50,000 $100,000 Loan Amount $200,000 $400,000 30 year loan,4.25%$984 $2,460 Taxes, Ins.$350 $700 Monthly Payment $1,334 $3,160 Ann. Inc. Req. at 33%$48,509 $114,909 % of the Area Population With Sufficient Income for Housing Price Range 71.20% Approx. 35% Single Family Demand Analysis Name Builder Location Total Lots Lots Remaining Months on Market Absorption Per Year Price: Uplands AF Sterling La Canada & Lambert 14 2 18 8 300K+ Rancho de Plata Meritage La Cholla & Tangerine 50 32 8 27 280-350k Desert Sky Dorn NW of Desert Sky & Oracle 40 1 60 7.8 210-240K Sunset Canyon Copper Canyon SWc of Tangerine & Vista del Oro 15 549-700K Rancho de Cobre Maracay 11752 N Mabini 68 50 8 27 380k+ Total/Average 172 100 17.45 Shannon Estates Shannon & Magee 55 28 12 27 270-400K Cortina Terrace Miramonte Shannon & Magee 12 9 60 0.6 200-250K La Cholla Vista Pulte Magee & La Cholla 42 8 12 34 250-325K Total/Average 109 45 20.53 Overall Total/Average 281 145 18.99166667 Single Family Existing Supply Outside Neighborhood Boundary Name Builder Location Total Lots Saguaros Viejos AF Sterling Near NWc of La Cholla & Naranja 118 Meritage on Naranja Meritage SWc of Naranja & La Cholla 120 Total Approved Lots 238 Name Builder Location Total Lots OVTC AF Sterling Oracle & Pusch View Lane 60 River's Edge Davis Development Naranja & Pusch Ridge Vistas 55 SEC Lambert & La Cholla N/A Sec of Lambert Ln. & La Cholla Blvd 154 Meritage on First Meritage Nec of 1st & Palasades 255 Total Proposed Lots 524 at 50% for risk and unknown 262 Single Family Approved Lots (In Platting Process) Single Family Proposed Lots (Submitted for Approval) x Owner Occupancy rate x 70% Demand 2013-23 - Existing Supply - Planned Supply Net Demand 2013-23 625 Homes 1750 Households 1,225 Households 2013-2023 Household Growth Projection: 100 Homes 500 Homes Remarks:  The market is currently coming out of a recession and STDB growth projections are under- represented. Our projections are based on historical 2000-2010 household growth rates which equally rate the growth cycle and the recession in that decade.  Owner occupancy rates projected to decrease from 75% to 70% as the area matures.  Price range is $250,000 to $500,000 move up segment.  Given age cohort information, low maintenance for sale units would meet needs on this market niche. Retail Center Name Location Total S.F. Year Built Vacancy Asking Rents/ S.F. Shoppes at Thornydale Crossings Tangerine & Thornydale 158197 2007 8.0%$18-$28 Thornydale Plaza 9665-9725 N. Thornydale Rd. 76,975 1997 9.3%$23 Thornydale Village Thornydale & Overton Rd 57,612 1995 56.7%$16 Mercado at Canada Hills La Canada Dr. & Lambert Ln 54,517 2008 3.6%$19 Strip Retail Center La Canada Dr. & Naranja Dr. 13,527 2003 0.0%N/Ap Shops at Oro Vista La Canada Dr. & Lambert Ln 59,017 2002 20.0%$17 Strip Retail Center La Canada Dr. & Lambert Ln 23,022 2000 18.8%$20-$21 Strip Retail Center 10420 N. La Canada Dr.75,333 1993 2.9%$17 Placita del Oro Tangerine & 1st Avenue 63,891 2002 17.0%$21 Safeway Vistoso Center Tangerine & Rancho Vistoso 100,363 1999 0.0%N/Ap Target/ Home Depot 10775-10885 N. Oracle Rd. 609,385 1993 0.6%N/Ap San Jose Plaza 10110 N. Oracle Rd.13,785 2000 21.3%$16-$20 Total S.F.1,305,624 6.9%$16-$28 *Excluding Thornydale Village, due to inferior appeal and functionality, the overall vacancy rate is reduced to 4.4%, which is below frictional vacancy Shopping Center Retail Supply Demand: Businesses 118 110 8 Source: Dun & Bradstreet Total Retail Trade $337,381,202 $70,095,500 $267,285,702 65.6 Total Food & Drink $36,480,053 $5,692,062 $30,787,991 73.0 Industry Summary Total Retail Trade and Food & $373,861,255 $75,787,562 $298,073,693 66.3 Demand Supply Retail Gap Leakage Retail Surplus/Leakage Analysis Summary IL"-_" --.~ .\ • 7 m ..... Poe. /1" f0"""'--------1--~ I rot m _ ...... e P J.()'--, "'" I i Name Location Approx. Planned S.F. Mercado Mandarina Near NWC of La Cholla & Naranja 50,000 Rancho del Cobre SWc of Naranja & La Cholla 50,000 - 60,000 Total Proposed S.F.100,000 - 110,000 Proposed Shopping Center Developments Total 10,572 100.0% Household Disposable Income Profile (2013) Source: U.S. Census Bureau Median Disposable Income $62,015 Average Disposable Income $77,128 $150,000-$199,999 336 3.2% $200,000+392 3.7% $75,000-$99,999 1,781 16.8% $100,000-$149,999 1,812 17.1% $35,000-$49,999 1,603 15.2% $50,000-$74,999 2,321 22.0% $15,000-$24,999 696 6.6% $25,000-$34,999 864 8.2% <$15,000 767 7.3% Number Percent Conclusion:  The area has a significant retiree and seasonal population  There is significant discretionary income for food, services, and medical services  Centers with higher vacancy lack curb appeal and inviting attractive architecture to create a sense of place. The area is not overbuilt. Higher vacancy centers have design and/or functional obsolescence issues.  There is household and income growth demand for a planned center in 2 years but likely with a 5 to 7 year delivery.  Despite demand, immediate construction would not take place for at least 2 years due to planning/entitlement time as the market is still coming out of a recession and development is less risky with strong pre-leasing. Assisted Living Supply: LEGALNAME ADDRESS CAPACITY CLARE BRIDGE OF ORO VALLEY 10175 NORTH ORACLE ROAD 42 FAIRWINDS - DESERT POINT 10701 NORTH LA RESERVE DRIVE 75 2ND BEGINNINGS CARE HOME 5331 WEST EAGLESTONE LOOP 4 DESERT OASIS ADULT CARE HOME 5260 WEST GREENOCK DRIVE 10 FEEL AT HOME 2 ASSISTED LIVING 3530 WEST SAHUARO DIVIDE 5 FEEL AT HOME ASSISTED LIVING 4671 WEST CAMINO DE MANANA 10 FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH, LLC 4021 WEST HARDY ROAD 5 GRAMA'S HOME, LLC 9950 NORTH WILD CREEK DRIVE 5 MOM AND DAD PLACE, LLC 9980 NORTH SHANNON ROAD 10 Total 166 Existing Assisted Living Beds Population: 75+1,835 6.9%2,003 7.5%2,311 8.5% 65+4,571 17.3%5,139 19.3%6,077 22.3% 85+414 1.6%481 1.8%533 2.0% 80-84 604 2.3%618 2.3%662 2.4% 75-79 817 3.1%904 3.4%1,116 4.1% 70-74 1,127 4.3%1,328 5.0%1,635 6.0% 65-69 1,609 6.1%1,808 6.8%2,131 7.8% 60-64 2,084 7.9%2,249 8.4%2,414 8.9% 55-59 2,264 8.6%2,414 9.0%2,433 8.9% 50-54 2,442 9.2%2,411 9.0%2,055 7.5% Total(50+)11,361 43.0%12,213 45.8%12,979 47.7% Census 2010 2013 2018 Total Population Number % of Total Pop Number % of Total Pop Number % of Total Pop Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2013 and 2018. Affordability: 75+ 78 24 12 84 69 145 898 1,309 $250,001 $1,008,277 Net Worth by Household Age Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri Forecasts for 2013 and 2018. Average Net Worth $50,051 $165,872 $284,084 $923,231 $1,200,203 $1,205,730 Median Net Worth $15,548 $28,882 $64,905 $250,001 $250,001 $250,001 $150,000-$249,999 5 58 150 247 273 113 $250,000+1 98 316 1,307 1,646 1,350 $50,000-$99,999 16 128 263 213 139 118 $100,000-$149,999 6 76 125 165 137 167 $15,000-$34,999 27 117 148 80 56 24 $35,000-$49,999 5 47 113 70 47 26 Total 117 861 1,488 2,349 2,553 1,894 <$15,000 57 338 372 267 253 97 <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 Demand: 2013 Age Income Health 2018 Age Income Health 75-84 1,522 1,370 343 75-85 1,778 1,600 400 Change 256 230 57 85+481 433 217 85+533 480 240 Change 52 47 23 TOTAL 560 640 Assisted Living Demand Inputs: 75-84 85+ Affordability 90%90% Health 25%50% Conclusion:  Population age cohorts and income cohorts intersect to infer considerable demand.  Balancing development of targeted medical and wellness services with assisted living development appears to have strong demand. Conclusions The district boundaries utilized were designed to emphasize the immediate area. This included a district of at least 1 mile up to 3 mile boundaries. District lines were set with the intent to provide an accurate depiction of the immediate neighborhood. Therefore, regional retail such as the Walmart anchored retail center at Tangerine and Oracle, which serves a larger trade area much farther north, luxury homes against Pusch Ridge, older dwellings to the south, and higher density merchant built housing to the west were specifically excluded. A review of population statistics indicated excessively optimistic projections in 2008 based upon a high growth housing bubble. The 2013 projections tend to understate growth due to projections made during a recession. Therefore, I reviewed growth rates from 2000 to 2010, which included five years of recession bracketing five years of expanding economy. The usefulness of this time period is derived from its balance of both strong and weak economies. The growth projected based on 2000 through 2010 would be over 1,900 units. I back this off to 1,750 housing units. As the area matures and given current trends, there’s likelihood of more rather than fewer renters. So I reduced the home ownership components from 75% to 70%. However, I only used a 25% rental component for rental housing because of the age cohorts within this neighborhood, thereby allocating approximately 5% to senior housing. Household income is over 50% higher in the neighborhood than the Tucson MSA. Employment demographics likely infer a considerable seasonal resident, empty nester, and family components, based upon the .17 employee/residential population ratio. Over 60% of the residents have net worth of above $150,000, with the majority concentrated in the 45 year and older age cohorts. Moreover, about 55% of householders are 55 years or older. In conclusion, this is a moderately affluent neighborhood, with many residents at or just past their peak earning years based upon these statistics. Housing that is easier to maintain, adaptable for greater accessibility and flexible for varied occupancy by different generations, will generate greatest demand. For Sale Residential Conclusions:  Owner occupancy rates are forecasted to decline from 75% to 70% due to age cohorts in the neighborhood and due to changing market preferences.  A likely price range is $250,000 to 500,000 which is a move up segment and also accounts for both low and medium density development.  Based upon neighborhood demographics including wealth and age, for sale units that emphasize low maintenance, adaptability to meeting physical needs, and inter- generational use would attract broader demand.  Even with planned developments in the neighborhood, there appears to be additional demand of 600+ for sale residential units.  It is important to be aware of the gradually changing age of the neighborhood population, whereby, ease of using housing will attract demand. Therefore, this inherently infers some demand for attached products such as townhomes. The current develop pipeline of townhomes and condominiums is quite shallow, which is typical in recessionary periods. There is a demand for about 100 to 200 townhomes or casita style apartments. Multi-Family Conclusions:  Demand for multi-family is strong with residual demand of about 1400 units.  Traditional garden apartments of two to three stories is inconsistent with scale of the existing neighborhood.  Multi-family use should be limited to a combination of one and two stories designed to attract the market segments typically found within casita projects such as those developed by Avilla and Tucson Rental Homes.  The market segments consist of seasonal visitors, empty nesters, a few families in modest segments of larger units, and single employed professionals. Single employed professionals, particularly females, are attracted to this product’s lower density, low maintenance, and greater similarity to living in owner occupied residence whether it be a townhome or single family home. Retail Conclusions:  The area has a significant retiree and seasonal population  There is significant discretionary income for food, services, and medical services  Centers with higher vacancy lack curb appeal and inviting attractive architecture to create a sense of place. The area is not overbuilt. Higher vacancy centers have design and/or functional obsolescence issues.  There is household and income growth demand for a planned center in 2 years but likely with a 5 to 7 year delivery.  Despite demand for about 200,000 S.F., immediate construction would not take place for at least 2 years due to planning/entitlement time as the market is still coming out of a recession and development is less risky with strong pre-leasing.  Medical expenditures infer demand for supporting services oriented to 55+ age cohorts, included in the retail demand.  Observing retail development, Oracle Road, La Canada, and Tangerine Road have attracted retail development but, there is a hole in the center of the immediate neighborhood in the area along La Cholla, primarily at Lambert Lane but secondarily at Naranja Drive. Assisted Living Conclusions:  Population age cohorts and income cohorts intersect to infer considerable demand.  Balancing development of targeted medical and wellness services with assisted living development appears to have strong demand.  There are 166 senior care beds in the immediate area. For assisted living, mobility is less important though a sense of place for a senior resident is also important. Moreover, this neighborhood is proximate to the Town hall, Town library, and parks without having to navigate the heavy traffic on Oracle Road. Even assuming dislocation out of the immediate area, there is unmet assisted living demand for over 200 beds, increasing by 80 more beds over the next 10 years. EXHIBITS 32 "111 III 11111111111111111 i IIIIIII11 iiil! IIIIIII111 ". I I I II ~, II I, I, I II ". "--------------------------------------------------------------------------- I Tll •.... ,. .., LA CHOLLA COMMONS SOUTH _ I iI'.!;~p __ ~ TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES WlBNo 110"""'" rn N.T.S "---------------------------------------------------------------------------"" Ne i g h b o r h o o d S t a t u s T o t a l L o t s To t a l L o t s (U n d e v e l o p e d ) 20 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 3 2 0 2 4 2 0 2 5 2 0 2 6 2 0 2 7 2 0 2 8 2 0 2 9 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 1 AF S t e r l i n g ' s L a R e s e r v e V i l l a s P l a t t e d 4 0 4 0 12 24 4 40 Do r n H o m e s ' D e s e r t S k y B u i l d i n g 4 5 9 4 5 9 Ri v e r ' s E d g e Z o n e d 5 5 5 5 6 12 12 12 12 1 55 Vi s t o s o P a r c e l 1 0 A Z o n e d 2 9 2 9 6 12 11 29 SE C L a m b e r t & L a C h o l l a R e z o n i n g 1 5 4 1 5 4 12 24 24 24 24 24 22 15 4 Me r i t a g e o n F i r s t - S o u t h Z o n e d 4 4 4 4 6 12 12 12 2 44 Me r i t a g e o n F i r s t - N o r t h R e z o n i n g 2 1 1 2 1 1 6 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 13 21 1 Am e r i c a B u i l t ' s L a C a n a d a R i d g e P l a t t e d 3 3 3 3 6 24 3 33 Mi l l e r R a n c h 40 0 Vi s t o s o P a r c e l 1 0 T Z o n e d 1 9 19 19 Me r i t a g e o n N a r a n j a P h . 1 A Z o n e d 7 2 7 2 8 24 24 16 72 Me r i t a g e o n N a r a n j a P h . 1 B Z o n e d 4 7 4 7 8 24 15 47 Le n n a r ' s D i s c o v e r y a t V i s t o s o R e s e r v e P l a t t e d 2 7 2 7 24 3 27 Sa g u a r o s V i e j o s Z o n e d 1 1 8 1 1 8 24 24 24 24 22 11 8 Ma r a c a y ' s C e n t e r P o i n t e B l o c k 1 P h . 1 B u i l d i n g 5 0 5 0 12 24 14 50 Ma r a c a y ' s C e n t e r P o i n t e B l o c k 1 P h . 2 P l a t t e d 3 1 3 1 10 21 31 Ma r a c a y ' s C e n t e r P o i n t e B l o c k 2 B u i l d i n g 3 9 3 9 12 24 3 39 Ma r a c a y ' s C e n t e r P o i n t e B l o c k 3 P h . 1 B u i l d i n g 4 2 4 2 12 24 6 42 Ma r a c a y ' s C e n t e r P o i n t e B l o c k 3 P h . 2 P l a t t e d 5 9 5 9 18 24 17 59 Ma r a c a y ' s C e n t e r P o i n t e B l o c k 4 P h . 1 B u i l d i n g 3 1 3 1 12 19 31 Ma r a c a y ' s C e n t e r P o i n t e B l o c k 4 P h . 2 P l a t t e d 4 3 4 3 5 24 14 43 Ma r a c a y ' s C e n t e r P o i n t e B l o c k 5 P l a t t e d 4 7 4 7 21 24 2 47 Ma t t a m y ' s V i s t o s o P h a s e 1 A Z o n e d 5 0 5 0 6 24 20 50 Ma t t a m y ' s V i s t o s o P h a s e 1 B Z o n e d 5 0 5 0 6 24 20 50 Ma t t a m y ' s V i s t o s o P h a s e 2 A Z o n e d 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 24 24 24 24 10 0 Ma t t a m y ' s V i s t o s o P h a s e 2 B Z o n e d 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 24 24 24 24 10 0 Ol s o n P r o p e r t y Z o n e d 7 5 7 5 24 24 24 3 75 Ma r a c a y ' s R a n c h o d e l C o b r e B u i l d i n g 6 8 51 10 24 17 51 Me r i t a g e ' s R a n c h o d e P l a t a B u i l d i n g 5 0 32 25 7 32 Ri c h m o n d ' s T o r r e n o a t R a n c h o V i s t o s o B u i l d i n g 6 8 20 14 6 20 AF S t e r l i n g ' s U p l a n d s a t O r o V a l l e y B u i l d i n g 1 4 9 7 2 9 DR H o r t o n ' s S t o n e f i e l d a t R a n c h o V i s t o s o B u i l d i n g 5 9 2 2 2 Ex i s t i n g P r o j e c t s A n n u a l T o t a l s : 19 1 0 16 7 0 62 10 2 19 4 29 2 31 0 25 1 15 6 11 9 96 46 24 24 13 0 0 0 0 0 16 8 9 Ex i s t i n g P r o j e c t s R u n n i n g T o t a l s : 10 2 29 6 58 8 89 8 11 4 9 13 0 5 14 2 4 15 2 0 15 6 6 15 9 0 16 1 4 16 2 7 16 2 7 16 2 7 16 2 7 16 2 7 16 2 7 La C h o l l a M a s t e r P l a n T o w n h o m e / M D R P h . 1 13 5 12 24 24 24 24 24 3 13 5 La C h o l l a M a s t e r P l a n T o w n h o m e / M D R P h . 2 19 0 21 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 19 0 La C h o l l a M a s t e r P l a n M D R P h . 1 66 12 24 24 6 66 La C h o l l a M a s t e r P l a n M D R P h . 2 37 18 19 37 La C h o l l a M a s t e r P l a n M D R P h . 3 57 5 24 24 4 57 La C h o l l a M a s t e r P l a n L D R P h . 1 47 12 24 11 47 La C h o l l a M a s t e r P l a n L D R P h . 2 38 13 24 1 38 La C h o l l a M a s t e r P l a n L D R P h . 3 56 23 24 9 56 La C h o l l a M a s t e r P l a n T o t a l s : 62 6 0 0 0 0 36 72 72 72 72 72 57 28 24 24 24 24 24 25 62 6 Cu m u l a t i v e A n n u a l T o t a l s : 62 10 2 19 4 29 2 34 6 32 3 22 8 19 1 16 8 11 8 81 52 37 24 24 24 24 25 23 1 5 Cu m u l a t i v e R u n n i n g T o t a l s : 10 2 29 6 58 8 93 4 12 5 7 14 8 5 16 7 6 18 4 4 19 6 2 20 4 3 20 9 5 21 3 2 21 5 6 21 8 0 22 0 4 22 2 8 22 5 3 An n u a l D e m a n d B a s e d o n O V L a s t 1 0 Y e a r s : 18 2 . 8 18 3 19 2 20 2 21 2 22 2 23 3 24 5 25 7 27 0 28 4 29 8 31 3 32 8 34 5 36 2 38 0 39 9 Cu m u l a t i v e R u n n i n g D e m a n d T o t a l : 18 3 37 5 57 6 78 8 10 1 0 12 4 3 14 8 8 17 4 6 20 1 6 22 9 9 25 9 7 29 1 0 32 3 8 35 8 3 39 4 5 43 2 5 47 2 4 Ex p e c t e d A n n u a l G r o w t h R a t e : 10 5 % * A s s u m e d 2 h o m e s / m o n t h a b s o r p t i o n 0 50 0 10 0 0 15 0 0 20 0 0 25 0 0 20 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 3 2 0 2 4 Ex p e c t e d S u p p l y / D e m a n d o f P r o d u c t i o n H o m e s i n O . V . Su p p l y w i t h o u t P r o j e c t Su p p l y w i t h P r o j e c t De m a n d !I '. :. ~ MPC-• '~~--------~~==~~L-~~----~±=~~~~~~~~.:::vl RURAL LOW DENSITY I\U '''·'L LOW MPC-LDR CASAS CHURCH MPC-MDR MPC-HDR (U d.u. / ac.) I NEIGH COMMERCIAL I I~----~----~~.,-__ ;;.; __ •• -~.~Y.WMW •• -___ -•• ~-------------- LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1 CURRENT GENERAL PLAN LA CHOLLA NARANJA SOUTHWEST / NORTHWEST (OV1114-002 & OV 1114-003) Attachment 7 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LA CHOLLA NARANJA SOUTHWEST / NORTHWEST (OV1114-002 & OV1114-003) Attachment 8 41 112015 Town CW'lCit SpecIal Session Search I (1) Hide 0 , fl, MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL SESSION December 10 ,2014 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CA~ADA DRIVE SPECIA L SESS ION AT OR AFTER 5 :00 PM CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hiremath called the meeting to order at 5:01 p .m. ROLLCALL PRESENT: Satish Hiremath , Mayor Lou Waters , Vi ce Mayor Brendan Burns , Counci lm ember Bill Garne r, Counci lm ember Joe Hornat , Council member Mary Snider , Councilmember Mike Zinkin , Councilmember Mayor Hiremath led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance . ORDER OF BUSINESS Mayor Hiremath said the agenda wou ld stand as posted . REGULAR AGENDA 1. PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUT IONS AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY , ADOPTING SPEC IAL AREA POLICIES RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND DELETING THE S IGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION PERTAINING TO 194 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHWEST CORNERS OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)14-63 , AMEND IN G THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP , ADOPTING SPECIAL AREA POLICIES AND DELETING THE SIGN IFICANT RESOURCE AREA FOR 186 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LA CHOLLA BOU LE VARD AND NARANJA DRIVE B. RESOLUTION NO . (R)14-64 , AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP , ADOP TIN G SPEC IA L AREA POLICIES AND DELETING THE SIGN IFI CANT RESOURCE AREA t1tpjlorOYatt~.g:anicus .comlMiru:esVifNffl(.~?view_jd=9&cIi pjd=2006 115 41112015 TO'Nn COlIlCii Special Session FOR 8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE (R)14-63 Major GPA Southwest La Cholla & Naranja (R)14-64 Major GPA Southwest La Cholla & Naranja Attachment 3 -Concept Plan Attachment 4 -Special Area Policies Attachment 5 -Applicant Request Attachment 6 -Current General Plan Land Use Attachment 7 -Proposed General Plan Land Use Map Attachment 8 -ESL Planning Map Attachment 9 -General Plan Amendment Evaluation Attachment 10 -Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report Attachment 11 -Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Attachment 12 -Neighborhood Meeting Summary Notes Attachment 13 -Resident I Interested Parties Letters and Emails Attachment 14 -Amphitheater School District Letter Principal Planner, Chad Daines gave an overview of the proposed Major General Plan Amendments that included the following: -Request -Current & Proposed General Plan -Concept Plan -Special Area Policies -Significant Resource Area -Environmentally Sensitive Lands -Amendment Evaluation -General Plan Vision -Notable General Plan Policies -General Plan Evaluation Criteria -Conditions in Community have changed? -Socio-economic betterment I community and environment compatibility? -Reflects market demand -Will not impact community without mitigation? -Amendment Evaluation -Neighborhood Meetings ~5 41112015 TO'Nn COlIlCii Special Session -Changes during Commission hearings -Summary/Conclusion -Recommendation Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #1 . Paul Oland with WLB Group, representing the applicant, answered questions from Council regarding the proposed master planned community. Representative of the Kai Family, Greg Wexler, presented a brief history of the Kai Family and the proposed master planned community. Mr. Oland gave a presentation on the General Plan policy conformance. Mike Naifeh of Valbridge Property Advisors, presented the market study findings for the proposed master planned community that included the following: -Income -Single Family Demand Analysis -2013-2023 Household Growth Projection -Conclusions -Multifamily Residual Demand -Conclusions -2010, 2013 and 2018 Total Population Census -2013 Households by Income and Age of Householder 55+ -Net Worth by Household Age -Retail Surplus/Leakage Analysis Summary -Potential Rental Space Currently Demanded -Medical Care Residual Demand Discussion ensued amongst Council, staff and applicant representatives regarding item #1. Representative of Suite 6 Architecture and Planning, Dean Munkachy, gave a presentation that included the following: -Six Mile Radius East Corner -Scale and Site Aerial Patterns -Site Context East Corner -Project Goals Patterns -Washes -Connections -Roadways -Concept Study North Commercial Land -Concept Study South Commercial Land -Paseo Character -Entry Character -I ntersection Character ~5 41112015 -Uses Character -Linkages -Paseos -Open Spaces -Pathways TO'Nn COlIlCii Special Session -Attached Residential -Commercial Character Mr. Oland spoke regarding the proposed Major General Plan Amendments. Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing. The following individuals spoke in opposition to item #1. -Oro Valley resident Jose Echeverri -Oro Valley resident Don Bristow -Oro Valley resident Kent Bauman -Oro Valley resident Gary Meyerr -Oro Valley resident Joe Kutschka -Oro Valley resident John Hutchinson -Oro Valley resident Bruce McDoniel -Oro Valley resident Rick Hines -Oro Valley resident Karen Carlson The following individuals spoke in support of item #1. -Oro Valley resident and representative of Casas Church Darin Hoffmann -Oro Valley resident Dr. Judy Huch -Oro Valley resident Mike Jones -Oro Valley resident and President and CEO of the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce, Dave Perry -Oro Valley resident Andrew Tesler -Oro Valley resident Thrac Paulette -Oro Valley resident Jeff Grobstein Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #1 . MOllON: A motion was made by Councilmember Zinkin and seconded by Councilmember Gamer to deny the Major General Plan Amendment requested under case OV 114-002, based on the finding that the developer has not met the demands of the citizens and that the modification may adversely impact the community. Mayor Hiremath requested a friendly amendment to continue item #1A rather then denying the amendment. Councilmembers Zinkin and Garner agreed to the amendment. 415 41112015 TO'Nn COlIlCii Special Session MOllON: A motion was made by Councilmember Zinkin and seconded by Councilmember Gamer to continue item #1A to a date uncertain. MOllON carried, 7-0. MOllON: A motion was made by Mayor Hiremath and seconded by Couniclmember Snider to continue item #1 B. MOllON carried, 5-2 with Councilmember Gamer and Councilmember Zinkin opposed. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No future agenda items were requested. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Mayor Hiremath and seconded by Couniclmember Snider to adjourn the meeting at 9:08 p.m. MOTION carried, 7-0. ~5 Attachment 10 Recent Resident Comments Paul, I know you responded to my e-mail below but I can't find it so I must have accidentally deleted it when I was deleting a bunch of files the other day. I think you responded that both residential and commercial development could begin as early as 2017. My memory was that it would be 5 years for residential and 10 years for commercial. Have the plans changed? I just found the comment that you made on this topic in the past. August 13, 2014 Neighborhood Meeting: When a resident said that all the empty storefronts in town indicated that there is no need for any more commercial, you said that you didn't argue with this but that you were "thinking long-range, most likely 10 years from now." That's a lot different than 2017. Can we get something in writing, added to the Special Area Policies, that promises that commercial won't be built until at least the year _______? What year seems feasible to you? Something should also be added to the SAP stating the earliest date that development could begin in the residential portion. Please advise. Diane Peters _____________________________________________________________________________________ From: Diane Peters [ Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:35 PM To: Paul Oland; Zinkin, Mike; Garner, William; Burns, Brendan Cc: Vella, Bayer; Daines, Chad Subject: RE: Proposed Major General Plan Amendment SWC Naranja and La Cholla Paul and Bayer, Also, the below wording should be removed from the SAP: "The ultimate alignment of subdivision access roads and use of proposed traffic control methods are entirely subject to Town Engineer review and approval.” REASON: If it is later determined that the proposed road will connect to CH Drive, this would "adversely impact...a portion of the community" and this does not meet the General Plan Criteria for approval. A stipulation could be added to the SAP that the Town Engineer cannot connect a road to Canada Hills Drive without the approval of ____% of the residents of the Canada Hills HOA. That percentage should be determined be CH HOA. Since the Major GPA public hearing/vote has been postponed until May 6th, we consider the SAP to still be a work-in-progress! Diane Peters From: Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:51:19 -0400 Subject: Re: Proposed Major General Plan Amendment SWC Naranja and La Cholla To: gpoland@wlbgroup.com; mzinkin@orovalleyaz.gov CC: bvella@orovalleyaz.gov; sbetten@carondelet.org Mike and Paul, Appreciate the idea. But the concept as shown would not work, since area residents would no longer be able to make a left hand turn from Canada Hills Drive south onto La Cholla Boulevard. Rudy Roszak ___________________________________________________________________________________ On Apr 11, 2015, at 11:08 AM, " wrote: Reference: Proposed Major General Plan Amendment at Northwest and Southwest Corners of Naranja and La Cholla (194 Acres) Dear Council Member Zinkin: I will cut to the chase. The Canada Hills Drive Issue should be resolved before the GPA is considered and voted upon. Otherwise we will be stuck with the old Concept Plan which is unacceptable by the majority of the Canada Hills residents we have spoken to. Canada Hills Drive is a private street, maintained by the homeowners. Walkers, joggers, bicyclists, kids, parents with strollers, and golf carts use the street, with its 25 mph speed limit. The proposed 500 to 570 new homes will generate approximately 1,000 to 1,200 additional cars and increased traffic on our local roads. This is unacceptable. The developer is obligated to find an alternate route for this proposed development. We do not want the new development to hook directly into Canada Hills Drive, as shown on the present maps. Period. Rudy Roszak Paul, The map that's included in the council packet for the April 15th meeting (attached) still shows the proposed road connecting to Canada Hills Drive. Will this map be updated prior to the council meeting? The concern is that passing the GPA with the map "as is" creates two problems: (1) It leaves the residents of Canada Hills wide open for disaster in the future if the town decides to leave that road in the current location. (2) The current location of the road does not meet the GP criteria below: The amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole, or a portion of the community... We understand the caveat in the second half of that criteria... ...without an acceptable means of mitigating these impacts through the subsequent zoning and development process. However, it's not fair to the residents of CH to have to wait until the zoning process to find out where the road will be placed since the placement of that road could adversely impact their community. This needs to be ironed out now. Otherwise, we're being asked to approve something when we have no idea of what we're actually approving. Please advise. Diane Peters ____________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Mayor and Council, At the December 10th council meeting to vote on the LaCholla Major General Plan Amendment, a decision was made to continue the item for another time. It is now on the April 15th agenda. Mayor Hiremath asked for a continuance for the following reasons: (1) He wanted clarification on the portion of the land that is owned by Casas Church that could still be used for church expansion. (2) Council wanted further discussion on commercial and the possibility of removing some of it from the plan as they were not convinced that market demand exists. (3) They wanted to research the timetable for the widening of LaCholla in this area. (Council Member Zinkin stated that the RTA is already discussing widening Broadway to only 3 lanes on each side rather than 4 lanes as was approved by the voters. Apparently the RTA is having revenue issues and they're considering a further increase in the sales tax in order to complete all the projects they promised. As such, the possibility exists that they will run out of money before they have widened LaCholla.) (4) They wanted to further research and clarify overall construction density. (5) They wanted to further research market need for townhomes. Have you researched the above issues? If yes, what was the outcome of each one? Councilmember Zinkin asked for a continuance for an additional reason: That the continuance also be based upon our citizens group conducting further negotiations with the applicant. This issue has been addressed. Our CORE group met with Paul Oland in January, February, and March. Respectfully, Diane Peters Chair, Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan _________________________________________________________________________ From: K Stratman Sent: 4/10/2015 2:06 PM To: Vella, Bayer; Hiremath, Satish; Waters, Lou; Burns, Brendan; Garner, William; Hornat, Joe; Snider, Mary; Zinkin, Mike Subject: Town Council Meeting April 15, 2015 Dear Mayor, Council Members and Town Staff, Re; Major General Plan Amendment SW corner Naranja and LaCholla AS stated on attachment 12 of agenda item 1, General Plan Amendment Evaluation Criteria Analysis, Section 22.2.D.3 1. The proposed change is necessary because conditions in the community have changed to the extent that the plan requires amendment or modification. The very essence of the application for a Major General Plan Amendment to the SW corner of Naranja and LaCholla is based entirely on the funding and planned expansion of LaCholla Blvd. As stated in the Staff Comment, "The funding of the planned expansion of La Cholla Boulevard to a four lane desert parkway is a change in conditions which support reconsideration of the planned density and intensity along this corridor." Since La Cholla is still a two lane street, and does not have funding to date for an expansion, if this motion is to pass, please consider a condition of approval that the completion of this stretch of LaCholla to a four lane parkway starting from Overton Rd to Tangerine Road be complete prior to any rezoning. to my knowledge, Currently there is no complete funding nor is there any factual time frame for the expansion of La Cholla Boulevard to a four lane desert parkway. Please consider adding this condition to the final approval. The safety of all our students who use this corridor, not to mention the citizens should be the number one priority. La Cholla Blvd is not a four lane desert parkway yet. Sincerely, Karen Stratman Citizen of Oro Valley, AZ From: Diane Peters [ Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 7:21 PM To: Gustav Paul Oland Subject: Mtg with Bill Garner Hi Paul, I spoke with Bill Garner about the offer you made on Tuesday. Before I survey the citizens group on their preference, I need to make sure that I understand this properly. Option A: The 12 to 14 lots on the southern portion of MDR on Lambert Lane would have a MINIMUM lot size of 8000 sf and other lots at 8500 sf. Option B: The entire MDR portion would have an average lot size between 6000-7000 sf. Is this correct? If yes, what is meant by "an AVERAGE lot size between 6000-7000 sf?" (a) NO lots would be below 6000 sf? (b) The average would be 6000-7000, but SOME could still be larger or smaller than that. The word "average" reminds me of the word "overall" and how it's very different than what people expect it to be. That's why I need clarification. Thank you. Deep cleansing breath. We're almost done! Diane Peters ESL PLANNING MAP LA CHOLLA / NARANJA (OV1114-002 & OV 1114-003) Attachment 11 Attachment 12 General Plan Amendment Evaluation Criteria Analysis, Section 22.2.D.3 General Plan Amendments are evaluated for consistency with the General Plan Amendment criteria in the Zoning Code. It is the burden of the applicant to present facts and other materials to support these criteria. The applicant’s response to each of the criteria is provided below in italics followed by staff’s analysis of each criterion: 1. The proposed change is necessary because conditions in the community have changed to the extent that the plan requires amendment or modification. Applicant’s Response – See Pages 2 and 3 of Attachment 5 Staff Comment: The funding of the planned expansion of La Cholla Boulevard to a four lane desert parkway is a change in conditions which support reconsideration of the planned density and intensity along this corridor. Voter authorization of the Regional Transportation Authority Plan occurred in 2006, after the 2005 ratification of the Oro Valley General Plan. The timing of the expansion is currently planned for 2021, but the Town is now working with the RTA to move the planned expansion up to accommodate the additional projected traffic volume of this roadway. Expanding La Cholla Boulevard to a parkway will provide another important major north–south transportation corridor within the community and warrants re-evaluation of the planned land uses. A moderate increase in density / intensity is supported by the General Plan policy which provides that higher density uses should be located near major arterial streets. Increasing the planned density and intensity of development based on the expansion of La Cholla Boulevard represents an efficient use of public infrastructure, a concept which is also supported by General Plan policy. 2. The proposed change is sustainable by contributing to the socio-economic betterment of the community, while achieving community and environmental compatibility. Applicant’s Response – See Page 3 of Attachment 5 Staff Comment: The planned variety of residential uses, supported by retail and office development contributes to the overall socio-economic opportunities within this area. A balanced land use plan reduces vehicle trips on adjacent roadways and reduces traffic congestion. Nearby commercial services also creates walkable neighborhoods by promoting non-motorized travel to access goods and services. Employment opportunities also contribute to the socio-economic betterment of residents through reduced traffic impact and transportation costs. The proposed concept plan achieves environmental compatibility through conformance with the Town’s adopted Environmentally Sensitive Lands ordinance and preservation of the natural wash corridors through the site. In terms of neighborhood compatibility, a number of mitigation measures have been included in the proposals:  Prohibition of apartments within the property  Requirement for specific commercial zoning districts in each commercial area  Limitation on commercial uses  Requirement for PAD zoning, including master studies  Expansion of the single-story home restriction in the southwest portion of the property  Establish maximum number of homes on the property  Requirement for master trails plan  Perimeter landscape buffer yard requirements  Restriction of senior care uses to Casas Church expansion  Location and limitation of Casas Church expansion 3. The proposed change reflects market demand which leads to viability and general community acceptance. Applicant’s Response – See Pages 4 - 6 of Attachment 5 Staff Comment: General Plan policy states that the Town “reasonably” wishes to be satisfied that market demand exists for the land uses proposed in the application. It should be acknowledged that market demand beyond the 2-3 year timeframe is difficult to predict. It also should be noted that demand and supply in a free market economy are never perfectly synchronized and a margin of supply above demand is normal. Residential As of 2013 the Town was approximately 80% built out for single family residential development. Of the remaining vacant land left in the Town, this area represents one of the few remaining large tracts of vacant land. This condition has resulted in a significant amount of recent growth and development pressure in this specific area. Recent medium density residential development activity along the La Cholla corridor includes the subject property, Rancho de Plata, Rancho de Cobre, Saguaros Viejos, Meritage at Naranja and a rezoning at the southeast corner of Lambert and La Cholla. This recent and focused development activity demonstrates there is current market demand in this area for medium density residential. To compare supply of medium density residential in relation to demand, staff refined the numbers provided in the October 7th staff report to delete areas which were not comparable (e.g. Stone Canyon) and to reflect actual proposed development totals. For vacant areas, density assumptions were reduced to the midpoint of the density range which is more reflective of actual development densities based on the Town’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands section of the Zoning Code. This refined analysis resulted in a reduction of the supply numbers from the previous reported number of 2,420 down to 1,993 units. A breakdown of these supply units is as follows: Category Number of Lots Vacant lots in actively selling subdivisions 222 Projects approved since 2013 655 Projects Proposed Since 2013 900 Vacant Zoned & General Plan 216 Total 1,993 The revised application submitted by the applicant contains additional analysis relative to market absorption over time of this projected supply of medium density residential units. Included within the revised submittal is conclusions derived from a draft market demand report which is being prepared by Valbridge Property Advisors. The applicant has provided a supplemental analysis projecting future growth of medium density residential based on assumed timeframes of development by community, assumed rate of growth of the market and an assumed absorption rate by community. This analysis is provided in Attachment 5. It should be noted that the full market analysis has not been completed nor reviewed by staff and therefore definitive conclusions cannot be reached. It also should be reinforced that an empirical market study is not required by the General Plan which requires only that the Town wishes to be reasonably satisfied that a market exists for the proposed land uses. Based on the information supplied, several observations are noted:  The analysis submitted by the applicant includes most of the supply numbers listed above, with the exception of the 216 vacant / zoned units.  The analysis uses an expected annual growth rate of 5%, which in staff’s opinion is optimistic and conflicts with the conclusions of Valbridge Property Advisors which suggest a more modest 2% annual growth rate.  The analysis assumes an absorption rate by community of 2 homes per month. The current absorption rate by community is actually higher at 2.5 – 3.0 homes per month, dependent on the specific community.  The draft market demand study submitted by Valbridge Property Advisors concludes that there is demand for approximately 100-200 townhouses, although the study is general in nature. With the noted discrepancies, the analysis generally shows a reasonable relationship between supply and demand of medium density residential units. Correction of the unit totals will result in a longer supply horizon beyond the applicant’s forecast of 2022. Given the generalized nature of the General Plan policy and the evaluation criteria, staff is reasonably satisfied that a market exists for the medium density land use with the observation that absorption of the supply medium density will extend beyond the applicants forecast of 2022. Commercial In regard to the market to support the amount of commercially designated land in the plan, Valbridge Property Advisors concludes that there is a market for approximately 200,000 additional square feet of retail space in the neighborhood. The conclusions do not appear to account for the existing commercial zoning at the northeast corner of Lambert and La Cholla. The back-up analysis supporting the market study conclusion for 200,000 sq. ft. of additional retail demand is general in nature. It is reasonable to anticipate additional commercial will be needed, although the timeframe is uncertain and tied to residential growth. Senior Care The market demand study submitted by Valbridge Property Advisors concludes that there is demand for approximately 200 new assisted living units in the neighborhood, although the study is general in nature. This study notably does not account for all planned facilities in the Town including La Posada at 1st Avenue and Naranja and All Seasons Care on Innovation Park Drive, north of Tangerine Road which are outside the study area of the market study. The applicant has now eliminated senior care uses from the property, unless developed in conjunction with the Casa Church expansion 4. The amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole, or a portion of the community without an acceptable means of mitigating these impacts through the subsequent zoning and development processes. Applicant’s Response – See Pages 6 and 7 of Attachment 5 Staff Comment: The General Plan supports higher density development near major arterial streets and the proposed moderate increase in density is consistent with this policy. Measures incorporated into the proposals to reduce impacts on adjoining areas and the school district, including the measures listed in response to Criteria 2. General Plan Vision, Goals and Policies Analysis General Plan Amendments are also evaluated for consistency with the Vision, Goals and Policies of the General Plan. The following is an analysis relative to the amendments consistency with the Vision and key Policies in the General Plan. General Plan Vision To be a well planned community that uses its resources to balance the needs of today against the potential impacts to future generations. Oro Valley’s lifestyle is defined by the highest standard of environmental integrity, education, infrastructure, services, and public safety. It is a community of people working together to create the Town’s future with a government that is responsive to residents and ensures the long-term financial stability of the Town. The Vision Statement from the General Plan emphasizes the need to carefully balance land use decisions which respond to current conditions, against the long term impact to the community. The amendment provides for an efficient use of planned infrastructure and addresses the socio-economic goals expressed in the Vision Statement through the provision of nearby services in proximity to residential. General Plan Policies The applicant has provided analysis of the amendments conformance with adopted General Plan policies, which is provided in Attachment 5. Staff has evaluated the amendment against all General Plan policies, with notable polices identified below. Policy 1.3.2 The Town shall encourage new development to locate uses that depend on convenient transportation access (e.g. higher density residential and commercial) near major arterial streets. Policy 1.2.1 The Town shall maintain Oro Valley’s predominately low-density character while considering the needs of financial stability and infrastructure efficiency. The proposed density / intensity of the planned development is consistent with the policy supporting higher density residential and commercial uses near major arterial streets. The planned expansion of La Cholla to a four lane desert parkway represents a significant public investment in infrastructure to serve this area. The proposed increase in planned intensity will promote the efficient use of this expanded infrastructure, in conformance with the General Plan policy. Policy 1.3.1 The Town shall encourage the location of residential neighborhoods close to activity centers compatible with residential uses, and vice versa. The proposed plan provides commercial uses and services in proximity to residential neighborhoods, consistent with this policy. Policy 1.4.3 The Town reasonably wishes to be satisfied that sufficient demand exists before authorizing a higher land use intensity than the present zoning permits. The applicant has generally demonstrated demand exists for the proposed single family residential uses, although the timeframe for absorption of the supply will more than likely significantly longer than suggested by the applicant based on discrepancies noted. The market study concludes there is additional demand for retail and assisted living, although these conclusions cannot be independently verified by staff. Policy 1.3.5 The Town shall encourage master planning that looks comprehensively at the subject properties and all adjacent areas. Policy 1.4.11 The Town shall establish procedures to ensure the coordinated development of vacant areas of 40 acres or more either under multiple or single ownership by requiring the development of master plans for those areas. These master plans must consider and seek to minimize the impact of development on all adjoining properties. The applicant proposes a Special Area Policy requiring master planning of the property through the use of a Planned Area Development (PAD) zoning application.is to comprehensively plan the property through the use of master planning at the rezoning stage of development. This PAD will provide a coordinated and cohesive circulation, utility, infrastructure phasing, land use, landscaping, recreational areas and architectural standards, consistent with this policy. Policy 5.4.1 The Town shall maintain a harmonious relationship between urban development and development of the transportation network. The proposed moderate overall density provides a complementary relationship between the planned development and the transportation network. Expansion of La Cholla to a four lane parkway supports a moderate increase in density along this corridor, but not at the density proposed by the applicant. Policy 7.2.3 The Town shall allow and encourage master planned communities that offer high-quality neighborhoods with a variety of residential densities and appropriately located commercial uses to serve the community. In these developments, ensure there are adequate transitions and buffers between uses. The proposed amendment to master planned community would establish a variety of residential densities along with support commercial and non-residential uses, consistent with this policy. Policy 8.1.2 The Town shall identify and work to acquire a La Cholla corridor park site. The current General Plan includes an open space designated property north of the northwest corner of La Cholla and Lambert. The applicant has retained this parcel as a private recreational area to serve the planned neighborhoods. The Town has analyzed this parcel and concluded that is too small to accommodate community level park facilities. Policy 6.1.2 The Town shall continue to require that all new developments be evaluated to determine impacts on all public facilities within the Town, including but not limited to schools and roads. Such impacts shall be used as criterion in deciding the approval or denial of land use rezoning proposals. As previously stated, the school district has provided a letter indicating that with the applicant’s commitment to complete a donation agreement, the school district anticipates that they will be able to serve the expected enrollment generated from the project. Major General Plan Amendment Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report CASE NUMBER: OV1114-002 and OV 1114-003 MEETING DATE: November 20, 2014 AGENDA ITEM: 2A and 2B STAFF CONTACT: Chad Daines, Principal Pl anner cdaines@orovalleyaz.qov (520) 229-4896 Applicant: Paul Oland of WLB Group Requests: Agenda It em From : T o: Case #2A Rural Low Density Residential Master Planned Community comprised of: OV1114-002 Low Density Residential Open Space Neighborhood Commercia l Office Neighborhood Commercial! Office La Cho ll a! Public! Semi Publi c Low Density Residential Naranja Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential So uth west Open Space Hi gh Density Residential Significant Resource Area Senior Care Facility Deletion of Significant Resource Area Adoption of Special Area Policies Case #2B Medium Density Master Planned Community comprised of: OV 1114-003 Sign ifi cant Resource Area Neighborhood Commercia l ! Office Medium Density Residential La Cholla! Deletion of S ignificant Resource Area Naranja Adoption of Special Area Policies Northwest Location: Southwest! Northwest corne r of La Cho ll a Boulevard and Naranja Drive Recommendation: Recommend approval to Town Counci l SUMMARY: The applicant proposes two Majo r General Plan Amendments to Master Planned Commun ity for 194 acres located at the southwest and northwest corners of La Chol la Boulevard and Naranja Drive (Attachment 1). Th e proposed Master Planned Community contains a variety of residential and non- resident ia l land uses as depicted on the applicant's Concept Plan (Attachment 2), including: • Low, Medium and Hi gh Density Residential • Open Space • Senior Care Facility The applicant also proposes Special Area Policies to guide future development of the property (Attachment 3). The applicant's narrative , response to Code evaluation criteria and market study are OVl114-002 and OV1114-003 La Cholla and Naranja Page 2 ofl4 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report provided as Attachments 4A and 4B. The current and proposed General Plan Land Use Maps are provided on Attachments 5 and 6. Following the October 7t h Commission public hearing, another neighborhood meeting was held on October 20th In addition, the applicant also met recently with a smaller group of residents to hear their concerns. As a result, the proposed amendment has been modified by the applicant as follows: • Elimination of apartments from the Master Planned Community and replacement with townhouses { condominiums wi th a density not to exceed 12 homes per acre • Narrowing the range of allowed uses in the High Density area to townhouses {co ndominiums, medium density residential and senior care • Elimination of the southern "flexible zone", replacing it with medium density residential • Provision for a maximum 778 dwelling unit cap on the entire project area. • Extending area of the one-story home restriction along the southern border • Amended Special Area Policies to address previously raised staff issues • Amended general plan amendment criteria and submittal of a market study The above issues will be addressed in greater detail in the balance of this staff report. In summary, conditions in the community ha ve changed which warrant reconsideration of the land use densities and intensities along this corridor, specifically the funding of the expansion of La Cholla Boulevard to a four lane parkway. The planned expansion of La Cholla will establish this roadway as a primary north-south route through Oro Valley. General Plan policies support the location of higher density { intensity uses along or near major arterial streets. The function and future traffic volume of this major arterial roadway supports reconsideration of the existing land use designations and a moderate intensification of land use along this corridor. As a result of neighborhood input, the applicant has made significant modifications to the amendments which reduce the impa ct of the planned development on adjacent areas. These modifications include deletion of the planned apartments, removal of the church expansion, reduction in the range of uses allowed on specific parcels and the inclusion of open space buffers and building height restrictions. The proposals are consistent with the major general plan amendment re view criteria and general plan goals and policies. BACKGROUND: Land Use Context LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE (Attach ment 1) (Attachment 5) SUBJECT Vacant Various designations PROPERT\ NORTH Vacant and Medium Density Residential (2.1 -5.0 homes {acre) Hiqh School School SOUTH Single-family Residential Low Density Residential (1.3 -2.0 homes {acre) .5 to 3.3 acre lots EAST Single-family Residential 7 ,000 sq. ft. lots Medium Density, Low Den s ity and Neighborho od and Vacant Commercial Office WEST Single-family Residential and Rural Low Density (0-0.3 homes {acre ) Vacant OVll14-002 and OVll14-003 La ChoUa and Naranja Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report Page 3 of 14 Approvals To Date There ha ve been no approvals to date on the subject property. The property was annexed into the Town in 2002. Existing General Plan Land Use Designation s (Attachment 5) The current Oro Valley General Plan designates the property as follo ws: Agenda Item 2A • Rural Low Density Residential (0.0 -0.3 homes per acre) • Lo w Density (0.4 -1.2 homes per acre) • Medium Density Residential (2.1 -5.0 homes per acre) • Neighborhood Commercial /Office • Public / Semi-Public • Open Space • Significant Resource Area Agenda Item 28 • Medium Density Residential (2 .1 -5.0 homes per acre) • Significant Res ou rc e Area Proposed General Plan Land Use Designati on (Attachment 6) The proposed amendment is to Master Planned Community, w hich is described as follows: Master Planned Community: This land use designation refers to areas w here large multi-use developments should be planned and developed in a comprehensive manner. The proposed Master Planned Community is comprised of: Agenda Item 2A • Open Space • Neighborhood Commercial /Office • Low Density Reside ntia l (1.3 -2.0 homes per ac re) • Medium Density Residential (2.1 -5.0 homes per acre) • High Density (Up to 12 homes per acre) • Senior Care Us es Agenda Item 28 • Neighborhood Commercial/Office • Medium Density Residential (2.1 -5.0 homes per acre) En vironmentally Sensiti v e Lands (ESL) Conservation Categories (Attachment 7) Th e property conta in s the foll owing ESL conservation categories: • Critical Resource Area (CRA) Resources including was hes and riparian areas with a 95% open space requirement OV1114-002 and OV1114-003 La Cholla and Naranja Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report Page 4 of14 • Resource Management Area (RMA) Tier I: Lower re source value lands with lower intensity growth expectations in the General Plan , such as Low-Density residential , and includes a 66% open space requirement • Resource Management Area (RMA) Tier 2: Lo we r resource va lue lands with lower intensity growth expectations in the General Plan , such as Lo w-Density residential, and includes a 25% open space requirement The ESL conservation system protects critical open space systems and linkages throughout the Town. ESL provides strict requirements for h ighest value resources and more flexible ones in areas of lower resource value. Riparian areas or very significant habitat features ha ve the highest conservation requirements. On the other end of the spectrum, lands designated as Resource Management Area (RMA) are important but have the lowest resource value and lower conservation requirements. Unlike higher resource val ue categories, including Major Wildlife Linkages (MWL), Critical Resource Areas (CRA), and Core Resource Area (Core), the RMA designation is driven by growth expectations of the General Plan. Each Resource Management Tier aligns with the anticipated level of growth reflected in the General Plan. In other words, the General Plan designation determines the RMA Tier and subsequent amount of conservation (open space). Based on the proposed amendment, if approved, areas outside Critical Resource Area's will be designated RMA Tier 2 and require 25% open space conservation. Previously, staff had indicated that the area proposed on the western boundary as Lo w Density should be designated RMA Tier 1 and require 66% open space conservation. After further analysis relati ve to the existing classification for the other existing Master Planned Community areas, staff has concluded that this Lo w Density area should be classified as RMA Tier 2 and require 25% open space. This determination is based on the overall medium density character of the de ve lopment and that the Tier 2 classification would be consistent with the other Master Planned Community referenced in the Environmentally Sensiti ve Lands section of the Zoning Code. Significant Resource Area Deletion The applicant proposes to delete the Significant Resource Area designation on the southern portion of the property. Thi s designation, adopted w ith the original General Plan in 2005, pro c eeded the To wn's adoption of the En v ironmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) regulations in 2011. The ESL ordinance establishes comprehensive environmental conservation standards and regulations. From a land use standpoint, retention of the SRA designation wi ll ha ve th e effect of limiting density to the lowes t end of the density range (e.g. areas designated Lo w Density wo uld be limited to 1.3 homes per acre and areas designated Medium Density would be limited to 2.1 homes per acre), which would have a reduced environmental impact on the property. Beyond the density limitation , the Significant Res ou rce Area designation does not provide any additional measure of environmental protection when co mpared to the Tow n's ESL regulations. As the comprehensive standards established by the En vironmentall y Sensitive Lands section of the Zoning Code provide for a s uperior level of resour ce protection, staff is supportive of the applicant's request to delete the Significant Resource Area designation . OV1114-002 and OVl114-003 La ChoUa and Naranja Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS: Land Use Plan Analysis Page 5 of 14 The proposed Concept Plan (Attachment 2) provides for a range of single-family residential land uses, townhouses/co ndominiums, parks and non-residential uses . The Concept Plan is pro vided for illustrative purposes and wi ll not be formally adopted as part of the General Plan . The proposed master planned community wraps around the existing Casas Adobes Baptist Church and incorporates the existing Cross Road as the primary internal access to the development. A total of three access pOints are proposed from La Cholla Boulevard and one access drive is provided from Lambert Lane. A significant concern of staff and the neighborhood with the earlier proposa l was the inclusion of apartments in the center portion of the property. Based on staff and neighborhood input, the applicant has now eliminated the proposed apartments and replaced this use with townhouse/co ndominium de velopment not to exceed 12 homes per acre. Along the western boundary, the applicant proposes Low Density Residential with a maximum density of 2.0 homes per acre to provide lower densities adjacent to the 3.3 acre lots to the west. A 200 foot open space buffer and 300 foot one story home restriction along the western boundary adjacent to existing homes w ill provide additional buffering to this lower density area. Based on neighborhood input, the 300 fo ot one story single-family residential height restriction has been extended along the southern boundary (Lambert Lane). Neighborhood Commercial / Office parcels are proposed at the northwest and southwest corners of Naranja Dri ve and La Cholla. Additionally , the applicant proposes an expansion of the existing Neighborhood Commercial / Office property at the northwest corner of Lambert and La Cholla . The proposed commercial parcels are consistent w ith General Plan polici es which support the location of higher intenSity uses near major arterial streets. A Special Area Policy has been included providing a back-up designation of Medium Density Residential within these commercial areas once all other res idential areas ha ve developed. Discussio n relati ve to the market for future commercial is addressed in the criteria analys is section of this report. A number of previous concerns with the proposals have been addressed as follows : • The applicant has modified the amendments to significantly red uce the amount of va riation in land use. The southern "flexibility" area has be e n eliminated and now only permits medium density residential. Furthermore, the ce nter area is now restricted to townhouse/co ndominiums, senior care and medium density residential. • The back-up designation for the commercial areas of medium den sity residential wou ld result in the co mmercial areas being de ve loped as residential based on the typical market sequence w hich prioritizes single-family residential, followed by commercial development. The applicant ha s addressed this concern with a Special Area Policy which allows residential development on the commercial parcels only after all other residential development within the property occurs. • The lack of market analysis supporting the senior care uses within the property is addressed under the criteria analysis sectio n of this report . • A Special Area Polic y has been included requiring the recreation a l areas to be improved w ith a commensurate level of amenities required by the Zoning Code . The Park s and Recreati o n Director has reviewed th e site and determined that the size of the rec reati on areas is not conducive t o a dedicated To w n park and therefore the recre ation al areas sho uld remain private. OVl1l4-002 and OV1114-003 La C holla and Naranja Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report Page 6 of 14 In s ummary, th e moderate in cre ase in inte ns ity is co n sistent w ith the General Pl a n policies with re ga rd to lo ca ting hi gher inten s ity use s ne ar major arterial streets. The mod e rat e intens it y w ill re su lt in an efficient use of infra struct ure and comp lement th e planned expansion of La Cholla Bou levard . The planned com mercial a reas are consistent w ith General Plan policies on loca tio n and scale of comme rcial deve lopment. The appl icant has in corporated measures to address some ne ighborhood co nce rns as f o llows : • Estab li shed a maximum unit cap of 778 units w hi ch wi ll result in an overa ll density that is comparable w ith the density of the residenti a l a re a to the east. • Modified the proposed am e ndments to respo nd to neighborhood co nce rn s through the elimination of the apartment use and church expansion and limiting the den s it y of the to w nh ouses/cond omin ium s to 12 homes per acre . • In cluded an ope n space buffer on the western bo un dary a nd building he igh t re strictions o n the west and so uth which wi ll redu ce the imp act of deve lopment on th ese a reas. Special Area Policy Analysis The app li cant proposes a num ber of Special Area Pol icies to impleme nt the proposed Master Pl an ned Commun ity (Attachment 3). Nota bl e e lements of th e Special Area Pol icie s are discussed in th e preced ing Land U se Analysis section. Previous concerns with the policies ha ve been addressed as follows: • All la nd use designations w ill utilize General Plan land use descriptions • A requ irement to ma ste r plan the property through th e use of a Planned Area De ve lopm en t • Open space buffe r on th e west and s ingl e-story height restriction s on the wes t and south have been inco r po rated • Apartme nts have been deleted and replaced with townh ouses /condominiums not to e xcee d 12 homes per acre • Medi um density development on comme rcia l parce ls ca n only occu r after all other reside ntia l in the m aste r planned community a re developed • A maximum of 778 residential dwelling units can be b uilt in the master planned community • Clarification with re gard to th e a men it ies within the Park areas . General Plan Amendment Evaluation Criteria Analysis, Section 22.2.0.3 General Pl an Amendments are evaluated for consistency w ith the General Plan Amendment crit eria in th e Zoning Code. It is the burden of the app lica nt to present facts and othe r materials t o support these criteria. Th e app li cant's response to eac h of the crit eria is provided be low in ita li cs followed by staff's ana lysis of eac h criterion : 1 . The proposed change is necessary because conditions in the community have changed to the extent that the plan requires amendment or modification. Applicant's Response -See Pages 2 and 3 of Attachment 4 Staff Comment: T he funding of the planned expansion of La Cholla Bou leva rd to a fou r lane desert parkway is a change in conditions which su pport reconsideration of the planned den sit y and intensity along th is corr idor. Vo ter authorization of the Regional Transportation Authority Plan occurred in 2006, after the 2005 OVl1l4-002 and OV1l14-003 La ChoUa and Naranja Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report Page 7 of14 ratification of the Oro Valley General Plan. The timing of the expansion is currently planned for 2021 , but the Town is no w working with the RTA to move the planned expansion up to accommodate the additional projected traffic volume of this roadway. Expanding La Cholla Boulevard to a parkway will provide another important major north-south transportation corridor within the community and warrants re-evaluation of the planned land uses . A moderate increase in density / intensity is supported by the General Plan policy which provides that higher density uses should be located near major arterial streets. Increasing the planned density and intensity of development based on the expansion of La Cholla Boulevard represents an efficient use of public infrastructure , a concept which is also supported by General Plan policy. 2. The proposed change is sustainable by contributing to the socio-economic betterment of the community, while achieving community and environmental compatibility. App/icant 's Response -See Page 3 of Attachment 4 Staff Comment: The planned variety of residential uses, supported by retail and office development contributes to the overall socio-economic opportunities within this area. A balanced land use plan reduces vehicle trips on adjacent roadways and reduces traffic congestion. Nearby commercial services also creates walkable neighborhoods by promoting non-motorized travel to access goods and services. Employment opportunities also contribute to the socio-economic betterment of residents through reduced traffic impact and transportation costs. The proposed concept plan ach ieves environmental compatibility through conformance with the Town's adopted Environmentally Sensitive Lands ordinance and preservation of the natural wash corridors through the site. In terms of neighborhood compatibility , a number of mitigation measures have been included in the proposals: • The proposed Low Density along the western boundary of the property address compatibility with the 3.3 acre lots to the west. • Open space and one story residential building height limitations on the west and south boundaries to reduce the impact on adjacent areas . • Elimination of the planned apartments which had been the major concern of a majority of residents who spoke at the neighborhood meetings and the October 71h Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The plan now proposes townhouse/condominium uses limited to 12 homes per acre in the center portion of the property . • Establishment of a maximum unit cap of 778 units which will result in an overall density that is comparable with the density of the residential area to the east. 3. The proposed change reflects market demand which leads to viability and general community acceptance. Applicant's Response -See Pag es 4 -6 of Attachment 4 OV1114-002 and OVll14-003 La ChoUa and Na ranja Planning and Zoning C ommission Staff Report Staff Comment: Page 8 of14 General Plan polic y states that the Tow n "reasonably" wishes to be satisfied that market demand exists for the land uses proposed in the application. It should be acknowledged that market demand beyond the 2-3 year timeframe is difficult to predict. It also should be noted that demand and suppl y in a free market economy are never perfectly synchronized and a margin of supply above demand is normal. Residential As of 2013 the Town was approximately 80% built out for single family residential development. Of the remaining vacant land left in the Town , this area represents one of the few remaining large tracts of vacant land . This condition has resulted in a significant amount of recent growth and development pressure in this specific area. Recent medium density residential development activity along the La Cholla corridor includes the subject property, Rancho de Plata , Rancho de Cobre , Saguaros Viejos, Meritage at Naranja and a rezoning at the southeast corner of Lambert and La Cholla. This re ce nt and focused development activity demonstrates there is current market demand in this area for medium density residential. To compare supply of medium density residential in relation to demand, staff refined the numbers provided in the Octobe r 7 th staff report to delete areas which were not co mparable (e .g. Stone Canyon) and to reflect actual proposed de velop ment totals. For vaca nt areas , density assumptions we re reduced to the midpoint of the density range which is more reflective of actual development densities based on the Town 's Environmentally Sensitive Lands section of the Zoning Code . This refined analysis resulted in a reduction of the supply numbers from the previ ou s reported number of 2,420 dow n to 1,993 units . A breakdown of these supply units is as follows : Category Number of Lots Va cant lots in ac tive ly se lling subdivisions 222 Projects app roved s ince 20 13 655 Projects P roposed Sin ce 201 3 900 Vac ant Zoned & General Plan 2 16 Total 1,993 The re vised application submitted by the applicant contains additional a nal ysis relati ve to market absorpti o n over time of this projecte d supply of medium den si ty resid e ntial units. Included w ithin the revised s ubmittal is co nclusion s derived from a draft market demand report which is being prepared by Valbridge Property Advisors. The applicant has provided a s upplemental analysis projecting future growth of medium density re s idential based on assumed timeframes of development by community, assumed rate of growth of the market and an assumed absorption rate by com mun ity. Th is analysis is pro vi ded on Attachment 4B. It should be noted that the full market analysis has not been completed nor re v ie wed by staff and therefore definitive co nclusion s ca nnot be rea c hed. It also s hould be reinfo rced that an empirical marke t stud y is not requ ired by the General Plan wh ic h requires only that the To wn wishes to be rea sonab ly satisfied that a market ex ists for the proposed land u ses. Ba sed on th e information supplied, several observations are noted: • Th e analysis subm itted by th e applicant include s most of the s upp ly num be rs listed above , wi th the exceptio n of the 216 vac ant I zoned units. OV1l14-002 and OV1l14-003 La Cholla and Naranja Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report Page 9 of 14 • The analysis reflects 626 units for the subject property, not the 778 units proposed by Special Area Policy. • The analysis uses an expected annual growth rate of 5%, w hich in staff's opinion is optimistic and conflicts with the conclusions of Valbridge Property Advisors w hich suggest a more modest 2% annual growth rate . • Th e analysis assumes an absorption ra te by community of 2 homes per month. The current absorption rat e by community is actually higher at 2.5 -3.0 homes per month, dependent on the specific community. • The draft market demand study submitted by Valbridge Property Advisors concludes that there is demand for approximately 100-200 townhouses, although the study is general in nature . With the noted discrepancies, the analysis generally shows a reasonable relation shi p between supply and demand of medium density residential units. Correction of the unit totals will result in a longer supply horizon beyond the applicant's forecast of 2022. Given the generalized nature of the General Plan policy and the evaluation criteria, staff is reasonabl y satisfied that a market exists for the medium density land use w ith the observation that absorption of the supply medium density will extend beyond the applicants forecast of 2022. Commercial In regard to the market to support the amount of commercial ly designated land in the plan, Valbridge Property Advisors concl udes that there is a market for approximately 200,000 additional square feet of retail space in the neighborhood . The conclusions do not appear to account for the existing commercial zoning at the northeast corner of Lambert and La Cholla. The back-up analysis supporting the market study conclusion for 200,000 sq . ft. of additional retail demand is general in nature. It is reasonable to anticipate add ition al commercia l wil l be needed, a lthoug h the timefram e is uncertain and tied to resident ia l growth. Senior Care Th e market demand study submitted by Val bridge Property Advisors concludes that there is demand for approximately 200 new assisted living units in the neighborhood, although the study is general in nature . This study notably does not account for all planned facilities in the Town including La Posada at 1st Avenue and Naranja and All Seasons Care on Inno vation Park Dri ve, north of Tangerine Road wh ich are outside the s tudy area of the market study. Th e applicant has ind icated that they wi ll be seeking a niche of senior care not currently add ressed by the above referenced planned facilities . 4. The amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole, or a portion of the community without an acceptable means of mitigating these impacts through the subsequent zoning and development processes. Applicant 's Response -See Pages 6 and 7 of Attachment 4 Staff Comment: Th e General Plan supports higher density deve lopme nt near major arterial streets and the proposed moderate increase in densi ty is consistent wi th this policy. Measures in corpo rated into the proposals to reduce impacts on adjoin ing areas and the schoo l district, including: • The proposed plan internalizes the h igher density and intensity land uses away from the lower density areas to the west. OVI114-002 and OVll14-003 La Cholla and Naranja Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report Page 10 of 14 • To address compatibility concerns raised by residents to south along Lambert, the revised plan extended the 300 foot single-story residential building height limitation along Lambert Lane. • The modified plan eliminates the planned apartments which had been the major concern of a majority of residents who spoke at the neighborhood meetings and the October 7 th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting . The plan now proposes townhouse I condominium uses limited to 12 homes per acre. • The applicant has established a maximum unit cap of 778 units which will result in an overall density that is comparable with the density of the residential area to the east. • The applicant has met with Amphitheater School District who have provided a letter indicating that with the applicant's commitment to complete a donation agreement, the school district anticipates that they will be able to serve the expected enrollment generated from the project. (Attachment 10). General Plan Vision, Goals and Policies Analysis General Plan Amendments are also evaluated for consistency with the Vision, Goals and Policies of the General Plan. The following is an analysis relative to the amendments consistency with the Vision and key Policies in the General Plan. General Plan Vision To be a well planned community that uses its resources to balance the needs of today against the potential impacts to future generations. Oro Valley 's lifestyle is defined by the highest standard of environmental integrity, education, infrastructure, services, and public safety. It is a community of people working together to create the Town's future with a government that is responsive to residents and ensures the long-term financial stability ofthe Town. The Vision Statement from the General Plan emphasizes the need to carefully balance land use decisions w hi ch respond to current conditions, against the long term impact to the community. The amendment provides for an efficient use of planned infrastructure and addresses the socio-economic goals expressed in the Vision Statement through the provision of nearby services in proximity to residential. General Plan Policies The applicant has provided analysis of the amendments co nformance with adopted General Plan policies, which is provided in Attachment 4. Staff has evaluated the amendment against all General Plan policies, with notable polices identified below. Policv 1.3.2 Th e Town shall encourage new development to locate uses that depend on convenie nt tran sportation access (e.g. higher density residential and commercia/) near major arterial streets. Policv 1.2.1 The Town shall maintain Oro Valley's predominately low-den sity character while conSidering the needs of financial stability and infrastructure efficiency. The proposed density I intensity of the planned de ve lopment is consis tent with the policy suppo rting higher density residential and commerc ial uses near major arterial streets. The planned expansion of La Cholla t o a four lan e desert parkway repre sen ts a significant public in vest ment in infra st ru cture to OVI114-002 and OV1114-003 La Cholla and Naranja Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report Page 11 of 14 serve this area . The proposed increase in planned intensity will promote the efficient use of this expanded infrastructure, in conformance with the General Plan policy. Policy 1.3. 1 The Town shall encourage the location of residential neighborhoods close to activity centers compatible with residential uses, and vice versa. The proposed plan provides commercial uses and services in proximity to residential neighborhoods, consistent with this policy. Policy 1.4.3 The Town reasonably wishes to be satisfied that sufficient demand exists before authorizing a higher land use intensity than the present zoning permits. The applicant has generally demonstrated demand exists for the proposed single family residential uses, although the timeframe for absorption of the supply will more than likely significantly longer than suggested by the applicant based on discrepancies noted . The market study concludes there is additional demand for retail and assisted living, although these conclusions cannot be independently verified by staff. Policy 1.3.5 The Town shall encourage master planning that looks comprehensively at the subject properties and all adjacent areas. Policy 1.4.11 The Town shall establish procedures to ensure the coordinated development of vacan t areas of 40 acres or more either under multiple or single ownership by requiring the development of master plans for those areas. These master plans must consider and seek to minimize the impact of development on all adjoining properties. The applicant proposes a Special Area Policy requiring master planning of the property through the use of a Planned Area Development (PAD) zoning application.is to comprehensively plan the property through the use of master planning at the rezoning stage of development. This PAD will provide a coordinated and cohesive circulation, utility, infrastructure phasing, land use , landscaping, re creational areas and architectural standards, consistent with this policy. Policy 5.4.1 The Town shall maintain a harmonious relationship between urban development and development of the tran sporlation network. The proposed moderate overall density provides a compleme ntary r e lationship between the planned development and the transportation network. Expansion of La Cholla to a four lane parkway supports a moderate increase in density along this corridor, but not at the density proposed by the applicant. Policy 7.2.3 The Town shall allow and encourage master planned communities that offer high-quality neighborhoods with a variety of residentia l densities and appropriately located co mmercial uses to serve the community. In these developments, ensure there are adequate transitions and buffers between uses. The proposed amendment to ma ste r planned community would establish a variety of residential densities along with support commercial and non-residential uses , consistent with this poli cy. P olicy 8.1.2 Th e Town shall identify and work to acquire a La Cholla corridor park site. Th e current General Plan includes an open space designated property north of the northwest co rner of La Cholla and La mb ert. The applicant has retained thi s parcel as a private recreational area to serve OV1114-002 and OV1114-003 La Cholla and Naranja Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report Page 12 of 14 the planned neighborhoods. The Town has analyzed this parce l and concluded that is too small to accommodate community level park facilities. Policy 6. 1.2 Th e Town shall continue to require that all new developments be evaluated to determine impacts on all public facilities within the Town , including but not limited to schools and roads. Such impacts shall be used as criterion in deciding the approval or denial of land use rezoning proposals. As previously stated, the school district has provided a letter indicating that with the applicant's commitment to complete a donation agreement, the school district anticipates that they will be able to serve the expected enrollment generated from the project. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Summary of Public Notice Th e following public notice has been provided: • Notification of all property owners within 1,000 feet • Notification to additional interested parties who signed in at neighborhood meetings • Homeowners Association mailing • Advertisement in The Daily Territorial and Arizona Daily Star newspapers • Post on property • Post at Town Hall and on Town websi te • Outside review agencies The applicant conducted three neighborhood meetings and an open house on the proposals as follows: • April 15, 2014, with approximately 75 interested parties attending the meeting. • August 13, 20 14, with 65 in terested parties attending the meeting • An open house was held September 10,2014 with approximately 90 interested parties attending the meeting. • October 20th with approximately 40 interested parties attending the meeting. A number of issues were discussed at each meeting, summarized as follow in g: • Concern over proposed apartments • Access to schools • The proposed uses are not appropriate adjacent to the high school • Impact to water resources • Impact to the environment • Impact to habitat • Accommodation for pedestrian I bicycle traffic • Concerns over pub li c safety • Lighting and noise impact • In creased drainage in the area • Capacity of schools to handle the additional students • Impact to taxes to address additional school impact • Traffic impact • Negative impact to property values OV1114-002 and OV1114-003 La ChoUa and Naranja Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report • Lack of market demand for additional residential • La ck of market demand for additional commercial • Increased air pollution Page 13 of 14 The summary notes from all neighborhood meetings and the open house are atta c hed as Attachment 8. Letters, emails and/or comment cards from area residents have been submitted and are attached as Attachment 9. As a result of neighborhood input following the October 7 th Commission meeting, the proposed amendment has been modified by the applicant as follows : • Elimination of Apartments from the Master Planned Community and replacement w ith townhouses / condominiums wi th a density not to exceed 12 homes per acre • Narrowing the range of allowed uses in the High Density area to townhouses /co ndominiums , medium density and senior care • Elimination of the southern flexible zone, replacing it with medium density residential • Provision for a maximum 778 dwelling unit cap on the project. • Exte nsion of the one-story home restriction along the southern border • Amended Special Area Poli cies to address previously raised staff issues • Amended general plan amendment criteria and submittal of a draft market demand study SUMMARY The proposed amendment has been evaluated using the general plan amendment criteria and applicable General Plan goals and policies as well as neighborhood and outside agency input. Following is a summary of the factors for and against the proposal: Factors For : 1. The General Plan policies support the location of higher density / inten s ity along or near major arterial streets. 2. The amendment will provide for the efficient use of the planned infrastructure expansion of La Cholla Boulevard. A moderate increase in density and intensity of deve lopment will provide an appropriate relationship with the expansion of La Cholla Boulevard. 3. The overall residential density proposed by the applicant is generally compatible with the moderate density to the east along La Cholla. 4. The Low Density area, open space and one-story residential building height restri ct ion wi ll pro vide compatibility with the lower density area to the south and east 5. The proposed development provides nearby commercial services and employment to area residents. 6. The applicant has addressed the primary co ncerns of the neighborhood . 7. The proposals are consistent w ith the General Plan re v iew criteria 8. The proposal are cons istent with the V ison , Goals and Policie s of the General Plan. Factors Against: 1. Compatibility concerns have been rai sed by the re sidents to the east and south of the property. 2. Ma rket viability of commercial and senior ca re use s has not been c learly demonstrated by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION: OVll14-002 and OVll14-003 La ChoUa and Naranja Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report Based on the findings that the request is supported by the Factors For list above, it is recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission take the following action: Recommend approvat to the Town Council of the requested Major General Plan Amendment under OV1114-002 and OV1114-003. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: Agenda Item 2A Page 14 of 14 I move to recommend approval of the Major General Plan Amendment requested under case OV1114-002, specifically the land use map as shown on Attachment 6, deletion of the Significant Resource Area and adoption of the Special Area Policies shown on Attachment 3, based on the findings contained in the staff report. OR I move to recommend denial of the Major General Plan Amendments requested under case OV 1114-002, based on the finding that _______________ _ Agenda Item 2B I move to recommend approval of the Major General Plan Amendments requested under case OV1114-003, specifically the land use map as shown on Attachment 6, deletion of the Significant Resource Area and adoption of the Special Area Policies shown on Attachment 3, based on the findings co ntained in the staff report. OR I move to recommend denial of the Major General Plan Amendments requested under case O V 1114-003, based on the finding that ________________ _ ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Concept Plan 3. Proposed Special Area Policies 4A. Applicant Market Study and Response s to Criteria 4B . Applicant Housing Demand Study 5. Current General Land Use Plan 6. Proposed General Plan Land Use Plan 7. Environmentall y Sensitive Lands Planning Map 8. Ne ig hborh ood Meeting Summary Notes 9. Letters I Em ai ls Received 10. Amphitheater School Distri ct Letter Attachment 14 – Neighborhood Meeting Summary Notes Kai 311/ Lin-La Cholla Major General Plan Amendments Neighborhood Meeting April 15, 2014 Approximately 75 neighbors were in attendance, including Council Member Joe Hornat and Planning and Zoning Commission Members Bill Leedy, Bill Rodman and John Buetee. Planning Manager David Williams facilitated the event that included a brief presentation by Town staff discussing the General Plan Amendment process, followed by a presentation by the Applicant. A question and answer session followed the Applicants presentation, which is outlined below. Transportation/Traffic 1. A question was asked concerning La Canada as the “designated truck route” for Oro Valley a. Why was La Cholla being considered for a similar level of service? 2. A comment was made concerning southbound traffic on La Cholla, and that future development was only go to make it go from bad to worse. 3. A question was asked about the timing of development in relation to the future expansion project on La Cholla. 4. A comment was made emphasizing commercial should be located at arterial intersections. 5. A question was asked about any future plans to expand Lambert Lane. 6. A comment was made about concerns moving traffic from east to west. 7. A question was asked about the anticipated size of the La Cholla right-of-way. Where would the land come from? Land Use 8. A comment was made that commercial along the La Cholla street frontage was a bad idea. 9. The applicant asked what the residents would like to see on the vacant property. Several suggestions were: a. School expansion b. Linear Park c. Senior Living d. Condominiums 10. Numerous comments were made that “Core Area”, as proposed by the applicant, was too vague. What does it mean? What is it going to be? ( 3 total) 11. A comment was made concerning nearby neighborhood commercial, followed by a question of how much neighborhood commercial do we need? 12. A question was asked about the anticipated population and proposed density in the area. 13. A question was asked about the developer’s motivation for the new proposal. 14. A question was asked specifically about plans for the north proposed core area. 15. A comment was made indicating the project known as Kai Naranja was already approved and construction traffic would be increasing very soon. 16. A comment was made concerning existing vacant commercial properties. Do we really need to be adding commercial when so many sit vacant? 17. A comment was made about proposed commercial at the intersection of Glover Rd and La Cholla Blvd. being a bad idea. 18. A comment was made against future apartments in the area. 19. A comment was made about the opportunity for the Town to establish a linear park or community garden. 20. A question was asked whether any viability studies had been conducted to determine what type of commercial was needed. 21. A question was asked whether there was any desire for the Town to promote affordable housing. Neighborhood Impacts 22. A comment was made about light pollution concerns. 23. A question was asked about future plans for a screen wall to be included during the La Cholla expansion. 24. A comment was made about the current level of construction, and the impact additional construction would have on the area. Schools 25. A question was asked about neighborhood school capacity and whether or not the additional development could be accommodated. 26. A comment was made concerning school traffic and that adding higher density development would overwhelm the system. General Plan 27. Several comments were made in support of the current General Plan designations. (3 total) 28. A question was asked about the relationship between General Plan Amendments and the General Plan Update process. 29. A comment was made indicating preference for the property to remain Low Density. Following the end of the question and answer period, Planning Manager David Williams closed the meeting and thanked everyone for their attendance. Neighborhood Meeting Summary La Cholla & Naranja Southwest and Northwest Major General Plan Amendments August 13, 2014 6:00 – 7:30 PM Casas Church, 10801 N. La Cholla Blvd. 1. Introductions and Welcome Meeting Facilitator Bayer Vella introduced the Oro Valley staff Paul Keesler, DIS Director and Chad Daines, Principal Planner. Approximately 65 residents and interested parties attended the meeting, including Vice Mayor Waters and Council Members Snider, Zinkin, and Hornat. Also in attendance were several Planning and Zoning Commission members. 2. Staff Presentation Chad Daines, Principal Planner, provided a presentation that included: • Area development activity • Existing General Plan land use designations • Applicant’s request • Development potential of property under existing and proposed land use designations • Review process • Public Participation Opportunities • Review tools Bayer Vella outlined the issues raised at the previous neighborhood meeting issues, which included: • Lack of definition in land uses • Increased traffic on La Cholla and Naranja • Impact of commercial on La Cholla • Lack of demand for more commercial • Concern over proposed apartments • Opportunity for linear park • Area should remain low density Mr. Vella then asked the audience for any additional issues which should be added to the list. Audience members offered the following additional issues: • Accommodation for pedestrian / bicycle traffic • Access to schools • The proposed uses are not appropriate adjacent to the high school • Impact to water resources • Impact to the environment • Impact to habitat • Concerns over public safety • Lighting and noise impact • Increased drainage in the area • Capacity of schools to handle the additional students • Impact to taxes to address additional school impact • Traffic impact to Shannon and Lambert • Negative impact to property values • Lack of market demand for additional residential • Lack of market demand for additional commercial • Increased air pollution 3. Applicant Presentation Paul Oland from the planning firm WLB addressed the following issues from the April 15th neighborhood meeting and the issues raised at tonight’s neighborhood meeting. • Overview of project, including location and existing and proposed General Plan land use designations • Open space buffers • One story restriction along the western border • Traffic impact on La Cholla Paul Keesler, DIS Director and Town Engineer provided an overview on planned improvements to La Cholla Boulevard, Naranja Drive and Lambert Lane. 4. Public Questions & Comments Following is a summary of additional comments made at the neighborhood meeting: • Need for additional open space • Building heights • No need for additional apartments • Open space blocks commercial visibility • Concern over deletion of the Significant Resource Area • Impact on quality of education • Oro Valley revenues received from development • Need to maintain rural character • Request to have Water Resources Director at next neighborhood meeting Mr. Oland addressed some of the questions related to land use flexibility, variety in residential land use designations, justification for commercial designations, financial contributions to the school district, possibility for a linear park system and traffic impact. Neighborhood Meeting Summary La Cholla & Naranja Southwest and Northwest Major General Plan Amendments September 10, 2014 6:00 – 7:30 PM Ironwood Ridge High School – Library Lecture Hall 5. Introductions and Welcome Approximately 90 residents and interested parties attended the meeting, including Vice Mayor Waters and Council Members Snider, Zinkin, and Hornat. Two Planning and Zoning Commissioners were also in attendance. Meeting Facilitator Bayer Vella welcomed the residents. Mr. Vella explained the purpose of the neighborhood meeting and outlined several objectives which were intended to be accomplished. The previous neighborhood meetings were very productive in hearing resident concerns. Tonight’s format was designed to allow for Town staff to cover the “givens” with the review of any development application; specifically traffic, drainage, water and schools. The applicant will then present their revised plan and respond to issues raised at the earlier meetings. The meeting will then transition into an open house format where residents can visit stations covering water, traffic and drainage, general plan and public participation and applicant. The goal is to allow for residents to be able to ask focused questions and receive detailed answers. Each station has a note pad for residents to write specific comments, which will be reflected in the summary notes for the meeting. 6. Staff Presentation Chad Daines, Principal Planner, provided a presentation that included: • Current designations and allowed density/intensity • Context Area including existing density/intensity • Proposed Master Planned Community • Traffic Overview • Drainage Overview • Water Overview • Review tools including amendment review criteria 7. Applicant Presentation James Kai, Applicant, provided an overview of his family’s involvement as a property owner in the area over the years. Mr. Kai provided comments relative to the role of the Kai family in bringing sewer into this area in conjunction with the construction of Ironwood Ridge High School and Wilson Elementary and his family’s commitment to responsible growth within the community. Paul Oland from the planning firm WLB provided an overview of the revised development plan including changing the western boundary to low density, reduction of the northern parcel to eliminate the flex zone north of Naranja, reduction in the allowed flexibility in the core and flex areas, and provision for recreation areas on La Cholla and the main wash corridor along Cross Road. Mr. Oland addressed the following summary issues from the earlier neighborhood meetings: • Lack of defined land uses • Maintain rural / low density • Traffic / Drainage • No commercial / Apartments • Need for parks, open space and trails • Water Availability • Environmental impact • Noise, light and air pollution • Visual impacts • Public safety impacts • School impacts • Lack of market demand 8. Open House Stations were staffed for Water, Traffic and Drainage, General Plan and Public Participation and Applicant. The following comments were recorded at each station: Land Use Comments • Leave the land from Glover to Naranja along La Cholla designated as rec area and open space. No building at all, except the already designated corner on Naranja and La Cholla. • Keep flex land in the center of the property off Lambert. Senior Living and apartments will be an eyesore if allowed on Lambert. • Apartments and 2 stories will destroy views. • No Senior Living. • No apartments – No pride of ownership. • Keep all apartments and townhomes to 2 stories only to maintain views. • No apartments – the residents are not vested in the community. • Enough commercial is available one mile to the north, east and south. • No commercial at La Cholla and Naranja. • No apartments. • No commercial at La Cholla and Naranja. • 100 yard buffer on west side is inadequate (ditto). • Too many people for unit of land as a result of apartments. We are not Scottsdale. Apartments encourage transiency. Let’s keep our beautiful desert as open as possible. • We have enough apartments in Oro Valley. • Transitions among designations are erratic with core and flex areas. • No apartments. Renters do not have a vested interest in property and they don’t take as good care of it as someone who owns it. • Transition from La Canada to Shannon is not consistent. • One row of one story homes is not enough to not destroy views. • Apartments destroy the view and feel of Sonoran Desert as stated in the Oro Valley vision. • Oro Valley will become like the Foothills area which people moved to Oro Valley to get away from. • Better definition of flex and core areas in Master Planned language – not made up. • Objection to increasing commercial. Use property at La Cholla and Naranja. • Who determines what kind of business is permitted on the commercial property? What is the criteria? A carwash? A Circle K? 24 hour liquor store? • Object to commercial at Naranja. One mile in three directions has commercial on the current General Plan. • Safe means to me: No commercial, knowing my voter approved General Plan is going to be. • No apartments – they don’t have a vested interest in the community. • No apartments. • Area removed from application – Glover to Naranja – please leave it a park or rec area. • Lighting issue southeast to homes. • Commercial property value to homes. • No apartments. • No retirement. Environment • Not consistent with Oro Valley Sonoran Desert protection. • How are the plans addressing the SRA and ESL Ordinance. • Not enough open space. • Oro Valley is a beautiful area and developing this plan will destroy the desert area. Traffic • Naranja access – Par Drive – No left turn? • La Cholla access – Divot Drive – No left turn? • Additional traffic lights between Lambert to Naranja. • Traffic on Shannon needs to be addressed. Shannon and Lambert traffic issues are already horrible at Ironwood Ridge High School start and stop hours. • Par Drive needs street sign at entry from Naranja. Water • Just because we have water available doesn’t mean we have to use it up. General Plan Criteria and Process • No one showed what major changes (other than widening La Cholla) have occurred to make it necessary to amend the General Plan. • Wait for General Plan revisions. Other • The residents should know if it would be positive. Did anyone from the Town or WLB ask about how we feel? Not that we remembered. • The format tonight seemed too chaotic. • Not a neighborhood meeting. Next time allow group questions and answers. • Current owners bought residences because of current zoning – why should they be subject to the financial interest of developers? Neighborhood Meeting Summary La Cholla & Naranja Southwest and Northwest Major General Plan Amendments October 20, 2014 6:00 – 7:30 PM Casas Church, 10801 N. La Cholla Blvd. 9. Introductions and Welcome Meeting Facilitator Bayer Vella welcomed the audience. Approximately 40 residents and interested parties attended the meeting, including Vice Mayor Waters and Council Members Snider, Zinkin, and Hornat. Mr. Vella discussed the opportunity tonight to identify areas where the application could be improved. The format tonight would be to hear from the applicant and then focus on areas of agreement and areas where the application could be improved. 10. Applicant Presentation Paul Oland from the planning firm WLB outlined the main areas he understood were an issue from previous neighborhood meetings. Mr. Oland indicated that the applicant has listened and presented the following changes to the application. • Elimination of apartments from the Master Planned Community • Open space buffers • One story restriction extended along the southern boundary • Replacement of the multiple uses in MPA-2 with medium density • Focusing uses in the center HDR parcel to allow townhouses or condominiums, senior care or medium density residential • Allowing medium density residential development in NC/O areas 11. Public Questions & Comments Mr. Vella asked for input and comments from the audience. Comments were placed under four headings on the wall: “Got it Right” “Improve”, “Protest” and “To Do”. The comments provided by category were as follows: Got it Right Removal of Apartments Improve Change commercial at Lambert Lane and La Cholla from commercial to medium density residential Low Density Residential area should provide 66% open space Cap density in MDR areas at 2.5 homes per acre No drive-thru’s or fast food in commercial areas Address cut-through traffic into neighborhoods to the east Cap density to no greater than the density to the east The western boundary should include a berm, wall or elevation change as a buffer Carmel Point should be used as a model for the townhouse area Protest Too much senior care already in the Town Concern over conversion of townhouse to rentals Keep current General Plan designations Commercial not viable To Do School Impact Drainage Traffic Address General Plan Amendment criteria Mr. Oland addressed some of the questions related to the amended land use plan, planned townhouse development, commercial uses and school district impact. Mr. Vella and Mr. Daines answered questions relative to the Town process, existing general plan designations, cut- through traffic and the upcoming Commission hearing. OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL , .Todd A. Jaeger, J.D. Associate to the Superintendent ,(520) 696-5156 FAX (520)696c5074 AMPHITHEATER p, ubI i,' S t' h 0' d I " 701 W. Wetrnore Road. Tucson, AZ85705. roo (520)696-5055 GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS SUPERlNTEI'jDENT Pati'ick Nelson Susan Zibrat' ' President James M. Kai, LEED-AP VP Operations/Finance Deanna M. Day, M.Ed. Vice President November6; 2014. 'Kai Ente1'prises/JMKFaIhilyProp yrtjesiKaiMotelsInc. P.O. Box 2305 COlimo, AZ 85652 -,2305, " I " Kent Paul Bal1'abee, Ph.D. J1,llie Cozad,M.Ed. REi PI~nning and Zoning Application Process for OV1114~002; School Enrollment Capacity ", ' ' Dear Mr. Kai: ", '" , I would like to again thank you, ,and Messrs. Wexler and Olancl, for meetingWithJi~ Bums, and I last week to' discuss your planned project. I appreciated, very ~uch, the opportunity to get some additional clarification on yom'plans:' , , , I also appreciate and commend you' and your company for yourcommitlhentto tIle community andyout sincere SUppOlt of our public schools. Our discussions included a commitmentfi'om the Kai companies to enter ipto a,donation,agreementtllat would greatly" ameliorate the enrollrnent impact we might expect from yoW: residential p1'Oject. With CU11"ent enrollment capacity at each affected school, the support provided by your firm through the donation agreement we still. must finalize, and the existing commitments' of pther developers of asimilar nature, we do anticipate that.we will be able to serve the enrollment we would expect from your project' ',' , , Thank you again for your interest and concernfo1' our schools. I I06kforward to concluding' , our agreement vmy soon. Todd A.'Jaeger; J.D. , ' , Associate to the Superintendent & General Counsel Amphitheatei'lIigh. Canyon del Oro High'lrQnwoodRidge High . Aniphitheater Middle School· Coronado Ke8 School' Cross Middle School • La Cima Middle School· Wilson K·8 School ' Copper Creek Elementmy· Donaldson Elementaty • Harelson Elemenhuy • Holaway Elementmy • Keeling Eiementaiy . Me~a Verde Elementary. Nash Elementmy· Painted SkyElementalY' Prince Elementmy· Rio Vista Elementary· Walke!' Elementary , Rillito Centel: • El Hogar: ' ' JoGrant October 7, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 1 of 6 MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AMENDED AGENDA REGULAR SESSION October 7, 2014 IRONWOOD RIDGE HIGH SCHOOL - CAFETERIA 2475 W. NARANJA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Cox called the October 7, 2014 session of the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Session to order at 6:00 PM. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Don Cox, Chairman John Buette, Vice-Chairman Greg Hitt, Commissioner Bill Leedy, Commissioner Frank Pitts, Commissioner Bill Rodman, Commissioner EXCUSED: Tom Drazazgowski, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT: Joe Hornat, Council Member and Council Liaison Lou Waters, Vice - Mayor Paul Keesler, DIS Director Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Pledge of Allegiance was not said, due to no flag being present. CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Member Hornat updated the Commission on the following items: Miller Ranch, decrease lot width was denied by Town Council October 7, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 2 of 6 Olson Property Rezoning was approved by Town Council 7-0 with some changes Stone Canyon Clubhouse was approved by Town Council REGULAR AGENDA 1. REVIEW AND/OR APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Buette and seconded by Commissioner Rodman to approve the September 2, 2014 Regular Session meeting minutes. MOTION carried, 5-0. with Bill Leedy, Commissioner abstained. *2. PUBLIC HEARING: SHANNON ROAD SOUTH OF IRONWOOD RIDGE HIGH SCHOOL MAJOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0-0.3 HOMES/ACRE) AND SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0.4-1.2 HOMES/ACRE) AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2.1-5.0 HOMES/ACRE) FOR A 77 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SHANNON ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE-QUARTER (1/4) MILE SOUTH OF NARANJA DRIVE. THE APPLICANT ALSO REQUESTS DELETION OF THE SIGNIFICANT RESOUCE AREA DESIGNAITON AND INCLUDE THE PROPERTY IN THE URBAN SERVICES BOUNDARY, OV1114-001 (ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA PER APPLICANTS REQUEST) 3. PUBLIC HEARING: LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE SOUTHWEST AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE NORTHWEST A. MAJOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0-0.3 HOMES/ACRE), LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0.4 TO 1.2 HOMES/ACRE), MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2.1-5.0 HOMES/ACRE), NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/OFFICE, PUBLIC/SEMI PUBLIC, OPEN SPACE AND SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA TO MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY COMPRISED OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE, SENIOR LIVING USES CASAS CHURCH EXPANSION AND OPEN SPACE FOR 202 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD, BETWEEN NARANJA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE. THE APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO DELETE THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION AND ADOPT SPECIAL ARE A POLICIES RELATED TO THE MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY, OV1114-002 October 7, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 3 of 6 B. MAJOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2.1-5.0 HOMES/ACRE) AND SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA TO MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY COMPRISED OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR 8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE. THE APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO DELETE THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION AND ADOPT SPECIAL AREA POLICIES RELATED TO THE MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY, OV1114-003 Chad Daines, Principal Planner, presented the following: - Applicant's Request - Public Participation/Outreach - Location - Current & Proposed General Plan - Concept Plan - Development Potential - Special Area Policies - Significant Resource Area - Environmentally Sensitive Lands - General Plan Evaluation Criteria - Conditions in community have changed? - Socio-economic betterment/community and environmental compatibility? - Reflects market demand? - Will Not adversely impact community without mitigation? - Neighborhood Meetings - Summary/Conclusion Paul Oland, of WLB representing the applicant, presented the following: - Aesthetics - level of quality that would be required - La Canada Drive (from Lambert to Naranja) - Land Uses along corridor - Plan Policies - Effects of the RMA - General Plan Criteria Chair Cox opened the public hearing Adrianne Caldwell, Oro Valley resident, stated she was opposed to the proposed application and questioned where is the hard evidence that there is a demand or will be a demand in the near future for apartments. Bill Boull, Oro Valley resident, expressed his concern for 5 additional plans for high density sites in Oro Valley and stated his opposition to high density housing. October 7, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 4 of 6 Don Burdick, Oro Valley resident, expressed his concern with zone number 621 referred to in the applicants market data and questioned what information or data was provided for Council to support an increase in growth. In the current General Plan, covered is twice of people that are supposed to more into Oro Valley, there is no need for an increase for housing whether it be low or high density. Betty Danker, Oro Valley resident, expressed her concerns with the following: commercial being built in the area, the dark sky will be impacted, access off of La Cholla with Divot Drive being the only access and making left hand turns. Ms. Danker went on to ask the Commission to consider an access lane. Roslyn Nemke, Oro Valley resident, stated she is an advocate for the Citizen Advocate for Oro Valley's General Plan and went on to ask the Commission to not recommend the amendments and leave the General Plan as is. Amendments should be based on significant change and there seems to be more concern with owners, developers and future residents than there is for the current residents who are adversely impacted. John Lay, Oro Valley resident, stated he is opposed to high density and is open to change in plans, just not high density. Maybe graduate to two acre lot and he doesn't care much for the apartment idea. Tom Myatt, Oro Valley, resident, stated he is opposed to the significant resource area deletion. The current designation is consistent with the existing development to the south of the property and should remain as is. A lower density area to the south should be considered and the existing walking paths in Oro Valley are being used as recreational purposes and don't believe they are being used to access commercial. Mr. Myatt doesn't believe there is a support for any additional commercial development on this property. Joe Bailes, Oro Valley resident, stated he is pro-business and pro- development and he does not like high density. When the apartment get older and in order to be competitive the rent will be lowered. The Commission needs to take responsibility and turn this around and not let it happen. Don Bristow, Oro Valley resident, stated that everything in Oro Valley is in a convenient distance of residential areas. Mr. Bristow went on to question, is there really a demand for commercial/professional offices? The applicant has not submitted any facts that support the need for additional multi-family homes in Oro Valley. Mr. Bristow commented that he did some research and the Town has not documented to support the claim that the Vantana Medical Center requires high end housing units for their employees. Karen Stratman, Oro Valley resident, commented that Ironwood Ridge High School is in the middle of the proposed development. Students and educators travel along La Cholla which is already overcrowded. Ms. Stratman agrees with keeping the area October 7, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 5 of 6 residential and low/medium density and allowing th e environmental sensitive lands ordinance to guide development will result in people coming to this area. Gary Meyers, Oro Valley resident, expressed his concern with traffic, water and drainage. Mr. Meyers also commented that he didn't like the format of the neighborhood meeting held on September 10th. Attendees of the meeting were not able to hear all the questions/answers. He opposes the proposed amendments and is proud of the members of this community for standing up for the character of Oro Valley. Rick Harris, Oro Valley resident, commented that the proposal is going to make this community look like any other community. The Planning Department cannot prove that it is required to change the General Plan. Mr. Harris choose to live in Oro Valley because of the schools. The developer needs to go back and look at this proposal. Connie Inboden, Oro Valley resident, commented that her idea of well planned community is to have separate residential, commercial and open space as a buffer. The owners of the property have a right to make a profit on their investment, but would make a tidy profit for single family homes. Ms. Inboden is asking the Commission not to approve the proposed amendment. Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, commented on community acceptance. Mr. Adler went on to comment about targeting specific uses and neighbors having the right to know what a commercial piece of property will provide. Apartments are not desirable and do not provide any architectural or visible appearance that is desirable. Eric Kleil, non-Oro Valley resident, stated to compare La Cholla to La Canada is unfair because what is already there is completely different. In the proposal the buffer to the west should be larger and what is already here needs to be factored in. People need to live in apartments, but apartments make no sense on this property. Chair Cox closed public hearing. 4. REQUEST FOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INITIATION OF A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY SIGN ALLOWANCES FOR BUSINESSES IN AREAS OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION Bayer Vella, Planning Division Manager, presented the following: - Construction along Oracle Road - Banner/Signs - Brought forth by the Community Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, commented that Rancho Vistoso HOA should provide some guidance to staff. Care should be taken to avoid creating a safety problem. A decision needs to be made on which business need a sign. All business don't need or want a sign. Travelers need to be able to read the sign. October 7, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 6 of 6 MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Rodman and seconded by Commissioner Leedy approve to initiate a Zoning Code Amendment to Section 28.6 B (Temporary Signs in a Commercial/Industrial Zoning District) to provide a special sign type for businesses in road construction areas. MOTION carried, 6-0. PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Bayer Vella, Planning Division Manager, presented the following: - 10/21 Special Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting - 11/03 Special Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting - Upcoming Neighborhood Meetings ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Rodman and seconded by Commissioner Hitt to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 8:21 PM. MOTION carried, 6-0. MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL SESSION November 20, 2014 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chairman Cox called the November 20, 2014 session of the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission Special Session to order at 6:00 PM ROLL CALL PRESENT: Don Cox, Chairman John Buette, Vice-Chairman Greg Hitt, Commissioner Bill Rodman, Commissioner Bill Leedy, Commissioner Frank Pitts, Commissioner Tom Drazazgowski, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT: Joe Hornat, Council Member and Council Liaison Lou Waters, Vice - Mayor Mary Snider, Council Member Greg Caton, Town Manager Bayer Vella, Interim Planning Manager Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney Paul Keesler, Director/Town Engineer - Development & Infrastructure Services PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Cox 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 Council Member Hornat had no updates to present this evening. SPECIAL SESSION 1. REVIEW AND/OR APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 7, 2014 REGULAR SESSION AND OCTOBER 21, 2014 SPECIAL SESSION MEETING MINUTES MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Leedy and seconded by Commissioner Rodman to approve the October 7, 2014 Regular Session and October 21, 2014 Special Session meeting minutes. MOTION carried, 6-0. with Tom Drazazgowski, Commissioner abstained. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE SOUTHWEST AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE NORTHWEST A. MAJOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0-0.3 HOMES/ACRE), LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0.4 TO 1.2 HOMES/ACRE), MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2.1-5.0 HOMES/ACRE), NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/OFFICE, PUBLIC/SEMI PUBLIC, OPEN SPACE AND SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA TO MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY COMPRISED OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OFFICE, SENIOR CARE USES, AND PARK FOR 186 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD, BETWEEN NARANJA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE. THE APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO DELETE THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION AND ADOPT SPECIAL AREA POLICIES RELATED TO THE MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY, OV1114-002 B. MAJOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2.1-5.0 HOMES/ACRE) AND SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA TO MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY COMPRISED OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND/OR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR 8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE. THE APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO DELETE THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION AND ADOPT SPECIAL AREA POLICIES RELATED TO THE MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY, OV1114-003 Chad Daines, Principal Planner, presented the following: - Request - Current & Proposed General Plan - Concept Plan - Special Area Policies - Significant Resource Area - Environmentally Sensitive Lands - Amendment Evaluation - General Plan Vision - Notable Genera Plan Policies - General Plan Evaluation Criteria - Conditions in community have changed? - Socio-economic betterment/community and environmental compatibility - Reflects market demand - Will not impact community without mitigation? - Neighborhood Meetings - Changes in request since October 7th - Amendment Evaluation - Summary/Conclusion - Recommendation Paul Oland, WLB Group, representing the applicant, introduced the following: Greg Wexler representing the Kai Family Mike Naifeh of Valbridge Property Advisors. Dean Munkachy of Suite 6 Architecture and Planning Greg Wexler, representing the Kai Family, presented a brief history of the property. Paul Oland, WLB Group, representing the applicant, presented the following - Conditions have changed since General Plan was last adopted - The proposed change - Market Demand - The subsequent rezoning process - Land Use - Low Density Residential - Medium Density Residential - Neighborhood Commercial/Office on Naranja - NC/O Expansion on Lambert - Open Space Recreation Area - Open Space - General Plan Policy Conformance - Viewshed Analysis from west - Viewshed Analysis from south - Special Area Policies Mike Naifeh, Valbridge Property Advisors, representing the applicant, presented the following: - Market Study - Income - Single Family Demand Analysis - 2013-2023 Household Growth Projection - Conclusions - Multifamily Residual Demand - Senior Housing - New Worth by Household Age - Retail Surplus/Leakage Analysis Summary - Conclusions Dean Munkachy, Suite 6 Architecture and Planning, representing the applicant, presented the following: - Location Map - Scale of overall development - Project Goals - Boundaries - Washes - Connections - Roadways - Uses - Linkages - non-automotive - Open space - Pathways - Concept Study north east corner Commercial Land patterns - Concept Study south east corner Commercial Land patterns - Paseo character - Entry character - Intersection character - Attached residential character - Commercial character Chairman Cox opened the public hearing. Roslyn Nemke, Oro Valley resident, asked the Commission to deny the amendments and to leave the General Plan as is. Ms. Nemke voiced her concern with commercial in the area along with safety issues for students. Assisted living and senior care facilities might be needed in Oro Valley, but these uses would exacerbate traffic problems. Townhomes and commercial in the middle of a single family residential area does not seem like sound planning. After speaking to a number of residents, the consensus was that no one is willing to walk to shopping and traveling by car will be more difficult. Richard Tracy, Oro Valley resident, voiced his concerns with traffic, population and safety. Mr. Tracy still remains undecided until he becomes better informed. Donald Bristow, Oro Valley resident, commented that the Town's economic strategies specify that the Town shall continue to attract new high end retail and service businesses, especially those in underrepresented categories in order to help reduce expenditure leakage. The Commission needs to take a closer look at the zoning requirements and the way this land is addressed in the General Plan. Bill Ball, Oro Valley resident, echoes what Roslyn Nemke has to say about the proposed commercial. The applicant's documents on pages 59-60 refers to strip commercial. Mr. Ball indicated that he is not against commercial, but he is against veering from the Town's plan as approved by the voters. Tom Danker, Oro Valley resident, expressed his concern with the egress and ingress from La Cholla into Canada Hills at Catalina Drive. He was concerned with being blocked from making a southbound turn onto La Cholla. Mr. Danker would like to be a part of a task force that looks at the egress and ingress from La Cholla. Another concern of Mr. Danker is whether La Cholla can handle all the projected traffic. Betty Danker, Oro Valley resident, voiced her concern with making a left hand turn onto La Cholla from her street. Ms. Danker is asking the Town to look at a possibility of an access road. Gary Meyers, Oro Valley resident, commented that the request does not address the concerns of the neighbors. He was concerned with the level of density proposed. The Town seems more responsive to the developer than with its current residents. Larry Hudson, Oro Valley resident, questioned how La Cholla would be realigned and whether it would require an elevated roadway over the wash. Mr. Hudson expressed his concern with the medium density housing and how close homes will be built to the wash area. He asked the Commission to vote no. Joe Snapp, Oro Valley resident, commented that he feels like the silent majority of the Town that don't get involved. What is being proposed makes sense and revenue is needed to drive the growth of a town and improve the roads. People need to drill down to the specifics and this is what the people need to focus on. Mr. Snapp commented that he is favor of the proposed amendments. Darin Hoffmann, Oro Valley resident and representing the Casas Church Leadership, commented that he is favor of the proposed amendments to the General Plan. It creates options that will allow Casas Church utilize their property in the future. This proposal has produced a good compromise that creates opportunity for taxable revenue and space for new people to join our beautiful city. Bruce McDaniel, Oro Valley resident, expressed his concerns with the traffic studies and drainage. Karen Stratman, Oro Valley resident, stated there are still a number of problems with this proposal that have not been addressed. In the past, there have been a lot of promises made by developers to create the perfect vision, only to fall through on those promises. Ms. Stratman sees no need for senior care on this property and there is no market demand for it. There is no community acceptance of the amendments. Increased commercial at Naranja and La Cholla needs more study. Jeff Grobstein, Oro Valley resident, stated that the owners have owned the property for a long time. He is excited about a more diverse master plan that will bring a great vision to a great property within a great community. The planning that is proposed will raise everyone's property values. The positive economic impact coupled with the smart planning and growth and layered with the rigid constraints of the policies fully supports a change to the General Plan. Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, stated that he is not opposed to the development, but he expects good development and he expects developments to comply with the rules. Mr. Adler expressed his concern with the failure of the neighborhood meeting process and with the failure to achieve community acceptance. Dave Perry, Oro Valley resident, stated that the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce's is in support of the proposal. The character around La Cholla is going to change because the RTA will build a four lane divided desert parkway. It makes sense to concentrate impacts along La Cholla with some higher density housing, office and commercial uses clustered at major intersections and near the roadway. There is greater community concern at play, Oro Valley needs wise growth which includes neighborhood, commercial, retail and office uses along busy roadways. These general plan amendments represent a reasonable and intelligent, considerate, forward thinking way to develop Oro Valley's dwindling supply of land. Ron Bliss, Oro Valley resident, stated his opposition to the proposal because it doesn't meet the legal standards required of a major amendment to the General Plan. In order for this amendment to be adopted, it has to meet the four criteria. The only things we have heard today is that the demand is not here but it’s coming, and a bigger roadway is planned which justifies a bigger population. Trace Paulette, Oro Valley resident, stated that the requested plan is very reasonable and should be approved. Development like this is important to Oro Valley's future economic welfare. Chairman Cox closed the public hearing. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Buette and seconded by Commissioner Leedy to Recommend Approval of the Major General Plan Amendments requested under case OV1114-002, specifically the land use map as shown on Attachment 6, deletion of the Significant Resource Area and adoption of the Special Area Policies shown on Attachment 3, conditioned upon the expansion of the Casas Church continuing as an allowed use, based on the findings contained in the staff report. MOTION carried, 6-1 with Commissioner Pitts opposed. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Leedy and seconded by Commissioner Drazazgowski to Recommend Approval of the Major General Plan Amendments requested under case OV1114-003, specifically the land use map as shown on Attachment 6, deletion of the Significant Resource Area and adoption of the Special Area Policies shown on Attachment 3, based on the findings contained in the staff report. MOTION carried, 6-1 with Commissioner Pitts opposed. PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Bayer Vella, Interim Planning Division Manager, indicated that the Planning Update will be postponed until next week. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Commissioner Pitts requested the following be added to a future agenda: - Neighborhood meeting procedures - Advertising in the Explorer vs. Daily Territorial - New homes built in Oro Valley require roof top solar - New construction tax (this item was withdrawn) Commissioner Drazazgowski requested the following be added to a future agenda: - Presentation on low density vs. high density in regard to transportation infrastructure ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Rodman and seconded by Commissioner Drazazgowski to adjourn the Special Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 9:16 PM. MOTION carried, 7-0. Town Council Regular Session Item # 2. Meeting Date:05/06/2015   Requested by: Mayor Hiremath Submitted By:Julie Bower, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office Information SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION REGARDING COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUES FOR TOWN COUNCIL-AUTHORIZED PROJECTS RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Mayor Hiremath has 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 ________________