HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1204) AGENDA
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
SPECIAL SESSION
FEBRUARY 27, 2003
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 4:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. LAND USE MAPS (ORACLE AND ORACLE/FIRST INCLUDING KAI AND
PROPERTY NORTH OF THE NARANJA TOWN SITE — 1, 2, 6A, 6B, 14,
15, 26)
2. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Page 57
3. PUBLIC FACILITIES, SERVICES, AND SAFETY Page 75
4. WATER RESOURCES Page 130
5. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING Page 135
6. STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
7. PLAN ADMINISTRATION Page 10
ADJOURNMENT
POSTED: 02/24/03
4:30 p.m.
Ih
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: February 27, 2003
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL
FROM: Bryant Nodine, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2020 (OV11-01-04)
BACKGROUND:
This is the sixth staff report to the Council regarding the draft General Plan Update 2020 recommended by
the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 19, 2002. The Council meetings to date are:
December 2 Study Session December 11 Public Hearing
January 6 Public Hearing January 21 Special Session
February 3 Special Session February 6 Special Session
February 24 Special Session
SUMMARY:
The following sections highlight and address the discussions, comments and observations of the February
3, 2003 special session. This report provides additional information, for the Council's consideration, on
the Community Design, Housing, Arts and Culture, Open Space and Natural Resources Conservation, and
Archeological and Historic Resources elements. The report format is as follows:
TITLE
Comment/Issue (may be after the general discussion)
Staff response/discussion
Recommended Motion
LAND USE MAP
Reference maps for the requests were distributed in the January 21 packet. Please bring these maps to
the meeting. The specifics of each proposal are shown in the request map and summarized in a table.
(In the following text and tables: RLDR is Rural Low Density Residential, LDR is Low Density
Residential, MDR is Medium Density Residential, HDR is High Density Residential, MUN is Mixed Use
Neighborhood, MPC is Master Planned Community, NCO is Neighborhood Commercial/Office, CRC is
Community/Regional Commercial, COP is Commerce/Office Park, PSP is Public Semi-public, OS is
Open Space, and CPI is Campus Park Industrial [from the 1996 Plan].)
Ravitz Property (#1)
This property is located at the southwest corner of Oracle and Hardy. The current General Plan shows
commercial uses on Oracle, high density to the west and low density residential in the southwest area.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 10
Option Zoning 1996 Plan Landowner Steering P&Z
/Uses (acres) Request Committee Commission
(acres) (acres) (acres)
Commercial C-1 (4) NCO (10) NA (no request on NCO (4) NCO (4)
Uses the north parcel)
Residential R1-144 HDR(4) MDR (23) LDR2 (23 LDR1 (5 all
Uses (23) LDR2 (13) with 5 SRA) SRA)
MDR(18)
Housing 7 70 100 40 70
Units
Note: Four acres in north of this area are owned by Romo Enterprises and zoned G1.
Recommended motion: I move to approve the Commission's land use designations.
Kai-Capri Property (#2)
This property is located at the southeast corner of First and Tangerine. Key facts are:
o The area has the basic infrastructure to support the growth proposed by the applicant; though
specific improvements would need to be provided by the applicant.
o The area is an infill project with surrounding gross densities ranging from .2 to 3 units per acre.
o As an infill project, the land uses are very controversial. Most of the neighbors who have
spoken out on the issue have indicated a desire to see no more than the current zoning would
allow.
Option Zoning 1996 Plan Landowner Steering P&Z Commission
/Uses (acres) Request Committee (acres)
(acres) (acres)
Commercial none Minor Resort (13) NCO (25 acres) NCO (10 NCO (10 acres)
Uses and Golf acres)
Residential R1-144 MPC (282) (2 du/ac MPC (270 acres) RLDR LDR1 (295 acres,
Uses (305) overall; 8 du/ac max) (original was HDR, (295) with 100 acres of
RLDR (10) MDR, &LDR) SRA)
NA (10 see note)
Housing 100 570 Unknown (original 100 300
Units had over 1200
units)
Note: Ten acres in the southeast corner of the area considered herein is owned by Steam Pump
Ranch Estates, LLC and is included because it will likely share access through this area
and shares many of the same issues.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 10
At the December 11th hearing, Frank Bangs, representing the Kai's,presented their request to designate the
area as a Master Planned Community. As noted above, this is existing General Plan designation, except
that the existing designation includes maximum gross and net densities of 2 units per acre and 8 units per
acre respectively. Mr. Bangs did not propose any density maximums.
On February 21, Robert Longacre, representing the Kai's, provided a revised land use map (attached),
which expands the commercial at the intersection of Tangerine and First from 10 acres to 30 acres and
changes the SRA designated areas. His e-mail to me states that this reflects a proposal Mayor Loomis put
forward at a meeting with Kai family and neighborhood representatives on February 13. The Kai family
will provide its position on this proposal prior to the Town Council's meeting on February 27. Their
position depends in part on clarification of the SRA overlay density transfer mechanism. [Staff is working
on this and will provide it separately.]
Recommended motion: I move to approve the Commission's land use designations.
Felker Property (#6A)
This property is located on Linda Vista north of the high school. The zoning to the north is R-4 (town
homes), to the east is Rl-7 (medium high density residential), and to the west is R1-144. The Polito
property(#6B) is to the south across Linda Vista. Two-thirds of the property is SRA.
Option Zoning 1996 Plan Landowner Steering P&Z
/Uses (acres) Request Committee Commission
(acres) (acres) (acres)
Commercial NA NA NA not reviewed NA
Uses
Residential R1-144 RLDR (10) MDR(10 with 6 not reviewed LDR2 (10
Uses (10) SRA) with 6 SRA)
Housing 3 3 30 not reviewed 15
Units
Recommended motion: I move to approve the Commission's land use designations.
Polito Property (#6B)
This property is located on Linda Vista north of the high school. The zoning to the east is R1-36, to the
south is the high school, and to the west is R1-144. The Felker property(#6A) is to the north across Linda
Vista. Three-quarters of the property is SRA.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 4 of 10
Option Zoning 1996 Plan Landowner Steering P&Z
/Uses (acres) Request Committee Commissi
(acres) (acres) on
(acres)
Commercial NA NA NA not reviewed NA
Uses
Residential R1-144 RLDR(9) LDR1 (9 with 6 not reviewed LDR1 (6)
Uses (9) SRA) RLDR(3)
Housing 3 3 6 not reviewed 4
Units
Recommended motion: I move to approve the Commission's land use designations.
Rooney Ranch (North) Property (#14)
This property is located east of First north of the Canada del Oro Wash. Note: The request map shows the
landowners original request, which was later changed to MPC.
Option Zoning 1996 Plan Landowner Steering P&Z
/Uses (acres) Request Committee Commission
(acres) (acres) (acres)
Commercial G1 (29) NCO (91) MPC (91) NCO (12) MPC (91)
Uses
Residential R1-144 (7) None MPC (91) RLDR (15) MPC (91)
Uses MDR (29) Some of the LDR1 (64 Some of the
HDR (21) MPC may be with 10 MPC may be
commercial SRA) commercial
OS (5)
Housing >300 0 400 60 unknown
Units
Note: Seven acres in the east portion of this area is owned by the Pima County Flood Control
District.
Recommended motion: I move to approve the Commission's land use designations of MPC with a
maximum gross density of 3 units per acre and with the areas east of the wash designated as open
space.
Various Owners' Property (#15)
This property is located on the west side of Oracle north of Calle Concordia. Both the Steering Committee
and the Commission recommended a small strip of open space to the west to buffer Jim Kreigh Park. The
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 5 of 10
1996 Plan designated the area as School with the intention of trying to attract Pima Community College to
use the site. That plan provided Campus Park Industrial as a back-up designation.
Option Zoning 1996 Plan Landowner Steering P&Z
/Uses (acres) Request Committee Commissi
(acres) (acres) on
(acres)
Commercial None None NCO (33) MUN (49) MUN (49)
Uses (School (the owner of the
with CPI as north 16 acres did
a back-up) not make a request)
Residential R1-144 None None (the north 16 OS (4) OS (4)
Uses (53) acres is MUN)
Housing 16 0 50 (MUN portion) 150 150
Units
Recommended motion: I move to approve the Steering Committee and Commission's land use
designations.
Steam Pump Property (#26)
The land uses are shown in the request map and in the table below. The Commission recommended
Community and Regional Commercial to match the Steam Pump Ranch PAD to the north. They also
recommended 12 acres of SRA on the southern portion due to the historic structures there.
Option Zoning 1996 Plan Landowner Steering P&Z
/Uses (acres) Request Committee Commission
(acres) (acres) (acres)
Commercial None Park/Open Space CRC (17) not CRC (17)
Uses (17 with a back-up reviewed
of Commercial)
Residential R1-144 None None not None
Uses (17) reviewed
Housing 5 0 0 not 0
Units reviewed
Recommended motion: I move to approve the Commission's land use designations with the
portion under SRA changed to Neighborhood Commercial/Office. [The recommended change to
NCO is to designate lower intensity uses around the historic structures.]
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 6 of 10
Property North of the Naranja Town Site (no map number)
No request was made for the area. The Commission and Steering Committee recommendations for this
property were proposed to allow uses that tie into the Town Site and which could potentially support an
arts district. Since the Commission's recommendation, Staff has been working to attract corporate uses,
which may provide funds for the development of the Town Site. For this reason, Staff is recommending
Commerce Office Park with a back-up designation of MUN.
Option Zoning 1996 Plan Landowner Steering P&Z
/Uses (acres) Request Committee Commission
(acres) (acres) (acres)
Commercial None None NA MUN (20) MUN(20)
Uses
Residential R1-144 MDR(26) NA MUN (20) MUN (20)
Uses (40) os (14) os (20) os (20)
Housing 12 100 NA 50 50
Units
Recommended motion: I move to approve the a COP designation for the site with the Steering
Committee and Commission's land use designations as a back-up.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION ELEMENT (pages 49-64)
Growing Smarter/Plus mandates that all communities in Arizona include circulation elements in their
general plans. These elements are required to address the general location and extent of existing and
proposed roadways, bicycle routes and any other modes of transportation as may be appropriate. Together,
these requirements are intended to provide guidance concerning the development of all aspects of the
Town's transportation system. The most prominent aspect of the Circulation Element, however, relates to
the roadway network and the Town's plans and standards for improvement of the network. These plans
and standards outline the Town's strategy for providing mobility for its residents and efficiently moving
traffic through and within the Town.
The Town's 1996 General Plan included a Circulation/Transportation Element that served as the basis for
much of the content of the Draft Element in the updated plan, including the descriptions of key issues. In
addition, the Town adopted a Transit Services Element and a Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. The policy
content of those plans has been incorporated. Key aspects of this element are:
• safe and efficient flow of traffic
• networks designed to support neighborhoods and the environment, and
• support for alternate modes such as transit, bicycles, and pedestrians.
The Transportation/Circulation section of the Strategic Implementation Plan includes 26 actions, 18 of
which are ongoing programs and 2 of which are new, short-term programs. None of these actions will
require new expenditures on the part of the Town.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 7 of 10
PUBLIC FACILITIES, SERVICES, AND SAFETY ELEMENT (pages 65-76)
The Growing Smarter/Plus statutes include separate content requirements for Public Facilities and
Services elements and for Safety elements, but only for communities of 50,000 or more. The Town has,
however, chosen to address both subjects, as it did in the 1996 General Plan. The 1996 Plan included two
separate elements, while the updated plan includes a combined element addressing both subjects.
The combined Public Facilities, Services, and Safety Element differs from the 1996 elements primarily in
content not covered in the 1996 Plan, namely goals and policies covering schools and libraries. The goal
and policies related to schools have received considerable attention during the review of the Draft Plan,
including extensive correspondence from Amphitheater School District. Arlan Colton has researched
the school district issue and is prepared to address it when he returns on February 27.
The Strategic Implementation Plan includes 16 actions under Public Facilities, Services, and Safety, 7 of
which address ongoing Town programs and 7 of which is scheduled for short-term implementation. The
costs associated with the short-term actions would be $120,000 in one time costs to update and/or prepare
studies or plans and $50,000 annually to maintain a Library Strategic Plan. In addition, the Town
anticipates using approximately$55,000 in grant funding to prepare a Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Sites for Fire Stations (new SIP action item)
The policies in the proposed General Plan regarding fire service are 6.1.3, 6.1.5, 6.4.6. Rural Metro Fire
District has prepared a letter (attached) suggesting that the action items supporting these policies do not
help the fire districts efficiently meet response standards.
State Law provides that the Town may require by ordinance that land areas within a subdivision be
reserved for parks, recreational facilities, school sites and fire stations. Staff recommends that an
additional action item be added to the strategic implementation program as presented in the motion below.
Recommended motion. I move to add the following policy to the Strategic Implementation Plan:
PFS.17 Create a specific plan identifying the best locales for fire stations and develop a program,
including Zoning Code amendments as needed and as authorized by ARS 9-463.01.D, to
ensure that there are available sites for emergency response services.--Fire Marshall--
Short Term
WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT (pages 111-114)
The Growing Smarter/Plus statutes require that all communities with at least 10,000 residents prepare a
water resources element that includes information that will allow those communities to ensure that there
will be enough water to support existing and future development. The emphasis of the requirement is on
the quantity and quality of the supply, rather than on the facilities that will enable the community to tap
into the supply (these are covered in the Public Facilities, Services, and Safety Element). The Draft Water
Resources Element includes policy content for three subjects:
• water resource preservation,
• alternative water supplies, and
• water resource conservation.
The Town's 1996 General Plan did not include a separate element addressing water, but did have policies
in its Natural Resources Conservation Element that addressed water conservation and the protection of the
local groundwater supply. These policies have been carried forward into the Water Resources Element. In
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 8 of 10
addition, the Draft Environmentally Sensitive Lands Element included goals and policies addressing water
supply, quality, and conservation. Those goals and policies have also been folded-into this element.
The Strategic Implementation Plan includes eight actions under Water Resources, four of which address
ongoing Town programs and only one of which is scheduled for short-term implementation (development
of a floodplain management ordinance, which is already substantially complete). The costs associated with
these actions are negligible.
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING ELEMENT (pages 135-139)
The State's Growing Smarter/Plus statutes mandate that all communities in Arizona with a population of
over 10,000 prepare and adopt An Environmental Element. This is one the new requirements instituted
after the Town adopted its 1996 Plan, so the content of the Element is entirely new. The Environmental
Planning Element differs from the balance of the General Plan's elements in that its purpose is to ensure
that the goals and policies outlined in this General Plan and the actions that will be taken in implementing
the General Plan do not compromise the environmental resources of the community. The State
requirements are intended to force communities to consider the overall environmental implications of their
general plans, with a specific focus on air quality, water quality, and natural resources.
The Town's basic approach to addressing potential environmental issues associated with development
under the General Plan Land Use Map is to pre-empt potential problems through application of the Plan's
policies. While this "self-mitigating" approach relies on the policies of virtually all elements of the Plan, it
is particularly reliant on three elements: Land Use; Open Space and Natural Resources; and Water
Resources. These three elements include policies that address the three environmental issues that Growing
Smarter/Plus identifies (i.e., air quality, water quality, and natural resources).
It should be noted that the Draft Plan does not include a separate set of policies or a restatement of policies
found elsewhere in the Plan, as most of the plans prepared in Arizona have. Accordingly, there are no
implementation actions identified in the Strategic Implementation Plan. Staff concluded that such an
approach would have resulted in redundancy, and thus potential confusion. Rather, the focus of the Draft
Environmental Planning Element is on cross-referencing the policies of the other elements, and making an
affirmative statement that the plan will not adversely affect the Town's air quality, water quality, and
natural resources.
STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM (separate document)
Report to be provided separately.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE PLAN (pages 10-17)
The administration section of the plan is included in the Introduction. Its purpose is to:
• provide direction on updating and amending the Plan,
• ensure that developments are reviewed for conformance with the plan, and
• set a program for tracking the implementation of the plan.
The following sections discuss issues that have been presented related to the Administration section.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 9 of 10
Amendment Matrix (p. 12)
Master Planned Community is a designation in the Plan which may have a wide range of densities.
However, within the amendment matrix, it is addressed only as a general category not related to any
specific density or land use restrictions.
Recommended Motion: I move to delete MPC from the amendment matrix and add the following
verbiage:
Amendments to areas designated as MPC will be treated, per the General Plan Amendment
Matrix Table, based on the land use and density of the MPC designation. If no specific
land uses and densities are called out for the MPC, it will be treated, for the purpose of an
amendment only, as MDR and NCO (no more than 10%)
Adoption of Amendment (p. 14)
The Council expressed concerns related to the Commission's wording which directs the Commission to
approve and the Council to adopt amendments if they make the listed conclusions.
Recommended Motion: I move to use the wordin_ in the first .ara_ ash as recommended b the Steerin•
Committee deleting the words "of fact" at the end.
The qualifier "substantially", which was added in front of "consistent" in the second criterion, should be
considered as it may `water down'the criterion.
As used herein, "consistent" implies an absence of disagreement with the elements of the plan. The
Commission's concern was that, given the large number of policies and the fact that some could be
interpreted to conflict with each other (internal inconsistency); it may not be possible for there to be
absolute agreement. Therefore, they recommended that "substantially" be added as a qualifier. However,
the Town has been effectively using the criterion without "substantially" since the 1996 General Plan was
adopted. Internal inconsistencies, if any, can continue to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Recommended Motion: I move to leave the wording of this criterion as recommended by the Steering
Committee deleting"substantially."
The third criterion as recommended by the Commission may tend to defer consideration of mitigation
measures to a later point in the development process.
This is an acceptable approach because a General Plan amendment does not provide any entitlements and
because the Town has, in the past, clearly identified key conditions of General Plan amendments to direct
the rezoning process and ensure that mitigation measures are in place.
Recommended Motion: None, no action required.
No Amendment Required for MUN or PSP from HDR(p. 15)
The second paragraph, which starts with "Proposals for... " conflicts with the amendment matrix.
Recommended Motion: I move to delete this paragraph.
Strategic Implementation Program (p. 15)
ARS 9-461.07.A.3 (attached a previous report) requires an annual report to the Council on the status of
the plan. This requirement is not addressed in the Plan.
•
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 10 of 10
Recommended Motion: I move to add the following to the Plan to address this requirement:
Arizona Revised Statutes (Section 9-461.07-A.2) require that, once the plan is adopted and ratified,
the Town will, through its planning agency, annually prepare and provide a report to the Town
Council on the status of the plan and progress in its application. In addition to this annual report,
the Town has developed a strategic program to implement the plan which, as described below,
would include a periodic and more complete review of the plan.
Recommended Motion: I move to add the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph in the SIP
section: "The biennial review will also serve as the annual report required by state statute in the years in
which it is performed"; and I move to make the following change to the Strategic Implementation Program
document on page 2 after the four bullets under Overriding Implementation Action Item: "For the years in
which it is required, this review will serve as the annual report required under ARS 9-471.07-A.2.
It may be too resource intensive to review, every two years, the progress of the Town towards completing
the Strategic Implementation Plan.
Staff estimates that each review will take about 4 months of part-time work and will consume
approximately $5,000 of resources. This review process would occur once in between plan updates and
once at the start of the next update, in which case its cost would be part of the update. Thus the additional
cost of this review is $5,000.
Recommended Motion: None, no action required.
Definition of Policy (p. 16 and p. 18)
The definitions of"policy" on page 16 and 18 are different.
Recommended Motion: I move to direct staff to use the definition of policy is on page 18.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
As presented above.
Attachments:
1. Element Short-term/Annual Implementation Tables
2. Letter from Fred Roof, Rural/Metro dated November 14, 2002
/ i , .
i
Pla t f nd Zon'g. Ad inistrator
/ 1
f
Co s. .1 u►'�y Devi ment Director
1 ‹,e
/ ,
F:\PROJECTS\GP2001\Staff Reports\StudySessionstaffreport#7toTC.doc Town Manager
_N Cl
V)
0 m •m O
o m m
o Cl Cl
z Z
W F-- F-
W
cu
H ce t t
ILL. o 0
s _c
Cl) U)
N
0
,r- o)cn
Cr) I-
N �'
0
T"' ix Ei • N (1)a z w E Cl
LI o � Q C ) CZ
c2
Q a cn c c
re w c
CI °e I-- - co
-o
Cl
V) E
F- a)
U E'
O ,
V 2
Q O L =
W 76
Q Cl -
2 U
Cl
I. 0
cn a. _c
W o
= a) 0)
F- C c
0
c uj
0
LL V) D
co
cc m --a-) 2
0 Q
F— C ° > _
z
o 0 ( N— ccc
Q '- c
p a) � a3 'o
Q c)
F– f o o p
Z `-
� c
cW U O i
G }' co
LU ? f6 O Cl
J co C O
Q. U) fl c
Cl •i 4
L- }' O
Q z W o cuN
U F-
D c
Z
z o
o F- °' •� 0 N
Q O < N
� �
E Z ( ID a
O (2 Cl
7-7
_
W Q m w o Ln
F– O ce
LE' }' w c — -o
F- -oO _ E a
CC `— a al co
O Z ~
_ -� Q -aM E o 0)
U) C O f
�
-i-, CO i— trE. N: •-i5
•
CD WD Z •— E N E
Cts
Q O d i E E
4-- •E Z 0L Q. Ln CO 0
cD C C6 +-, CD .C 0 E �'? �: >' m
O }' L- F- 6 N 2--
O U � 2C� -� Q xi o ° o
J (/)N
"> 0W2 0 O o cn J Clc
) oCO
4) E
ccL_ Q) (01_ N 0)
L CD N <• -t -co E-
— 0 .0H F- 0 0 0
Q < U U !— C 0_
Z
0
>, CO
° C I in I Fr; Ln
'S C O O O = M N I
Fes•- in U r-• -- tr) C Ln Ln Ln t() 00 N RS I �.+ cC
C/) � c (2 --
M
, (a I I I I I I +' 'L.
V (I) 6 U o 2 CD Cn 0 U U N �
O Z 1 0Q
C) U) U
c E E E E E E
W U c L L a)
L �L11�, ,
, ^L
W g o .c H H H H
� (2
p i)LL E C O O p p p O
H U) U) U-) j s U)
w U)
H — U (n 'D U
J_ CD U C C N _a-- +
FF,
L O 00 0 CO U Ll.. (0 — N
Q @ c'C U U U U) O)
- Z 2 Cn • CO(73 U c N a- •U O °
L LJ CO
C L.t.
W LT0- a- CO VS
CO
C },
O L3 p C a)
C C 0) U O•— C
O U O NCO
c (n —
_C LL' d CCIC 0 -C
(0 Ua) •— U
O }, E > U .5 CO
° (0 L c 0 w
> 2+ CO O cn L C U
co L O >o
, 3 O U
O O p U C
O U 0 U _
•}' C U W U :.--'
U 3
U 0)
o 0 H( C U
c •- u) L C
U `�= a) a) o
1E 0 C O U
v 3 c CD E
F— a) c UUCU U
LL U c0 0 n.'§ o a)
Q
Et E -t-
o ° c C 1 v 2
NI c c a) —.c a)
CI 0
_ > — `�• o EOE O o
.o U co U c 0 U) N Q -
C 0 C c C a) a) C o ..
Q U) -c C N C C •p C °)
co .� cn co c o (0 ▪o
.�
Vin. m c cm
.�
c cn •-
_ L •--. C
cn a ° ° v °) .° C O
4- O O C cn
O U (0 +'
vi -cs-15 s U O co -
E C C cUn U U CCL U co
U U L - C L U C E U
L U U p +'' U U >,
O C U+� � � p O .«ii p
Q ° C U) `_
co
Z C N J L- U E UI
..CO U(o cnC U ° c f-
� >,(13 -- E v) a)->, (0 p -C a) (0 U a)U Cc C U = O_ a O
U -p a) co co C U -� N
c o
a) o U V • 0. 0 c c r2 m
o O .•
O O.- 0 V U O a) r-- co
U
CO U O �J d C (}0 -p
U U � ° �' - c
s
0 W 0 < cn 0L 0 -°a0 W L E
V - E
0
ce
E
W -a co
U
▪ co
• N a) n,
. CD N .WV 2t c�i a
H , U - o- C d
- a U oG
0 E c Lc? CC)
N 92.°
N c7 -t
Ll. CO CD 6CCO Ocri OO ,- o
V - (I) E o 7
JN to J U 0 c6
Ca L Q
CD N co co ,_
O
E (� LL L.L. LCL LL_
Q. u) u) (I) h- t 2,,-g-
O c
a. CL CL CL 0_ CL a. i- Q c:
CO Z
a)
H -- C a)
co a? cz Q o
O
0 a) .0 O
Z wU
w
2 E
QN L-
Q
w o
co
>-
J cn
6-3 a)
0)
Z
a O
co a3
w U N
CC -o E
cc a_ a)
Q
C
li a)
CL 276
0
a)
L
0
L
U
C 0)
cz c
c O
'p J
1 O E
LL C 0
< ,,, a) —
a)
V c O
Q s
a O
O c
O 0
co U
L
Q
-Cua)
Q
a) O
8
Er,
a) 4
F- O
0) U
J OCD O O O 0 OE
N
wCNJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m
C - a3 Lf) L.0 L) Lf) O 0 LO ccf) r
CD a) CD N- 0) COO r- In . r-
E �' N N.-- r- N 00 12a
U) G) `n E } Ef} EftEa Ef} o 0
O �, E
H — E ca
U in Fes- co a o
Q `— u) I- E o 0
to ■V �! EC/) o f
- -a
W 0 ` Q V) Q o c o
co N Q (n 4- to .° 0 U
a) m
C> a) +-' c c N C
1 .
ce O Q E u) � - O , E o o
— — CO 0 J au o `)N
L p ~ (13 *a -a Q c E r ii
M N inm_
. ... .
...
._,. .
.� Ill'i
dil-7-:----.--;<%---T Fire
Department
\1-
�=- 50 Years of Serving Others
November 12, 2002 NOV 1 4 2002
Bryant Nodine
Planning and Zoning Administrator
11000 N. La Canada Drive
Oro Valley, AZ. 85737
Dear Sir,
I
have reviewed the General Plan update and did not see any changes in this document that
a
address the need for fire/rescue facilities.
As I read the code and thelan, you are staying with an outdated plan allowing fire/rescue
p
stations in zones C-1 and C-2 only, the most expensive zones, with a conditional use permit. This
Psafety and does not consider the health, d welfare of the Oro Valley businesses or residents.You are forcing facilities into areas that may prolong life saving response times. It will also force
the current firep roviders Golder Ranch and Rural/Metro, as well as the Town of Oro Valley's
future fire department to have delayed response times, additional unnecessary stations and
p y
additional fire insurance premium costs due to the improper placement of these facilities. This will
be a great expense to the residents of the Town.
As I havep ointed this out during plan review meetings and in correspondence sent to the
review committee, thislan is creatinga great safety and financial burden on the residents of Oro
p
plan Valley. Neither the nor the code address the nationally recognized NFPA standards and the
ISO rating service requirements for the placement of these facilities.
Once again, I ask that you take the health, safety and welfare of your constituents into
consideration.
Sincerely,
x
6,v s..t..zs
Fred Roof
Special Projects District Chief
cc: Mayor Loomis
Chief John Fink, Golder Ranch Fire District
490 West Magee Tucson, Arizona 85704
Phone(520)297-3600 Fax(520)797-1825
_ I
LDR 1 `�,`�. a i
��N,,..0`) PROPERTY \,4'
PT.1,_,,,,,vs,
at' BOUNDARY •
,:::<,,,
's
- ...._ / _lam
Sir. F
, -(.7222'''C'/‘`r,24..,,,,/ i: 1 I
. ii.rilic it /lif-2,)4-41# 1
n. IIlf` 1 . if" ,,,
F ',
ii - VA 1111 iiii— litP ;
s va- r # 4 ,,
I t LDR 1 I �i _ rlr �.
( 5 f if , as ....., '
/ \e -
i i ,§. , \ ‘c,
1ft. \''' V
g _ _ 1'ITIfJV.1Si/�enOH'St�}TATE)/1.)f-
.
T
R I .
oritil_ 4/0Vi LDRIL. VI
� l� �\ --�
STRADA PATANIA
1 i LDR 1, ► T— __-i
#0 iiiiii s ciauc._,.
\ , HI I. if i
_ 0 1 LL
\ ,
.:1
TANGELO C1RtYE , AllrAlif ,�„ "' �—
FA,. fit AIDE-ROAD
•�iRF�ST11�7,)l�� 1 •��
11111111
I r ; \ \ t ,
LDR 1 _ ! i
I
i { 'farA PA, 1` i
LoXGEBJN�LBADPIVS
A,4,T D1.AGL7 03111:_IC IY,..1S.. SO.i 11
&P.I1J1A.'.1> POPYT
I .,Prix.yLNvi._
ns-.nnt:iu:
RLDR1 LDR 1'
I
,� LDR 1 DR 1
I I
/4
f L
LDR 1 L
11
LDR 1
,
K„rtn,, KAI PROPERTY
RiN)YFY,g,,,,HrI7 BOUNDARY LL
PnRr.'F_LU' LAND USE DESIGNATION PLAN
FOR CONSIDERATION BY ORO VAl I EY TOWN COUNCIL
c�v v,� r«��c vvve �• oa_ 1
LEGEND: NORTH FIRST AVENUE&TANGERINE ROAD U
RI-TR I RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1(0 0.3 DU/AC) ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA
_
; fair( 1 OIAl DENSI,RESIDENTIAL 1,0 A-1.2 D IAC) 1
r LDR2 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2(1 3-2.0 DU/AC) WLB JOB No.182053-E-001 FEBRUARY 19,2003 a
nTSR, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(2 1-5-0 DU/AC) 0
•NCR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
El, 0' 200' 400' 600' _ MVC MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY The Er,.,�r��,�r�a Pl�rr„�r"a SZr, N7,,,
v cc PUBLIC/SEMLPUBLIC v,,ti�anP,�,cnn�n,.P ikn au r,���n
1 wig ��laca,ratl.�TU4.8f]I,.��Ix
I�:\;.inti.;)rvl�.SrlOr't'�IIrV,C:�i Y
OS OPEN SPACE
�1 A-f 4 EasT 6roredway
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA(SRA) GPOUp fu n,os, (ars;ee+-�oab j
tir
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: February 27, 2003
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL
FROM: Bryant Nodine, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2020 (OV11-01-04): ADDENDUM
SUMMARY:
The report format is as follows:
TITLE
Comment/Issue (may be after the general discussion)
Staff response/discussion
Recommended Motion
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION ELEMENT (pages 49-64)
The following recommendations are based on discussions with the Town Engineer.
Policy 5.5.1 is incorrect as stated the Town does not provide transportation for teenagers and other
young non-drivers.
The expansion of services to teenagers and other persons not currently served is covered by Policy 5.7.1.
Recommended Motion: I move to delete"teenagers and other young non-drivers" from Policy 5.5.1.
Policy 5.8.1 should be changed to state that the Town will participate in efforts to study the feasibility of
(versus establish) a regional transit authority.
This is the approach taken in the implementation plan Action Item CT.20. It is an approach that aligns
with our existing work programs and agreements.
Recommended Motion: I move to change Policy 5.8.1 to read "Participate in efforts to study the
feasibility of a regional public transit authority for the northwest region or the entire metropolitan area.
PUBLIC FACILITIES, SERVICES,AND SAFETY ELEMENT (pages 65-76)
School Facilities
Background
The Public Facilities, Services and Safety Element of the draft General Plan Update addresses a number of
infrastructure and safety issues. These are covered under a separate discussion on today's agenda. In
response to previous discussion by the Council and oral and written testimony by representatives of the
Amphitheater School District, Council requested staff research how at least some other communities are
addressing the relationship between the community and the school district(s) within the community in
their general plan.
The draft Oro Valley General Plan Update has recommended by the Steering Committee had a number of
policies regarding the relationship between the Town and the Amphitheater School District. The Planning
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 6
and Zoning Commission recommendation made a number of significant changes to many of those
policies.
• Policy 6.1.2 required new development be evaluated to determine its impacts on
infrastructure including schools, and that such impacts be a criteria in rezoning decisions.
The Commission made a minor change replacing the phrase "Town infrastructure" to
"public facilities within the Town"however the effect on school policy is neutral.
• Policy 6.2.1 as recommended by the Steering Committee addressed coordinated planning,
exchange of information about development and planning related matters, and the potential
for proactive efforts to meet school needs during development review. The Committee
went on to specifically identify:
o Requirements to reserve, not dedicate, elementary and middle school sites in large
developments;
o Promotion of donations of land or cash from smaller developments for offsets to
school construction costs only within the Town;
o An opportunity for the school district to determine if school sites are acceptable
o Encouragement of dedications of park and school combination sites
The Planning Commission, concerned that the Town should not be adopting policy as it
relates to another governing body over which it legally has no control, deleted references to
school site reservations and donations, but added that if a site were to be proposed by a
developer, that the school district have the ability to review it for suitability.
• Policy 6.2.2 addresses working with the school district on sharing facilities. Steering
Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations are identical.
• Policy 6.2.3, proposed by the Steering Committee, expanded upon Policy 6.1.2, specifically
requiring a school facility adequacy evaluation in residential rezoning requests. The
Commission deleted the policy.
• Policy 6.2.4 said school planning issues (not just facility matters) need be addressed in
development review. The Commission modified the Steering Committee recommendation
to eliminate reference to schools and their issues in general, but stated that student safety
should be considered during development review.
• Policies 6.2.5 and 6.2.6, concerning joint-use sights and safe bike/pedestrian access to
school sites, were not amended by the Commission in its recommendation to the Council.
The Planning Commission was concerned and believed that, in part due to the decision in the Apache
Junction school impact fee case, that the town has no role in school planning beyond what the town needs
to do its own planning.
The Amphitheater School District raised a number of concerns with the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended policies. And, in its staff report of January 6, 2003, staff stated that the use of the term's
"reserve" and "encourage"meet legal requirements because they allow the applicant and the school district
to reach an agreement on locations and monetary matters. Staff recommended the Steering Committee's
wording.
Research
Staff received information in writing, by phone or by website research from 14 communities and several
counties. Not surprisingly, no two jurisdictions do exactly the same thing.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 6
There are five overarching issues:
• Cooperation in terms of the ability to review and comment on proposals at one or more stages of
the development process (rezoning and subdivision platting being the most common).
• Encouragements of joint use facilities, often parks with schools.
• Requirements on the developer to meet with and report on such meetings prior to some noted stage
of development processing.
• Requirements to reserve land for school sites.
• Requirements to dedicate school sites.
Cooperation
For local jurisdictions that address cooperation with school districts in the development process, most
include agency review of rezonings and/or subdivisions either in plan policy or in ordinance form.
Regardless of whether this is written in a policy or in an ordinance, it appears to happen virtually
everywhere anyway. Communities do report mixed results from non-responsive to very proactive school
districts. The extent to which it plays a role in community decision making is inconclusive. Queen Creek
has an adequate public facilities ordinance for schools and other services so there are specific standards
new development must meet. Overall, existence of cooperation requirements is usually not controversial.
Oro Valley, on rezoning applications, provides the Amphitheater School District with the site analysis that
includes the tentative development plan. For plats and development plans, the district receives a full set
of plans for review.
Joint Use Agreements
The most frequently found type of school related policies in general and comprehensive plans involve the
development of joint-use facilities or agreements to utilize facilities jointly. Execution of such
agreements varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the policy appears often.
In the draft Oro Valley General Plan Update, there are no differences between Planning Commission and
Steering Committee recommendations on this item.
Developer Contact
Requirements for developer meetings with school districts is less common, but often happens in faster
growing communities that have had or have school capacity issues. Peoria has such a policy, and it is
used, according to them, to deal with voluntary contributions if it is an issue, not unlike the intent behind
the third bullet point in proposed Oro Valley Policy 6.2.1 as recommended by the Steering Committee.
Glendale developed an ordinance, not really reflected in their general plan, putting the onus on the
developer to meet with and secure the "agency review" capacity information from the school district.
Scottsdale has an ordinance modified from Glendale's one that puts the requirement on the school district,
but it is clearly in the interest of the residential rezoning applicant to make sure that capacity letter
happens. In both cases, it appears that some kind of per rooftop contribution or alternative is worked out
with the school district. The city has no involvement in setting such fees, and probably doesn't know
what they are. Unlike the Oro Valley Steering Committee recommendation, "donations of land or cash" is
not mentioned in the General Plan or in an ordinance.
The Town, in the OVZCR, currently requires inclusion of information in a rezoning site analysis
addressing capacity and locational issues. By policy, this has been required in the form of a letter from the
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 4 of 6
school district. Some form of communication between developer and school district is necessitated to
obtain this information.
School Site Reservations
Reservation of land for schools is specifically addressed in the Phoenix General Plan, with the language
referencing the phrase, "in accordance with state law". Like Paradise Valley, Gilbert, and others, they use
the authority for school site reservations in the subdivision platting statutes as a basis for working to
encourage reservations. One issue that was raised by some jurisdictions is what happens if the school
district does not use the reserved site. Gilbert's general plan shows general locations for all future school
sites, but they implement the reservation of school sites through the subdivision platting process, not the
rezoning process although the rezoning staff report discusses the level of communication between
developer and school district and whether a school site is being reserved or dedicated.
The Town of Oro Valley in OVZCR 3-104A4n(3) requires reservation of an elementary school site in
proposed developments generating over 500 elementary school children. This is done in the subdivision
review process.
School Site Dedications
Development of guidelines for the dedication of land for schools is referred to in a Peoria policy, but they
have stated it has not yet been implemented. Marana and Maricopa County make fairly extensive use of
negotiated development agreements, including school contributions and even land dedications in large
master planned communities. The development agreements become part of the zoning approval
stipulations. In Maricopa County, if used, the development agreement is between the school district and
the developer; in Marana, it is with the Town and the developer. Neither jurisdiction, however, nor any
other surveyed community or county addresses dedications of land directly in a general plan policy.
Scottsdale mentioned experiencing sites reverting to the developer or being sold when they were not used
for a school.
Other Issues From the Public Hearing
No respondent said that schools earned a stronger criterion in an evaluation of a rezoning, for example,
than any other issue being reviewed. Gilbert did at one point have to declare a moratorium due to school
capacity which led to school impact evaluation policies in their General Plan.
Of the other communities specifically mentioned at public hearing, Apache Junction, having had its
impact fee concept rebuffed in court, has returned to implementing the intergovernmental agreement it has
had with the school district since the City incorporated over 20 years ago. Cave Creek has no plan policy
or ordinance; they do engage in agency review but the school districts are usually non-responsive as they
don't generate large scale development. Finally, neither Pima County nor the City of Tucson has plan
policies regarding the provision of school sites. Tucson does have a policy encouraging collaboration
between the City and school districts.
Summary and Recommendation
There is nothing in state statute that specifically talks about fees, exactions, dedications in general and
comprehensive plans. There is a lot of variation in what local governments do, and only sometimes are the
policies covered in the plan. The use of development agreements dealing with dedications or
contributions or other mechanisms between the Town, developer and/or school district that become a part
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 5 of 6
of a zoning stipulation should undergo legal review. Neither the Steering Committee's nor the Planning
and Zoning Commission's recommendations go in the direction however.
Staff continues to support the Steering Committee recommendation which, with the strategic
implementation plan, would lead to some modification of the OVZCR. As noted in its report to the Town
Council for the January 6, 2003 public hearing, staff also recommends a revision to the third bulleted
paragraph noted in the motion below. The final phrase was added to that paragraph to ensure that there is
no conflict with state law relative to the work of the School Facilities Board.
Recommended motion: I move to approve the Steering Committee's recommended language for
Policies 6.2.1, 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 with the third bullet in Policy 6.2.1 to read "The Town encourages
the petitioners of smaller developments to discuss with the school district possible donations (land
or cash); such donations will be used to offset school construction costs within Town limits to the
extent allowed by Arizona state law."
STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM (separate document)
The Strategic Implementation Program (SIP) serves as the set of identified actions needed to implement
the policies of the General Plan Update. It is an integral part of the process, but by addressing it as a
separate document, it can be more easily used as a true strategic plan by the Town. The SIP is referred to
in the Administration section of the General Plan Update and this section serves to link the two documents
appropriately. The SIP was modified slightly by the Planning and Zoning Commission from the version
recommended by the Steering Committee, but the vast majority of that version remains intact. The
Strategic Implementation Plan and cost estimates for the short term action items have been provided to the
Council previously.
Unlike the existing plan, every policy has at least one action item associated with it. Policies and actions
have been cross-referenced for ease of use. Actions have been divided into short, medium or long term
priorities or annual or ongoing events. There is also an overriding implementation action item regarding a
review of the plan that is also reflected in the Administration chapter of Plan Update.
As the action items in the SIP are intricately linked with the plan policies, changes to the plan policies
which will result from previous Council direction to staff will require that staff also look at the SIP for
corresponding change. Furthermore, to better correlate the review of the plan and reflect the state
statutory mandates, staff suggested changes to the plan text and the text of the implementation plan in the
staff report for the February 27th meeting.
One of the concerns expressed by the Council was the costs, and therefore the feasibility, of implementing
the policies in the plan. As previously reported to the Council, staff performed an analysis of the cost of
implementing the short-term items. The costs for the first two years are:
One-time Staff Costs $ 205,000
Annual Staff Costs $ 175,000
Consultant Costs $ 195,000
Material Costs $ 35,000
Land Costs $ 200,000
Total Town Costs $ 810,000
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 6 of 6
If it appears that the implementation costs associated with the Update are too high, the short term action
items can be reviewed and re-prioritized with less critical policies and actions shifted to medium term.
Those action items that are attached to state mandated functions would take top priority.
Within the context that framework and concept of the SIP is acceptable to the Council, staff would
recommend that the Council tentatively adopt the SIP subject to changes necessitated as a result of
changes to the language of the plan policies. If there is concern over costs, staff can also be directed to
recommend a re-prioritization of the short term action items in context with the review of policy language
already directed by Council and that can be included in the motion below.
Recommended motion: I move to tentatively adopt the Strategic Implementation Plan subject to
changes necessitated as a result of language and direction changes to the policies in the General
Plan Update and to direct staff to prioritize short-term action items with mandated items taking top
priority.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE PLAN (pages 10-17)
Amendment Matrix (p. 12)
The categories listed do not match the descriptions in the Land Use Map Section. In particular LDR has
two categories in the descriptions but only one in the table. Should changes from LDRI to LDR2 be
treated as minor or major amendments?
The amendment matrix is presented as recommended by the Steering Committee and Commission. In
Staff's opinion, it was the intent of the recommendation that both LDRs are similar enough (they both
designate single-family, custom-graded home sites) that the amendment should be minor. However, to
avoid confusion that no amendment is required the matrix should be changed to show both categories.
Recommended Motion: I move to change the amendment matrix to change LDR to LDR1 and add
LDR2 with the same amendment designations as LDR1.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
As presented above.
Attachments:
None
F:\PROJECTS\GP2001\Staff Reports\StudySessionstaffreport#7toTC.doc
I
Town of O o Valley
GeneralP/an Update 2020
Town Council Special Session
February 27, 2003
Tonight's Focus
• land Use Map (Oracle Road Area properties)
— Ravitz Property (#1)
— Kai-Capri Property (#2)
— Felker Property(#6A) and Polito Property (#6B)
— Rooney Ranch (North) Property (#14)
— Various Owners' Property (#15)
— Steam Pump Property (#26)
— Property North of the Naranja Town Site (no map number)
• Elements
— Transportation/Circulation
— Public Facilities, Services, and Safety
— Water Resources
— Environmental Planning
— Strategic Implementation Program
Administration of the PLAN
G'
1
Felker Property (
Zoning 1996 Landowner Steering P&Z
Plan Request Committee Commission
Housing 3 3 30 NR 15
Units
Fiscal min min min min min
Impact
The 1996 GP designates the area as RLDR
m'gc
Polito
Property (
Zoning 1996 landowner Steering P&Z
Plan Request Committee Commission
Housing 3 3 6 NR 4
Units
Fiscal min min min min min
Impact
The 1996 GP designates the area as RLDR
3
•
Pump.. 6S earn
Zoning 1996 Landowner Steering P&Z
Plan Request Committee Commission
Housing 5 0 0 NR 0
Units
Fiscal min unk $6 m NR $6 m
Impact
The 1996 GP designates the area as POS with a back up of
commercial.
PropertyNorth of t:he Naranja Town Site (no
map: number)
a
Zoning 1996 Landowner Steering P&Z
Plan Request Committee Commission
Housing 12 100 NA 50 50
Units
Fiscal min min NA $3.5 m $3.5 m
Impact
The 1996 GP designates the area as MDR.
5
Transportation and Circulation Changes
• Policy 5.5.1 is incorrect as stated the Town does not
provide transportation for teenagers and other young
non-drivers.
• The expansion of services to teenagers and other
persons not currently served is covered by Policy
5.7.1.
• Recommended Motion: I move to delete "teenagers
and other young non-drivers" from Policy 5.5.1.
Transportation and Circulation Changes
• Policy 5.8.1 should be changed to state that the Town will
participate in efforts to study the feasibility of(versus establish)
a regional transit authority.
• This is the approach taken in the implementation plan Action
Item CT.20. It is an approach that aligns with our existing work
programs and agreements.
• Recommended Motion: I move to change Policy 5.8.1 to read
"Participate in efforts to study the feasibility of a regional public
transit authority for the northwest region or the entire
metropolitan area.
7
Public Facilities, Services,
and Safety Element (cont.)
• Recommended motion: Add to Strategic Implementation
Plan:
— PFS.1 7 Create a specific plan identifying the best locales for fire
stations and develop a program, including Zoning Code amendments
as needed and as authorized by ARS 9-463.01.D,to ensure that there
are available sites for emergency response services.--Fire Marshall--
Short Term
4
yL
Public Facilities, Services,
and Safety Element — School Issues
• Significant differences between Steering Committee
and Planning Commission recommendations in 3 of 7
school related policies; minor change to another
• Steering Committee felt strongly about its language;
Commission concerned about legal relationship
between Town and School District
• School District raised concerns over Commission
wording
• Staff asked to research other communities
9
Public Facilities, Services,
and Safety Element — School Issues
• Recommended motion:
- 1 move to approve the Steering Committee's
recommended language for Policies 6.2.1, 6.2.3
and 6.2.4 with the third bullet in Policy 6.2.1 to
read "The Town encourages the petitioners of
smaller developments to discuss with the school
district possible donations (land or cash); such
donations will be used to offset school
construction costs within Town limits to the extent
allowed by Arizona state law."
Water Resources Element
• Required by Growing Smarter/Plus
— To ensure that there will be enough water to support existing and
future development
— Emphasis on quantity and quality, rather than facilities
• Three Subject Areas (Goals and Policies)
— Water Resource Preservation
— Alternative Water Supplies
— Water Resource Conservation
• Strategic Implementation Plan
— Eight actions, four of which are ongoing
— One short-term item (floodplain management ordinance, which is
substantially complete)
— Negligible costs
11
strategic Implementation Plan
• Separate document compiling all
implementation actions
• Serves as a strategic plan
• Every policy has an action item
• Annual report required by ARS
— Language change needed to coordinate with biennial
review and avoid duplication
• Short term costs: $810,000
— Reprioritization may be necessary
Strategic Implementation Plan
• Recommended motion 1:
- I move to add the following to the Plan to address this
requirement: Arizona Revised Statutes (Section 9-461.07-
A.2) require that, once the plan is adopted and ratified,the
Town will,through its planning agency, annually prepare
and provide a report to the Town Council on the status of
the plan and progress in its application. In addition to this
annual report,the Town has developed a strategic program
to implement the plan which, as described below, would
include a periodic and more complete review of the plan.
13
REVISED SCHEDULE FOR THE GENERAL PLAN
General Election
Special Council Meeting February 27
Economic Sustainability Session March ?
Draft Plan and Map to Council March 17
Draft Plan and Map Session March 24
Publish Draft Plan April 9
Public Hearing May 15
Final Adoption June 4
Call for Election June 4
Final Deadline for Call for Election July 7
Election November 4