Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1229)Council Meeting Regular Session October 16, 2019 1 2 Town Council Meeting Announcements 3 Upcoming Meetings 4 5 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Financial Update Through August 2019 October 16, 2019 Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council for the opportunity to present our August financials tonight. I’m pleased to report that things continue to look positive for the Town in all of our funds at this point in the fiscal year, with revenues trending at or over budget and expenditures trending at or under budget 6 General Fund In the General Fund, total revenues collected this year through Aug are $6.3M compared to $5.9M collected last year through this month. We are about 17% of the way through the fiscal year, and trending right in line with where we expect to be. Expenditures through Aug total $6.4M compared to $5.5M spent last fiscal year through this month. So through the month of August our total expenditures exceed total revenues by about $130K, which is typical at this point. Our summer months are lower in terms of revenue collections, and on the expenditure side, we always make our transfer out to the debt service fund in July for our debt service payments, so that entire transfer for the year is in the YTD expenditures, and we’ve also already made our $500K budgeted lump sum payment to PSPRS towards our unfunded liability. 7 General Fund Highlights Local sales tax collections total $3.0M, or 15.6% of budget License and permit revenues total $493K, or 24.8% of budget Estimated to come in $200K, or 10.2% over budget due to residential and commercial building and grading permits State-shared revenues total $2.0M, or 16.3% of budget Charges for services revenues total $506K, or 19.8% of budget Expenditures estimated to end year under budget by $170K due to personnel savings Year-end fund balance estimated at $17.4M A few highlights in the General Fund : Local sales taxes are trending to end the year on budget, currently at about $3.0M or 15.6% of budget License and permit revenues are trending over budget, at almost $500K, or about 25% of budget. We budgeted 300 single family residential permits, and we’re already at 54 through August. We also had an unbudgeted commercial project, which is the expansion of Leman Academy, and that has contributed to our commercial building permit revenues. Overall for this category, we’re estimating to end the year about $200K over budget. State shared revenues are trending right on budget Charges for services revenues typically trend a little high early on in the fiscal year, due to summer recreation programs and aquatic revenues, so those are still expected to end the year on budget. Expenditures are estimated to end under budget by $170K due to personnel savings. Overall, we are estimating to end the year with expenditures exceeding revenues by about $2.2M and an ending fund balance of about $17.4M, or about 41% of budgeted expenditures. As a reminder, our Council-adopted reserve policy for the Gen Fund is 25% of expenditure, so very positive there 8 Highway Fund In the Highway Fund, total revenues collected this year through Aug are $823K compared to $581K collected last year through this month. The total revenue budget is $3.8M. Expenditures through Aug total $218K compared to $363K spent last fiscal year through this month. Total expenditure budget is $4.1M. So through the month of Aug total collected revenues exceed expenditures by just over $600,000. 9 Highway Fund Highlights HURF gas tax revenues expected to come in over budget by about $200K, due to one-time allocation approved in final state budget Total revenues estimated to end year over budget by $227K Expenditures estimated on budget at this time Year-end fund balance estimated at $757K For Highway Fund highlights, HURF gas tax revenues are expected to end the year over budget by about $200K, due to one-time allocation approved in final state budget. Total revenues estimated to end the year over budget by about $227K Expenditures are estimated on budget at this time Overall, expenditures expected to exceed revenues by about $110K, which results in a year-end fund balance of roughly $760K 10 Community Center Fund In the Community Center Fund, looking positive as well. Total revenues collected this year through Aug are $964K compared to $870K collected last year through this month. The total revenue budget is $6.7M. Expenditures through Aug are roughly flat to last fiscal year, at about $1.1M So through the month of Aug total expenditures within the fund exceed revenues by roughly $175K. To note, that figure was $252K last year through Aug, so seeing some improvement there. 11 Community Center Fund Highlights Revenues total $964K, or 14.3% of budget, and are estimated just over budget, by $51K or 0.8% Expenditures total $1.1M, or 17.6% of budget, and are estimated just under budget, by $6K or 0.1% Total revenues in the fund projected to exceed total expenditures by $355K Year-end fund balance estimated at $851K Overall, total revenues at year-end are estimated to come in just over budget, by about $50K, due primarily to our contracted revenues for golf and F&B. Total expenditures are estimated about on budget, just under by about $6K Total revenues in fund projected to exceed total expenditures by $355K With a year-end fund balance of just over $850K 12 QUESTIONS? 13 14 Working together for a better future RTAmobility.com 15 16 Project delivery Intersection Improvements Pedestrian Crossings Bus Pullouts Sidewalks Bike Lanes Roadway Corridors 181 Complete 68 Complete 127 Complete 159 Miles Complete 291 Miles Complete 13 Complete 9 Partially Complete 200 Promised 80 Promised 200 Promised 250 Miles Promised 550 Miles Promised 35 Promised 17 Regional solutions Regional success 18 A decline in purchasing power 19 Following the money 20 21 Your investment 22 A shared vision 23 Planning and development process: 24 to 30 months 24 Citizens Advisory Committee The RTA board recently appointed a 35-member citizens advisory group to begin developing our vision beyond 2026. The committee will develop and recommend a new set of transportation investments that will take us into the future.   This group is made up of individuals representing a broad cross section of the community. They do not represent any one interest. They are people who, like you, care about our quality of life, and they want to be part of the process. Here is a short video to introduce you to some of the committee members. 25 Performance-based planning 26 Audience question: What do you view as your top 3  transportation priorities and how would you prioritize where money is spent?   27 28 29 30 31 Text us! RTAmobility.com 32 Grading Exception Town Council October 16, 2019 Intro 33 Grading Exception Purpose Single Family House Cut and Fill increase The purpose for this case is to review a request for a grading exception for a vacant piece of property that has always been intended to contain a single family home. The Town has grading standards that are defined in the zoning code and are enforced through the grading and building permitting process. The zoning code also provides a relief mechanism to those code standards which is a grading exception. This grading exception proposal is to allow an increase the amount of dirt that can be cut and filled on this lot. I’ll get into more detail about the request and explain cut and fill in just a moment, but first let’s get oriented to the location of this lot. 34 Location Map CDO Wash Club House Oro Valley Estates The subject lot for tonight’s case is located in the Oro Valley Estates subdivision. The Oro Valley Estates, outlined by the dark black line, is a custom home subdivision with lot sizes close to an acre in size. I want to spend just a few moments going over the history of this subdivision. 35 Oro Valley Estates On this slide, is a page from the final plat for the Oro Valley Estates which was created in 1959. As we can see, in 1959, lot 6, which is the subject of tonight’s case, was created as part of this original plat and was always intended to contain a house. When this plat was created in 1959 it was part of Pima County’s jurisdiction. It wasn’t until 1974 when the Town of Oro Valley incorporated, that this area became part of the Town. But even during those early years when the Town of Oro Valley was first created, the old Pima County rules remained in place. So for more than 20 years, after the creation of the Oro Valley Estates subdivision, many homes in the area were built using very different grading standards than we have today. Although there were different rules in place for grading in the 1950’s, this lot was always intended to have a house on it. Fast forward to today, there are only about 5 remaining vacant lots in this subdivision and lot 6 is one of them. Grading on the remaining vacant lots must now meet the grading standards of today’s codes. 36 Applicant’s Proposal 16’ Cut 12’ Fill Existing grade Fill in excess as described The property owner proposes to increase the amount of earthwork allowed on this site. Specifically the cut and fill allowances. The term cut refers to the depth of dirt dug into on a property beneath (push) the existing grade (push). The term fill refers to the depth of dirt (push) added to a property above the natural grade. The proposal is to allow up to 16’ of cut – the yellow area and up to 12’ of fill – the pink area. Now let’s compare the proposal of a 16’ cut and a 12’ fill with the grading standards of the zoning code. 37 6’ Cut and fill Zoning Requirements The zoning code usually allows a 6’ cut (push) shown here in yellow and a 6’ fill shown here in pink(push). These cut and fill standards are a way to try to preserve the natural contour of a site and create a balance that leads to a suitable building pad without significant scarring of the land. 38 8’ Cut and fill with terracing Zoning Requirements 4’ Max 8’ Max The zoning code also allows for a little bit more cut and fill, up to 8’, if terracing is utilized. So instead of one 6’ cut into the land, a series of retaining walls can be installed to equal 8’ of cut (push). The same works for filling. Up to 8’ can be filled on the property with retaining walls. So how does that apply to this lot. 39 Current Cut and Fill 18’ Building height limit When you take those cut and fill standards and apply them to this lot, it basically becomes very difficult to create a level building pad to contain a reasonably sized house. In fact, the slope on this lot is so extreme the zoning code tells us that me have to measure building height from the natural grade (push). This would mean that if the lot is kept to current cut and fill limits, any house on this lot would most likely be perched on the slope and that design would require a variance for building height (push). Let’s look at the slope of this lot. 40 Site Details 70’ elevation change Yellow = 15 -25% Red = Greater than 25% This is an birdseye view of lot 6. The boundaries of the lot are shown in blue. This lot contains more then 70 feet in elevation change. A slope analysis has been placed over this lot to show us the extreme degree of slope. The yellow tells us that part of the lot contains 15% slopes while the red shows us slopes greater than 25%. The lot slopes dramatically (push) from the southern lot line to the northern lot line, all of which indicate it’s a very steep lot! But keep in mind, although this lot is extremely steep, it was always intended to have a house built on it someday according to the 1959 plat. Next, I want to briefly explain the relief mechanism that the zoning code provides for challenging lots such as this one. 41 Criteria Grading Exception Purpose and intent Minimum requested Strict adherence – unnecessary hardship Not a special privilege Not detrimental The zoning code provides a grading exception process to address difficult lots, like we have on lot 6. A grading exception is reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and forwarded to Town Council for final decision. The zoning code grading exception provides a set of criteria to ensure that the goals of protecting the land and neighbors is accomplished while allowing grading on difficult sites. The report included in your packets provides more detail, but a couple of key issues I want to address tonight are the hardship and special privilege points. This is a challenging lot. In order to build on this site a variance or waiver of some sort is neccesary. This lot cannot meet the building height limits and cut and fill standards and provide a reasonable building pad without some sort of relief. There are codes in place to ensure that a registered engineer would be required to design plans to protect the abutting lots while providing an acceptable building site on a lot that has always been intended to contain a house. Building a house on this site is not a special privilege. 42 Example of Grading Often we have to try to visualize what a proposed case might look like through descriptions and drawings. In this case we have the unique opportunity to see an example of how lot 6 might look someday if this grading waiver gains approval. The lot shown on this slide is also located in the Oro Valley Estates. This property was built in 1977 during the time that grading standards were from the old Pima County codes. But we can see how the slope of the lot contains several retaining walls where they cut into the land (push) and where they filled dirt using a series of stair stepped retaining walls (push) down to the street in order to create a flat building pad for a house. With the proposed grading exception and engineered plans, this is an example of what lot 6 might look like in the future. Also, retaining wall systems of this type and magnitude would help stabilize slopes and manage drainage. 43 Future Construction Requirements Grading Permit Geo-Tech Engineer Civil/Structural Engineer Soils analysis Erosion control Slope stabilization Manage drainage Retaining structures Adherence to special conditions Building Plans Height limits Setbacks Lighting Structural I do want to mention that this case that we are reviewing tonight is not a detailed set of building plans to actually build a house. This case is only addressing a concept of future grading allowances, specifically cut and fill. In the future when someone decides to move forward with plans to build on this lot, a property with this type of extreme slope would require a set of engineered plans to show how the integrity of the surrounding lots will be maintained and how proper drainage will be achieved which would include details about future retaining structures. Those types of detailed plans are not part of the request that we are reviewing tonight. Those types of future plans are something that would be reviewed by staff through a grading and building permit at a later date. 44 Public Notice Notices Mailing - 600 feet Property posted Newspaper Website Key Issues Drainage control Unstable ground Process Planning and Zoning Commission Town Council A grading exception is a public hearing process that is reviewed by both the PZC and Council. Because it is a public hearing, we notified the neighbors within 600’ of lot 6 , posted a sign on the property, placed a newspaper and a notice was posted on the Town’s website. At this time we had heard from the neighbors that live the west of lot 6 who are concerned about drainage and increasing dirt runoff onto their lots. Also we’ve heard from the neighbor who lives of the south, which is the house that sits on the hill above the subject lot. The main concern for those neighbors is the stability of the earth and ensuring their home is not further damaged. Random info: letter neighbor = 1980, 2558 living. Example house = 1977, 3825 living –Top of the hill house =1993 –Next door to letter house -1990 45 Summary Request Increase Cut and Fill Meets criteria of grading exception Purpose and intent Always intended to contain a house Not a special privilege Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval Future grading and building permits required Fill in excess as described In summary the proposal to increase the cut and fill on lot 6 meets the criteria, purpose and intent of the zoning code standards for a lot that was always intended to contain a house. Future grading and building plans would require extensive review to ensure the site is properly developed regardless of the grading waiver. The planning and zoning commission recommended approval with the conditions listed in Attachment 1. This concludes my presentation and the applicant is here tonight to also say a few words. 46 47 Grading Exception Request 945 W Valle Del Oro Rd Oro Valley Town Council Presentation by Susan L Richards Also in attendance: Benjamin Vogel, Architect and John Billings, Long Realty 48 Background on Request for Grading Exception Original plan from 2004 when the hillside lot was purchased for $149,000 was for current owner and her husband to build a home on the lot at a future date upon an eventual move from Boston to Oro Valley In 2013 the move from Boston to Oro Valley did occur but a financial setback prohibited this plan to build because of expense to build Family decision was made in 2014 to sell the lot to recoup some or all of the original investment Over past 5 years there have been numerous unsuccessful attempts to sell the lot It became evident that a buyer for the lot would want some assurances of what type of house could be built due to challenge of the build and site prep 49 Background on Request for Grading Exception Marketing efforts were modified to include a licensed architect to provide possible house plans and consultation on the build Both 2 Level stair step house (build into side of hill) and Single Level designs were discussed Working with a realtor indicates that the best desirability and marketability of the lot (to maximize the views on the hillside and size of home) would be to build a Single Level home to allow an owner to “age in place” 50 Background on Request for Grading Exception To accommodate a possible Single Level home, at a meeting with the Oro Valley Planning staff earlier this year it was determined that best course of action was to request a Grading Exception as relates to cut and fill If the Grading Exception is granted this greatly increases the likelihood of a buyer to purchase and build on the lot Selling the lot would provide substantial financial relief to the current owner Note: A buyer would not be obligated to build a Single Level house but would have the Grading Exception in place if they desire to do so 51 Subdivision Slopes 52 70’+ slope Site Details Red lines = 2’ contour lines 53 70’+ Slope Site Details 54 55