Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1271)         AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION and STUDY SESSION JANUARY 8, 2020 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE Executive Sessions – Upon a vote of the majority of the Town Council, the Council may enter into Executive Sessions pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes §38-431.03 (A)(3) to obtain legal advice on matters listed on the Agenda.        REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER   ROLL CALL   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE   UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS   COUNCIL REPORTS   TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT   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   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.Presentation and update by President/CEO Dave Perry of the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce   CONSENT AGENDA  (Consideration and/or possible action)   A.Minutes - November 20 and December 4, 2019   B.Resolution No. (R)20-01, authorizing and approving a subgrantee agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to fund equipment under the Operation Stonegarden program   C.Request for approval of conceptual architecture for Two Oracle Place, also known as the former Platinum Fitness site, located west of Oracle Road approximately 1/4-mile north of Ina Road   D.(Re)appointment to the Tucson - Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee   REGULAR AGENDA   1.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR A SERIES 9S (LIQUOR STORE WITH SAMPLING PRIVILEGES) LIQUOR LICENSE FOR TRADER JOE'S, LOCATED AT 7912 N. ORACLE ROAD   2.AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE RELATING TO SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS      A.RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-02, DECLARING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE SPECIAL EVENTS SECTION OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE, PROVIDED AS EXHIBIT "A" WITHIN THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 4, 2019)   B.PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-01, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF ARTICLE 8-3 OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE RELATING TO THE SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 4, 2019)   3.PUBLIC HEARING: PURSUANT TO A.R.S. §9-463.05, TO DISCUSS AND REVIEW AN UPDATE TO THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT FEES CHARGED BY THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY   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 OF THE REGULAR SESSION   STUDY SESSION   CALL TO ORDER   STUDY SESSION AGENDA   1.DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE, SECTION 24.9 AND SECTION 22.10   2.DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS TO C-1, C-2, AND TECHNOLOGICAL PARK AND EQUIVALENT PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS REGARDING LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUCH AS BUILDING HEIGHTS, SETBACKS, ETC.   ADJOURNMENT OF THE STUDY SESSION   RECONVENE THE REGULAR SESSION   EXECUTIVE SESSION - 1. Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (A)(4) for legal advice with the Town attorneys, discussion, and consultation with those attorneys and designated Town representatives, and possible instruction to those attorneys and designated representatives about disputes, claims, proposals and/or agreements related to the Town owned golf courses, HSL and/or Home Owners’ Associations proximate to those courses.   RESUME THE REGULAR SESSION   ADJOURNMENT The Mayor and Council may, at the discretion of the meeting chairperson, discuss any Agenda item.   POSTED 1/3/2020 at 5:00 p.m. by pp 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. – 5:00 p.m. The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk’s Office at least five days prior to the Council meeting at 229-4700. INSTRUCTIONS TO SPEAKERS Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted public hearing. However, those items not listed as a public hearing are for consideration and action by the Town Council during the course of their business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. If you wish to address the Town Council on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete a speaker card located on the Agenda table at the back of the room and give it to the Town Clerk. Please indicate on the speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on, or if you wish to speak during “Call to Audience”, please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. Please step forward to the podium when the Mayor announces the item(s) on the agenda which you are interested in addressing. 1. For the record, please state your name and whether or not you are a Town resident. 2. Speak only on the issue currently being discussed by Council. Please organize your speech, you will only be allowed to address the Council once regarding the topic being discussed. 3. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. 4. During “Call to Audience” you may address the Council on any issue you wish. 5. Any member of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present. Thank you for your cooperation.    Town Council Regular and Study Session 1. Meeting Date:01/08/2020   Presentation and update by President/CEO Dave Perry of the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce Subject Presentation and update by President/CEO Dave Perry of the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce Summary Attachments No file(s) attached.    Town Council Regular and Study Session A. Meeting Date:01/08/2020   Requested by: Mike Standish Submitted By:Michelle Stine, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: Minutes - November 20 and December 4, 2019 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 November 20 and December 4, 2019 minutes.  Attachments 11-20-19 Draft Minutes  12-4-19 Draft Minutes  D R A F T   MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL SESSION NOVEMBER 20, 2019 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE            Executive Sessions - Upon a vote of the majority of the Town Council, the Council may enter into Executive Sessions pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes 38-431.03 (A)(3) to obtain legal advice on matters listed on the Agenda.   SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor Melanie Barrett, Vice-Mayor Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember (attended via phone) Josh Nicolson, Councilmember Rhonda Piña, Councilmember Bill Rodman, Councilmember Steve Solomon, Councilmember SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.PRESENTATION AND POSSIBLE DISCUSSION OF THE TOWN'S FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 FINANCIAL UPDATE THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2019       Finance and Budget Administrator Wendy Gomez presented item #1 and included the following: - General Fund - General Fund Highlights - Highway Fund - Highway Fund Highlights - Community Center Fund - Community Center Fund Highlights Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #1.   2.PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL'S OCTOBER 2, 2019, DECISION REGARDING THE TOWN'S COMMUNITY CENTER AND GOLF OPERATIONS        11-20-19 Minutes, Town Council Special Session  1   Mayor Winfield stated that item #2 was continued from the November 6th, 2019 Council meeting and that blue cards would not be accepted on this item tonight. Town Manager Mary Jacobs opened the presentation of item #2 and included the following: - Background - Revised Staff Recommendation Interim Chief Financial Officer Kevin Artz continued the presentation and included the following: - Revised Staff Recommendation Ms. Jacobs concluded the presentation of item #2. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #2.    Mayor Joseph C. Winfield and Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett withdrew the following motion as stated at the November 6, 2019 Council meeting: to approve funding for all Golf Course repairs and improvements on a pay as you go basis from the Community Center Fund. Once a new operator is in place, the investment sequence will be as follows: Conquistador course irrigation and repairs, followed by Cañada course irrigation and repairs, followed by Golf Clubhouse / Restaurant improvements. Manage Overlook Restaurant operation to only support golf. Reduce hours and labor costs to provide food service consistent with a municipal golf course. Hours are typically 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. menu offering breakfast and so forth. Issue an RFP for an outside vendor to operate the reduced golf food service. Retain $100,000 minimum in Community Center Fund for a reserve. Maintain the Community Center Fund to monitor golf operating losses and tax subsidy.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett to approve all golf course repairs and improvements to be funded on a pay as you go basis from the Community Center Fund. No bonding will be undertaken for community center improvements. Once the selected course operator is in place the investment sequence will be as follows: Conquistador course irrigation and repairs completed in 2021. Canada course irrigation and repairs completed in 2022. Golf Clubhouse and restaurant improvements scheduled for 2023. Staff will develop an RFP for competitive bids to operate the two town courses and review with Council. Town staff will issue an RFP for irrigation design and construction for both the Conquistador and Canada courses. The Town will manage the Overlook restaurant operation to support golf and reduce current losses. Food service hours and menu offerings are to be consistent with the needs of a municipal golf course. Oro Valley will retain a $100,000 minimum reserve in the Community Center fund.    Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding item #2.    Motion by Councilmember Steve Solomon, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to amend the main motion by substituting the main motion with the following motion: Proceed with the finalized design of the golf course irrigation and improvements and to begin by the summer of 2020 and to complete those repairs and improvements by the end of 2021. To bond for the Community Center and golf clubhouse improvements and begin those improvements by the end of 2020. To have Town staff and consultants report back to the Council regarding the different options for the restaurant and have public input on those options before a decision is made. To fund the golf and irrigation improvements through the Community Center fund and if necessary through a loan from the General Fund savings in excess of the 25% General Fund reserve policy which would be paid back through the Community Center fund over the next several years. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the amended motion.  Vote: 3 - 4 Failed  OPPOSED: Mayor Joseph C. Winfield  Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett 11-20-19 Minutes, Town Council Special Session  2   Councilmember (attended via phone) Joyce Jones-Ivey  Councilmember Josh Nicolson    Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding item #2.    Mayor Winfield with a second from Vice-Mayor Barrett, requested the following voluntary amendment to the main motion: Staff will develop an RFP for competitive bids to operate the two town GOLF courses. and review with Council.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett to approve the following motion as amended: All golf course repairs and improvements to be funded on a pay as you go basis from the Community Center Fund. No bonding will be undertaken for community center improvements. Once the selected course operator is in place the investment sequence will be as follows: Conquistador course irrigation and repairs completed in 2021. Canada course irrigation and repairs completed in 2022. Golf Clubhouse and restaurant improvements scheduled for 2023. Staff will develop an RFP for competitive bids to operate the town golf courses. Town staff will issue an RFP for irrigation design and construction for both the Conquistador and Canada courses. The Town will manage the Overlook restaurant operation to support golf and reduce current losses. Food service hours and menu offerings are to be consistent with the needs of a municipal golf course. Oro Valley will retain a $100,000 minimum reserve in the Community Center fund. Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding item #2.  Vote: 4 - 3 Carried  OPPOSED: Councilmember Rhonda Piña  Councilmember Bill Rodman  Councilmember Steve Solomon   3.DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SUMMARY RESULTS OF ONLINE SURVEY AND FOCUS GROUP REGARDING THE POLICE CHIEF RECRUITMENT PROCESS       Mayor Winfield recessed the meeting at 8:16 p.m. Mayor Winfield reconvened the meeting at 8:27 p.m.    Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #3.    The following individuals spoke regarding item #3. Oro Valley resident Danette Bewley Oro Valley resident and Tucson Airport Authority Chief of Police John Ivanoff    Council requested that staff reach out to The Novak Consulting Group regarding their concerns with the Police Chief recruitment process. Town Manager Mary Jacobs recommended that Council meet with the Novak Consulting Group in a future Executive Session to discuss any concerns regarding the Police Chief recruitment process.   EXECUTIVE SESSION - Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (A)(4) for legal advice with the Town attorneys, discussion, and consultation with those attorneys and designated Town representatives, and possible instruction to those attorneys and designated representatives about proposals or agreements related to the Town owned golf courses, HSL and/or Home Owners’ Associations proximate to those courses    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Josh Nicolson to go into Executive 11-20-19 Minutes, Town Council Special Session  3   Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Josh Nicolson to go into Executive Session at 9:14 p.m. pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (A)(4) for legal advice with the Town attorneys, discussion, and consultation with those attorneys and designated Town representatives, and possible instruction to those attorneys and designated representatives about proposals or agreements related to the Town owned golf courses, HSL and/or Home Owners’ Associations proximate to those courses  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried    Mayor Winfield announced that the following staff members would be joining Council in the Executive Session: Town Manager Mary Jacobs, Assistant Town Manager Chris Cornelison, Town Attorney Gary Cohen, Interim Finance Director Kevin Artz and Town Clerk Mike Standish.   RESUME SPECIAL SESSION    Mayor Winfield resumed the Special Session at 10:03 p.m.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to adjourn the meeting at 10:04 p.m.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried     ___________________________ Michelle Stine, MMC Deputy Town Clerk I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the special session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 20th day of November 2019. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of ____________________, 2019. ___________________________ Michael Standish, CMC Town Clerk 11-20-19 Minutes, Town Council Special Session  4  D R A F T   MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION DECEMBER 4, 2019 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE            REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor Melanie Barrett, Vice-Mayor (attended via phone) Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember Josh Nicolson, Councilmember (attended via phone) Rhonda Piña, Councilmember Bill Rodman, Councilmember Steve Solomon, Councilmember PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE    Mayor Winfield led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.   UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS    Town Clerk Mike Standish announced the upcoming Town meetings.   COUNCIL REPORTS    Councilmember Jones-Ivey reported that December 3rd, 2019 was International Persons with Disabilities Day. Ms. Jones-Ivey also reported that the Amphi School District partnered with the Beacon Group to help train and develop students with disabilities. Councilmember Jones-Ivey recognized Ella Maughan, a fifth grade student at Copper Creek Elementary, for her academic excellence and her outstanding community service.   12/4/19 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 1        TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT    Town Manager Mary Jacobs reported that construction has concluded at the Moore and La Cañada Road intersection and the roundabout has opened. A follow-up video will be presented in the near future to address constituent questions about the roundabout. Town Clerk Mike Standish announced that new artwork was on display in the Council Chambers by artist Karen Brungardt.   ORDER OF BUSINESS    Mayor Winfield reviewed the order of business and stated that the order would stand as posted.   INFORMATIONAL ITEMS    There were no informational items.   CALL TO AUDIENCE    Oro Valley resident Greg Kishi spoke regarding the summary and focus group results for the Oro Valley Police Chief selection process. Whitney Pearce spoke in support of the Honeybee Canyon trail. Oro Valley resident John Gausman spoke in support of the Honeybee Canyon trail system. Oro Valley resident Tyler Shepperd spoke in support of the Honeybee Canyon trail system. Jeff Gicklhorn spoke regarding the conservation of the Honeybee Canyon trail system.   PRESENTATIONS   1.Presentation and recognition of the Oro Valley Rotary Club for their donation to enhance the Community Center's Kids Korner       Parks and Recreation Director Kristy Diaz-Trahan recognized the Oro Valley Rotary Club for their donation and enhancements to the Oro Valley Community Center's Kids Korner. Mr. Steve Witthoeft, representing the Oro Valley Rotary Club, spoke regarding their efforts and donations to the Community Center Kids Korner.   2.Presentation and update by President/CEO Brent DeRaad of Visit Tucson       Oro Valley Strategic Initiatives Manager Amanda Jacobs introduced Visit Tucson's President/CEO Brent DeRaad. Mr. DeRaad presented item #2 and included the following: Travel Impacts on Pima County Visit Tucson Metro Tucson Lodging - 2018 vs. 2012 Peak-Season Growth Reasons for Travel Growth Oro Valley's ROI 12/4/19 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 2 What Does Your Investment Buy? Oro Valley Leisure Marketing Strategic Leadership Plan - 19-20 - 20-21 Metro Tucson Tourism Master Plan Ms. Jacobs concluded the presentation with a brief update regarding the next steps for the Metro Tucson Tourism plan.    Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding presentation item #2.   CONSENT AGENDA    Councilmember Piña requested that item (C) be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion.   A.Minutes - November 6, 2019      B.Adoption of the 2020 regular Town Council meeting schedule      D.(Re)appointments to any or all of the various boards and commissions: Board of Adjustment (BOA), Budget and Finance Commission (BFC), Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), Stormwater Utility Commission (SWUC), Water Utility Commission (WUC), and PAG Regional Transportation Authority Environmental Planning Advisory Committee (PAG - EPAC) (Packet materials updated 12-4-19 @ 11:15 am)      E.Resolution No. (R)19-57, approving the Town's Legislative Agenda, protocols guiding the Town’s priorities for the 2020 legislative session and any lobbying activities       Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Consent Agenda items (A-B) and (D-E).  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   C.Ratify the Planning Division Work Plan for FY 19/20 - FY 20/21       Councilmember Piña requested clarification on Consent Agenda item C. Planning Manager Bayer Vella clarified Councilmember Piña's questions regarding item C.    Motion by Councilmember Rhonda Piña, seconded by Councilmember Steve Solomon to approve item C of the Consent Agenda.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   REGULAR AGENDA   1.NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF VICE MAYOR       Councilmember Jones-Ivey nominated Vice-Mayor Barrett to serve as Vice Mayor for 2020, seconded by Mayor Winfield. Councilmember Solomon nominated Councilmember Rodman to serve as Vice Mayor for 2020, seconded by Councilmember Piña. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #1.   12/4/19 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 3  Motion by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey, seconded by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield to approve the nomination of Vice Mayor Melanie Barrett as Vice Mayor for 2020.  Vote: 5 - 2 Carried  OPPOSED: Councilmember Rhonda Piña  Councilmember Steve Solomon   2.AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE RELATING TO SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS   A.RESOLUTION NO. (R)19-56, DECLARING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE SPECIAL EVENTS SECTION OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE, PROVIDED AS EXHIBIT "A" WITHIN THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD       Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Resolution No. (R)19-56, declaring the proposed amendments to various sections of the Special Events Code of the Oro Valley Town Code, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and filed with the Town Clerk, a public record.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   B.ORDINANCE NO. (O)19-09, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF ARTICLE 8-3 OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE RELATING TO THE SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT       Stategic Initiatives Amanda Jacobs gave an overview of item #2B. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #2B. Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. No comments were received. Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing. Town Attorney Gary Cohen recommended that this item return to Council at the next regular meeting and be agendized as a public hearing.    Motion by Councilmember Steve Solomon, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to continue Ordinance No. (O)19-09 to the January 8th, 2020 Town Council meeting and include the Public Hearing.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   3.PRESENTATION REGARDING THE TOWN’S PROGRESS ON IMPLEMENTING THE YOUR VOICE, OUR FUTURE GENERAL PLAN       Principal Planner Millini Simms presented item #3 and included the following: Purpose General Plan Fulfilling Promises Implementing the General Plan Notable Achievements Future Items Summary and Next Steps 12/4/19 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 4 Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #3.   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS    No future agenda items were requested.   CALL TO AUDIENCE     No comments were received.   EXECUTIVE SESSION - Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(1), and/or (2), and/or 3) and/or (4) regarding pending search for a new police chief.    Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the Executive Session item.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to go into Executive Session at 7:42 p.m. pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(1), and/or (2), and/or 3) and/or (4) regarding pending search for a new police chief. Mayor Winfield stated that the following staff would join Council in Executive Session: Town Manager Mary Jacobs, Town Attorney Gary Cohen, Ms. Catherine Tuck Parrish from the Novak Consulting Group and Town Clerk Mike Standish. Discussion continued regarding the Executive Session item.  Vote: 4 - 3 Carried  OPPOSED: Councilmember Rhonda Piña  Councilmember Bill Rodman  Councilmember Steve Solomon   RESUME REGULAR SESSION    Mayor Winfield resumed the Regular Session at 9:41 p.m.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to adjourn the meeting at 9:42 p.m.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried     Michelle Stine, MMC 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 4th day of December 2019. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of ____________________, 2019. 12/4/19 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 5 ___________________________ Michael Standish, CMC Town Clerk 12/4/19 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 6    Town Council Regular and Study Session B. Meeting Date:01/08/2020   Requested by: Jason Larter Submitted By:Catherine Hendrix, Police Department Department:Police Department SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R)20-01, authorizing and approving a subgrantee agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to fund equipment under the Operation Stonegarden program RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Over the past several years, the Arizona Department of Homeland Security (AZDOHS) has partnered with the Town of Oro Valley Police Department (OVPD), providing funding for Operation Stonegarden to include overtime and mileage, as well as the purchase of critical equipment. On November 27, 2019, OVPD was provided notice awarding the funding to purchase equipment with reallocation funds. OVPD wishes to enter into a subgrantee agreement with AZDOHS to fund the purchase of investigative equipment to support officers deployed under the Operation Stonegarden program. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The grant application was made in order to work in a regional partnership with other local law enforcement agencies and the U.S. Border Patrol Tucson Sector to reduce crime and improve the quality of life for the residents and visitors of Oro Valley. This grant will use targeted deployments of officers and canine units to impact the flow of smugglers engaged in human trafficking and illegal contraband, as well as possible terrorists who intend to cause harm or commit crimes against this nation. FISCAL IMPACT: The capacity exists in the current FY 19/20 budget to accept this grant award for a total of $22,500. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (approve or deny) Resolution No. (R)20-01, authorizing and approving a subgrantee agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to fund the purchase of equipment under the Operation Stonegarden program. Attachments (R)20-01 Stonegarden Agreement  Stonegarden Reallocation Subrecipient Agreement  C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies \easyPDF 7 \@BCL@B851C59C\@BCL@B851C59C.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/012512 RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A SUBGRANTEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO FUND EQUIPMENT UNDER THE OPERATION STONEGARDEN PROGRAM ; AND DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER, TOWN CLERK, TOWN LEGAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, OR THEIR DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND AGENTS TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Arizona Department of Homeland Security (AZDOHS) requires participating jurisdictions to enter into a Subgrantee Agreement to receive the funds granted under the Operation Stonegarden Program; and WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley’s allocation under the grant is a maximum of $22,500 which will be used to fund equipment under the Operation Stonegarden Program for deployments with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Town o f Oro Valley to enter into the Subgrantee Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference ) in order to receive funds which will be used to fund equipment under the Operation Stonegarden Program for deployments with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, that: SECTION 1. The Subgrantee Agreement between the Town of Oro Valley, for the benefit of the Oro Valley Police Department and the Arizona Department of Homeland Security, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, to fund equipment under the Operation Stonegarden Program for deployments with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection is hereby authorized and approved. SECTION 2. The Mayor and other administrative officials of the Town of Oro Valley are hereby authorized to take such steps as are necessary to execute and implement the terms of the Subgrantee Agreement. SECTION 3. The Town Manager, Town Clerk, Town Legal Services Director, or their duly authorized officers and agents are hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 8th day of January, 2020. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM : Michael Standish, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: Date: EXHIBIT “A”    Town Council Regular and Study Session C. Meeting Date:01/08/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella  Submitted By:Michael Spaeth, Community and Economic Development Department:Community and Economic Development SUBJECT: Request for approval of conceptual architecture for Two Oracle Place, also known as the former Platinum Fitness site, located west of Oracle Road approximately 1/4-mile north of Ina Road RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission will consider this item on January 6, 2019. The Commission's recommendation will be reported to Town Council prior to the January 8, 2019 meeting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to consider a conceptual architecture application for a property located west of Oracle Road, approximately 1/4-mile north of Ina Road (see image at right). Two Oracle Place is approximately 3.7-acres in size and was once part of a larger commercial complex encompassing a total of 6.7-acres approved in 1976. This site was originally developed as a Gold's Gym and most recently served as a Platinum Fitness. The applicant has purchased this property (not the original complex) and intends to redevelop the site as a mix of office, retail and restaurant space (see proposal in Attachment 1). The proposed changes are architectural only and no substantive site changes (e.g. building layout, vehicle circulation, etc.) are proposed.   Over time, the architecture for the center has become dated and does not meet many of the design standards found in the Town's current zoning code. As such, due to the outdated architectural style of the center, rather than pulling design elements from surrounding buildings (as typically provided), the design theme proposed by the applicant will serve as the foundation for future changes to other buildings within the center. The applicant's proposal (Attachment 1) represents a marked improvement from the existing design and includes a contemporary and modern mix of colors and materials. A summary of the proposed changes is included below:  Four-sided architecture (e.g. all four sides of the building incorporate similar colors, materials and architectural fenestration) Mechanical equipment screening Metal and wood accents Energy efficient windows  Reducing the scale of the building by incorporating design elements to break up the mass of blank facades, specifically on the north and west elevations.  Conceptual architecture applications are reviewed for conformance with both the design principles and standards of the Zoning Code. These criteria are used to evaluate everything from the design and scale of the building to facade articulation, screening and the colors and materials used. A detailed discussion of the proposal's conformance is included in the Background or Detailed Information of this report.  The proposal is consistent with the design principles and standards of the zoning code and staff recommends approval.  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The purpose of this item is to consider a conceptual architecture application for a property located west of Oracle Road, approximately 1/4-mile north of Ina Road. This property, known as Two Oracle Place, is approximately 3.7-acres in size and is part of a larger complex encompassing a total of 6.7-acres. All three properties, the other two being under separate ownership, were approved as part of the original development plan in 1976. The site was originally developed as a Gold's Gym and most recently served as a Platinum Fitness. The applicant has purchased the property and intends to redevelop the site as a mix of office, retail and restaurant space (see renderings in Attachment 1). Please note the proposed changes are architectural only and no significant site design alterations (e.g. building layout, vehicle circulation, etc.) are proposed. The developer intends to use the current footprint while upgrading the architectural design. In time, the architecture for the center has become dated and does not incorporate many of the high design standards found in current code. Typically, a key focus of architectural review is to “pull-in” quality design elements of surrounding developments to enhance compatibility with the area. However, when a development is outdated (such as in this instance) or doesn’t have quality design elements that should be pulled into adjacent buildings, the Zoning Code enables setting a new design aesthetic for the development.  As such, due to the current, outdated, architectural aesthetic of the center, the design theme proposed by the applicant will not be pulling in any outdated elements, but instead will serve as the foundation for future changes to other buildings within the center. The applicant's proposal (Attachment 1) represents a significant improvement and distinct change from the existing design and includes a modern mix of colors and materials, while still staying true to the Sonoran Desert color palette. A summary of the proposed changes is included below:  Four-sided architecture (e.g. all four sides of the building incorporate similar colors, materials and architectural fenestration) Mechanical equipment screening Metal and wood accents Energy efficient windows  Reducing the scale of the building by incorporating design elements to break up the mass of blank facades, specifically on the north and west elevations.  Conceptual architecture applications are reviewed for conformance with both the design principles and standards of the Zoning Code. These criteria are used to evaluate everything from the design and scale of the building to facade articulation, screening and the colors and materials used. A summary of the architectural design principles (italics), followed by staff commentary is provided below.  Design: building architectural design shall be appropriate for the climate and characteristics of the Sonoran Desert, including indigenous and traditional textures, colors, and shapes found in and around Oro Valley. All development shall maintain and strengthen the high quality of design exemplified in Oro Valley through project creativity and design excellence. Much of the design and scale of the building was determined when originally built in 1976. Again, the architecture has become outdated and is in need of refreshment. The applicant’s proposal incorporates an updated modern aesthetic and incorporates colors, materials and textures of the Sonoran Desert. The overall design of the building is being significantly improved as part of these architectural changes and the applicant’s proposal meets this design principle. Scale, Height and Mass: building scale, height and mass shall be consistent with the Town-approved intensity of the site, designated scenic corridors, and valued mountain views. Buildings shall be designed to respect the scale of adjoining areas and should mitigate the negative and functional impacts that arise from scale, bulk and mass. Again, the building scale and height were primarily established as part of the original design. The proposal incorporates new patio space oriented to take advantage of the mountain views to the east, windows to increase the amount of natural light and other architectural elements to help break-up the building mass. The request meets this principle Facade Articulation: all building facades shall be fully articulated, including variation in building massing, roof planes, wall planes, and surface articulation. Architectural elements including, but not limited to, overhangs, trellises, projections, awnings, insets, material, and texture shall be used to create visual interest that contributes to a building’s character. The facade articulation and building roof and wall planes were similarly established as part of the original design. Again, the applicant is re-purposing the existing building for a mix of office, retail and restaurant uses. Each space has incorporated additional articulation, fenestration and materials and textures to add interest and architectural detail where blank walls previously existed. The applicant's design enhances all four sides of the building, where previously only the street-side elevations had been treated. The design meets this design principle.  Signs: sign colors, design and placement shall be complementary and integral to the project’s architectural and site design themes . The applicant’s proposal is solely focused on updating the existing architecture for the building. Signs will be addressed through a separate sign application at a later date. No sign approvals are part of this application and all signs shown in the applicant’s proposal or purely representative.  Screening: building design and screening strategies shall be implemented to conceal the view of loading areas, refuse enclosures, mechanical equipment, appurtenances, and utilities from adjacent public streets and neighborhoods. The applicant’s proposal includes increased mechanical screening to ensure all mechanical equipment is fully screened, specifically from Oracle Road. Currently, the rooftop mechanical equipment on the southern portion of the building is clearly visible and is now proposed to be fully screened from view as part of the applicant's request. Again, this is a significant improvement to the existing street-scape and the proposal is consistent with this principle.  In summary, the proposal represents a significant improvement from the existing design aesthetic and will serve as the architectural foundation for any other future changes within the center. Moreover, the design changes will help rejuvenate the center to be more attractive for potential users in the future. Lastly, the proposal is consistent with the design principles and standards of the zoning code and staff recommends approval.  FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to APPROVE the proposed Conceptual Architecture for Two Oracle Place based on a finding it is consistent with the Design Principles and Standards of the Zoning Code. OR  I MOVE to DENY the proposed Conceptual Architecture based on a finding that ____________. Attachments Attachmnent 1 - Applicant's Submittal  Attachment 2 - Town Council Report  1 Town Manager’s Office TOWN COUNCIL REPORT DATE: 01/07/2019 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers THRU: Mary Jacobs, Town Manager JJ, Johnston, Director of Community and Economic Development FROM: Bayer Vella, AICP, Planning Manager SUBJECT: PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE FOR TWO ORACLE PLACE, LOCATED WEST OF ORACLE ROAD APPROXIMATELY ¼- MILE NORTH OF INA ROAD This report is to inform the Mayor and Council about a Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation regarding a consent agenda item on the January 8, 2020 agenda. DISCUSSION At a Special Session last night, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to conditionally recommend approval of the following case which is to be considered during tomorrow night’s Town Council meeting: Consent Agenda Item C: Request for approval of conceptual architecture for Two Oracle Place, also known as the former Platinum Fitness site, located west of Oracle Road approximately ¼-mile north of Ina Road. (See image at right) There were no public speakers for the item and the Commission recommended unanimous approval with the following condition: “The building design and screening strategy shall be implemented to conceal the view of mechanical equipment, both roof and ground based, from adjacent public streets and properties, specifically Oracle Road, Northern Avenue and the Tohono Chul Park” 2 This condition reflects current code requirements and will be implemented upon building permit review. Due to timing, the original Town Council communication for the agenda item did not include the recommended condition. Should Town Council decide to add the condition, per the Commission’s recommendation, the item will need to be removed from the consent agenda and an amendment made by Council via the parlimentary process . RECOMMENDATION / CONCLUSION This report is for information only. Copy: Gary Cohen, Town Attorney Michael Standish, Town Clerk    Town Council Regular and Study Session D. Meeting Date:01/08/2020   Requested by: Mike Standish Submitted By:Michelle Stine, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: (Re)appointment to the Tucson - Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee RECOMMENDATION: Tucson - Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee The Tucson - Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee has one Oro Valley member whose term is set to expire on 12/31/2019. The following member has requested reappointment:             Joseph Pickens - ending first term EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:  N/A  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The request for reappointment from the eligible Joseph Pickens is attached. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE that the following reappointment be made effective January 8, 2020: Tucson - Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee Joseph Pickens for a term expiring December 31, 2021   Attachments Reappointment Request  1 Stine, Michelle From:Joe Pickens Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 8:03 PM To:Stine, Michelle Cc:Ellis, Nancy Subject:Bike Advisory Committee Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Michelle, I would appreciate it if you would begin the process of getting the approval of Council to reappoint me for another term as Oro Valley's volunteer representative to the Tucson-Pima County Bike Advisory Committee. Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information from me. Regards, Joe Pickens    Town Council Regular and Study Session 1. Meeting Date:01/08/2020   Requested by: Mike Standish Submitted By:Michelle Stine, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR A SERIES 9S (LIQUOR STORE WITH SAMPLING PRIVILEGES) LIQUOR LICENSE FOR TRADER JOE'S, LOCATED AT 7912 N. ORACLE ROAD RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this liquor license to the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control for the following reasons: 1. No protests to this license have been received.  2. The necessary background investigation was conducted by the Police Department.  3. The Police Department has no objection to the approval of the Series 9 Liquor License.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application for a new Series 9 (Liquor Store) Liquor License has been submitted by Agent/Owner Andrea Dahlman Lewkowitz for Trader Joe's #096, located at 7912 N Oracle Road. Ms. Lewkowitz has submitted all necessary paperwork to the Town of Oro Valley and the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, and has paid all related fees associated with applying for the liquor license ($500 Application Processing Fee). The Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control (DLLC), authorized by Arizona Revised Statutes Title 4, is responsible for reviewing and processing state liquor applications. After meeting the DLLC's application and review requirements, the liquor license application is sent to the jurisdiction in which it is located for a public hearing and a recommendation from the local governing body. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The liquor store (series 9) license is a "quota" license available only through the Liquor License Lottery or for purchase on the open market. Once issued, this liquor license is transferable from person to person and/or location to location within the same county and allows a spirituous liquor store retailer to sell all types of spirituous liquors, only in the original unbroken package, to be taken away from the premises of the retailer and consumed off the premises. A retailer with off-sale privileges may deliver spirituous liquor off of the licensed premises in connection with a retail sale. Payment must be made no later than the time of delivery. Series 9 (liquor store) licensees and applicants may apply for unlimited sampling privileges by completing the Sampling Privileges form. In accordance with Section 4-201 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, the application was posted for 20 days on the premises of the applicant's property, ending December 26, 2019. No protests were received during this time period.  Police Chief Daniel G. Sharp completed a standard background check onTrader Joe's #096 and Agent/Owner Andrea Dahlman Lewkowitz. Chief Sharp has no objection to the approval of the Series 9 (Liquor Store) License. FISCAL IMPACT: Per Ordinance No. (O)11-16, the Town of Oro Valley charges a $500 liquor license application processing fee to cover the costs incurred by the Town to process the application.  Per Section 8-2-6 Schedule of the Oro Valley Town Code, persons licensed by the State of Arizona to deal in spirituous liquor within the Town shall pay an annual license fee of $80 to the Town.  SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (RECOMMEND or DENY) approval of the issuance of a Series 9S Liquor License to the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control for Andrea Dahlman Lewkowitz for Trader Joe's #096, located at 7912 N. Oracle Road. Attachments Series 9 Description  Series 9 Application  PD Approval  License Type: Series 09 Liquor Store The liquor store (series 9) license is a "quota" license available only through the Liquor License Lottery or for purchase on the open market. Once issued, this liquor license is transferable from person to person and/or location to location within the same county and allows a spirituous liquor store retailer to sell all types of spirituous liquors, only in the original unbroken package, to be taken away from the premises of the retailer and consumed off the premises. A retailer with off -sale privileges may deliver spirituous liquor off of the licensed premises in connection with a retail sale. Payment must be made no later than the time of delivery. Series 9 (liquor store) licensees and applicants may apply for unlimited sampling privileges by completing the Sampling Privileges form. This is a quota license, which means there are no "new" Series 09 licenses available. It must be purchased privately and the price is based on availability in the county. Once a Series 09 has been purchased, the buyer must apply for a transfer to have the license put in his or her name at the same or another location. • State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control Created 11/27/2019 @ 10:49:38 AM Local Governing Body Report LICENSE Number: Name: State: Issue Date: Original Issue Date: Location: Mailing Address: Phone: Alt. Phone: Email: 09100184 TRADER JOE'S#096 Pending 03/23/1967 7912 N ORACLE ROAD ORO VALLEY, AZ 85704 USA 2600 N CENTRAL AVENUE #1775 PHOENIX, AZ 85004 USA (520)797-4207 (602)200-7222 ANDREA@LEWKLAW.COM Currently, this license has pending applications. Type:009 LIQUOR STORE Expiration Date:10/31/2020 AGENT Name:ANDREA DAHLMAN LEWKOWITZ Gender:Female Correspondence Address:2600 N CENTRAL AVENUE #1775 Phone: Alt. Phone: PHOENIX, AZ 85004 USA (602)200-7222 ANDREA@LEWICLAW.COM OWNER Page 1 of 17    Town Council Regular and Study Session 2. A. Meeting Date:01/08/2020   Requested by: Amanda Jacobs Submitted By:Michelle Stine, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Manager's Office SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-02, DECLARING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE SPECIAL EVENTS SECTION OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE, PROVIDED AS EXHIBIT "A" WITHIN THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 4, 2019) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item is a procedural matter to declare the draft ordinance a matter of public record. The draft ordinance has been posted online and made available in the Town Clerk's Office. If the final version is adopted, as approved by Town Council, it will be made available in the same manner. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Once adopted by Town Council, this proposed resolution will become a public record and will save the Town on advertising costs since the Town will forgo publishing the entire draft ordinance in print form. The current draft version of the ordinance has been posted on the Town's website and a printed copy is available for public review in the Town Clerk's Office. Once adopted, the final version will be published on the Town's website. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (adopt or deny) Resolution No. (R)20-02, declaring the proposed amendments to various sections of the Special Events Code of the Oro Valley Town Code, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and filed with the Town Clerk, a public record. Attachments (R)20-02 Resolution Public Record  Special Event Permit Code  RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, DECLARING THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT ENTITLED “ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE” CHAPTER 8, BUSINESS REGULATIONS; ARTICLE 3, SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT; SECTIONS 8 -3-1, PURPOSE; DEFINITIONS; 8 - 3-3 APPLICATION AND 8 -3-4, GROUNDS FOR DENIAL, ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT “A” AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, that certain document called “Oro Valley Town Code ”, Chapter 8, Business Regulations, Article 8 -3, Special Events Permits, Sections 8-3-1, Purpose; Definitions; 8-3-3, Application and 8-3-4, Grounds for Denial, three copies of which are on file in the office of the Town Clerk, is hereby declared to be a public record, and said copies are ordered to remain on file with the Town Clerk. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 8th day of January, 2020. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ____________________________________ Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM : Michael Standish, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: Date: EXHIBIT “A” Article 8-3 SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION Sections: 8-3-1 Purpose; Definitions 8-3-2 Permit Required APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 8-3-3 Application 8-3-4 Grounds For Denial 8-3-5 Violations, Penalties 8-3-1 Purpose; Definitions A. The purpose of this article is to establish a process for permitting APPROVING and regulating certain temporary activities conducted on public property or private property when public safety is potentially impacted. This chapter is adopted pursuant to the authority of A.R.S. § 9-240, as amended, and is intended to provide fair and reasonable regulations governing the time, place, and manner in which a special event may take place and, in doing so, provide for the health, safety and welfare of the public and assist the Town and its appropriate officers in enforcing the applicable provisions of A.R.S. Title 9 and Title 36. B. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning: 1. “Special use”: a Means any commercial function as defined in the Oro Valley Zoning Code revised which: i. May or may not comply with the underlying zoning district; or ii. Is seasonal or holiday -related; or iii. Is the temporary and attached expansion of an ex isting commercial use; or iv. Is permitted under the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. 2. “Park Use ” a. Means any commercial or private function held at an Oro Valley owned public park which ; i. Does not exceed the parking capacity of the park; or ii. Is not publicly advertised as open to the public; or iii. Employs no more than two pre -authorized food vendor for food services at the function (see Section 8-6-2 for licensing); or iv. Employs or otherwise requests to install no more than two (2) inflatable child play device at the function; or v. Unless otherwise provided in this section, the parks and recreation department is required to employ the expertise of other Oro Valley departments to approve the function. b. Does not require review as a special event as outlined belo w, may be approved under this section. 3. “Special event”: a. Means any public or private function which: i. Requires temporary parking areas; or ii. Exceeds the parking capacity of the facility; or iii. Is held in a public park or on public right -of-way; or iv. Is advertised as open to the public; or v. Has amplified sound which can be heard outside of the event location; or vi. Requires temporary traffic control to provide for safe ingress or egress to the event venue; or vii. Requires a special event liquor license; or viii. Requires temporary sanitation facilities; or ix. Requires the installation of temporary structures or tents of more than one hundred (100) square feet; or x. Has other adverse impact on public health, safety and welfare. b. Shall not include: i School functions at school facilities OR RELIGIOUS FUNCTIONS AT A RELIGIOUS FACILITY, unless spillover (as defined below) is anticipated. 4. “Major event” means a special event that also requires the following: a. Extra-duty law enforcement officers or other security services; and b. Temporary traffic control. 5. “Spillover” occurs when participants of, or spectators to, a special event congregate on, park, or move to any property or right-of-way not associated with the event venue. 6. “MINOR EVENT” IS AN EVENT THAT IS SELF -CONTAINED WITHIN A FACILITY AND DOES NOT REQUIRE SPILLOVER OR TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL. … 8-3-3 Application An SPECIAL EVENT aApplication on forms to be provided by the Town is required for any special event in Oro Valley. The application must be submitted to the Economic Development Division THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY at least one hundred eighty (180) days before the first day of the proposed major special event AND SIXTY (60) DAYS FOR ANY MINO R EVENT. Applications for a special event must be submitted to the Economic Development Division at least sixty days (60) days in advance of the first day of the proposed special event. 8-3-4 Grounds For Denial A. After reviewing the application material, the Economic Development Division TOWN may deny or revoke the issuance APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL EVENT of a permit if any of the following apply: 1. The applicant has failed to meet the permit APPLICATION conditions imposed. 2. The proposed event is intended to be conducted in a manner or location not meeting the health, zoning, fire or safety standards established by rules or regulations of the Town, the laws of the State of Arizona or rules and regulations adopted by any of its agencies. 3. The applicant has made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact in the application for permit or in any other document required pursuant to this section. 4. The applicant, his or her employee, agent or any person associated with the applicant as partner, director, officer, stockholder, associate or manager, has been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction, by final judgment, of an offense: a. Involving the presentation, exhibition or performance of a n obscene production, motion picture or play, and/or of selling obscene matter; or b. Involving lewd conduct; or c. Involving the use of force and violence upon the person of another; or d. Involving misconduct with children; or e. An offense against the provision s of Arizona law respecting narcotics and dangerous drugs, or of any equivalent offense under the law of any other state which if committed in Arizona would have been a violation of the Arizona statutory provisions. 5. For any health, safety and/or welfare i ssues that will not be remedied or otherwise addressed in time for the event. 6. The scheduled date of the event conflicts with other previously scheduled events such that it will result in an undue impact on the Town’s resources and staff. B. If the application is denied, the Economic Development Division TOWN shall mail to the applicant written notice of denial within ten (10) days of the action. The notice shall include a statement of the reason(s) the application was denied. The applicant ma y request a review of this denial by the Town Manager who will schedule a meeting during which the applicant may present evidence in support of the application. ...    Town Council Regular and Study Session 2. B. Meeting Date:01/08/2020   Requested by: Amanda Jacobs Submitted By:Michelle Stine, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Manager's Office SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING:  ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-01, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF ARTICLE 8-3 OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE RELATING TO THE SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 4, 2019) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this amendment is to update language within the Special Events Permits code. The last update occurred in December 2016 and over the past year, staff has been examining the code for additional efficiencies. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The Special Events Permits code was adopted on July 7, 2010, by Ordinance No. (O)10-06 and was updated in December 2016. Over the past year, staff has been evaluating the Special Event process through the Town's Peak Performance initiative and identified additional efficiencies that would benefit both the applicant and staff. Major changes include:  Changing permit to application or approval to simplify the process and allow greater flexibility in responding to applicant and combining staff approvals Adding Religious Facility under Shall Not Include section Eliminating certain restrictions in the Parks Use section so as to not arbitrarily set limits, but rather allow staff to review applications on a case-by-case basis for appropriate use of Town parks Eliminating certain time parameters for application receipt in order to allow those details to be set procedurally by staff to improve flexibility Changing Economic Development Division to Town of Oro Valley so functions can be assigned internally rather than by ordinance FISCAL IMPACT: There is no change to the cost in fees.  SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (approve/deny) Ordinance No.(O)20-01, amending various sections of Article 8-3 of the Oro Valley Town Code relating to the Special Events Permit. Attachments (O)20-01 Ordinance Special Event  Special Event Permit Code  ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AMENDING ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 8, BUSINESS REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 8-3, SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT, SECTIONS 8-3-1, PURPOSE; DEFINITIONS; 8 -3-3 APPLICATION AND 8-3-4, GROUNDS FOR DENIAL; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, AND RULES OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; PRESERVING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES THAT HAVE ALREADY MATURED AND PROCEEDINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEGUN THEREUNDER WHEREAS, on September 27, 1989, the Mayor and Council adopted Ordinance No. (O) 89-21, adopting that certain document entitled “Oro Valley Town Code ”; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2010, the Mayor and Council adopted Ordinance No (O) 10 -06, adopting that certain document entitled “Special Events Permit”; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 2019, the Mayor and Council adopted Ordinance No (O) 16 -13, amending that certain document entitled “Special Events Permit”; and WHEREAS, the current Chapter 8, Business Regulations, Article 8-3, Special Events Permit, Sections 8-3-1, Purpose; Definitions; 8-3-3, Application and 8-3-4, Grounds for Denial, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference, requires an update of language to reflect changes to the administration of the special events process; and WHEREAS, the Town desires to amend Chapter 8, Business Regulations, Article 8-3, Special Events Permits, Sections 8-3-1, Purpose; Definitions; 8-3-3, Application and 8-3-4, Grounds for Denial. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona that the certain document known as “Oro Valley Town Code, Chapter 8, Business Regulations, Article 8 -3, Special Events Permits, Sections 8-3-1, Purpose; Definitions; 8-3-3, Application and 8-3-4, Grounds for Denial” is amended as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 8, Business Regulations, Article 8 -3; Sections 8-3-1, Purpose; Definitions; 8-3-3, Application and 8-3-4, Grounds for Denial is amended to read as shown in Exhibit “A”, with additions being shown in ALL CAPS and deletions being shown in strikethrough text: SECTION 2. All Oro Valley ordinances, resolutions, or motions and parts of ordinances, resolutions or motions of the Council in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance 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 Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 8th day of January, 2020. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael Standish, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: Date: EXHIBIT “A” Article 8-3 SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION Sections: 8-3-1 Purpose; Definitions 8-3-2 Permit Required APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 8-3-3 Application 8-3-4 Grounds For Denial 8-3-5 Violations, Penalties 8-3-1 Purpose; Definitions A. The purpose of this article is to establish a process for permitting APPROVING and regulating certain temporary activities conducted on public property or private property when public safety is potentially impacted. This chapter is adopted pursuant to the authority of A.R.S. § 9-240, as amended, and is intended to provide fair and reasonable regulations governing the time, place, and manner in which a special event may take place and, in doing so, provide for the health, safety and welfare of the public and assist the Town and its appropriate officers in enforcing the applicable provisions of A.R.S. Title 9 and Title 36. B. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning: 1. “Special use”: a Means any commercial function as defined in the Oro Valley Zoning Code revised which: i. May or may not comply with the underlying zoning district; or ii. Is seasonal or holiday -related; or iii. Is the temporary and attached expansion of an ex isting commercial use; or iv. Is permitted under the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. 2. “Park Use ” a. Means any commercial or private function held at an Oro Valley owned public park which ; i. Does not exceed the parking capacity of the park; or ii. Is not publicly advertised as open to the public; or iii. Employs no more than two pre -authorized food vendor for food services at the function (see Section 8-6-2 for licensing); or iv. Employs or otherwise requests to install no more than two (2) inflatable child play device at the function; or v. Unless otherwise provided in this section, the parks and recreation department is required to employ the expertise of other Oro Valley departments to approve the function. b. Does not require review as a special event as outlined belo w, may be approved under this section. 3. “Special event”: a. Means any public or private function which: i. Requires temporary parking areas; or ii. Exceeds the parking capacity of the facility; or iii. Is held in a public park or on public right -of-way; or iv. Is advertised as open to the public; or v. Has amplified sound which can be heard outside of the event location; or vi. Requires temporary traffic control to provide for safe ingress or egress to the event venue; or vii. Requires a special event liquor license; or viii. Requires temporary sanitation facilities; or ix. Requires the installation of temporary structures or tents of more than one hundred (100) square feet; or x. Has other adverse impact on public health, safety and welfare. b. Shall not include: i School functions at school facilities OR RELIGIOUS FUNCTIONS AT A RELIGIOUS FACILITY, unless spillover (as defined below) is anticipated. 4. “Major event” means a special event that also requires the following: a. Extra-duty law enforcement officers or other security services; and b. Temporary traffic control. 5. “Spillover” occurs when participants of, or spectators to, a special event congregate on, park, or move to any property or right-of-way not associated with the event venue. 6. “MINOR EVENT” IS AN EVENT THAT IS SELF -CONTAINED WITHIN A FACILITY AND DOES NOT REQUIRE SPILLOVER OR TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL. … 8-3-3 Application An SPECIAL EVENT aApplication on forms to be provided by the Town is required for any special event in Oro Valley. The application must be submitted to the Economic Development Division THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY at least one hundred eighty (180) days before the first day of the proposed major special event AND SIXTY (60) DAYS FOR ANY MINO R EVENT. Applications for a special event must be submitted to the Economic Development Division at least sixty days (60) days in advance of the first day of the proposed special event. 8-3-4 Grounds For Denial A. After reviewing the application material, the Economic Development Division TOWN may deny or revoke the issuance APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL EVENT of a permit if any of the following apply: 1. The applicant has failed to meet the permit APPLICATION conditions imposed. 2. The proposed event is intended to be conducted in a manner or location not meeting the health, zoning, fire or safety standards established by rules or regulations of the Town, the laws of the State of Arizona or rules and regulations adopted by any of its agencies. 3. The applicant has made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact in the application for permit or in any other document required pursuant to this section. 4. The applicant, his or her employee, agent or any person associated with the applicant as partner, director, officer, stockholder, associate or manager, has been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction, by final judgment, of an offense: a. Involving the presentation, exhibition or performance of a n obscene production, motion picture or play, and/or of selling obscene matter; or b. Involving lewd conduct; or c. Involving the use of force and violence upon the person of another; or d. Involving misconduct with children; or e. An offense against the provision s of Arizona law respecting narcotics and dangerous drugs, or of any equivalent offense under the law of any other state which if committed in Arizona would have been a violation of the Arizona statutory provisions. 5. For any health, safety and/or welfare i ssues that will not be remedied or otherwise addressed in time for the event. 6. The scheduled date of the event conflicts with other previously scheduled events such that it will result in an undue impact on the Town’s resources and staff. B. If the application is denied, the Economic Development Division TOWN shall mail to the applicant written notice of denial within ten (10) days of the action. The notice shall include a statement of the reason(s) the application was denied. The applicant ma y request a review of this denial by the Town Manager who will schedule a meeting during which the applicant may present evidence in support of the application. ...    Town Council Regular and Study Session 3. Meeting Date:01/08/2020   Submitted By:Amanda Jacobs, Town Manager's Office Department:Town Manager's Office SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PURSUANT TO A.R.S. §9-463.05, TO DISCUSS AND REVIEW AN UPDATE TO THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT FEES CHARGED BY THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY RECOMMENDATION: N/A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In order to comply with the requirements of the state laws governing the establishment of development impact fees, as prescribed in Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) Section 9-463.05, the Town has retained the services of the firm of TischlerBise to prepare an updated development impact fee study for parks, police, streets and water development impact fees.  The State law requires a public hearing on the proposed Land Use Assumptions (LUA) and Infrastructure Improvement Plans (IIP) that serve as the basis for the updated fees.  Between 30 and 60 days after the public hearing, Town Council shall approve or disapprove the LUA and IIP.  This agenda item serves as the public hearing.  The Town Council will not take any formal action at the meeting.   BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Development impact fees are assessed by the Town to fund one-time infrastructure improvements needed as a result of new growth.  These fees are accumulated to construct specific improvements or portions of improvements within the Town in accordance with the LUA and IIP adopted by the elected body.  The Your Voice, Our Future general plan specifies that new growth pay for itself.  Development impact fees are the primary way in which that occurs. Municipalities in Arizona may assess development impact fees to offset infrastructure costs to a municipality for necessary public services. The development impact fees must be based on Land Use Assumptions (LUA) and an Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP), with very strict requirements regarding the manner in which calculations are made, the types of infrastructure that is allowed, and the process by which the fees can be adopted.. The LUA can be found in Appendix A of the attached document (page 56-67) and the IIPs are located in each infrastructure type’s corresponding section (pages 13-55).  The draft development fees are included for information and displayed in the Development Fee Report chapter (pages 1-13), which could change based upon the final direction of the Town Council regarding the LUA and IIP.  The Development Fee Report will eventually have a separate public hearing tentatively scheduled for April 2020.   The State law requires the proposed LUA and IIP to be posted on the Town's website for 60 days prior to a public hearing. Once the 60 days have passed, the Town is required to hold a public hearing on the following documents: 1.  Land Use Assumptions - Projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities and population for a specified service area over a period of at least ten (10) years and pursuant to the general plan of the municipality. 2.  Infrastructure Improvement Plan - A written plan that identifies each necessary public service or facility expansion that is proposed to be the subject of a development fee that complies with the requirements of ARS.  This is based on the Town's capital improvements plan (CIP). This is based on the Town's capital improvements plan (CIP). The last comprehensive update of the Town's impact fees was completed in 2014.  At that time, the Town adopted fees for parks, police, transportation and water.  In January 2019, the Town retained the services of the firm of TischlerBise to prepare the updated impact fees.  Below is the summary methodology used to update the report:     Facility Type Service Area Incremental Expansion Plan-Based Cost Recovery Cost Allocation Parks and Recreation Town wide Developed Parks, Park Amenities Development Fee Study N/A Population, Jobs Police Town wide Vehicles Development Fee Study Facilities Population, Nonres. Trips Street Town wide Arterial Lane Miles, Signalized Intersections Development Fee Study N/A VMT Water Town wide N/A Development Fee Study, Water Distribution and Supply N/A Gallons The detailed report was made available on the Town of Oro Valley website for public review on November 1, 2019. Additionally, copies of the draft report were sent to various stakeholders to include the Southern Arizona Homebuilders Association, Metropolitan Pima Alliance, Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce, Tucson Metro Chamber of Commerce, Larsen Baker LLC, Engineering and Environmental Consultants, Inc. and the Arizona Multi-housing Association. Stakeholder meetings were held on November 18, 2019, and December 17, 2019. Next Steps The following table illustrates the timeline for approval based on the State law's public participation process (see attachment Development Fee Flow chart):    Meeting Date    Post IIP and LUA to Town Website Friday, November 1, 2019 Stakeholders Meeting Monday, November 18, 2019 Stakeholders Meeting Tuesday, December 17, 2019 Public Hearing: IIP and LUA to Council Wednesday, January 8, 2020 Post Development Fee Report to Website Wednesday, February 19, 2020 Council Approve/Deny IIP and LUA Wednesday, February 19, 2020 Notice of Intent: Development Fees Wednesday, February 19, 2020 Public Hearing: Development Fees to Council Wednesday, April 1, 2020 Council Approve/Deny: Impact Fees Wednesday, May 6, 2020 75-day Waiting Period to Collect new Fees Monday, July 20, 2020 FISCAL IMPACT: Below is a summary of the proposed fees, current fees and the difference (also located on page 12 of the attachment): Residential Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current) (Residential per unit)  Unit Type Transportation Parks Police Proposed Fee Current Fee Difference Single-Family $1,917 $1,054 $299 $3,270 $3,156 $114 Multi-Family $1,005 $762 $216 $1,983 $2,045 -($62) Non-residential Development Fee Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current)    Land Use Type Transportation Parks Police Proposed Fee Current Fee Difference Hotel/Motel (room)$969 $222 $237 $1,428 $958 $470 Retail/Commercial $2,963 $558 $710 $4,231 $2,859 $1,372 Office and Other Services $1,129 $708 $280 $2,117 $1,978 $139 Industrial $575 $389 $140 $1,104 $1,048 $56 Warehouse $202 $81 $50 $333 $978 -($645) Public/Institutional $1,494 $222 $370 $2,086 $1,497 $589 To demonstrate the impact of the proposed development fees, the example below contemplates all fees (Utility and Non-Utility) for a single family unit, assuming a 0.625-inch water meter in Oro Valley, representing an approximate 4.8% increase.    Unit Type Current Fee Proposed Fee Difference Single-Family $9,216 $9,657 $441   SUGGESTED MOTION: A motion is not required by Council. This meeting is the first of two public hearings. Attachments Draft LUA, IIP and Fee Report  Development Fee Flowchart  Land Use Assumptions and IIP Presentation  DRAFT Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvements Plan and Development Fee Report Prepared for: Town of Oro Valley, Arizona December 19, 2019 4701 Sangamore Road, Suite S240 Bethesda, MD 301.320.6900 www.tischlerbise.com Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona ii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1 ARIZONA DEVELOPMENT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION .................................................................. 1 Necessary Public Services .................................................................................................... 1 Infrastructure Improvements Plan .......................................................................................... 2 Qualified Professionals .......................................................................................................... 2 Conceptual Development Fee Calculation ............................................................................. 3 Evaluation of Credits/Offsets ................................................................................................. 3 DEVELOPMENT FEE REPORT ......................................................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 1: Recommended Calculation Methodologies ......................................................................................... 5 Rounding ................................................................................................................................ 5 SERVICE AREA ............................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2: Current Development Fee Service Area .............................................................................................. 6 Figure 3: Proposed Development Fee Service Area .......................................................................................... 7 CURRENT DEVELOPMENT FEES ................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4: Current Non-Utility Development Fees ................................................................................................ 8 Figure 5: Current Residential Water Facilities Development Fees ..................................................................... 8 Figure 6: Current Nonresidential Water Facilities Development Fees ................................................................ 9 Figure 7: Current Irrigation Development Fees .................................................................................................. 9 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FEES ................................................................................................. 9 Figure 8: Water Facilities Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current nonresidential) ... 11 Figure 9: Residential Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current) ................................. 12 Figure 10: Nonresidential Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current) .......................... 12 Figure 11: Single-Family Unit All Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current) .............. 12 PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 13 Service Area ........................................................................................................................ 13 Proportionate Share ............................................................................................................. 13 Figure PR1: Daytime Population in 2015 .......................................................................................................... 14 RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS ................................................................... 14 Figure PR2: Parks and Recreational Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit .............................. 14 ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ............................. 15 Park Land Improvements – Incremental Expansion ............................................................ 15 Figure PR3: Park Land Inventory and Level of Service Standards ................................................................. 16 Park Amenities and Improvements – Incremental Expansion ............................................. 16 Figure PR4: Park Amenities Inventory and Level of Service Standards .......................................................... 17 Development Fee Report – Plan-Based .............................................................................. 18 Figure PR5: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation .................................................................................... 18 PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS ...................................................................... 18 Figure PR6: Projected Demand for Improved Park Land ................................................................................. 19 Figure PR7: Projected Demand for Parks and Recreational Amenities ........................................................... 20 Figure PR8: Necessary Parks & Recreational Improvements and Expansions .............................................. 21 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona iii PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES ..................................................... 21 Revenue Credit/Offset ......................................................................................................... 21 Proposed Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fees ......................................... 21 Figure PR9: Proposed Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fees ................................................ 22 FORECAST OF REVENUES ......................................................................................................... 22 Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Revenue ............................................ 22 Figure PR10: Projected Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Revenue ................................. 23 POLICE FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN .................................. 24 Service Area ........................................................................................................................ 24 Proportionate Share ............................................................................................................. 24 Figure P1: Police Proportionate Share ............................................................................................................. 25 RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS ................................................................... 25 Figure P2: Police Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit ............................................................ 27 ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ............................. 27 Police Facilities – Cost Recovery ......................................................................................... 27 Figure P3: Police Facilities and Level of Service Analysis ............................................................................... 28 Figure P4: Police Facilities Service Unit Cost Summary .................................................................................. 28 Police Vehicles and Equipment – Incremental Expansion ................................................... 28 Figure P5: Police Vehicles and Equipment Inventory and Level of Service Standards .................................... 29 Development Fee Report – Plan-Based .............................................................................. 30 Figure P6: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation ....................................................................................... 30 PROJECTED SERVICE UNITS AND PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES ...................................... 30 Figure P7: Projected Demand for Police Vehicles ........................................................................................... 31 Figure P8: Necessary Police Improvements and Expansions (10-Yr Total) .................................................... 32 POLICE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES ................................................................................... 32 Revenue Credit/Offset ......................................................................................................... 32 Proposed Police Facilities Development Fees ..................................................................... 32 Figure P9: Proposed Police Facilities Development Fees ............................................................................... 33 FORECAST OF REVENUES ......................................................................................................... 33 Development Fee Revenues for Police Facilities and Vehicles ........................................... 33 Figure P10: Projected Police Development Fee Revenue .............................................................................. 34 STREET FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ................................. 35 Service Area ........................................................................................................................ 35 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 35 Proportionate Share ............................................................................................................. 35 RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS .................................................................... 35 Service Units ........................................................................................................................ 36 Figure S1: Summary of Service Units ............................................................................................................... 36 Trip Generation Rates .......................................................................................................... 36 Adjustments for Commuting Patterns and Pass-By Trips .................................................... 36 Figure S2: Inflow/Outflow Analysis ................................................................................................................... 37 ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ............................. 37 Figure S3: Arterial Road Network Capacity and Usage .................................................................................... 38 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona iv Vehicle Trips ........................................................................................................................ 38 Figure S4: Vehicle Trips ................................................................................................................................... 38 Average Trip Length ............................................................................................................ 38 Figure S5: National Average Trip Lengths ........................................................................................................ 39 Figure S6. Expected VMT in the Town of Oro Valley ....................................................................................... 39 Figure S7. Local Trip Length Adjustment Factor .............................................................................................. 40 Figure S8. Local Average Trip Lengths by Land Use ....................................................................................... 40 Figure S9. VMT per Service Unit on Arterial Network ...................................................................................... 40 Cost per VMT and Infrastructure Improvement Plan ........................................................... 40 Figure S10: Street Facilities Improvement Improvements Plan ........................................................................ 41 Figure S11: Cost per VMT Factors ................................................................................................................... 41 SERVICE UNITS, DEMAND, AND COST FOR SERVICES ................................................................. 41 Travel Demand Model .......................................................................................................... 41 Figure S12: Projected Travel Demand Model ................................................................................................... 42 Figure S13: Adjusted Cost per Vehicle Mile of Travel/Vehicle Mile of Capacity ............................................... 43 Development Fee Report – Plan-Based .............................................................................. 43 Figure S14: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation ..................................................................................... 43 STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES ................................................................................... 43 Revenue Credit/Offset ......................................................................................................... 43 Proposed Street Facilities Development Fees ..................................................................... 43 Figure S15: Proposed and Existing Fees Comparison ..................................................................................... 44 PROJECTED STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE .................................................. 44 Figure S16: Projected Street Facilities Development Fee Revenue ............................................................... 45 WATER FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN .................................. 46 Service Area ........................................................................................................................ 46 Proportionate Share ............................................................................................................. 46 RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS ................................................................... 47 Figure W2: Water Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit ........................................................... 48 ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY AND USAGE OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES .......................................... 48 Water Facilities Level of Service Standards ........................................................................ 48 PROJECTED DEMAND FOR WATER FACILITIES ............................................................................ 49 Figure W3: Water Facilities Level of Service Standards .................................................................................. 49 Figure W4: Future Projections of Water Consumption ..................................................................................... 50 WATER FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ........................................................ 50 Cost Recovery for Excess Capacity in Supply Projects ....................................................... 50 Figure W5: Cost Recovery for Supply Projects ................................................................................................ 50 Water Facilities Projects – Plan Based ................................................................................ 51 Water Facilities Supply Projects – Plan Based .................................................................... 51 Figure W6: Infrastructure Improvement Plan: Water Supply ............................................................................ 51 Water Facilities Storage Projects – Plan Based .................................................................. 51 Water Facilities Distribution Projects – Plan Based ............................................................. 52 Development Fee Report – Plan-Based .............................................................................. 52 Figure W9: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation ...................................................................................... 52 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona v WATER DEVELOPMENT FEE ....................................................................................................... 53 Revenue Credit/Offset ......................................................................................................... 53 Proposed Water Facilities Development Fees ..................................................................... 53 Figure W10: Proposed Water Facilities Development Fees ............................................................................ 54 FORECAST OF REVENUES ......................................................................................................... 55 Development Fee Revenues for Water Facilities ................................................................. 55 Figure W11: Projected Water Facilities Development Fee Revenue ............................................................... 55 APPENDIX A: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ..................................................................... 56 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 56 SERVICE AREA .......................................................................................................................... 56 Figure A1: Current Development Fee Service Area ......................................................................................... 57 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................... 58 Persons per Housing Unit .................................................................................................... 58 Figure A2: Year-Round Persons per Unit by Type of Housing ........................................................................ 59 Current Residential Estimates ............................................................................................. 59 Figure A3: Oro Valley Population and Housing Estimates for 2018 and 2028 ................................................. 59 Figure A4: Recent Residential Permits by Fiscal Year .................................................................................... 60 Residential Projections ........................................................................................................ 60 Figure A5: Oro Valley Residential Development Projections ........................................................................... 61 NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 61 Jobs by Type of Nonresidential Development ..................................................................... 61 Figure A6: Oro Valley Jobs Estimates for 2018 and 2028 ............................................................................... 61 Figure A7: Oro Valley Employment Projections ............................................................................................... 62 Nonresidential Floor Area by Type of Development ............................................................ 62 Figure A8: Nonresidential Floor Area Estimates for 2018 and 2028 ................................................................ 62 Figure A9: ITE Employee and Trip Generation Ratios .................................................................................... 63 AVERAGE WEEKDAY VEHICLE TRIPS .......................................................................................... 63 Trip Rate Adjustments ......................................................................................................... 63 Commuter Trip Adjustment .................................................................................................. 63 Figure A10: Commuter Trip Adjustment ........................................................................................................... 64 Adjustment for Pass-By Trips .............................................................................................. 64 Estimated Residential Vehicle Trip Rates ............................................................................ 64 Figure A11: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends by Housing Type ............................................................... 65 Functional Population .......................................................................................................... 66 Figure A12: Functional Population .................................................................................................................... 66 SUMMARY OF GROWTH INDICATORS .......................................................................................... 67 Figure A13: Municipal Planning Area Projections and Growth Rates ............................................................. 67 APPENDIX B: FORECAST OF REVENUES .................................................................... 68 APPENDIX C: ARTERIAL STREET SEGMENTS INVENTORY ........................................ 69 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 1 E XECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town of Oro Valley hired TischlerBise, Inc., to document land use assumptions, prepare an Infrastructure Improvements Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “IIP”), and update development fees pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“ARS”) § 9-436.05 (hereinafter referred to as the “Enabling Legislation”). Municipalities in Arizona may assess development fees to offset infrastructure costs to a municipality for necessary public services. The development fees must be based on an Infrastructure Improvements Plan and Land Use Assumptions. The IIPs for each type of infrastructure are located in each infrastructure type’s corresponding section, and the Land Use Assumptions can be found in Appendix A. The proposed development fees are displayed in the Development Fee Report chapter. Development fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements needed to accommodate new development. The fee represents future development’s proportionate share of infrastructure costs. Development fees may be used for infrastructure improvements or debt service for growth related infrastructure. In contrast to general taxes, development fees may not be used for operations, maintenance, replacement, or correcting existing deficiencies. This update of the Town’s Infrastructure Improvements Plan and associated update to its development fees includes the following necessary public services: • Parks and Recreational Facilities • Police Facilities • Street Facilities • Water Facilities This plan also includes all necessary elements required to be in full compliance with Arizona Revised Statutes (“ARS”) § 9-436.05 (SB 1525). ARIZONA DEVELOPMENT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION The Enabling Legislation governs how development fees are calculated for municipalities in Arizona. Necessary Public Services Under the requirements of the Enabling Legislation, development fees may only be used for construction, acquisition or expansion of public facilities that are necessary public services. “Necessary public service” means any of the following categories of facilities that have a life expectancy of three or more years and that are owned and operated on behalf of the municipality: water, wastewater, storm water, drainage, flood control, library, streets, fire and police, and neighborhood parks and recreation. Additionally, a necessary public service includes any facility, not included in the aforementioned categories (e.g., general government facilities), that was financed before June 1, 2011 and that meets the following requirements: 1. Development fees were pledged to repay debt service obligations related to the construction of the facility. 2. After August 1, 2014, any development fees collected are used solely for the payment of principal and interest on the portion of the bonds, notes, or other debt service obligations issued before June 1, 2011 to finance construction of the facility. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 2 Infrastructure Improvements Plan Development fees must be calculated pursuant to an IIP. For each necessary public service that is the subject of a development fee, by law, the IIP shall include the following seven elements: • A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable. • An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable. • A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved Land Use Assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable. • A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial. • The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved Land Use Assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria. • The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed 10 years. • A forecast of revenues generated by new service units other than development fees, which shall include estimated state-shared revenue, highway users revenue, federal revenue, ad valorem property taxes, construction contracting or similar excise taxes and the capital recovery portion of utility fees attributable to development based on the approved Land Use Assumptions and a plan to include these contributions in determining the extent of the burden imposed by the development. Qualified Professionals The IIP must be developed by qualified professionals using generally accepted engineering and planning practices. A qualified professional is defined as “a professional engineer, surveyor, financial analyst or planner providing services within the scope of the person’s license, education, or experience.” TischlerBise is a fiscal, economic, and planning consulting firm specializing in the cost of growth services and is licensed to do business in Arizona. Our services include development fees, fiscal impact analysis, infrastructure financing analyses, user fee/cost of service studies, capital improvement plans, and fiscal software. TischlerBise has prepared over 900 development fee studies over the past 40 years for local governments across the United States. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 3 Conceptual Development Fee Calculation In contrast to project-level improvements, development fees fund growth-related infrastructure that will benefit multiple development projects, or the entire service area (usually referred to as system improvements). The first step is to determine an appropriate demand indicator for the particular type of infrastructure. The demand indicator measures the number of service units for each unit of development. For example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for parks is population growth and the increase in population can be estimated from the average number of persons per housing unit. The second step in the development fee formula is to determine infrastructure improvement units per service unit, typically called Level of Service standards, sometimes referred to as LOS. In keeping with the park example, a common LOS standard is improved park acres per thousand people. The third step in the development fee formula is the cost of various infrastructure units. To complete the park example, this part of the formula would establish a cost per acre for land acquisition and/ or park improvements. Evaluation of Credits/Offsets Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of credits/offsets is integral to the development of a legally defensible development fee. There are two types of credits/offsets that should be addressed in development fee studies and ordinances. The first is a revenue credit/offset due to possible double payment situations, which could occur when other revenues may contribute to the capital costs of infrastructure covered by the development fee. This type of credit/offset is integrated into the fee calculation, thus reducing the fee amount. The second is a site-specific credit or developer reimbursement for dedication of land or construction of system improvements. This type of credit is addressed in the administration and implementation of the development fee program. For ease of administration, TischlerBise normally recommends developer reimbursements for system improvements. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 4 DEVELOPMENT FEE REPORT METHODOLOGY Development fees for the necessary public services made necessary by new development must be based on the same level of service provided to existing development in the service area. There are three basic methodologies used to calculate development fees. They examine the past, present, and future status of infrastructure. The objective of evaluating these different methodologies is to determine the best measure of the demand created by new development for additional infrastructure capacity. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation and can be used simultaneously for different cost components. Additionally, development fees for public services can also include the cost of professional services for preparing IIP’s and the related Development Fee report. Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating development fees involves two main steps: (1) determining the cost of development-related capital improvements and (2) allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of development fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the relationship between development and the need for facilities within the designated service area. The following paragraphs discuss basic methods for calculating development fees and how those methods can be applied. • Cost Recovery (past improvements) - The rationale for recoupment, often called cost recovery, is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities already built, or land already purchased, from which new growth will benefit. This methodology is often used for utility systems that must provide adequate capacity before new development can take place. • Incremental Expansion (concurrent improvements) - The incremental expansion method documents current level of service standards for each type of public facility, using both quantitative and qualitative measures. This approach assumes there are no existing infrastructure deficiencies or surplus capacity in infrastructure. New development is only paying its proportionate share for growth-related infrastructure. Revenue will be used to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed, to accommodate new development. An incremental expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments to keep pace with development. • Plan-Based (future improvements) - The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of improvements to a specified amount of development. Improvements are typically identified in a long-range facility plan and development potential is identified by a land use plan. There are two basic options for determining the cost per demand unit: (1) total cost of a public facility can be divided by total demand units (average cost), or (2) the growth-share of the public facility cost can be divided by the net increase in demand units over the planning timeframe (marginal cost). A summary is provided in Figure 1 showing the methodology for each of the facility and fee study types, as well as the service area and cost allocation method used to develop the IIP and calculate the development fees. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 5 Figure 1: Recommended Calculation Methodologies Rounding A note on rounding: Calculations throughout this report are based on an analysis conducted using Excel software. Most results are discussed in the report using two, three, and four-digit places, which represent rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places; therefore, the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown in the report (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis). SERVICE AREA ARS 9-63.05 defines “service area” as follows: Any specified area within the boundaries of a municipality in which development will be served by necessary public services or facility expansions and within which a substantial nexus exists between the necessary public services or facility expansions and the development being served as prescribed in the infrastructure improvements plan. The Town’s previous Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvement Plan and Development Study recommended one services area, shown below in Figure 2. Incremental Expansion Parks and Recreational Townwide Developed Parks, Park Amenities Development Fee Study N/A Population, Jobs Police Townwide Vehicles Development Fee Study Facilities Population, Nonres. Trips Street Townwide Arterial Lane Miles, Signalized Intersections Development Fee Study N/A VMT Water Townwide N/A Development Fee Study, Water Distribution, Storage and Supply CAP Water Allocation Gallons per Service Unit Facility Type Service Area Plan-Based Cost Recovery Cost Allocation Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 6 Figure 2: Current Development Fee Service Area Much of the land in Oro Valley is characterized by a built environment of dispersed, detached single family housing, transected by arterial roadways leading to concentrated nodes of businesses, institutions and commercial development with, largely single-family lots spread out to the northern edges. As a result of the development pattern, the Town relies on a variety of revenues and funding mechanisms to pay for public infrastructure and facilities which service residents. Oro Valley has embraced numerous policies and plans to guide future development, most notably the 2016 Your Voice, Our Future General Plan aimed at encouraging new development as much as possible to pay the proportional share of growth-related infrastructure improvements for area roads, parks, police, fire and public facilities. In light of the plan- specific policies outlined by the Town along with discussions with Town staff regarding anticipated development patterns and infrastructure needs, TischlerBise is recommending no changes to the Development Fee Service Area as displayed in Figure 2. The single Development Fee Service Area is supported first and foremost because, parks and recreation, police, and roadway infrastructure are intended to serve the entire Town with a standard level of service as opposed to bounded districts or subareas. As an example, referring to Figure 2, a new residential development in the northeast area is still likely to also utilize regional parks or police facilities located throughout Town. Furthermore, many services such as police and roadway infrastructure react to deployment changes over time based on migration patterns of people and are not necessarily restricted to specific geographic sub-zones. As such, TischlerBise is recommending all fees for these categories be assessed as a Townwide fee. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 7 Figure 3: Proposed Development Fee Service Area Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 8 CURRENT DEVELOPMENT FEES Oro Valley’s current development fees are shown below in Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7. Demand for non-utility services (transportation, parks & recreation and police) is driven by the intensity of the use on those particular services; therefore, fees are assessed based on development type – Residential or Non- Residential; current non-utility fees are shown in Figure 4. The Town of Oro Valley assess Water Facilities development fees for water based on meter type — and include the following classifications: Single Family Residential, Multifamily Residential, Commercial and Irrigation. Each of these categories include independent impact fee charges attributed to Alternative Water Resources Development Impact Fee (AWRDIF), which is related to alternative water resource projects such as Central Arizona Project and the Potable Water System Development Impact Fee (PWSDIF). Current Water Facilities fees are shown in Figure 5, 6 and 7. Figure 4: Current Non-Utility Development Fees Figure 5: Current Residential Water Facilities Development Fees Residential (per unit) Unit Type Transportation Parks Police Current Fees Single Unit $1,990 $856 $310 $3,156 Multifamily $1,231 $599 $215 $2,045 Mobile Home Park (per space)$649 $651 $234 $1,534 Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet) Land Use Type Transportation Parks Police Current Fee Hotel/Motel (room)$758 $0 $200 $958 Retail/Commercial $2,412 $0 $447 $2,859 Office & Other Services $1,822 $0 $156 $1,978 Industrial $983 $0 $65 $1,048 Warehouse $915 $0 $63 $978 Public/Institutional $1,379 $0 $118 $1,497 Residential OVWU Meter Size AWRDIF Fee PWSDIF Fee Total Fees 5/8" x 3/4"$4,045 $2,015 $6,060 3/4" x 3/4"$6,067 $3,022 $9,089 1"$10,111 $5,037 $15,148 1.5" standard $20,223 $10,074 $30,297 2" compound $32,356 $16,118 $48,474 Per Unit Cost $1,941 $967 $2,908 Source: Oro Valley Utility Impact Fees Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 9 Figure 6: Current Nonresidential Water Facilities Development Fees Figure 7: Current Irrigation Development Fees PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FEES The proposed fees are based on a policy-level concept that development fees should fund 100 percent of growth-related infrastructure, therefore the fees shown below represent the maximum allowable fees. Oro Valley may adopt fees that are less than the amounts shown; however, a reduction in development fee revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital improvements and/or a decrease in Oro Valley’s level of service standards. All costs in the Development Fee Report are in current dollars with no assumed inflation rate over time. If cost estimates change significantly over time, development fees should be recalibrated. Proposed development fees are shown below in Figures 8, 9 and 10. All tables show the proposed fee, the current fee and the total dollar change. Proposed utility development fees shown in Figure 8 are assessed per meter based on capacity ratios referenced from the American Water Works Association Manual of Water Supply Practices and apply a Demand Adjustment Factor calculated from 2017-2018 consumption data per nonresidential and irrigation meter classifications. Utilization of these capacity ratios replicate current fee methodologies and yield the Town a consistent comparison and approach. Further, and at the direction of staff, the Water Facilities development fees have been consolidated into a single fee. The relationship between infrastructure funded with current PWSDIF revenue and Irrigation Meter Size AWRDIF Fee PWSDIF Fee Total Fees 5/8" x 3/4"$7,280 $3,626 $10,906 3/4" x 3/4"$10,920 $5,440 $16,360 1"$18,200 $9,066 $27,266 1.5" standard $36,401 $18,132 $54,533 2" compound $58,241 $29,012 $87,253 3" compound $116,482 $58,024 $174,506 4" compound $182,004 $90,662 $272,666 6" compound $364,007 $181,324 $545,331 8" compound $582,412 $290,118 $872,530 Nonresidential OVWU Meter Size AWRDIF Fee PWSDIF Fee Total Fees 5/8"$5,258 $2,619 $7,877 3/4" $7,887 $3,929 $11,816 1"$13,145 $6,548 $19,693 1.5" standard $26,289 $13,096 $39,385 2" compound $42,063 $20,953 $63,016 3" compound $84,126 $41,906 $126,032 4" compound $131,447 $65,478 $196,925 6" compound $262,894 $130,956 $393,850 8" compound $420,631 $209,530 $630,161 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 10 infrastructure funded with AWRDIF revenue are very similar. Both are potable water resource driven and both are required to meet the demands of growth. As such, the infrastructure needs are being combined into one IIP resulting in the creation of one new development impact fee to replace the two existing impact fees. The new development fee will be known as the Water Facilities development fee. The Water Facilities development fee is intended to fund all types of water resources, the infrastructure to deliver those resources and any related debt including CAP capital infrastructure repayment costs. All other non-utility services (transportation, parks & recreation, police) are shown in Figures 9 and 10 based on residential or nonresidential development type. Development fees for residential development are assessed per dwelling unit, based on the type of unit. Nonresidential development fees are assessed per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 11 Figure 8: Water Facilities Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current nonresidential) Residential Residential Meter Size Proposed Fees Current Total Fees Change 5/8" $6,387 $6,060 $327 3/4" $9,569 $9,089 $480 1"$15,934 $15,148 $786 1.5" standard $31,846 $30,297 $1,549 2" compound $50,941 $48,474 $2,467 Per Unit Cost $2,044 $2,908 ($864) Nonresidential Meter Size Nonresidential Meter Size Proposed Fees Current Total Fees Change 5/8" $7,087 $7,877 ($790) 3/4"$10,619 $11,816 ($1,197) 1"$17,684 $19,693 ($2,009) 1.5" standard $35,347 $39,385 ($4,038) 2" compound $56,542 $63,016 ($6,474) 3" compound $113,062 $126,032 ($12,970) 4" compound $176,647 $196,925 ($20,278) 6" compound $353,273 $393,850 ($40,577) 8" compound $565,224 $630,161 ($64,937) Irrigation Meter Size $0 Irrigation Meter Size Proposed Fees Current Total Fees Change 5/8" $14,343 $10,906 $3,437 3/4" $21,503 $16,360 $5,143 1"$35,824 $27,266 $8,558 1.5" standard $71,627 $54,533 $17,094 2" compound $114,590 $87,253 $27,337 3" compound $229,158 $174,506 $54,652 4" compound $358,047 $272,666 $85,381 6" compound $716,072 $545,331 $170,741 8" compound $1,145,702 $872,530 $273,172 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 12 Figure 9: Residential Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current) Figure 10: Nonresidential Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current) To demonstrate the impact of the proposed development fees, the example in Figure 11 below contemplates all fees (Utility and Non-Utility) for a single-family unit, assuming a 0.625-inch water meter, in Oro Valley, representing a 4.8 percent increase. Figure 11: Single-Family Unit All Development Fees Comparative Analysis (proposed vs. current) Nonresidential (per 1,000 square foot unless noted otherwise) Land Use Type Transportation Parks Police Proposed Fee Current Fee Difference Hotel/Motel (room)$969 $222 $237 $1,428 $958 $470 Retail/Commercial $2,963 $558 $710 $4,231 $2,859 $1,372 Office & Other Services $1,129 $708 $280 $2,117 $1,978 $139 Industrial $575 $389 $140 $1,104 $1,048 $56 Warehouse $202 $81 $50 $333 $978 ($645) Public/Institutional $1,494 $222 $370 $2,086 $1,497 $589 Residential (per unit) Unit Type Transportation Parks Police Proposed Fee Current Fee Difference Single-Family $1,917 $1,054 $299 $3,270 $3,156 $114 Multi-Family $1,005 $762 $216 $1,983 $2,045 ($62) Unit Type Current Fee Proposed Fee Difference Single-Family $9,216 $9,657 $441 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 13 PARKS AND RECREATION AL FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(g) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP: “Neighborhood parks and recreational facilities on real property up to thirty acres in area, or parks and recreational facilities larger than thirty acres if the facilities provide a direct benefit to the development. Park and recreational facilities do not include vehicles, equipment or that portion of any facility that is used for amusement parks, aquariums, aquatic centers, auditoriums, arenas, arts and cultural facilities, bandstand and orchestra facilities, bathhouses, boathouses, clubhouses, community centers greater than three thousand square feet in floor area, environmental education centers, equestrian facilities, golf course facilities, greenhouses, lakes, museums, theme parks, water reclamation or riparian areas, wetlands, zoo facilities or similar recreational facilities, but may include swimming pools.” The Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP includes components for park amenities, park land improvements and the cost of professional services for preparing the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP and related Development Fee report. An incremental expansion methodology is used for park amenities and park land improvement, and a plan-based methodology is used for the Development Fee Report. Service Area The Town of Oro Valley plans to provide a uniform level of service and equal access to parks and recreational facilities within the Town limits. The parks and recreation programs are structured and provided to make full use of Oro Valley’s total inventory of facilities. Therefore, the recommended service area for the Parks and Recreational Facilities IIP is Townwide. Proportionate Share ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to accommodate new development. TischlerBise recommends daytime population as a reasonable indicator of the potential demand for Parks and Recreational Facilities from residential and nonresidential development. According to the U.S. Census Bureau web application OnTheMap, there were 8,201 inflow commuters in 2015, which is the number of persons who work in Oro Valley but live outside the Town. OnTheMap is a web-based mapping and reporting application that shows where workers are employed and where they live. It describes geographic patterns of jobs by their employment locations and residential locations as well as the connections between the two locations. OnTheMap was developed through a unique partnership between the U.S. Census Bureau and its Local Employment Dynamics (LED) partner states. OnTheMap data is used, as shown in Figure PR1, to derive Functional Population shares for Oro Valley. The estimated Town population in 2015 from PAG is estimated at 42,259. The study uses 2015 data because this the most recent year available for inflow/outflow data. Therefore, it is compared to the population estimate for the corresponding year. As shown in Figure PR1, the proportionate share is based on cumulative impact days per year. Oro Valley residents were allocated 365 days per year, for a total of 15,424,535 impact days. Inflow commuters were allocated 4 days per week, and 50 weeks per year, for a total of 1,640,200 impact days per year. Adding Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 14 the respective impact days of residents and inflow commuters (shown below in days) yields the total annual impact days for both residential and nonresidential categories. Residential’s proportionate share of the total impact hours is 90%, while the nonresidential share is 10%. Figure PR1: Daytime Population in 2015 RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires: “A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.” Figure PR2 displays the demand indicators for residential and nonresidential land uses. For residential development, the table displays the persons per housing unit for single-family (or single unit) and multifamily units. For nonresidential development, the table displays the number of employees per thousand square feet for four different types of nonresidential development. Figure PR2: Parks and Recreational Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit Residential Development Single Family 2.09 Multi-Family 1.51 Source: Land Use Assumptions Nonresidential Development Industrial 1.63 Commercial 2.34 Institutional 0.93 Office & Other 2.97 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017 Housing Type Persons per Housing Unit Type Jobs per 1,000 Square Feet Residents Inflow Commuters Residential1 Nonresidential2 Total Residential Nonresidential 42,259 8,201 15,424,535 1,640,200 17,064,735 90%10% 1. Days per Year =365 2. 4 Days per Week x 50 Weeks per Year =200 Source: Pima Association of Goverments 2015 Population Estimate; U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap 6.6 Application, 2015. Cost Allocation for ParksCumulative Impact Days per Year Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 15 ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires: “A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires: “An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” Park Land Improvements – Incremental Expansion The summary of park land in Oro Valley is displayed in Figure PR3. Town-owned golf courses, regional parks, retention ponds, and conservation parks were excluded from the inventory. Oro Valley has a total of 389 acres of park land. The level of service for residential development is 0.0020 acres per resident, which is found by multiplying the total number of improved acres (99) by the residential proportionate share (90%) and dividing this total by the 2018 population (45,184). The nonresidential level of service is 0.009 developed acres per job, which is found by multiplying the total number of improved acres (99) by the nonresidential proportionate share (10%) and dividing this total by the number of jobs in 2018 (10,642). According to information provided by Town staff, the average cost to develop an acre of park land is $68,769. The cost per demand unit is determined by multiplying the level of service standard by the average development cost per acre. This results in a cost per person of $135.47 (0.0020 x $68,769) and $63.96 per job (0.0009 x $68,769). Because the Town of Oro Valley does not anticipate any substantial neighborhood or community park land purchases over the next 10 years (or, developers will be asked to dedicate a reasonable portion of land to the Town for development as park land), the cost of additional park land acquisition is not recommended for inclusion in the Development Fee Report and is excluded from the Town’s development fee calculations. Park land improvements—including but not limited to elements such as irrigation, landscaping, lighting or turf —however are included in the Fee with the expectation that the Town will maintain the current level of service through incremental improvements on existing but unimproved park land. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 16 Figure PR3: Park Land Inventory and Level of Service Standards Park Amenities and Improvements – Incremental Expansion The inventory summary of Oro Valley’s park amenities is displayed in Figure PR4. Oro Valley parks have 87 amenities that have a total replacement cost of approximately $18.3 million. Dividing the total replacement cost by the total number of amenities yields an average cost per improvement of $210,936. The current residential level of service is 0.00173 amenities per resident, which was obtained by multiplying the 87 amenities by the residential proportionate share (90%) and dividing this amount by the current population (45,184). Similarly, the nonresidential level of service is 0.0082 units per job (90 x 10% x 10,642). Multiplying the average cost per amenity ($210,936) by the residential and nonresidential levels of service results in a cost per person of $364.92 and $172.97 per job. Note that while the LOS Standards shown are rounded to the fifth decimal place, the analysis does not round these figures. Therefore, the cost analysis calculations may not produce the same result if the reader replicates the calculations using the factors shown (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis). Park Land Total Acres Improved Acres Canada del Oro 30 30 Jame D. Kriegh 29 29 West Lambert Lane 40 2 Naranja 213 30 Honey Bee Canyon 77 8 TOTAL 389 99 Improvement Cost per Acre1 $68,769 90% 45,184 0.0020 $135.47 10% 10,642 0.0009 $63.96 Nonresidential Share 2018 Jobs LOS: Developed Acres per Job Cost per Job Residential Nonresidential 2018 Population LOS: Developed Acres per Persons Cost per Person Level-of-Service (LOS) Standards Residential Share Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 17 Figure PR4: Park Amenities Inventory and Level of Service Standards Description Units Unit Cost Replacement Cost Restrooms (lighted)6 $215,000 $1,290,000 Playground (shaded)2 $150,000 $300,000 Accessible Playground (shaded)1 $150,000 $150,000 Covered Ramada (lighted)5 $90,000 $450,000 Covered Ramada (lighted)3 $50,000 $150,000 Soccer Fields (lighted)2 $210,000 $420,000 Softball Fields (lighted)4 $250,000 $1,000,000 Multiuse Field (lighted)4 $1,200,000 $4,800,000 Baseball Fields (lighted)3 $250,000 $750,000 Sand Volleyball 2 $25,000 $50,000 Horseshoe Pits 2 $1,000 $2,000 Concession Stand 2 $150,000 $300,000 Tennis Court 32 $140,000 $4,480,000 Basketball Court (lighted)1 $100,000 $100,000 Parking Lot (lighted)7 $340,000 $2,380,000 Walking Path 1 $54,400 $54,400 Racquetball Courts (lighted)4 $50,000 $200,000 Dog Park 2 $150,000 $300,000 Splash Pad 1 $875,000 $875,000 Archery Range (fixed)1 $150,000 $150,000 Archery Range (walk around)2 $75,000 $150,000 Total 87 $210,936 $18,351,400 * Average Cost Per Pool, Town of Oro Valley. Existing Amenities 87 Residential Share 90% 2018 Population 45,184 Amenities per Person 0.00173 Cost per Person $364.92 Nonresidential Share 10% 2018 Jobs 10,642 Amenities per Job 0.00082 Cost per Job $172.97 Level-of-Service Standards Residential Nonresidential Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 18 Development Fee Report – Plan-Based The cost to prepare the Parks and Recreational Development Fees and IIP totals $15,268. Oro Valley plans to update its report every five years. Based on this cost, proportionate share, and five-year projections of new development from the Land Use Assumptions document, the cost per person is $4.39 and the cost per job is $1.71. Figure PR5: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND COSTS ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires: “The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.” As shown in Figure PR6 and PR7, the Land Use Assumptions projects an additional 5,991 persons and 1,831 jobs over the next 10 years. ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires: “The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years.” These projected service units are multiplied by the current levels-of-service for the IIP components shown in Figure PR6 and PR7. New development will demand an additional 13 acres of improved park land. The park improvements totals demanded by new development multiplied by the respective costs suggests the Town will need to spend approximately $927,694 on new park land improvements to accommodate projected demand. Necessary Public Service Cost Assessed Against Proportionate Share Demand Unit 2019 2024 Change Cost per Demand Unit Residential 90%Population 45,857 48,989 3,132 $4.39 Nonresidential 10%Jobs 10,812 11,705 893 $1.71$15,268Parks Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 19 Figure PR6: Projected Demand for Improved Park Land The park amenities demanded by new development multiplied by the respective costs suggests the Town will need to spend $2.5 million on new park amenities to accommodate projected demand. Demand Unit Cost per Acre 0.002 Improved Acres Persons 0.001 Improved Acres Jobs Year Population Jobs Residential Acres Nonresidential Acres Total Acres Base 2018 45,184 10,642 89 10 99 Year 1 2019 45,857 10,812 90 10 100 Year 2 2020 46,536 10,985 92 10 102 Year 3 2021 47,192 11,160 93 10 103 Year 4 2022 47,820 11,340 94 11 105 Year 5 2023 48,413 11,522 95 11 106 Year 6 2024 48,989 11,705 97 11 107 Year 7 2025 49,557 11,892 98 11 109 Year 8 2026 50,112 12,082 99 11 110 Year 9 2027 50,648 12,275 100 11 111 Year 10 2028 51,175 12,473 101 12 112 10-Yr Increase 5,991 1,831 12 2 13 Growth-Related Expenditures =>$810,787 $116,907 $927,694 Total $927,694 Level of Service Need for Parks Infrastructure $68,769Park Land Improvements Type of Infrastructure Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 20 Figure PR7: Projected Demand for Parks and Recreational Amenities PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES IIP ARS § 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: “A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” Potential Parks and Recreational Facilities that Oro Valley may use development fees for in order to accommodate new development over the next 10 years are shown in Figure PR8. Demand Unit Cost per Amenity 0.0017 Amenities Persons 0.0008 Amenities Jobs Year Population Jobs Residential Units Nonresidential Units Total Amenities Base 2018 45,184 10,642 78 9 87 Year 1 2019 45,857 10,812 79 9 88 Year 2 2020 46,536 10,985 81 9 90 Year 3 2021 47,192 11,160 82 9 91 Year 4 2022 47,820 11,340 83 9 92 Year 5 2023 48,413 11,522 84 9 93 Year 6 2024 48,989 11,705 85 10 94 Year 7 2025 49,557 11,892 86 10 95 Year 8 2026 50,112 12,082 87 10 97 Year 9 2027 50,648 12,275 88 10 98 Year 10 2028 51,175 12,473 89 10 99 10-Yr Increase 5,991 1,831 10 2 12 Growth-Related Expenditures =>$2,185,293 $316,403 $2,501,696 Total $2,501,696 $210,936 Need for Parks Infrastructure Type of Infrastructure Level of Service Park Amenities Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 21 Figure PR8: Necessary Parks & Recreational Improvements and Expansions PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES Revenue Credit/Offset A revenue credit/offset is not necessary for the Parks and Recreation development fees because 10-year growth costs exceed the amount of revenue that is projected to be generated by development fees according to the Land Use Assumptions, as shown in Figure PR10. Proposed Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fees Infrastructure standards and cost factors for Parks and Recreational Facilities, including park amenities, park land improvements and pool facilities, and the professional services cost for the IIP and Development Fee Report are summarized at the top of Figure PR9. Updated development fees for Parks and Recreational Facilities are shown in the column with green shading alongside the current development fees, and the net change is shown in the far-right column. The proposed development fees for parks and recreation increased across all development types from the current fee amounts. Estimated Cost $1,500,000 Playground and Parking Lot $1,700,000 Multiuse Fields (lighted)$1,200,000 $150,000 Total $4,550,000 Improvement Park Infrastructure Improvement Plan Skate Park Dog Park Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 22 Figure PR9: Proposed Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fees FORECAST OF REVENUES Appendix B contains the forecast of revenues required by Arizona’s Enabling Legislation. Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Revenue The top of Figure PR10 summarizes the growth-related cost of infrastructure in Oro Valley over the next 10 years (approximately $3.4 million for Parks and Recreational Facilities). Oro Valley should receive approximately $3.2 million in Parks and Recreational Facilities development fee revenue over the next 10 years if actual development matches the Land Use Assumptions. This yields a minor net deficit of approximately $209,000. Fee Component Cost per Person Cost per Job Park Land Improvements $135.33 $63.85 Park Amenities $364.76 $172.80 Development Fee Study $4.39 $1.71 TOTAL $504.48 $238.36 Residential (per unit) Development Type Persons per Housing Unit Proposed Fees Current Fee Increase / Decrease Single Unit 2.09 $1,054 $856 $198 2+ Units 1.51 $762 $599 $163 Nonresidential (per square foot unless noted otherwise) Development Type Jobs per 1,000 Sq Ft Proposed Fees Current Fee Increase / Decrease Hotel/Motel (room)0.93 $0.22 $0 $0.22 Retail/Commercial 2.34 $0.56 $0 $0.56 Office & Other Services 2.97 $0.71 $0 $0.71 Industrial 1.63 $0.39 $0 $0.39 Warehouse 0.34 $0.08 $0 $0.08 Public/Institutional 0.93 $0.22 $0 $0.22 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 23 Figure PR10: Projected Parks and Recreational Facilities Development Fee Revenue Growth Share Developed Park Land $927,694 Park Amenities $2,501,696 Development Fee Report $15,268 Total $3,444,658 Single Family Multi-Family Industrial Commercial Institutional Office $1,054 $762 $0.39 $0.56 $0.22 $0.71 per unit per unit per sq. ft.per sq. ft.per sq. ft.per sq. ft. Year Housing Units Housing Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2018 17,158 5,478 620 1,407 545 1,965 Year 1 2019 17,407 5,497 630 1,430 554 1,996 Year 2 2020 17,613 5,562 640 1,453 563 2,028 Year 3 2021 17,822 5,628 650 1,476 571 2,061 Year 4 2022 18,033 5,695 661 1,500 581 2,094 Year 5 2023 18,246 5,762 671 1,524 591 2,127 Year 6 2024 18,463 5,830 681 1,548 599 2,162 Year 7 2025 18,682 5,899 692 1,573 609 2,196 Year 8 2026 18,903 5,969 704 1,598 619 2,231 Year 9 2027 19,128 6,040 715 1,624 628 2,267 Year 10 2028 19,354 6,112 726 1,650 639 2,303 2,196 634 106 243 94 338 Projected Revenue $2,315,104 $483,066 $41,234 $135,594 $20,868 $239,304 $3,235,170 ($209,488) Fee Component 10-Year Increase Surplus/(Deficit) Projected Fee Revenue Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 24 POLICE FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(f) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Police Facilities IIP: “Fire and police facilities, including all appurtenances, equipment and vehicles. Fire and police facilities do not include a facility or portion of a facility that is used to replace services that were once provided elsewhere in the municipality, vehicles and equipment used to provide administrative services, helicopters or airplanes or a facility that is used for training firefighters or officers from more than one station or substation.” The Police Facilities IIP and Development Fees includes components for police stations, police vehicles, and the cost of professional services for preparing the Police Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report. Three different methodologies are utilized across the Police IIP. A cost recovery methodology is used for police facilities, an incremental approach is utilized for vehicles, and a plan-based methodology is used for the Development Fee Report. Service Area The Town of Oro Valley’s Police Department strives to provide a uniform response time Townwide. Therefore, a Townwide service area is recommended for the Police Facilities IIP. Proportionate Share ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to accommodate new development. TischlerBise recommends functional population to allocate the cost of police facilities to residential and nonresidential development. Functional population is similar to what the U.S. Census Bureau calls "daytime population," by accounting for people living and working in a jurisdiction, but also considers commuting patterns and time spent at home and at nonresidential locations. OnTheMap is a web-based mapping and reporting application that shows where workers are employed and where they live. It describes geographic patterns of jobs by their employment locations and residential locations as well as the connections between the two locations. OnTheMap was developed through a unique partnership between the U.S. Census Bureau and its Local Employment Dynamics (LED) partner states. OnTheMap data is used, as shown in Figure P1, to derive Functional Population shares for Oro Valley. Residents that do not work are assigned 20 hours per day to residential development and 4 hours per day to nonresidential development (annualized averages). Residents that work in Oro Valley are assigned 14 hours to residential development and 10 hours to nonresidential development. Residents that work outside Oro Valley are assigned 14 hours to residential development. Inflow commuters are assigned 10 hours to nonresidential development. Based on 2015 functional population data for Oro Valley, the cost allocation for residential development is 78 percent while nonresidential development accounts for 22 percent of the demand for police facilities. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 25 Figure P1: Police Proportionate Share RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires: “A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial/retail, industrial, and office/other services.” Figure P2 displays the ratio of service units to various types of land uses for residential and nonresidential development. The residential development table displays the persons per housing unit for single-family (or single unit) and multifamily units. TischlerBise recommends using nonresidential vehicle trips as the best demand indicator for police facilities and vehicles. Trip generation rates are used for nonresidential development because vehicle trips are highest for commercial/retail developments, such as shopping centers, and lowest for industrial development. Office and institutional trip rates fall between the other two categories. This ranking of trip rates is consistent with the relative demand for police from nonresidential development. Other possible nonresidential demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, will not accurately reflect the Demand Person Proportionate Hours/Day Hours Share Residential Estimated Residents 42,259 Residents Not Working 27,298 20 545,960 Employed Residents 14,961 Employed in Oro Valley 1,946 14 27,244 Employed outside Oro Valley 13,015 14 182,210 Residential Subtotal 755,414 78% Nonresidential Non-working Residents 27,298 4 109,192 Jobs in Oro Valley 10,147 Residents Employed in Oro Valley 1,946 10 19,460 Non-Resident Workers (inflow Commuters)8,201 10 82,010 Nonresidential Subtotal 210,662 22% TOTAL 966,076 100% Source: Pima Association of Governments 2015 Population Estimate; U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap 6.6 Application, 2015. Demand Units in 2015 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 26 demand for service. For example, if employees per thousand square feet were used as the demand indicator, police development fees would be too high for office and institutional development because offices typically have more employees per 1,000 square feet than retail uses. Trip generation rates per average weekday are from the reference book Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 10th Edition 2017). A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). To calculate development fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50%. For commercial and institutional development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50% because retail development and some services attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For the average shopping center, the ITE data indicates that 34% of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. In other words, 34% of trips to the average shopping center are already being counted because the shopping center is not their final destination, and therefore these trips must be discounted. The remaining 66% of attraction trips have the commercial site as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 66% multiplied by 50%, or approximately 33% of the vehicle trips. These factors are shown to derive inbound vehicle trips for each type of nonresidential land use. The ratio of service unit to development unit for each type of nonresidential development is calculated by multiplying the ITE trip generation rate by the trip rate adjustment factor to avoid double-counting trips, as discussed above. By way of example, the service unit to development unit ratio for a Commercial development is found by multiplying the ITE trip generation rate of 37.75 trips (per 1,000 square feet) by the trip rate adjustment factor of 33%, yielding an adjusted trip rate of 12.46 trips per 1,000 square feet. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume a 100,000 square foot commercial development would generate 1,246 primary destination trips per average weekday. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 27 Figure P2: Police Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires: “A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires: “An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” Police Facilities – Cost Recovery The Police Department recently opened a new Police Station, totaling 24,000 square feet of floor area. Prior to the opening of this facility, the Police Department was housed in a 15,165 square foot facility. As shown in Figure P3, the construction of this new station represents a substantial increase to the Town’s level of service. For example, the level of service per person in 2018 is 0.262 square feet per person. In 2019, with the construction of the new stations, the level of service person is 0.408 square feet per person. To ensure that new development is not correcting an existing deficiency, TischlerBise is utilizing a cost recovery method based on the total projected service units in 2033, the last year of debt service. As shown in Figure P3, the level of service per person is projected to be 0.349 square feet. Type of Household Persons per Housing Unit1 Single-Family 2.09 Multi-Family 1.51 Type Trips per 1,000 Sq. Ft.2 Trip Rate Adjustment Adjusted Trips per 1,000 Sq. Ft. Industrial 4.96 50%2.48 Commercial/Retail 37.75 33%12.46 Institutional 19.52 33%6.44 Office and Other 9.74 50%4.87 Hotel (per room)8.36 50%4.18 1. Derived from U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 1-year Estimates, 2017 2. ITE Trip Generation Rates, 10th Edition (2017). Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 28 Figure P3: Police Facilities and Level of Service Analysis As shown in Figure P4, the total facility cost (including principal and interest) totaled $2,549,274. The cost recovery portion of the Police Facilities development fee will be used to cover new development’s share of Police Station debt service payments. When this cost is spread over the projected service unit (population and nonresidential vehicle trips) in 2033 (the year the debt obligation is retired), the cost per person is $37.04 and the cost per nonresidential trip is $13.75. Based on the land use assumptions, it is projected that new development will generate development fee revenue of approximately, $298,000 over the next 10 years. Figure P4: Police Facilities Service Unit Cost Summary Police Vehicles and Equipment – Incremental Expansion The first step in applying the incremental expansion method to Police Vehicles is determining the cost of new vehicles. The Town provided an inventory of police vehicles along with cost which is displayed in Figure P5. The Oro Valley Police Department has an inventory of 129 vehicles, which have a total estimated replacement cost of $6 million. Dividing the total cost by the total number of units yields an average cost per unit of $46,563. The level of service standards and cost analysis for police vehicles are Facility Cost Proportionate Share Demand Unit Demand Units in 2033 Cost per Demand Unit 78%person 53,684 $37.04 22%nonres. trip 40,798 $13.75 10-Year Increase in Population 5,991 10-Year Increase in Nonresidential Vehicle Trips 5,534 10-Year Cost Recovery $297,984 Current Remaining Principal $2,549,274 10-Year Development Fee Revenue $297,984 Remaining Principal in 2028 $2,251,290 Oro Valley Police Station $2,549,274 Year Square Feet Residential Proportionate Share Residential Share of Square Footage Residential Service Units (Population) LOS per Person Nonesidential Proportionate Share Nonresidential Share of Square Footage Nonresidential Service Units (Vehicle Trips) LOS per Nonres. Trip 2018 15,165 78%11,829 45,184 0.262 22%3,336 32,153 0.104 2019 24,000 78%18,720 45,857 0.408 22%5,280 32,668 0.162 2033 24,000 78%18,720 53,684 0.349 22%5,280 40,798 0.129 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 29 continued on the following page. The current residential level of service is 0.0022 units per resident, which was obtained by multiplying the 129 units by the residential proportionate share (78%) and dividing this amount by the current population (45,184). Similarly, the nonresidential level of service is 0.0009 units per vehicle trip. Multiplying the average cost per unit ($46,563) by the residential and nonresidential levels of service results in a cost per person of $102.44 and $41.91 per vehicle trip. Note that while the LOS Standards shown are rounded to the fifth decimal place, the analysis does not round these figures. Therefore, the cost analysis calculations may not produce the same result if the reader replicates the calculations using the factors shown (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis). Figure P5: Police Vehicles and Equipment Inventory and Level of Service Standards Description Number of Units Cost per Unit Replacement Cost Patrol Tahoe 62 $62,362 $3,866,470 Van 3 $35,000 $105,000 ID Truck 3 $55,023 $165,069 Motorcycle 8 $30,480 $243,840 CRU Truck 4 $30,688 $122,752 Specialty/Under Cover 8 $62,362 $498,899 C.V.A.P.5 $27,440 $137,200 Other-Crown Victoria, Impala, Camry 36 $24,095 $867,420 Total 129 $46,563 $6,006,650 Level-of-Service (LOS) Standards Existing Units 129 2018 Population 45,184 2018 Nonresidential Vehicle Trips 32,153 Residential Share 78% Nonresidential Share 22% LOS per Person 0.0022 LOS per Nonresidential Trip 0.0009 Cost Analysis Cost per Vehicle $46,563 LOS: Vehicles per Person 0.0022 LOS: Vehicles per Vehicle Trip 0.0009 Cost per Person $102.44 Cost per Vehicle Trip $41.91 Source: Town of Oro Valley, AZ Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 30 Development Fee Report – Plan-Based The cost to prepare the Police Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report totals $15,268. Oro Valley plans to update its report every five years. Based on this cost, proportionate share, and five-year projections of new residential and nonresidential development from the Land Use Assumptions document, the cost per person is $3.80 and the cost per nonresidential trip is $1.05. Figure P6: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation PROJECTED SERVICE UNITS AND PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SERVICES ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires: “The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.” The Land Use Assumptions projects an additional 5,991 persons and 5,534 nonresidential vehicle trips over the next 10 years, as shown in Figure P7. ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires: “The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years.” As shown in Figure P7, this new development will demand approximately 18 additional units of vehicles. The 10-year total of the projected demand for new police vehicles/equipment is multiplied by the cost to determine the total cost to accommodate the projected demand over the next 10 years. The projected demand for additional police vehicles and equipment will cost approximately $846,050 in total. Necessary Public Service Cost Assessed Against Proportionate Share Demand Unit 2019 2024 Change Cost per Demand Unit Residential 78%Population 45,857 48,989 3,132 $3.80 Nonresidential 22%Trips 32,153 35,364 3,211 $1.05 Police $15,268 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 31 Figure P7: Projected Demand for Police Vehicles POLICE FACILITIES IIP ARS § 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: “A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” Potential Police Facilities that Oro Valley may use development fees for in order to accommodate new development over the next 10 years are shown in Figure P8. Additional vehicles will be procured as necessitated by growth. Demand Unit Cost per Unit 0.0022 Units Per Person 0.0009 Units Per Nonres. Trip Year Population Nonres. Trips Residential Nonresidential Total Patrol Vehicles Base 2018 45,184 32,153 99 29 128 Year 1 2019 45,857 32,668 101 29 130 Year 2 2020 46,536 33,191 102 30 132 Year 3 2021 47,192 33,717 104 30 134 Year 4 2022 47,820 34,264 105 31 136 Year 5 2023 48,413 34,814 107 31 138 Year 6 2024 48,989 35,364 108 32 140 Year 7 2025 49,557 35,930 109 32 141 Year 8 2026 50,112 36,505 110 33 143 Year 9 2027 50,648 37,088 111 33 145 Year 10 2028 51,175 37,688 113 34 147 10-Yr Increase 5,991 5,534 13 5 18 Growth-Related Expenditures =>$614,166 $231,884 $846,050 Type of Infrastructure Level of Service Police Vehicles $46,563 Need for Police Vehicles and Equipment Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 32 Figure P8: Necessary Police Improvements and Expansions (10-Yr Total) POLICE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES Revenue Credit/Offset A revenue credit/offset is not necessary for the Police Facilities development fees because 10-year growth costs exceed the amount of revenue that is projected to be generated by development fees according to the Land Use Assumptions, as shown in Figure P10. Proposed Police Facilities Development Fees The proposed Police development fees are shown in Figure P9. Cost factors for police facilities, vehicles and equipment, and professional services are summarized at the top of the figure. The residential development fees are calculated by multiplying the $143.28 cost per person by the service unit ratios (persons per housing unit) for each housing type. Nonresidential development fees are calculated by multiplying the $56.70 per vehicle trip by the average weekday vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet ratios and the trip adjustment factors for each development type. Proposed development fees for Police increased for most all nonresidential development type and decrease slightly for residential from the current fees. Timeframe Estimated Cost 2020-2028 $846,050 Total $846,050 Police Infrastructure Improvement Plan Improvement Police Vehicles Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 33 Figure P9: Proposed Police Facilities Development Fees FORECAST OF REVENUES Appendix B contains the forecast of revenues required by Arizona’s Enabling Legislation. Development Fee Revenues for Police Facilities and Vehicles Revenue projections shown below assume implementation of the proposed Police development fees and that development over the next 10 years is consistent with the Land Use Assumptions. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. As shown in Figure P10, the 10-year growth costs of police facilities and vehicles total approximately $1.15 million, and approximately $1.11 million will be collected from development fees. The result is a slight deficit of approximately $48,000. Cost per Person Cost per Nonres. Trip $37.04 $13.75 $102.44 $41.91 $3.80 $1.05 $143.28 $56.70 Residential (per unit) Unit Type Persons per Housing Unit Proposed Fee Current Fee Increase / Decrease Single Unit 2.09 $299 $310 ($11) Multifamily 1.51 $216 $215 $1 Nonresidential (per square foot unless noted otherwise) Land Use Type Avg Wkdy Veh Trip Ends Trip Rate Adjustment Proposed Fee Current Fee Increase / Decrease Hotel/Motel (room)8.36 50%$237 $200 $37 Retail/Commercial 37.75 33%$0.71 $0.45 $0.26 Office & Other Services 9.74 50%$0.28 $0.16 $0.12 Industrial 4.96 50%$0.14 $0.07 $0.08 Warehouse 1.74 50%$0.05 $0.06 ($0.01) Public/Institutional 19.52 33%$0.37 $0.12 $0.25 Fee Component Substation Debt Vehicles and Equipment Development Fee Study Total Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 34 Figure P10: Projected Police Development Fee Revenue Growth Share $297,984 $846,050 $15,268 $1,159,302 Police Facilities Development Fee Revenue Single-Family Multi-Family Industrial Commercial Institutional Office $299 $216 $0.14 $0.71 $0.37 $0.28 per unit per unit per sq. ft.per sq. ft.per sq. ft.per sq. ft. Hsg Unit Hsg Unit KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2018 17,158 5,478 620 1,407 545 1,965 Year 1 2019 17,407 5,497 630 1,430 554 1,996 Year 2 2020 17,613 5,562 640 1,453 563 2,028 Year 3 2021 17,822 5,628 650 1,476 571 2,061 Year 4 2022 18,033 5,695 661 1,500 581 2,094 Year 5 2023 18,246 5,762 671 1,524 591 2,127 Year 6 2024 18,463 5,830 681 1,548 599 2,162 Year 7 2025 18,682 5,899 692 1,573 609 2,196 Year 8 2026 18,903 5,969 704 1,598 619 2,231 Year 9 2027 19,128 6,040 715 1,624 628 2,267 Year 10 2028 19,354 6,112 726 1,650 639 2,303 2,196 634 106 243 94 338 Projected Revenue $657,761 $137,158 $14,895 $172,201 $34,631 $94,643 $1,111,289 ($48,013) Projected Fee Revenue Surplus/(Deficit) Fee Component Substation Debt Police Vehicles Development Fee Report Total Year Ten-Year Increase Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 35 STREET FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(e) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Street Facilities IIP: “Street facilities located in the service area, including arterial or collector streets or roads that have been designated on an officially adopted plan of the municipality, traffic signals and rights- of-way and improvements thereon.” The Street Facilities IIP includes components for arterial street improvements and the cost of professional services for preparing the Street Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report. An incremental expansion methodology is used for arterial and related street improvements, and a plan-based methodology is used for the Development Fee Report. Service Area The service area for the Street Facilities IIP is Townwide, however due to the probability of incremental development outside existing Town limits, Oro Valley may want to enter into development/annexation agreements, or use some other instrument with prospective developers working outside established Town limits which may include payments to the Town to help cover the cost of street infrastructure improvements and/or mitigation measures that are determined to be necessary. METHODOLOGY Street Facilities development fees use an incremental expansion methodology and allocate capital costs to residential and nonresidential development based on vehicle miles of travel using average weekday vehicle trips and average trip lengths. This methodology allows Oro Valley to maintain the current level of service standard as growth occurs. Development fee revenue collected using this methodology may not be used to replace or rehabilitate existing improvements. Proportionate Share ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to provide necessary public services to the development. Trip length, trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors are used to determine the proportionate impact of residential, commercial, office, and industrial land uses on the Town’s street network. RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires: “A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.” Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 36 Service Units The appropriate service unit for the Street Facilities development fees is vehicle miles of travel (VMT). VMT creates the link between supply (roadway capacity) and demand (traffic generated by new development). Components used to determine VMT include: trip generation rates, adjustments for commuting patterns and pass-by trips, and trip length weighting factors, are discussed further in this section. Figure S1: Summary of Service Units Trip Generation Rates For nonresidential development, the trip generation rates are from the 10th edition of the reference book Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (2017). A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). As an alternative to using the national average trip generation rate for residential development, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes regression curve formulas that may be used to derive custom trip generation rates using local demographic data. This is explained in more detail in Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions. Adjustments for Commuting Patterns and Pass-By Trips To calculate Street Facilities Development Fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50%. As discussed further below, the development fee methodology includes additional adjustments to make the fees proportionate to the infrastructure demand for particular types of development. Residential development has a larger trip adjustment factor of 63% to account for commuters leaving Oro Valley for work. According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, weekday work trips are typically 31% of production trips (i.e., all out-bound trips, which are 50% of all trips). As shown in Figure S2, the Census Bureau’s web application OnTheMap indicates that 87% of resident workers traveled outside the Town for work in 2015. In combination, these factors (0.31 X 0.50 X 0.87 = .13) support the additional 13% allocation of trips to residential development. Single Units 210 8.20 HU 63%5.17 3.10 Multifamily 220 4.30 HU 63%2.71 3.10 Industrial (KSF)110 4.96 KSF 50%2.48 1.94 Commercial / Retail (KSF)820 37.75 KSF 33%12.46 1.99 Institutional (KSF)520 19.52 KSF 33%6.44 1.94 Office & Other (KSF)710 9.74 KSF 50%4.87 1.94 Local Trip LengthDevelopment Type ITE Code Weekday VTE Dev Unit Trip Adj Adj Trip Rate Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 37 Figure S2: Inflow/Outflow Analysis For commercial development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50% because retail development and some services attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For the average shopping center, the ITE data indicates that 34% of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 66% of attraction trips have the commercial site as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 66% multiplied by 50%, or approximately 33% of the trips. These factors are shown to derive inbound vehicle trips for each type of nonresidential land use. ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY, USAGE, AND COSTS OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires: “A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” As shown in Appendix C, the Town of Oro Valley provided an inventory of arterial road segments, including segment lengths, lane quantities, and annual average daily traffic (AADT) counts. Multiplying each segment’s length by the number of lanes yields the number of lane miles per segment. The Town’s arterial road network consists of 118.5 lane miles. By multiplying the traffic counts and segment lengths, the daily vehicle miles of travel (VMT) is obtained. The sum of each arterial road segment’s VMT is 383,580. Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters 1 Employed Residents 14,961 Residents Working in Oro Valley 1,946 Residents Working Outside Oro Valley (Commuters)13,015 Percent Commuting out of Oro Valley 87% Additional Production Trips2 13% Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 63% 1. U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application (version 6.6) and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2015. 2. According to the National Household Travel Survey (2009)*, published in December 2011 (see Table 30), home-based work trips are typically 30.99 percent of “production” trips, in other words, out-bound trips (which are 50 percent of all trip ends). Also, LED OnTheMap data from 2015 indicate that 87 percent of Oro Valley workers travel outside the town for work. In combination, these factors (0.3099 x 0.50 x 0.87 = 0.1347) account for 13 percent of additional production trips. The total adjustment factor for residential includes attraction trips (50 percent of trip ends) plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment (13 percent of production trips) for a total of 63 percent. *http://nhts.ornl.gov/publications.shtml ; Summary of Travel Trends - Table "Daily Travel Statistics Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 38 Figure S3 documents the capacity of Oro Valley’s arterial road network. According to Town staff, the Town’s arterial streets operate at a Level-of-Service A, and the average number of lanes for arterials is roughly 4 lanes. A mile segment of a 4-lane arterial street with a Level-of-Service A should maintain a daily volume of 12,600 vehicles, or 3,150 vehicles per lane mile over a 24-hour period. Given the incremental expansion methodology used in this analysis, and the Town’s current level-of-service (LOS A), the baseline VMC/VMT ratio for any incremental expansion method is 1.0 (i.e., VMC=VMT). Figure S3: Arterial Road Network Capacity and Usage Vehicle Trips Figure S4 shows the calculation of vehicle trips generated by existing development. When the average weekday VTE and Trip Adjustment percentages (shown in Figure S1) are multiplied by the development unit quantities for Oro Valley from the Land Use Assumption in Appendix A (housing units and nonresidential KSF), the total number of vehicle trips generated by existing development is determined. As shown in Figure S4, this totals 135,631 adjusted vehicle trips. Figure S4: Vehicle Trips Average Trip Length For the incremental expansion methodology, it is necessary to determine the average trip length on the Town’s arterial network. To do this, national trip generation rates and average trip lengths from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey are used to determine expected VMT on the Town’s transportation network. Figure S5 shows average trip lengths from the National Household Travel Survey (2017).1 1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2017 National Household Travel Survey. URL: http://nhts.ornl.gov 118.5 3,150 383,580 383,580 1.00 VMC/VMT Ratio Total Vehicle Lane Miles Capacity per Lane Mile (LOS A) Total Vehicle Miles of Capacity Existing Vehicle Miles of Travel Single Units 210 8.20 HU 63%88,638 Multifamily 220 4.30 HU 63%14,840 Industrial (KSF)110 4.96 KSF 50%1,537 Commercial / Retail (KSF)820 37.75 KSF 33%17,533 Institutional 520 19.52 KSF 33%3,514 Office & Other (KSF)710 9.74 KSF 50%9,570 135,631 2018 Dev UnitsDevelopment Type ITE Code Weekday VTE Dev Unit Trip Adj Total Adjusted Vehicle Trips Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 39 Figure S5: National Average Trip Lengths The national average trip length needs to be adjusted to reflect actual local demand on the Town’s arterial network. To do this, TischlerBise first determines expected demand (VMT) on the Town’s complete transportation network using the above national travel demand characteristics. Average daily trips from existing development in each land use category are multiplied by the applicable average trip lengths. Figure S6. Expected VMT in the Town of Oro Valley Because expected VMT reflects anticipated travel demand from Town development on the entire roadway system, it is therefore higher than actual VMT on the arterial system in the Town. To calibrate demand on the arterial system, expected travel demand is compared to actual VMT obtained from the Town of Oro Valley. The ratio between actual and expected VMT provides a local adjustment factor that can be applied to national average trip lengths by type of land use. The local adjustment factor is shown in Figure S7. Land Use National Average Trip Lenght (miles) Residential 12.32 Industrial 7.70 Commercial/Retail 7.90 Institutional 7.70 Office and Other 7.70 * U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2017 National Household Transportation Survey, adjusted for land use Land Use ADT National Avg Trip Length (miles) Expected VMT Single Units 88,638 12.32 1,092,023 Multifamily 14,840 12.32 182,828 Industrial 1,537 7.70 11,838 Commercial/Retail 17,533 7.90 138,507 Institutional 3,514 7.70 27,054 Office & Other 9,570 7.70 73,687 Total 1,525,937 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 40 Figure S7. Local Trip Length Adjustment Factor As shown in Figure S8, the national average trips lengths are adjusted to reflect local conditions. Figure S8. Local Average Trip Lengths by Land Use Using the above factors, VMT per service unit is calculated, shown below in Figure S9. Figure S9. VMT per Service Unit on Arterial Network Cost per VMT and Infrastructure Improvement Plan Figure S10 contains a list of planned transportation projects including intersection improvements and multi-modal facilities which Oro Valley plans to construct over the next 10 years. The total estimated cost of these projects includes a credit of $2.86 million for street development impact fees which were collected between 2014 and 2018 but have not yet been spent. Actual Local VMT on Arterials*383,580 Expected Local VMT^1,525,937 Actual to Expected VMT 0.251 * Town of Oro Valley 2018 Inventory ^ TischlerBise analysis Type National Avg Trip Length (miles) Local Adj. Factor Local Trip Length Residential 12.32 0.251 3.10 Industrial 7.70 0.251 1.94 Commercial/Retail 7.90 0.251 1.99 Institutional 7.70 0.251 1.94 Office and Other 7.70 0.251 1.94 Hotel (per room)7.70 0.251 1.94 Sources: National trip length from 2017 NHTS and TischlerBise; local adjustment from Figure S9. Single Units 210 8.20 63%5.17 3.10 16.00 Multifamily 220 4.30 63%2.71 3.10 8.39 Industrial (KSF)110 4.96 50%2.48 1.94 4.80 Commercial / Retail (KSF)820 37.75 33%12.46 1.99 24.74 Institutional (KSF)520 19.52 33%6.44 1.94 12.47 Office & Other (KSF)710 9.74 50%4.87 1.94 9.43 Hotel (per room)310 8.36 50%4.18 1.94 8.09 Warehousing (KSF)150 1.74 50%0.87 1.94 1.68 Development Type ITE Code Weekday VTE Trip Adj Adj Trip Rate Local Trip Length VMT per Service Unit Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 41 Figure S10: Street Facilities Improvement Improvements Plan A cost per vehicle mile of capacity (VMC) is calculated based on the average cost per lane mile of $429,245 and the average lane capacity of 3,150 average daily vehicle trips (per 1 lane mile). This results in a $136.27 cost per VMC. The incremental expansion methodology assumes the ratio of VMC to VMT is 1, therefore the cost per VMT is also $136.27. Figure S11: Cost per VMT Factors SERVICE UNITS, DEMAND, AND COST FOR SERVICES ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires: “An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” TischlerBise created an aggregate travel model to convert development units within Oro Valley to vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel. This includes the factors discussed above, as well as average trip length, and is shown in Figure S12. Travel Demand Model ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires: “The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.” Cost per Lane Mile $429,245 Capacity per Lane Mile 3,150 Cost per VMC $136.27 Location Description New Lanes Distance Lane Miles Total Project Cost La Cholla Blvd, Tangerine Rd-Lambert Ln Road Widening 2.0 3.0 6.0 $1,700,000 Shannon Rd, Tangerine Rd-Naranja Dr New Road 2.0 1.0 2.0 $1,000,000 Lambert Ln. .5 mi E of Shannnon-Rancho Sonora Road Widening 2.0 1.0 2.0 $1,000,000 Rancho Vistosto & Woodbume Intersection Improvement 0.0 0.0 0.0 $750,000 Oracle Rd & Rams Field Intersection Intersection Improvement 0.0 0.0 0.0 $750,000 Moore Rd La Cholla Blvd Intersection Improvement 0.0 0.0 0.0 $900,000 Moore Rd -extension E of Rancho Vistoso Blvd New Road & Intersection 2.0 2.0 4.0 $1,026,840 Moore Rd & La Canada Dr Intersection Intersection Improvement 0.0 0.0 0.0 $1,200,000 Glover Rd Multi Use Path Multi-modal facility 0.0 0.3 0.0 $150,000 Glover Rd south half widening Road Widening 1.0 0.3 0.3 $500,000 Total 14.25 $8,976,840 $2,860,095 $6,116,745 14.25 $429,245 2018 DIF Balance Total Cost Lane Miles Cost per Lane Mile Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 42 Projected development in Oro Valley over the next 10 years, and the corresponding need for additional lane miles is shown in Figure S12. Trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors convert project development into average weekday vehicle trips. New development in Oro Valley will generate 18,599 trips. ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires: “The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years.” The travel demand model inputs above (Figure S9) are used to derive level of service in Vehicle Miles of Travel and future needs of lane miles. A Vehicle Mile of Travel (VMT) is a measurement unit equal to one vehicle traveling one mile. As shown in Figure S12, based on the increase in vehicle miles of travel (51,323), the Town of Oro Valley would need to construct an additional 16.3 lane miles of arterials to accommodate projected development over the next 10 years in order to maintain current level of service. Figure S12: Projected Travel Demand Model ARS § 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: “A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” Multiplying the increase in number of lane miles (16.3) by the cost per lane mile from Figure S10 ($429,245) results in a 10-year cost of approximately $6.99 million attributed to arterial lane miles. However, the Town of Oro Valley only expects plans to build approximately 14.25 lane and intersections, at a net cost of $6.1 million, which yields an adjusted cost per VMT of $119.18. 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028 Base 1 2 3 4 5 10 Single Units 17,158 17,407 17,613 17,822 18,033 18,246 19,354 2,196 Multifamily 5,478 5,497 5,562 5,628 5,695 5,762 6,112 634 Industrial KSF 620 630 640 650 661 671 726 106 Commercial / Retail (KSF)1,407 1,430 1,453 1,476 1,500 1,524 1,650 243 Institutional 545 554 563 571 581 591 639 94 Office & Other (KSF)1,965 1,996 2,028 2,061 2,094 2,127 2,303 338 Single Unit Res Trips 88,638 89,924 90,989 92,067 93,157 94,261 99,985 11,347 Multifamily Unit Res Trips 14,840 14,891 15,068 15,246 15,427 15,609 16,557 1,717 Industrial Trips 1,537 1,562 1,586 1,612 1,638 1,664 1,801 264 Commercial Trips 17,533 17,815 18,102 18,389 18,687 18,985 20,554 3,021 Institutional 3,514 3,569 3,624 3,680 3,742 3,805 4,116 603 Office & Other Trips 9,570 9,722 9,878 10,036 10,197 10,361 11,216 1,646 Total Nonresidential Trips 32,153 32,668 33,191 33,717 34,264 34,814 37,688 Total Vehicle Trips 135,631 137,483 139,247 141,030 142,848 144,685 154,230 18,599 VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel 383,580 388,732 393,602 398,524 403,535 408,600 434,903 51,323 25,021 Additional Lane Miles 1.64 1.55 1.56 1.59 1.61 1.72 16.3 Growth-Related Cost $702,066 $663,621 $670,815 $682,823 $690,203 $737,272 $6,993,749 10-Year Increase DevelopmentAverage Weekday Vehicle TripsNEED Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 43 Figure S13: Adjusted Cost per Vehicle Mile of Travel/Vehicle Mile of Capacity Development Fee Report – Plan-Based The cost to prepare the Street Facilities IIP and Development Fee Report totals $15,268. Oro Valley plans to update its report every five years. Based on this cost, proportionate share, and five-year projections of new residential and nonresidential development from the Land Use Assumptions document, the cost is $0.61 per vehicle mile of travel. Figure S14: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES Revenue Credit/Offset A revenue credit/offset is not necessary for the Street Facilities development fees because 10-year growth costs exceed the amount of revenue that is projected to be generated by development fees according to the Land Use Assumptions, as shown in Figure S15. Proposed Street Facilities Development Fees The existing Street Facilities development fees and how much they differ from the proposed development fees are shown in Figure S15. Cost factor for road improvements and professional services are summarized at the top of the figure. Proposed fees represent a decrease across all categories of development. Residential development fees are expressed per housing unit. Nonresidential development fees are expressed per square foot of floor area. The Street Facilities development fees are calculated by multiplying the $119.79 net cost per VMT/VMC by the VMT per development unit for each land use type. IIP Cost $6,116,745 10-Year Increase in VMT/VMC 51,323 Cost per VMC $119.18 Necessary Public Service Cost Assessed Against Proportionate Share Demand Unit 2019 2024 Change Cost per Demand Unit Residential All Development Nonresidential All Development 388,732 413,714 24,982 $0.61VMTTransportation$15,268 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 44 Figure S15: Proposed and Existing Fees Comparison PROJECTED STREET FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE Projected fee revenue shown in Figure S16 is based on the development projections in the Land Use Assumptions (see Appendix A) and the updated Street Facilities development fees (see Figure S15). Expenditures on arterial street improvements are derived from the anticipated need for approximately 14.25 new lane miles over the next 10 years (see Figure S10) at a cost of $6.1 million. Anticipated development fee revenue approximates growth-related expenditures over the next 10 years. $119.18 $0.61 $119.79 Residential Development (per Housing Unit) Development Type VMT per Development Unit Proposed Fees Current Fee Increase / Decrease Single Unit 16.00 $1,917 $1,990 ($73) Multifamily 8.39 $1,005 $1,231 ($226) Nonresidential (per square foot unless noted otherwise) Development Type VMT per Development Unit Proposed Fees Current Fee Increase / Decrease Hotel/Motel (room)8.09 $969 $758 $211 Retail/Commercial 24.74 $2.96 $2.41 $0.55 Office & Other Services 9.43 $1.13 $1.82 ($0.69) Industrial 4.80 $0.58 $0.98 ($0.41) Warehouse 1.68 $0.20 $0.92 ($0.71) Public/Institutional 12.47 $1.49 $1.38 $0.11 Cost per VMT/VMC Development Fee Study Net Cost per VMT Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 45 Figure S16: Projected Street Facilities Development Fee Revenue Growth Share Within 10 Yrs. $6,116,745 $15,268 $6,132,013 Street Facilities Development Fee Revenue Single Unit Multi-Family Industrial Commercial Institutional Office $1,917 $1,005 $0.58 $2.96 $1.49 $1.13 per unit per unit per sq. ft.per sq. ft.per sq. ft.per sq. ft. Hsg Unit Hsg Unit KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2018 17,158 5,478 620 1,407 545 1,965 Year 1 2019 17,407 5,497 630 1,430 554 1,996 Year 2 2020 17,613 5,562 640 1,453 563 2,028 Year 3 2021 17,822 5,628 650 1,476 571 2,061 Year 4 2022 18,033 5,695 661 1,500 581 2,094 Year 5 2023 18,246 5,762 671 1,524 591 2,127 Year 6 2024 18,463 5,830 681 1,548 599 2,162 Year 7 2025 18,682 5,899 692 1,573 609 2,196 Year 8 2026 18,903 5,969 704 1,598 619 2,231 Year 9 2027 19,128 6,040 715 1,624 628 2,267 Year 10 2028 19,354 6,112 726 1,650 639 2,303 2,196 634 106 243 94 338 $4,209,595 $637,113 $61,180 $718,753 $139,794 $381,677 Projected Development Fee Revenue $6,148,111 Total Expenditures $6,132,013 Surplus/(Deficit)$16,098 10-Year Increase Year Fee Component Total Arterial Street Improvements Development Fee Study 10-Year Projected Revenue Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 46 WATER FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ARS § 9-463.05 (T)(7)(a) defines the facilities and assets that can be included in the Water Facilities IIP: “Water facilities, including the supply, transportation, treatment, purification and distribution of water, and any appurtenances for those facilities.” The Water Facilities IIP includes components for the plan-based development of various improvements to integrate the delivery of additional CAP water needed to serve future growth. The Town completed a master plan in 2006 which provided recommended system improvements to allow for the initial delivery of CAP water allocation. Beginning in 2012, the Town began delivering a portion of this water allocation through the Tucson Water distribution system and, in 2024, the Town will significantly expand their CAP water deliveries through the Northwest Recharge, Recovery, and Delivery System (NWRRDS). The project will result in a transition from majority well supply to a more balanced well and CAP water supply and will require a significant change in the way the distribution system is operated and how water is delivered across the system. These changes are required to accommodate the water demands attributed to growth and to ensure that groundwater pumping stays below 5,000 AFY as an established target identified in the Master Plan. In 2018, the Town adopted the Potable Water Master Plan (the Master Plan) which provides a 10-year planning horizon road map for the Town Water Utility. The Master Plan includes infrastructure improvements that will benefit existing customers as well as future growth. The relationship between infrastructure historically funded with PWSDIF revenue and infrastructure funded with AWRDIF revenue are very similar. Both are potable water resource driven and both are required to meet the demands of growth. As such, the infrastructure needs are being combined into one IIP resulting in the creation of one new development impact fee to replace the two existing impact fees. The new development impact fee will be known as the Water Facilities Development Impact Fee. The Water Facilities Development Impact Fee is intended to fund all types of water resources, the infrastructure to deliver those resources and any related debt including CAP capital infrastructure repayment costs. Upon the completion of the 10-year infrastructure improvement plan (IIP), the Town will have the capacity to deliver 4,960 acre-feet per year (AFY) of CAP water into the main service area which will reduce groundwater pumping from 5,320 AFY to 4,400 AFY thereby complying with the Town’s targeted groundwater production goal of no more than 5,000 AFY. The Master Plan identifies a number of system improvements required to accommodate future growth, including new wells, storage, pipelines and approximately 20 separate NWRRDS projects to allow integration of additional CAP supply into the distribution system. In addition to these costs, the cost of professional services for preparing the Water Facilities IIP and related Development Fee Report have been included. Service Area Because new development in Oro Valley will connect to the Town’s water system, the service area for Water Facilities IIP is Townwide. Proportionate Share ARS § 9-463.05 (B)(3) states that the development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of necessary public services needed to provide necessary public services to the development. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 47 The Water Facilities IIP and development fees are assessed on both residential and nonresidential development as both types of development create a burden for additional water facilities. Customers by land use are used to determine the proportionate share of this burden. In 2017-2018, approximately 82% of water connections in Oro Valley were for single family residential units, accounting for approximately 75% of the average daily demand. Approximately 12% of connections were for multifamily housing and nonresidential connections, accounting for approximately 13% of the average daily demand. Irrigation use accounts for the remaining 12% of use. As shown in Figure W1, equivalent residential service unit factors for commercial/industrial meters recognize these types of meters use far more water on average than a comparably sized single family water meter. For example, a typical single family meter demands 0.28 acre feet a year, whereas commercial/industrial users in Oro Valley demand 0.31 acre feet annually, which is 1.11 times the single family residential equivalent. Figure W1: Water Facilities Consumption Data and Service Unit Capacity Factor RATIO OF SERVICE UNITS TO DEVELOPMENT UNITS ARS § 9-463.05(E)(4) requires: “A table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation or discharge of a service unit for each category of necessary public services or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial.” Water Facilities development fees are assessed by meter. Therefore, capacity ratios by meter size are the appropriate demand indicator for Water Facilities. Capacity ratios equate 5/8" (0.625) meters to the average day gallons per single-family residential unit. Utilizing average day gallons is the most efficient way to show a direct relationship between development units, usage, and system capacity. The nonresidential Water Facilities development fees are calculated by multiplying the number of gallons per single-family unit by the capacity ratio for the corresponding size and type of water meter, which are provided by the American Water Works Association (2012) and shown in Figure W2 below. Total# SU Total Water Use % Annual Water Use per SU AF per SU per Year SU Capacity Factor Single Family 19,918 1,812,556,000 75%91,001 0.28 1.00 Multi-Family 1,002 112,985,000 5%112,759 0.09 0.32 Commercial 1,967 200,660,000 8%102,013 0.31 1.11 Irrigation 1,351 277,513,000 12%205,413 0.63 2.25 Total 24,238 2,403,714,000 100% Source: TOVWU Classification and Consumption 2017-2018 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 48 Figure W2: Water Facilities Ratio of Service Unit to Development Unit ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY AND USAGE OF EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES ARS § 9-463.05(E)(5) requires: “The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated pursuant to generally accepted engineering and planning criteria.” ARS § 9-463.05(E)(2) requires: “An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing necessary public services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” Water Facilities Level of Service Standards The Town delivers a combination of groundwater and CAP water wheeled through the Tucson Water distribution system to meet its potable water demands within its service area. The existing water distribution system consists of approximately 366 miles of public water mains, 13 storage reservoirs and 24 pump stations. In 2017, the Town main service area potable water production consisted of 5,069 acre- feet of groundwater (73 percent of total production) and 1,842 acre-feet of CAP water (27 percent of production). The Town manages 17 active wells with a total approximate pumping capacity of 12.5 million gallons per day (MGD). The well demand fluctuates daily, but according to the Master Plan, typical well demand during average day conditions is approximately 4 MGD, and during peak day conditions typically increases to 8 MGD. All of the wells are permitted by ADWR as recovery wells, which allows the use of recharge credits to offset its annual replenishment obligations as determined by the state’s Assured Water Meter Size (inches)Capacity Ratio** 5/8" 1.00 3/4" 1.50 1"2.50 1.5"5.00 2" 8.00 3" 16.00 4" 25.00 6" 50.00 8" 80.00 **AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 49 Supply (AWS) rules. In addition to the wells, the Town receives approximately 2,600 AFY of CAP water wheeled through the Tucson Water distribution system, which based on the IIP will increase to 4,960 AFY upon completion of the NWRRDS project. Finally, the Town is served by 13 storage reservoirs representing 10.45 million gallons (MG) of storage for the distribution system. The Town maintains operating storage criteria of 1.25 times average day demand. PROJECTED DEMAND FOR WATER FACILITIES ARS § 9-463.05(E)(1) requires: “A description of the existing necessary public services in the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, correct or replace those necessary public services to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” ARS § 9-463.05(E)(3) requires: “A description of all or the parts of the necessary public services or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, including a forecast of the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, financing, engineering and architectural services, which shall be prepared by qualified professionals licensed in this state, as applicable.” ARS § 9-463.05(E)(6) requires: “The projected demand for necessary public services or facility expansions required by new service units for a period not to exceed ten years.” Current water consumption and number of connections area shown in Figure W3. Figure W3 also shows the ratio of connections to housing units and jobs for residential and nonresidential development. These standards are used for calculating future demand shown below in Figure W4. Figure W3: Water Facilities Level of Service Standards Residential 4,965,907 19,918 249 0.94 Nonresidential 549,753 1,967 279 0.19 Irrigation 760,310 1,351 563 0.06 Total 6,585,518 24,238 272 1. 2018 Oro Valley Water Utility Water Classification by use. Connections per HU/JobTypeAverage Gallons per Day1 Connections1 Gallons per Connection per Day Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 50 Future projections of water connections and consumption are shown in Figure W4, divided between residential and nonresidential development. Water connection projections are derived from the connections per HU/Job ratios in Figure W3 and the projected growth contained in the Land Use Assumptions (Appendix A). Over the next 10 years, it is projected there will be an increase of 2,811 residential connections and 344 nonresidential connections. Water consumption projections were derived using the Gallons per Day per Connection ratios in Figure W3. As shown in Figure W4, this will result in an estimated additional 892,818 gallons of water consumption per day by 2028. Figure W4: Future Projections of Water Consumption WATER FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Cost Recovery for Excess Capacity in Supply Projects In 2007 the Town acquired 3,557 acre feet of additional CAP water to meet the water demands for future growth. As of December of 2019, the Town’s Water Utility has calculated that of the original 3,557 acre feet earmarked for growth, approximately 3,000 acre feet (2,678,227 gallons per day) remains available. Based on current consumption rates, this remaining capacity can serve additional 10,715 equivalent service units. Remaining debt for this water allocation is $3,436,451. Therefore, the Water Facilities development fee includes a cost recovery component shown in Figure W5, which recognizes the original acquisition in the form of a cost recovery of $320.74 per service unit ($3,436,451/10,714=$320.74). Figure W5: Cost Recovery for Supply Projects Service Units Avg. Gallons per Day Service Units Avg. Gallons per Day Base 2018 6,585,518 20,920 1,967 1,351 24,238 1 2019 6,683,971 21,236 1,999 1,370 24,605 367 98,453 367 98,453 2 2020 6,783,305 21,554 2,031 1,389 24,975 370 99,335 737 197,788 3 2021 6,879,749 21,862 2,064 1,408 25,335 359 96,443 1,097 294,231 4 2022 6,972,664 22,157 2,098 1,426 25,681 346 92,916 1,443 387,146 5 2023 7,061,071 22,435 2,132 1,443 26,010 329 88,407 1,772 475,554 6 2024 7,147,290 22,705 2,167 1,459 26,331 321 86,219 2,093 561,772 7 2025 7,232,676 22,972 2,202 1,475 26,649 318 85,386 2,411 647,158 8 2026 7,316,460 23,232 2,237 1,491 26,961 312 83,784 2,723 730,942 9 2027 7,397,895 23,484 2,274 1,506 27,264 303 81,436 3,026 812,378 10 2028 7,478,336 23,731 2,311 1,521 27,563 299 80,441 3,325 892,818 892,818 2,811 344 170 3,325 3,325 892,818 Source: TischlerBise, using Average Day Demand factors, Figure W3 and projected development shown in Figure A13. Residential ConnectionsYearAvg. Gallons per Day Nonresidential Connections Irrigation Connections Total Service Units Annual Increase Cumulative Increase 10-year Change Cost Recovery Summary: Supply Projects Year*Description Remaining Capacity (AF)Capacity (GPD)Cost 2007 Growth-Related CAP Water Entitlement 3,000 2,678,227 $3,436,451 Total Cost $3,436,451 Gallons of Capacity (GPD)2,678,227 Additional SU 10,714 Cost per SU $320.74 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 51 Water Facilities Projects – Plan Based The Town recently completed the 2018 Water Utility Potable Water Master Plan which identifies a variety of projects required to meet the water demand of future growth through the anticipated integration and increase of CAP water deliveries into the system. As identified in the Master Plan, the cost of the various projects is attributed to existing deficiencies and those improvements required to serve future growth. The following projects are directly related to Water Facilities and include a combination of supply, storage, transmission capacity expansion to meet future growth demands of the system. The total cost of improvements planned over the next 10 years is $39,549,923 million ($6.3 million for supply projects, $19.4 million for storage and $13.8 million for distribution). As is discussed below, each project provides additional fixed system capacity which corresponds to fee levels and the duration that the fee will be imposed. Water Facilities Supply Projects – Plan Based Illustrated in Figure W6, Water Facilities supply projects identified by Oro Valley staff will add an additional 1,400 Acre Feet of capacity, able to provide for 5,143 service units with a total cost of $6.3 million. The Town has been collecting development fees in anticipation of developing these projects and as a result maintains an existing Water Facilities balance of $14.8 million which is proportionately applied to the supply projects resulting in a net cost of supply projects of $3.9 million and shown in Figure W6. The resulting cost per acre foot of supply is $4,021 and cost per service unit is $1,125.80 ( $3,937,882 / 5,143 = $1,125.80). Figure W6: Infrastructure Improvement Plan: Water Supply Water Facilities Storage Projects – Plan Based The Town has identified and plans on activating a variety of new storage facilities over the next 15 years to help meet additional water demand from new development. Figure W7 shows each new storage element, cost, reduction of existing impact fee balance, net cost and added average capacity in acre feet per year. The new storage projects will have a net growth related cost of $12.1 million and will add an additional 1,400 AFY of capacity. Dividing the net cost by the total added capacity yields a cost per acre foot of capacity of $10,453 and a cost per service unit of $2,926.93. Infrastructure Improvement Plan: Supply Year Description Cost less Existing DIF Balance Net Cost Capacity (acre-feet) Net Cost per AF Service Units Cost per Service Unit (ERU) 2018-2019 Steam Pump D-Zone Well $1,500,000 ($562,409)$937,591 484 $1,937 1,729 $542.41 2018-2023 (P)Program Management Support Services $1,050,000 ($393,686)$656,314 1,440 $456 5,143 $127.62 2019-2020 (P)Well Improvement Analysis and Recovery Permits $150,000 ($56,241)$93,759 1,440 $65 5,143 $18.23 2020-2021 (P)Well Drilling and Testing $300,000 ($112,482)$187,518 1,440 $130 5,143 $36.46 2022-2023 (P)Construction Permitting, Drilling, Development and Testing $1,500,000 ($562,409)$937,591 1,440 $651 5,143 $182.31 2022-2023 (P)Well Equipment Design and Site Improvements $1,800,000 ($674,891)$1,125,109 1,440 $781 5,143 $218.77 Source: 2018 TOVWU Potable Water Master Plan $6,300,000 ($2,362,118)$3,937,882 $4,021 Total Cost per SU $1,125.80 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 52 Figure W7: Infrastructure Improvement Plan: Storage Water Facilities Distribution Projects – Plan Based Ten distribution related projects identified by staff all work in concert to help meet additional water demand from new development. Figure W8 shows each component associated with the new distribution architecture cost and added capacity in acre feet per year. Water Facilities distribution projects will in total will add an additional 1,400 acre feet of capacity, able to support water distribution for 5,143 service units with a total net cost of $8.6 million. The resulting cost per acer foot of distribution capacity is $7,112 resulting in a cost per service unit of $1,991.43. Figure W8: Infrastructure Improvement Plan: Distribution Development Fee Report – Plan-Based The cost to prepare the Water Facilities Development Fees and IIP report totals $30,536. Oro Valley plans to update its report every five years. Based on this cost, proportionate share, and five-year water meter connection projections, the cost is $21.73 per meter. Figure W9: Development Fee Report Cost Allocation Necessary Public Service Cost Assessed Against Proportionate Share Demand Unit 2019 2024 Change Cost per Demand Unit Residential Nonresidential 26,010 $21.7324,605 1,405Connections100%$30,536Water Infrastructure Improvement Plan: Distribution Year Description Cost less Existing DIF Balance Net Cost Capacity (acre-feet) Net Cost per AF Service Units Cost per Service Unit (ERU) 2020-2021 Moore Road F-Zone Interconnect $750,000 ($281,205)$468,795 807 $581 2,882 $162.66 2019-2024 Water Plant 14 Booster Capacity Expansion $250,000 ($93,735)$156,265 161 $971 575 $271.77 2019-2020 (P)Pipeline Design (Recovery Water & Transmission)$660,692 ($247,719)$412,973 1,440 $287 5,143 $80.30 2021-2023 (P)Pipeline Construction $4,320,000 ($1,619,738)$2,700,262 1,440 $1,875 5,143 $525.05 2018-2019 (Ind.)Pipeline Route Study and Preliminary Design $120,000 ($44,993)$75,007 1,440 $52 5,143 $14.58 2019-2020 (Ind.)Pipeline Easement Acquisition $450,000 ($168,723)$281,277 1,440 $195 5,143 $54.69 2019-2020 (Ind.)Pipeline Design $600,000 ($224,964)$375,036 1,440 $260 5,143 $72.92 2024-2025 (Ind.)Pipeline Construction NWRRDS to La Canada Res.$5,880,000 ($2,204,643)$3,675,357 1,440 $2,552 5,143 $714.65 2024-2025 (Int.)Interconnect to Tangerine Rd.$270,000 ($101,234)$168,766 1,440 $117 5,143 $32.82 2024-2025 (Int.)Interconnect to Lambert Lane $510,000 ($191,219)$318,781 1,440 $221 5,143 $61.99 $13,810,692 ($5,178,172)$8,632,520 $7,112 Total Cost per SU $1,991.43 Infrastructure Improvement Plan: Storage Year Description Cost less Existing DIF Balance Net Cost Capacity (acre-feet) Net Cost per AF Service Units Cost per Service Unit (ERU) 2019-2023 Palisades C-Zone Storage Tank and Pipeline $4,250,000 ($1,593,492)$2,656,508 1,120 $2,372 4,000 $664.13 2028-2033 Pressure Zone G Storage Expansion $8,000,000 ($2,999,515)$5,000,485 1,120 $4,465 4,000 $1,250.12 2028-2033 Pressure Zone G, H and I Storage Expansion $4,000,000 ($1,499,757)$2,500,243 1,120 $2,232 4,000 $625.06 2019-2020 (P)Forebay Design $99,231 ($37,206)$62,025 1,440 $43 5,143 $12.06 2021-2023 (P)Forebay Reservoir Construction $900,000 ($337,445)$562,555 1,440 $391 5,143 $109.39 2020-2021 (Ind.)Shannon Rd Forebay Reservoir And Booster Station Prop $240,000 ($89,985)$150,015 1,440 $104 5,143 $29.17 2019-2020 (Ind.)Forebay Reservoir Booster Station Design $90,000 ($33,745)$56,255 1,440 $39 5,143 $10.94 2020-2021 (Ind.)Shannon Rd Forebay Reservoir and Booster Station Design $180,000 ($67,489)$112,511 1,440 $78 5,143 $21.88 2021-2022 (Ind.)Booster Station Construction Forebay Res.$300,000 ($112,482)$187,518 1,440 $130 5,143 $36.46 2022-2024 (Ind.)Shannon Road Forebay Res. Construction $840,000 ($314,949)$525,051 1,440 $365 5,143 $102.09 2022-2024 (Ind.)Shannon Road Forebay Res. Construction $540,000 ($202,467)$337,533 1,440 $234 5,143 $65.63 Source: 2018 TOVWU Potable Water Master Plan $19,439,231 ($7,288,533)$12,150,698 $10,453 Total Cost per SU $2,926.93 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 53 WATER DEVELOPMENT FEE Revenue Credit/Offset A revenue credit/offset is not necessary for the Water Facilities development fees because 10-year growth costs approximates the amount of revenue that is projected to be generated by development fees according to the Land Use Assumptions, as shown in Figure W11. Proposed Water Facilities Development Fees The proposed Water Facilities development fees for Water Facilities are shown in Figures W10. For a single family residential 5/8”-inch water meter, the proposed fee is found by multiplying the cost per ERU ($6,249.40) by the AWWA capacity ratio (1.0) and the demand adjustment factor (1.0) and adding the $21.73 fee study cost per meter (see Figure W9). Equivalent residential service unit factors for commercial/industrial meters recognize that these types of meters use more water on average than a comparably sized single family water meter. For example, a typical single family meter demands 0.28 acre feet a year, whereas commercial/industrial users in Oro Valley demand 0.31 acre feet annually, which is 1.11 times the single family residential equivalent. The development fee for irrigation and nonresidential meters is determined by multiplying the cost per service unit by the meter capacity ratio and the demand adjustment factor then adding the cost per meter of $21.73. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 54 Figure W10: Proposed Water Facilities Development Fees Demand Factor per Service Unit (1 EDU)Component Supply $1,125.80 Storage $2,926.93 Distribution $1,991.43 Excess Capacity CAP Water $320.74 Net Capital Cost per Service Unit $6,364.89 Cost Factors per Connection Fee Study $21.73 Share Net Capital Cost per Meter $21.73 Proposed and Current Utility Development Fees (PWSDIF) Residential Residential Meter Size Capacity Ratio 1 Demand Adjustment Factor 2 Proposed Fee Current Fees Increase / (Decrease) 5/8" 1.00 1.00 $6,387 $6,060 $327 3/4" 1.50 1.00 $9,569 $9,089 $480 1"2.50 1.00 $15,934 $15,148 $786 1.5" standard 5.00 1.00 $31,846 $30,297 $1,549 2" compound 8.00 1.00 $50,941 $48,474 $2,467 Mulit-Family (Per Unit)N/A 0.32 $2,044 $2,908 ($864) Nonresidential Nonresidential Meter Size Capacity Ratio 1 Demand Adjustment Factor 2 Proposed Fee Current Fees Increase / (Decrease) 5/8" 1.00 1.11 $7,087 $7,877 ($790) 3/4" 1.50 1.11 $10,619 $11,816 ($1,197) 1"2.50 1.11 $17,684 $19,693 ($2,009) 1.5" standard 5.00 1.11 $35,347 $39,385 ($4,038) 2" compound 8.00 1.11 $56,542 $63,016 ($6,474) 3" compound 16.00 1.11 $113,062 $126,032 ($12,970) 4" compound 25.00 1.11 $176,647 $196,925 ($20,278) 6" compound 50.00 1.11 $353,273 $393,850 ($40,577) 8" compound 80.00 1.11 $565,224 $630,161 ($64,937) Irrigation Meter Size Irrigation Meter Size Capacity Ratio 1 Demand Adjustment Factor 2 Proposed Fee Current Fees Increase / (Decrease) 5/8" 1.00 2.25 $14,343 $10,906 $3,437 3/4" 1.50 2.25 $21,503 $16,360 $5,143 1"2.50 2.25 $35,824 $27,266 $8,558 1.5" standard 5.00 2.25 $71,627 $54,533 $17,094 2" compound 8.00 2.25 $114,590 $87,253 $27,337 3" compound 16.00 2.25 $229,158 $174,506 $54,652 4" compound 25.00 2.25 $358,047 $272,666 $85,381 6" compound 50.00 2.25 $716,072 $545,331 $170,741 8" compound 80.00 2.25 $1,145,702 $872,530 $273,172 1. AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices M1, 7th Edition. 2. Based on local water demand Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 55 FORECAST OF REVENUES Appendix B contains the forecast of revenues required by Arizona’s Enabling Legislation. Development Fee Revenues for Water Facilities Revenue projections shown below assume implementation of the proposed Water Facilities development fees and that development over the next 10 years is consistent with the Land Use Assumptions. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. As shown in Figure W11, the 10-year water improvement costs total $24.75 million and approximately $24.1 million will be collected from development fees. Figure W11: Projected Water Facilities Development Fee Revenue Costs for Water Facilities Expansion $6,300,000 $19,439,231 $13,810,692 Fee Study $30,536 TOTAL $39,580,459 Less AWR & PWS DIF Balances ($14,828,823) Net WRS System Facility Expansion Cost $24,751,636 Ten-Year Water Facility Development Fee Revenue $6,387 $10,619 $14,343 $21.73 per SU per SU per SU per connection Residential Nonresidential Irrigation Connections Base 2018 20,920 1,967 1,351 24,238 Year 1 2019 21,236 1,999 1,370 24,605 Year 2 2020 21,554 2,031 1,389 24,975 Year 3 2021 21,862 2,064 1,408 25,335 Year 4 2022 22,157 2,098 1,426 25,681 Year 5 2023 22,435 2,132 1,443 26,010 Year 6 2024 22,705 2,167 1,459 26,331 Year 7 2025 22,972 2,202 1,475 26,649 Year 8 2026 23,232 2,237 1,491 26,961 Year 9 2027 23,484 2,274 1,506 27,264 Year 10 2028 23,731 2,311 1,521 27,563 2,811 344 170 3,325 $17,953,073 $3,651,510 $2,443,332 $72,268 Total Revenue $24,120,183 Total Expenditures $24,751,636 Surplus / (Deficit)($631,453) Supply Projects Storage Projects Distribution Projects Year Ten-Year Increase Projected Revenue Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 56 APPENDIX A: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For municipalities in Arizona, the state enabling legislation requires supporting documentation on land use assumptions, a plan for infrastructure improvements, and development fee calculations. This document contains the land use assumptions for the Town of Oro Valley’s 2019 development fee update. Development fees must be updated every five years, making short-range projections the critical time frame. The Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP) is limited to 10 years for non-utility fees, thus a very long-range “build-out” analysis may not be used to derive development fees. Arizona Revised Statuses (ARS) § 9-463.05 (T)(6) requires the preparation of a Land Use Assumptions document which shows: “Projections of change in land uses, densities, intensities and population for a specified service area over a period of at least 10 years and pursuant to the General Plan of the municipality.” TischlerBise prepared current demographic estimates and future development projections for both residential and nonresidential development that will be used in the Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) and calculation of the development fees. Demographic data for FY 18-19 (beginning July 1, 2018) are used in calculating levels-of-service provided to existing development in the Town of Oro Valley. Although long- range projections are necessary for planning infrastructure systems, a shorter time frame of five to 10 years is critical for the impact fees analysis. TischlerBise used compound growth rates to produce conservative projections that increase over time. SERVICE AREA ARS § 9-63.05 defines “service area” as follows: “Any specified area within the boundaries of a municipality in which development will be served by necessary public services or facility expansions and within which a substantial nexus exists between the necessary public services or facility expansions and the development being served as prescribed in the infrastructure improvements plan.” The Town’s previous Land Use Assumptions, Infrastructure Improvement Plan and Development Study recommended a single services area, shown below in Figure A1. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 57 Figure A1: Current Development Fee Service Area Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 58 Much of the land in Oro Valley is characterized by a built environment of dispersed, detached single family housing, transected by arterial roadways leading to concentrated nodes of businesses, institutions and commercial development from with, largely single-family lots spread out to the northern edges. As a result of the development pattern, the Town relies on a variety of revenues and funding mechanisms to pay for public infrastructure and facilities which service residents. Oro Valley has embraced numerous policies and plans to guide future development, most notably the 2016 Your Voice, Our Future General Plan aimed at encouraging new development as much as possible to pay the proportional share of growth- related infrastructure improvements for area roads, parks, police, fire and public facilities. In light of the plan-specific policies outlined by the Town along with discussions with Town staff regarding anticipated development patterns and infrastructure needs, TischlerBise is recommending no changes to the Development Fee Service Area as displayed in Figure A1. The single Development Fee Service Area is supported first and foremost because, parks and recreation, police, and roadway infrastructure are intended to serve the entire Town with a standard level of service as opposed to bounded districts or subareas. As an example, referring to Figure A1, a new residential development in the northeast area is still likely to also utilize regional parks or police facilities located throughout Town. Furthermore, many services such as police and roadway infrastructure react to deployment changes over time based on migration patterns of people and are not necessarily restricted to specific geographic sub-zones. As such, TischlerBise is recommending all fees for these categories be assessed as a Townwide fee. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Current estimates and future projections of residential development are detailed in this section, including population and housing units by type (single family versus multi-family units). Current (2018) estimates of housing units were obtained using annual housing unit permit data provided by the Town of Oro Valley’s Planning & Development Services department. Population estimates were derived from the Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity (AOEO), 2018 Place Level Population tables along with 2016-2050 Sub-County projections and the persons per housing unit ratio derived from the 2017 U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Persons per Housing Unit In 2010 the U.S. Census Bureau transitioned from the traditional long-form questionnaire to the American Community Survey, which is less detailed and has smaller sample sizes. As a result, Census data now has more limitations than before. For example, data on detached housing units are now combined with attached single units (commonly known as townhouses). For development fees in Oro Valley, “single-unit” residential includes detached units and townhouses that share a common sidewall, but are constructed on an individual parcel of land. The second residential category includes all structures with two or more units on an individual parcel of land. According to the Census Bureau, a household is a housing unit that is occupied by year-round residents. Development fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit, or persons per household, to derive proportionate-share fee amounts. When persons per housing unit are used in the fee calculations, infrastructure standards are derived using year-round population. When persons per Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 59 household are used in the fee calculations, the development fee methodology assumes all housing units will be occupied, this requiring seasonal or peak population to be used when deriving infrastructure standards. TischlerBise recommends that development fees for residential development in the Town of Oro Valley be imposed according to a number of year-round residents per housing unit. For the development fee calculations, TischlerBise used the ACS results shown at the top of Figure A2 to indicate the relative number of persons per housing unit, by units in a residential structure, and the housing mix in Oro Valley. The ratio of persons per housing unit (PPHU) across housing types is 2.00. To estimate population for future years, however, PAG average annual growth rates are applied to base year population estimates and described further in this report. According to the 2017 ACS estimates, the share of multi-family housing in Oro Valley is approximately 16%. In 2017, approximately 13% of the housing stock in Oro Valley was vacant or used by seasonal residents. Figure A2: Year-Round Persons per Unit by Type of Housing Current Residential Estimates To estimate the current number of housing units, TischlerBise used building permit data from 2010 through 2018 provided by the Town of Oro Valley’s Planning & Development Services Department which were added to the total housing unit count from the 100 percent 2010 Decennial Census. Base year population estimates were derived from AOEO. These estimates are shown in Figure A3 below, along with 2028 projections. The estimates show there were 45,184 persons and 22,636 housing units in Oro Valley in 2018, and project 51,175 residents and 25,632 housing units by 2028. Figure A3: Oro Valley Population and Housing Estimates for 2018 and 2028 Figure A4 shows Oro Valley’s recent housing unit permit totals by fiscal year, provided by the Town’s Planning & Development Services. The average number of residential units permitted per year during this Single-Family Unit1 37,509 17,908 2.09 83.6%12% Multi-Family Unit 2 5,305 3,517 1.51 16.4%14% TOTAL 42,814 21,425 2.00 13% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates. 1. Includes detached, attached (townhouse), and manufactured units. 2. Includes duplexes, structures with two or more units, and all other units. Persons per Housing Unit Housing Units Vacancy Rate Housing MixPersonsUnit Type 2018 2028 2018 2028 22,636 25,632 45,184 51,175 Increase Housing Units Population 2,996 5,991 Source: Population-AOEO 2018 Population Estimates. 2019-2028 growth rates from AOEO. 2018 Housing derived from Oro Valley Building Permit Data. Housing projections based on population growth and 2017 ACS PPHU estimates. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 60 eight-year period was 287, although there was a high degree of variation from year to year. Single family permits have been steadily increasing from a low of 47 at the tail end of the Great Recession to a high of 338 in 2017, while multi-family unit permits appear to far more inconsistent ranging from a high of 646 in 2014 to zero in other years, but have averaged 101 per year over the time period. The general trend in housing unit permits is increasing. Figure A4: Recent Residential Permits by Fiscal Year Residential Projections To derive the 10-year housing unit projections, TischlerBise started with the 100 percent 2010 Decennial Census figure of 20,340 housing units and added the permit figures for fiscal years 2010-18 from Figure A4 (1,490 SF and 806 MF units = 2,296) resulting in a base year figure of 22,636 housing units. Housing unit estimates for 2018 through 2028 were calculated using the AOEO 2016-2028 population estimated average annual growth rate of 1.20 percent and applying the 2017 ACS PPHU figure of 2.00 across all housing types. The resulting annual growth in housing units for the 2018-2028 period is 299 units per year, shown in Figure A5. The 2010 through 2018 building permit data show an average of 287 total units per year and imply an average annual growth rate in housing units of 1.28 percent. These growth rates likely reflect the recent short-term increase in building activity and favorable economic conditions. According to Town building permit data, the housing mix of 76 percent single family units and 24 percent multi-family units was assumed to remain constant. Oro Valley is projected to add 2,996 housing units between 2018 and 2028. Oro Valley’s population projections, also shown in Figure A5, were derived by first establishing a base year population from AOEO and then applying their annual rate of growth projection of 1.20 percent. Oro Valley is projected to add 5,991 residents between 2018 and 2028. Year Single Family Multi-Family Total Cumulative 2010/11 47 0 47 47 2011/12 63 0 63 110 2012/13 217 144 361 471 2013/14 136 646 782 1,253 2014/15 142 0 142 1,395 2015/16 220 0 220 1,615 2016/17 338 0 338 1,953 2017/18 327 16 343 2,296 Avg.186 101 287 Source: Planning Division, Oro Valley, Arizona. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 61 Figure A5: Oro Valley Residential Development Projections NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT In addition to data on residential development, the infrastructure improvements plan and development fees require data on nonresidential development in Oro Valley. Current estimates and future projections of nonresidential development are detailed in this section, including jobs and floor area by type. TischlerBise uses the terms “jobs” to refer to employment by place of work. Jobs by Type of Nonresidential Development To estimate the current number of jobs, TischlerBise applied most recent, (2015) U.S. Census OnTheMap Longitudinal-Employer Household statistics for the Town of Oro Valley to the 2016-2026 Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity annual industry growth estimate for the area of 1.6 percent. Jobs were aggregated into one of four categories: Industrial, Commercial, Institutional, and Office & Other. These estimates are shown in Figure A6 below. Analysis estimates there were 10,642 jobs in Oro Valley in 2018, and the number of jobs will grow to 12,473 by 2028. Figure A6: Oro Valley Jobs Estimates for 2018 and 2028 Looking more closely at the projections, AOEO forecast 1.6% annual growth in employment per year between 2018 and 2028. Oro Valley’s 10-year job projections through 2028 are shown in Figure A7. The Multi Year Increments>>> Base 1 2 3 4 5 10 10-Year Population 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028 Increase Population 45,184 45,857 46,536 47,192 47,820 48,413 51,175 5,991 Housing Units 22,636 22,973 23,312 23,640 23,954 24,250 25,632 2,996 Population Single Family Population 39,585 40,175 40,770 41,345 41,894 42,414 44,834 5,249 Multi-Family Population 5,599 5,682 5,766 5,847 5,925 5,999 6,341 742 Total Population 45,184 45,857 46,536 47,192 47,820 48,413 51,175 Housing Units Single-Family 17,158 17,459 17,717 17,966 18,205 18,430 19,480 2,322 Multi-Family 5,478 5,513 5,595 5,674 5,749 5,820 6,152 674 2018 2028 Industrial Jobs 1,008 1,181 173 Commercial & Retail Jobs 3,296 3,864 568 Institutional Jobs 507 594 87 Office & Other Jobs 5,831 6,834 1,003 Total Jobs 10,642 12,473 1,831 Oro Valley Employment Increase Source: 2015 estimates from OnTheMap. Sector Growth rates (1.6%) based on AOEO 2016-2026 projections. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 62 Town is expected to add a total of 1,831 jobs by 2028, and 54 percent this job growth (1,003 jobs) is projected to come from the Office and Other Services jobs category. Figure A7: Oro Valley Employment Projections Nonresidential Floor Area by Type of Development Figure A8 indicates 2018 floor area estimates for the Town of Oro Valley grouped into four industry classifications: Industrial, Commercial/Retail, Institutional and Office/Other Services. Floor area by sector was derived from 2015 OnTheMap employment figures which were adjusted to 2018 by applying the AOEO employment growth rate of 1.6%. Utilizing 2018 employment estimates, TischlerBise then applied ITE square foot per employee figures to derive current estimated nonresidential floor area by industry sector. 2019-2028 projections utilize AOEO growth in employment and ITE factors in the same manner. Institutional uses have the highest square foot per job ratio at 1,076, followed by Industrial at 615 square feet per job, Commercial at 427 square feet per job, and Office & Other at 337 square feet per job. The last column in Figure A9 shows the ratio of jobs per 1,000 square feet from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2017). In total, Oro Valley is projected to add 781,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area by 2028. Figure A8: Nonresidential Floor Area Estimates for 2018 and 2028 Figure A9 shows the ITE’s ratios of jobs per 1,000 square feet and average weekday vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet, broken down by nonresidential land use category. Gray shading indicates the four nonresidential development prototypes used by TischlerBise to correlate Oro Valley’s projected job growth with nonresidential floor area growth and vehicle trips generated by development. Multi Year Increments>>> Base 1 2 3 4 5 10 10-Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028 Increase Industrial 1,008 1,024 1,040 1,057 1,074 1,091 1,181 173 Commercial / Retail 3,296 3,349 3,403 3,457 3,513 3,569 3,864 568 Institutional 507 515 523 531 540 549 594 87 Office & Other Services 5,831 5,924 6,019 6,115 6,213 6,313 6,834 1,003 Total Jobs 10,642 10,812 10,985 11,160 11,340 11,522 12,473 1,831 Multi Year Increments>>> Base 1 2 3 4 5 10 10-Year Nonresidential Floor Area (KFS)2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028 Increase Industrial 620 630 640 650 661 671 726 106 Commercial / Retail 1,407 1,430 1,453 1,476 1,500 1,524 1,650 243 Institutional 545 554 563 571 581 591 639 94 Office & Other Services 1,965 1,996 2,028 2,061 2,094 2,127 2,303 338 Total 4,538 4,610 4,684 4,758 4,835 4,913 5,318 781 Source: 2018 Floor Area Estimate by sector , Base 2015 OnTheMap employment by sector. Employment Growth rates based on AOEO 2016-2026 growth projections. Sq. Ft. conversion from ITE 10th Edition (2017) Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 63 Figure A9: ITE Employee and Trip Generation Ratios AVERAGE WEEKDAY VEHICLE TRIPS Average Weekday Vehicle Trips are used as a measure of demand by land use. Vehicle trips are estimated using average weekday vehicle trip ends from the reference book, Trip Generation, 10th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 2017. A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). Trip Rate Adjustments To calculate street development fees, trip generation rates require an adjustment factor to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50 percent. As discussed further below, the development impact fee methodology includes additional adjustments to make the fees proportionate to the infrastructure demand for particular types of development. Commuter Trip Adjustment Residential development has a larger trip adjustment factor of 63 percent to account for commuters leaving Oro Valley for work. According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (see Table 30) weekday work trips are typically 31 percent of production trips (i.e., all out-bound trips, which are 50 percent of all trip ends). As shown in Figure A10, the U.S. Census Bureau’s OnTheMap web application indicates that 87 percent of resident workers traveled outside of Oro Valley for work in 2015. In combination, these factors (0.31 x 0.50 x 0.87 = 0.13) support the additional 13 percent allocation of trips to residential development. ITE Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft Code Unit Per Dmd Unit1 Per Employee1 Dmd Unit Per Emp 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 4.96 3.05 1.63 615 130 Industrial Park 1,000 Sq Ft 3.37 2.91 1.16 864 140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.93 2.47 1.59 628 150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 1.74 5.05 0.34 2,902 520 Elementary School 1,000 Sq Ft 19.52 21.00 0.93 1,076 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 10.72 3.79 2.83 354 710 General Office (average size)1,000 Sq Ft 9.74 3.28 2.97 337 720 Medical-Dental Office 1,000 Sq Ft 34.80 8.70 4.00 250 730 Government Office 1,000 Sq Ft 22.59 7.45 3.03 330 760 Research & Dev Center 1,000 Sq Ft 11.26 3.29 3.42 292 820 Shopping Center (average size)1,000 Sq Ft 37.75 16.11 2.34 427 1. Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 10th Edition (2017). Land Use / Size Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 64 Figure A10: Commuter Trip Adjustment Adjustment for Pass-By Trips For commercial development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50 percent because retail development attracts vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For the average shopping center, ITE data indicate 34 percent of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 66 percent of attraction trips have the commercial site as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 66 percent multiplied by 50 percent, or approximately 33 percent of the trip ends. Estimated Residential Vehicle Trip Rates As an alternative to simply using the national average trip generation rate for residential development, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes regression curve formulas that may be used to derive custom trip generation rates, using local demographic data. Key independent variables needed for the analysis (i.e. vehicles available, housing units, households, and persons) are available from American Community Survey data. Shown in Figure A11, custom trip generation rates for Oro Valley vary slightly from the national averages. For example, single-family residential development is expected to generate 8.20 average weekday vehicle trip ends per dwelling – compared to the national average of 9.44 (ITE 210). Multi-family residential development is expected to generate 4.30 average weekday vehicle trip ends per dwelling, which is lower than the national average of 5.44 (ITE 221). Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters 1 Employed Residents 14,961 Residents Working in Oro Valley 1,946 Residents Working Outside Oro Valley (Commuters)13,015 Percent Commuting out of Oro Valley 87% Additional Production Trips2 13% Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 63% 1. U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application (version 6.6) and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, 2015. 2. According to the National Household Travel Survey (2009)*, published in December 2011 (see Table 30), home-based work trips are typically 30.99 percent of “production” trips, in other words, out-bound trips (which are 50 percent of all trip ends). Also, LED OnTheMap data from 2015 indicate that 87 percent of Oro Valley workers travel outside the town for work. In combination, these factors (0.3099 x 0.50 x 0.87 = 0.1347) account for 13 percent of additional production trips. The total adjustment factor for residential includes attraction trips (50 percent of trip ends) plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment (13 percent of production trips) for a total of 63 percent. *http://nhts.ornl.gov/publications.shtml ; Summary of Travel Trends - Table "Daily Travel Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 65 Figure A11: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends by Housing Type Owner-occupied 26,777 13,920 164 14,084 1.90 Renter-occupied 6,732 1,757 2,850 4,607 1.46 TOTAL 33,509 15,677 3,014 18,691 1.79 Persons in Trip Vehicles by Trip Average Housing Households 3 Ends 4 Type of Unit Ends 5 Trip Ends Units 6 Oro Valley ITE 7 Single-Family 37,509 104,432 29,033 189,224 146,828 17,908 8.20 9.44 Multi-Family 5,305 12,067 4,476 17,931 14,999 3,517 4.30 5.44 TOTAL 42,814 116,500 33,509 207,155 161,827 21,425 7.60 1. Vehicles available by tenure from Table B25046, American Community Survey, 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates. 2. Households by tenure and units in structure from Table B25032, American Community Survey, 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates. 3. Total population in households from Table25033, American Community Survey, 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates. 6. Housing units from Table B25024, American Community Survey, 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates. 7. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 10th Edition (2017). Trip Ends per Unit 4. Vehicle trips ends based on persons using formulas from Trip Generation (ITE 2017). For single-family housing (ITE 210), the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.89*LN(persons)+1.72). To approximate the average population of the ITE studies, persons were divided by 67 and the equation result multiplied by 67. For multi-family housing (ITE 221), the fitted curve equation is (2.29*persons)-81.02. 5. Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formulas from Trip Generation (ITE 2017). For single-family housing (ITE 210), the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.99*LN(vehicles)+1.93). To approximate the average number of vehicles in the ITE studies, vehicles available were divided by 113 and the equation result multiplied by 113. For multi-family housing (ITE 221), the fitted curve equation is (3.94*vehicles)+293.58. Households by Structure Type2 Vehicles Available1 Single- Family Multi-Family Total Vehicles per HH by Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 66 Functional Population TischlerBise recommends functional population to allocate the cost of certain facilities to residential and nonresidential development. As shown in Figure A12, functional population accounts for people living and working in a jurisdiction. OnTheMap is a web-based mapping and reporting application that shows where workers are employed and where they live. It describes geographic patterns of jobs by their employment locations and residential locations as well as the connections between the two locations. OnTheMap was developed through a unique partnership between the U.S. Census Bureau and its Local Employment Dynamics (LED) partner states. Residents that do not work are assigned 20 hours per day to residential development and four hours per day to nonresidential development (annualized averages). Residents that work in Oro Valley are assigned 14 hours to residential development and 10 hours to nonresidential development. Residents that work outside Oro Valley are assigned 14 hours to residential development. Inflow commuters are assigned 10 hours to nonresidential development. Based on 2015 functional population data for Oro Valley, the proportionate share is 78 percent for residential development and 22 percent for nonresidential development. Figure A12: Functional Population Demand Person Proportionate Hours/Day Hours Share Residential Estimated Residents 42,259 Residents Not Working 27,298 20 545,960 Employed Residents 14,961 Employed in Oro Valley 1,946 14 27,244 Employed outside Oro Valley 13,015 14 182,210 Residential Subtotal 755,414 78% Nonresidential Non-working Residents 27,298 4 109,192 Jobs in Oro Valley 10,147 Residents Employed in Oro Valley 1,946 10 19,460 Non-Resident Workers (inflow Commuters)8,201 10 82,010 Nonresidential Subtotal 210,662 22% TOTAL 966,076 100% Source: Pima Association of Governments 2015 Population Estimate; U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap 6.6 Application, 2015. Demand Units in 2015 Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 67 SUMMARY OF GROWTH INDICATORS Development projections for the Town are summarized in Figure A13. These projections will be used to estimate development fee revenue and to indicate the anticipated need for growth-related infrastructure. However, development fees methodologies are designed to reduce sensitivity to accurate development projections in the determination of the proportionate-share fee amounts. If actual development is slower than projected, development fees revenues will decline, but so will the need for growth-related infrastructure. In contrast, if development is faster than anticipated, the Town will receive an increase in development fee revenue but will also need to accelerate capital improvements to keep pace with development. Figure A13: Municipal Planning Area Projections and Growth Rates Development projections are based on U.S. Census OnTheMap 2015 employment estimates with 2016- 2028 AOEO industry growth rates applied by sector for 2019 through 2028. TischlerBise used historical Town building permit data to estimate 2018 housing unit totals and AOEO 2016-2050 growth rates to project future population growth. Population data were converted to housing units utilizing Oro Valley’s PPHU size of 2.00 and job data were converted to nonresidential floor area using the methods described in this Land Use Assumptions document. Multi Year Increments>>> 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028 Cumulative Increase Base Yr 1 2 3 4 5 10 Population 45,184 45,857 46,536 47,192 47,820 48,413 51,175 5,991 Housing Units 22,636 22,973 23,312 23,640 23,954 24,250 25,632 2,996 Jobs Industrial 1,008 1,024 1,040 1,057 1,074 1,091 1,181 173 Commercial / Retail 3,296 3,349 3,403 3,457 3,513 3,569 3,864 568 Institutional 507 515 523 531 540 549 594 87 Office & Other Services 5,831 5,924 6,019 6,115 6,213 6,313 6,834 1,003 Total Jobs 10,642 10,812 10,985 11,160 11,340 11,522 12,473 1,831 Nonresidential Floor Area (x 1,000) Industrial KSF 620 630 640 650 661 671 726 106 Commercial / Retail KSF 1,407 1,430 1,453 1,476 1,500 1,524 1,650 243 Institutional KSF 545 554 563 571 581 591 639 94 Office & Other Services KSF 1,965 1,996 2,028 2,061 2,094 2,127 2,303 338 Total Nonresidential KSF 4,538 4,610 4,684 4,758 4,835 4,913 5,318 781 10-Year Increase Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 68 APPENDIX B: FORECAST OF REVENUES To be completed after adoption of the Land Use Assumptions and Infrastructure Improvement Plan. Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Report Town of Oro Valley, Arizona 69 APPENDIX C: ARTERIAL STREET SEGMENTS INVENTORY Street Location Segment Length (Miles) Total Lanes Lane Miles Total AADT Vehicle Miles of Travel 1st Ave Oracle Rd to Lambert Ln 0.414 4.0 1.7 24,340 10,077 1st Ave Lambert Ln to Naranja Dr 0.365 4.0 1.5 15,746 5,747 1st Ave Naranja Dr to Tangerine Rd 0.997 4.0 4.0 15,746 15,699 Calle Buena Vista Calle Concordia to Hardy 1.000 2.0 2.0 3,533 3,533 Calle Concordia Calle Loma Linda to Calle Buena Vista 0.499 2.0 1.0 4,300 2,146 Calle Concordia Calle Buena Vista to Overlook 0.708 2.0 1.4 4,300 3,044 Calle Concordia Overlook to Hwy 77 0.708 2.0 1.4 4,300 3,044 Hardy Rd Calle Loma Linda to Calle Buena Vista 0.501 2.0 1.0 5,384 2,697 Hardy Rd Calle Buena Vista to Oracle Rd 0.534 2.0 1.1 5,384 2,875 Innovation Park SR -989 to Rancho Vistoso 1.248 2.0 2.5 6,000 7,488 La Canada Dr Oro Valley TB to Calle Concordia 0.505 4.0 2.0 11,749 5,933 La Canada Dr Oro Valley TB to Rancho Sonora 0.647 4.0 2.6 11,750 7,602 La Canada Dr Rancho Sonora Dr to Lambert lane 0.414 4.0 1.7 11,750 4,865 La Canada Dr Lambert Ln to Naranja Dr 0.997 4.0 4.0 14,658 14,614 La Canada Dr Naranja Dr to Tangerine Rd 0.971 4.0 3.9 10,382 10,081 La Canada Dr Tangerine Rd to Moore Rd 1.000 4.0 4.0 5,058 5,058 La Cholla Blvd 0.5 mi. S of Lambert to Lambert Ln 0.500 2.0 1.0 14,246 7,123 La Cholla Blvd Lambert Ln to Naranja Dr 1.007 2.0 2.0 10,669 10,744 La Cholla Blvd Naranja Dr to Tangerine Rd 0.966 2.0 1.9 9,870 9,534 La Cholla Blvd Tangerine Rd to Oro Valley TB 0.258 2.0 0.5 2,798 722 Lambert Ln La Cholla Blvd to Rancho Sonora 0.625 2.0 1.3 9,437 5,898 Lambert Ln Rancho Sonora Dr to La Canada Dr 0.369 2.0 0.7 9,437 3,482 Lambert Ln La Canada Dr to Highlands Dr 1.290 2.0 2.6 11,938 15,400 Lambert Ln Pusch View to 1st Ave 1.017 2.0 2.0 11,931 12,134 Linda Vista Linda Vista Widening E of Oracle Rd 0.100 2.0 0.2 2,798 280 Magee Road Northern Ave to Oracle Rd 0.219 2.0 0.4 14,146 3,098 Magee Road Oracle Rd to Town Limits 0.787 2.0 1.6 1,888 1,486 Moore Road La Cholla Blvd to Copper Spring Trl 1.558 2.0 3.1 3,621 5,642 Moore Road Moore Rd, Yellow Orchard -Mystic View 0.300 2.0 0.6 3,620 1,086 Moore Road Copper Spring Trl to Woodburne Ave.0.804 2.0 1.6 3,621 2,911 Moore Road Woodburne Ave. to Rancho Vistoso 0.286 2.0 0.6 3,621 1,036 Naranja Dr Naranja Two-Way Left Turn Lane 1.000 3.0 3.0 2,000 5,432 Naranja Dr Shannon Road to La Cholla Blvd 1.000 2.0 2.0 2,000 2,000 Naranja Dr La Cholla Blvd to La Canada Dr 0.998 2.0 2.0 7,883 7,867 Naranja Dr La Canada Dr to 1st Ave 2.020 2.0 4.0 3,977 8,034 Northern Ave.Magee Road to Camino Cortaro 0.496 2.0 1.0 8,440 4,186 Northern Ave.Camino Cortaro to Hardy Road 0.507 2.0 1.0 8,440 4,279 Pusch View Lane Lambert Lane to Oracle Road 0.644 4.0 2.6 5,926 3,816 Rancho Vistoso Tangerine Rd to Moore Rd 1.466 4.0 5.9 18,566 27,218 Rancho Vistoso Moore Rd to Sun City Blvd 2.447 4.0 9.8 3,481 8,518 Rancho Vistoso Sun City Blvd to Del webb Blvd 1.117 4.0 4.5 8,209 9,169 Rancho Vistoso Del webb Blvd to Innovation Park 0.815 4.0 3.3 12,938 10,544 Rancho Vistoso Innovation Park Dr to SR-77 0.414 4.0 1.7 12,932 5,354 Shannon Rd Lambert Ln to Naranja 0.985 2.0 2.0 2,582 2,543 Tangerine Rd Tangerine Rd, Shannon Rd-La Canada Dr 2.000 4.0 8.0 11,241 44,968 Tangerine Rd Shannon Rd to La Cholla Blvd 0.981 2.0 2.0 11,242 11,028 Tangerine Rd La Cholla Blvd to La Canada Dr 1.007 2.0 2.0 13,316 13,409 Tangerine Rd La Canada Dr to Mandarin Ln 1.580 4.0 6.3 18,640 29,451 Vistoso Comm Lp Rancho Vistoso Bd to Oracle Road 0.444 4.0 1.8 1,538 683 TOTAL 41.5 118.5 383,580 Draft Land Use Assumptions and IIP PresentationJanuary 8, 2020Town of Oro Valley, AZ 2TischlerBiseTischlerBise | www.tischlerbise.comApache JunctionAvondaleBuckeyeCamp VerdeCasa GrandeCoolidgeDewey-HumboldtEloyFlagstaffFlorenceFountain HillsGilbertGlendaleGoodyearKingmanMaricopaNogalesPaysonPinetop-LakesideQueen CreekSaffordSedonaSierra VistaSurpriseTucsonYuma40-year consulting practice serving local government nationwide•Impact fees/infrastructure financing strategies•Fiscal/economic impact analyses•Capital improvement planning•Infrastructure finance/revenue enhancement•Real estate and market feasibility 3Methodology OverviewTischlerBise | www.tischlerbise.comIncrementalExpansion Parks and RecreationalTownwideDeveloped Parks, Park AmenitiesDevelopment Fee Study N/APopulation, JobsPoliceTownwide  Vehicles Development Fee Study FacilitiesPopulation, Nonres. TripsStreetTownwideArterial Lane Miles, Signalized IntersectionsDevelopment Fee Study N/A VMTWaterTownwide N/ADevelopment Fee Study, Water Distribution, Storage and SupplyN/A GallonsFacilityTypeServiceAreaPlan‐BasedCostRecoveryCostAllocation 4Legal and Methodology•One-time payment for growth-related infrastructure, usually collected at the time buildings permits are issued•Can’t be used for operations, maintenance, or replacement•Not a tax but more like a contractual arrangement to build infrastructure, with three requirements»Need (system improvements, not project-level improvements)»BenefitoShort range expendituresoGeographic service areas and/or benefit districts»Proportionate 5Arizona Legislation•Three integrated products:»Land Use Assumptions: 10+ years, adopted by elected officials»Infrastructure Improvements Plan (IIP): limited to 10 years (15 years for utilities)»Development Fees: part of broader revenue strategy•Based on same level of service (LOS) provided to existing development•Limitations on necessary public services•Focus on midsize parks•10,000 square feet library•No regional training facilities for public safety 6Overview of Adoption ProcessRound One• Land Use Assumptions• Infrastructure Improvement PlansRound Two• Development Fees• Modify Based on Round One Input/Decisions• Revenue Projections• Required Offsets 7Land Use Assumptions•10-year residential and nonresidential growth projections»Used to forecast infrastructure needs and impact fee revenue•Residential projections »2018 estimate based on 2010 Census counts, City permit data»Population based on AOEO 2016-2050 growth rates with housing units estimated using Town PPHU •Nonresidential projections»Jobs based on US Census OnTheMap 2015 employment estimates with 2016-2018 AOEO industry growth rates applied by sector for 2019 -2028»Floor areas based on Pima County Assessor estimates, job projections, and ITE ratios of Employees per 1,000 Sq. Ft. 8Land Use AssumptionsMulti Year Increments>>>2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028Cumulative Increase Base Yr1234510Population45,184 45,857 46,536 47,192 47,820 48,413 51,1755,991Housing Units22,636 22,973 23,312 23,640 23,954 24,250 25,6322,996JobsIndustrial 1,008 1,024 1,040 1,057 1,074 1,091 1,181173Commercial / Retail 3,296 3,349 3,403 3,457 3,513 3,569 3,864568Institutional 507 515 523 531 540 549 59487Office & Other Services 5,831 5,924 6,019 6,115 6,213 6,313 6,8341,003Total Jobs 10,642 10,812 10,985 11,160 11,340 11,522 12,473 1,831Nonresidential Floor Area (x 1,000)Industrial KSF620 630 640 650 661 671 726106Commercial / Retail KSF1,407 1,430 1,453 1,476 1,500 1,524 1,650243Institutional KSF545 554 563 571 581 591 63994Office & Other Services KSF1,965 1,996 2,028 2,061 2,094 2,127 2,303338Total Nonresidential KSF 4,538 4,610 4,684 4,758 4,835 4,913 5,318 78110‐Year Increase 9Parks and Recreation•Service Area: •Townwide•Components:•Fee does not include a land component for additional parks•Emphasis on developing existing vacant park land and construction of additional park amenities 10DemandUnitCost per Acre0.002 Improved Acres  Persons0.001 Improved Acres  JobsYear Population JobsResidentialAcresNonresidentialAcresTotalAcresBase 2018 45,184 10,642 89 10 99Year 1 2019 45,857 10,812 90 10 100Year 2 2020 46,536 10,985 92 10 102Year 3 2021 47,192 11,160 93 10 103Year 4 2022 47,820 11,340 94 11 105Year 5 2023 48,413 11,522 95 11 106Year 6 2024 48,989 11,705 97 11 107Year 7 2025 49,557 11,892 98 11 109Year 8 2026 50,112 12,082 99 11 110Year 9 2027 50,648 12,275 100 11 111Year 10 2028 51,175 12,473 101 12 11210‐Yr Increase5,991 1,83112 2 13Growth‐Related Expenditures =>$810,787  $116,907  $927,694 Total$927,694Level of ServiceNeed for Parks Infrastructure$68,769Park Land ImprovementsTypeofInfrastructureProjection of Demand: Developed Park Land 11DemandUnitCostperAmenity0.0017 Amenities  Persons0.0008 Amenities  JobsYear Population JobsResidentialUnitsNonresidentialUnitsTotalAmenitiesBase 2018 45,184 10,642 78 9 87Year 1 2019 45,857 10,812 79 9 88Year 2 2020 46,536 10,985 81 9 90Year 3 2021 47,192 11,160 82 9 91Year 4 2022 47,820 11,340 83 9 92Year 5 2023 48,413 11,522 84 9 93Year 6 2024 48,989 11,705 85 10 94Year 7 2025 49,557 11,892 86 10 95Year 8 2026 50,112 12,082 87 10 97Year 9 2027 50,648 12,275 88 10 98Year 10 2028 51,175 12,473 89 10 9910‐Yr Increase5,991 1,83110 2 12Growth‐Related Expenditures =>$2,185,293  $316,403  $2,501,696 Total$2,501,696$210,936Need for Parks InfrastructureTypeofInfrastructureLevel of ServicePark AmenitiesProjection of Demand: Amenities 12Draft Parks and Recreational Development FeesFee ComponentCostperPersonCostperJobPark Land Improvements $135.33  $63.85 Park Amenities $364.76  $172.80 Development Fee Study $4.39  $1.71 TOTAL$504.48$238.36 Residential (per unit)Development TypePersons per Housing UnitProposedFeesCurrentFeeIncrease / DecreaseSingle Unit 2.09$1,054$856 $198 2+ Units 1.51$762$599 $163 Nonresidential (per square foot unless noted otherwise)Development TypeJobs per1,000 Sq FtProposedFeesCurrentFeeIncrease / DecreaseHotel/Motel (room)0.93$0.22$0$0.22Retail/Commercial 2.34 $0.56$0 $0.56Office & Other Services 2.97 $0.71$0 $0.71Industrial 1.63 $0.39$0 $0.39Warehouse 0.34 $0.08$0 $0.08Public/Institutional 0.93 $0.22$0 $0.22 13Police•Service Area: •Townwide•Components:•Police Station: Cost recovery•Police Equipment: Incremental expansion 14Police Station Cost RecoveryFacility CostProportionate ShareDemand UnitDemand Units in 2033Cost per Demand Unit78% person 53,684$37.0422% nonres. trip 40,798$13.7510‐Year Increase in Population 5,99110‐Year Increase in Nonresidential Vehicle Trips 5,53410‐Year Cost Recovery $297,984Current Remaining Principal$2,549,27410‐Year Development Fee Revenue $297,984Remaining Principal in 2028$2,251,290Oro Valley Police Station$2,549,274 15Projection of DemandDemandUnitCost per Unit0.0022 Units Per Person0.0009 Units Per Nonres. TripYear Population Nonres. Trips Residential NonresidentialTotalPatrol VehiclesBase 2018 45,184 32,153 99 29 128Year 1 2019 45,857 32,668 101 29 130Year 2 2020 46,536 33,191 102 30 132Year 3 2021 47,192 33,717 104 30 134Year 4 2022 47,820 34,264 105 31 136Year 5 2023 48,413 34,814 107 31 138Year 6 2024 48,989 35,364 108 32 140Year 7 2025 49,557 35,930 109 32 141Year 8 2026 50,112 36,505 110 33 143Year 9 2027 50,648 37,088 111 33 145Year 10 2028 51,175 37,688 113 34 14710‐Yr Increase5,991 5,534 13 5 18Growth‐Related Expenditures =>$614,166  $231,884  $846,050 Type ofInfrastructureLevel of ServicePolice Vehicles  $46,563Need for Police Vehicles and Equipment 16Draft Police Development FeeCost perPersonCost per Nonres. Trip$37.04 $13.75$102.44 $41.91$3.80 $1.05$143.28 $56.70Residential (per unit)Unit TypePersons per Housing UnitProposedFeeCurrentFeeIncrease / DecreaseSingle Unit 2.09$299$310($11)Multifamily 1.51$216$215 $1Nonresidential (per square foot unless noted otherwise)Land Use TypeAvg Wkdy Veh Trip EndsTrip Rate AdjustmentProposedFeeCurrentFeeIncrease / DecreaseHotel/Motel (room) 8.36 50%$237$200 $37Retail/Commercial 37.75 33%$0.71$0.45 $0.26Office & Other Services 9.74 50%$0.28$0.16 $0.12Industrial 4.96 50%$0.14$0.07 $0.08Warehouse 1.74 50%$0.05$0.06($0.01)Public/Institutional 19.52 33%$0.37$0.12 $0.25Fee ComponentSubstation DebtVehicles and EquipmentDevelopment Fee StudyTotal 17Streets•Service Area: •Townwide•Components:•Roadway capacity and interchanges 18Streets IIPLocation Description New Lanes Distance Lane MilesTotal Project CostLa Cholla Blvd, Tangerine Rd‐Lambert Ln Road Widening 2.0 3.0 6.0 $1,700,000Shannon Rd, Tangerine Rd‐Naranja Dr New Road 2.0 1.0 2.0 $1,000,000Lambert Ln. .5 mi E of Shannnon‐Rancho Sonora Road Widening 2.0 1.0 2.0 $1,000,000Rancho Vistosto & Woodbume Intersection Improvement 0.0 0.0 0.0 $750,000Oracle Rd & Rams Field Intersection Intersection Improvement 0.0 0.0 0.0 $750,000Moore Rd La Cholla Blvd Intersection Improvement 0.0 0.0 0.0 $900,000Moore Rd ‐extension E of Rancho Vistoso Blvd New Road & Intersection 2.0 2.0 4.0 $1,026,840Moore Rd & La Canada Dr Intersection Intersection Improvement 0.00.0 0.0 $1,200,000Glover Rd Multi Use Path Multi‐modal facility 0.0 0.3 0.0 $150,000Glover Rd south half widening Road Widening 1.0 0.3 0.3 $500,000Total 14.25 $8,976,840$2,860,095$6,116,74514.25$429,2452018 DIF BalanceTotal CostLane MilesCost per Lane MileCost per Lane Mile $429,245Capacity per Lane Mile 3,150Cost per VMC $136.27 19Travel Demand2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028Base 1 2 3 4 5 10Single Units 17,158 17,407 17,613 17,822 18,033 18,246 19,3542,196Multifamily 5,478 5,497 5,562 5,628 5,695 5,762 6,112634Industrial KSF 620 630 640 650 661 671 726106Commercial / Retail (KSF) 1,407 1,430 1,453 1,476 1,500 1,524 1,650243Institutional 545 554 563 571 581 591 63994Office & Other (KSF) 1,965 1,996 2,028 2,061 2,094 2,127 2,303338Single Unit Res Trips 88,638 89,924 90,989 92,067 93,157 94,261 99,98511,347Multifamily Unit Res Trips 14,840 14,891 15,068 15,246 15,427 15,609 16,5571,717Industrial Trips 1,537 1,562 1,586 1,612 1,638 1,664 1,801264Commercial Trips 17,533 17,815 18,102 18,389 18,687 18,985 20,5543,021Institutional 3,514 3,569 3,624 3,680 3,742 3,805 4,116603Office & Other Trips 9,570 9,722 9,878 10,036 10,197 10,361 11,2161,646Total Nonresidential Trips 32,153 32,668 33,191 33,717 34,264 34,814 37,688Total Vehicle Trips 135,631 137,483 139,247 141,030 142,848 144,685 154,23018,599VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel 383,580 388,732 393,602 398,524 403,535 408,600 434,90351,32325,021Additional Lane Miles 1.64 1.55 1.56 1.59 1.61 1.7216.3Growth‐Related Cost $702,066 $663,621 $670,815 $682,823 $690,203 $737,272$6,993,74910‐Year IncreaseDevelopmentAverage Weekday Vehicle TripsNEEDIIP Cost  $6,116,74510‐Year Increase in VMT/VMC 51,323Cost per VMC $119.18Cost per VMC adjusted to reflect the 14.5 miles the Town plans to construct  20Proposed Streets Development Fees$119.18$0.61$119.79Residential Development (per Housing Unit)Development TypeVMTperDevelopment UnitProposedFeesCurrentFeeIncrease / DecreaseSingle Unit 16.00$1,917$1,990($73)Multifamily 8.39$1,005$1,231($226)Nonresidential (per square foot unless noted otherwise)Development TypeVMT per Development UnitProposedFeesCurrentFeeIncrease / DecreaseHotel/Motel (room) 8.09$969$758 $211Retail/Commercial 24.74$2.96$2.41 $0.55Office & Other Services 9.43$1.13$1.82($0.69)Industrial 4.80$0.58$0.98($0.41)Warehouse 1.68$0.20$0.92($0.71)Public/Institutional 12.47$1.49$1.38 $0.11Cost per VMT/VMCDevelopment Fee StudyNet Cost per VMT 21Water•Service Area: •Townwide•Components:•CAP water supply, storage and distribution: Plan-Based 22Water IIPCost Recovery Summary: Supply ProjectsYear* Description Remaining Capacity (AF) Capacity (GPD) Cost2007 Growth‐Related CAP Water Entitlement 3,000 2,678,227 $3,436,451Total Cost $3,436,451Gallons of Capacity (GPD) 2,678,227Additional SU 10,714Cost per SU $320.74Infrastructure Improvement Plan: SupplyYear Description Cost less Existing DIF Balance Net Cost Capacity (acre‐feet)Net Cost per AFService UnitsCost per Service Unit (ERU)2018‐2019 Steam Pump D‐Zone Well $1,500,000($562,409)$937,591484 $1,937 1,729 $542.412018‐2023 (P) Program Management Support Services $1,050,000($393,686)$656,3141,440 $456 5,143 $127.622019‐2020 (P) Well Improvement Analysis and Recovery Permits $150,000($56,241)$93,7591,440 $65 5,143 $18.232020‐2021 (P) Well Drilling and Testing $300,000($112,482)$187,5181,440 $130 5,143 $36.462022‐2023 (P) Construction Permitting, Drilling, Development and Testing $1,500,000($562,409)$937,5911,440 $651 5,143 $182.312022‐2023 (P) Well Equipment Design and Site Improvements $1,800,000($674,891)$1,125,1091,440 $781 5,143 $218.77Source: 2018 TOVWU Potable Water Master Plan$6,300,000($2,362,118)$3,937,882 $4,021Total Cost per SU $1,125.80 23Water IIPInfrastructure Improvement Plan: StorageYear Description Cost less Existing DIF Balance Net Cost Capacity (acre‐feet)Net Cost per AFService UnitsCost per Service Unit (ERU)2019‐2023 Palisades C‐Zone Storage Tank and Pipeline $4,250,000($1,593,492)$2,656,508 1,120 $2,372 4,000 $664.132028‐2033 Pressure Zone G Storage Expansion $8,000,000($2,999,515)$5,000,485 1,120 $4,465 4,000 $1,250.122028‐2033 Pressure Zone G, H and I Storage Expansion $4,000,000($1,499,757)$2,500,243 1,120 $2,232 4,000 $625.062019‐2020 (P) Forebay Design $99,231($37,206)$62,025 1,440 $43 5,143 $12.062021‐2023 (P) Forebay Reservoir Construction $900,000($337,445)$562,555 1,440 $391 5,143 $109.392020‐2021 (Ind.) Shannon Rd Forebay Reservoir And Booster Station Prop $240,000($89,985)$150,015 1,440 $104 5,143 $29.172019‐2020 (Ind.) Forebay Reservoir Booster Station Design $90,000($33,745)$56,255 1,440 $39 5,143 $10.942020‐2021 (Ind.) Shannon Rd Forebay Reservoir and Booster Station Design $180,000($67,489)$112,511 1,440 $78 5,143 $21.882021‐2022 (Ind.) Booster Station Construction Forebay Res. $300,000($112,482)$187,518 1,440 $130 5,143 $36.462022‐2024 (Ind.) Shannon Road Forebay Res. Construction $840,000($314,949)$525,051 1,440 $365 5,143 $102.092022‐2024 (Ind.) Shannon Road Forebay Res. Construction $540,000($202,467)$337,533 1,440 $234 5,143 $65.63Source: 2018 TOVWU Potable Water Master Plan$19,439,231($7,288,533)$12,150,698 $10,453Total Cost per SU $2,926.93Infrastructure Improvement Plan: DistributionYear Description Cost less Existing DIF Balance Net Cost Capacity (acre‐feet)Net Cost per AFService UnitsCost per Service Unit (ERU)2020‐2021 Moore Road F‐Zone Interconnect $750,000($281,205)$468,795 807 $581 2,882 $162.662019‐2024 Water Plant 14 Booster Capacity Expansion $250,000($93,735)$156,265 161 $971 575 $271.772019‐2020 (P) Pipeline Design (Recovery Water & Transmission) $660,692($247,719)$412,973 1,440 $287 5,143 $80.302021‐2023 (P) Pipeline Construction $4,320,000($1,619,738)$2,700,262 1,440 $1,875 5,143 $525.052018‐2019 (Ind.) Pipeline Route Study and Preliminary Design  $120,000($44,993)$75,007 1,440 $52 5,143 $14.582019‐2020 (Ind.) Pipeline Easement Acquisition $450,000($168,723)$281,277 1,440 $195 5,143 $54.692019‐2020 (Ind.) Pipeline Design $600,000($224,964)$375,036 1,440 $260 5,143 $72.922024‐2025 (Ind.) Pipeline Construction NWRRDS to La Canada Res. $5,880,000($2,204,643)$3,675,357 1,440 $2,552 5,143 $714.652024‐2025 (Int.) Interconnect to Tangerine Rd. $270,000($101,234)$168,766 1,440 $117 5,143 $32.822024‐2025 (Int.) Interconnect to Lambert Lane $510,000($191,219)$318,781 1,440 $221 5,143 $61.99$13,810,692($5,178,172)$8,632,520 $7,112Total Cost per SU $1,991.43 24Proposed Water Facilities Development FeesDemand Factor per Service Unit (1 EDU) ComponentSupply $1,125.80Storage $2,926.93Distribution $1,991.43Excess Capacity CAP Water $320.74Net Capital Cost per Service Unit $6,364.89Cost Factors per ConnectionFee Study $21.73 Share Net Capital Cost per Meter $21.73 Proposed and Current Utility Development Fees (PWSDIF)Residential Residential Meter SizeCapacity Ratio1Demand Adjustment Factor2Proposed FeeCurrent FeesIncrease / (Decrease)5/8"  1.00 1.00$6,387$6,060$3273/4"  1.50 1.00$9,569$9,089$4801" 2.50 1.00$15,934$15,148$7861.5" standard 5.00 1.00$31,846$30,297$1,5492" compound 8.00 1.00$50,941$48,474$2,467Mulit‐Family (Per Unit) N/A 0.32$2,044$2,908($864)Nonresidential Nonresidential Meter SizeCapacity Ratio1Demand Adjustment Factor2Proposed FeeCurrent Fees Increase / (Decrease)5/8"  1.00 1.11$7,087$7,877($790)3/4"  1.50 1.11$10,619$11,816($1,197)1" 2.50 1.11$17,684$19,693($2,009)1.5" standard 5.00 1.11$35,347$39,385($4,038)2" compound 8.00 1.11$56,542$63,016($6,474)3" compound 16.00 1.11$113,062$126,032($12,970)4" compound 25.00 1.11$176,647$196,925($20,278)6" compound 50.00 1.11$353,273$393,850($40,577)8" compound 80.00 1.11$565,224$630,161($64,937)Irrigation Meter SizeIrrigation Meter SizeCapacity Ratio1Demand Adjustment Factor2Proposed FeeCurrent Fees Increase / (Decrease)5/8"  1.00 2.25$14,343$10,906$3,4373/4"  1.50 2.25$21,503$16,360$5,1431" 2.50 2.25$35,824$27,266$8,5581.5" standard 5.00 2.25$71,627$54,533$17,0942" compound 8.00 2.25$114,590$87,253$27,3373" compound 16.00 2.25$229,158$174,506$54,6524" compound 25.00 2.25$358,047$272,666$85,3816" compound 50.00 2.25$716,072$545,331$170,7418" compound 80.00 2.25$1,145,702$872,530$273,1721. AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices M1, 7th Edition. 2. Based on local water demand 25Utility Fee Comparison: Current vs. ProposedResidential Residential Meter SizeProposed  FeesCurrent Total FeesChange5/8" $6,387$6,060$3273/4" $9,569$9,089$4801"$15,934$15,148$7861.5" standard$31,846$30,297$1,5492" compound$50,941$48,474$2,467Per Unit Cost$2,044$2,908($864)Nonresidential Meter SizeNonresidential Meter SizeProposed FeesCurrent Total FeesChange5/8" $7,087$7,877($790)3/4"$10,619$11,816($1,197)1"$17,684$19,693($2,009)1.5" standard$35,347$39,385($4,038)2" compound$56,542$63,016($6,474)3" compound$113,062$126,032($12,970)4" compound$176,647$196,925($20,278)6" compound$353,273$393,850($40,577)8" compound$565,224$630,161($64,937)Irrigation Meter Size$0Irrigation Meter SizeProposed FeesCurrent Total FeesChange5/8" $14,343$10,906$3,4373/4" $21,503$16,360$5,1431"$35,824$27,266$8,5581.5" standard$71,627$54,533$17,0942" compound$114,590$87,253$27,3373" compound$229,158$174,506$54,6524" compound$358,047$272,666$85,3816" compound$716,072$545,331$170,7418" compound$1,145,702$872,530$273,172 26Town Fee Comparison: Current vs. ProposedResidential (per unit)Unit Type Transportation Parks  PoliceProposed FeeCurrentFeeDifferenceSingle‐Family $1,917 $1,054 $299$3,270$3,156$114Multi‐Family $1,005 $762 $216$1,983$2,045($62)Nonresidential (per 1,000 square foot unless noted otherwise)Land Use Type Transportation Parks  PoliceProposed FeeCurrentFeeDifferenceHotel/Motel (room) $969 $222 $237$1,428$958$470Retail/Commercial $2,963 $558 $710$4,231$2,859$1,372Office & Other Services $1,129 $708 $280$2,117$1,978$139Industrial $575 $389 $140$1,104$1,048$56Warehouse $202 $81 $50$333$978($645)Public/Institutional $1,494 $222 $370$2,086$1,497$589 27SF Unit Fee Comparison: Other CommunitiesSingle‐Family Detached, Base Meter Fire Library Park Police Street OtherNon‐Utility SubtotalWaterWater ResourceWaste‐waterUtility SubtotalTotal FeesTucson ‐ Current Full Adopted $303 $0 $3,953 $379 $5,691 $0$10,326$0 $0 $0$0$10,326Casa Grande ‐ Zone A$589 $0 $1,153 $179 $3,230 $233$5,384$0 $0 $4,557$4,557$9,941Casa Grande ‐ Zone B$589 $0 $1,153 $179 $3,230 $233$5,384$0 $0 $4,443$4,443$9,827Oro Valley ‐ Proposed $0 $0 $1,054 $299 $1,917 $0$3,270$6,387 $0 $0$6,387$9,657Oro Valley ‐ Current $0 $0 $856 $310 $1,990 $0$3,156$6,060$6,060$9,216Tucson ‐ Current Phase‐In $303 $0 $1,935 $379 $4,838 $0$7,455$0 $0 $0$0$7,455Tucson ‐ Proposed (08/27/19)^ $359 $0 $2,848 $531 $3,237 $0$6,975$0 $0 $0$0$6,975Coolidge $426 $0 $1,058 $0 $3,235 $0$4,719$0 $0 $2,183$2,183$6,902Marana‐South $0 $0 $2,461 $0 $4,327 $0$6,788$0 $0 $0$0$6,788Marana‐Northeast $0 $0 $2,461 $0 $4,291 $0$6,752$0 $0 $0$0$6,752Marana‐Northwest $0 $0 $2,461 $0 $3,719 $0$6,180$0 $0 $0$0$6,180Queen Creek $0 $1,004 $1,168 $609 $3,151 $0$5,932$0 $0 $0$0$5,932Maricopa $541 $0 $1,116 $277 $3,580 $0$5,514$0 $0 $0$0$5,514Eloy$0 $0 $895 $673 $1,348 $0$2,916$1,556 $0 $906$2,462$5,378Sierra Vista $263 $0 $624 $359 $1,981 $0$3,227$0 $0 $0$0$3,227    Town Council Regular and Study Session 1. Meeting Date:01/08/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Submitted By:Milini Simms, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 1902616 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE, SECTION 24.9 AND SECTION 22.10 RECOMMENDATION: This item is for informational and discussion purposes only. The proposed code amendment will be presented for action by the Town Council in February. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to provide background information regarding a proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) to allow “shovel-ready” sites and further refine the development review process in the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ). The EEZ was adopted in 2012 to attract employment uses to Innovation Park by providing a streamlined development review process. The designation was expanded in 2018 to include all properties zoned Technological-Park. Several developments, such as the most recent partnership with the University of Arizona for Innovation Labs, have developed under EEZ. For a map of EEZ sites, see image to the right and  Attachment 2.  The purpose of the code amendment is to meet the Town Council's Strategic Leadership Plan's goal to "implement strategies to improve opportunities to attract, grow and retain primary employers and expand local job opportunities." In the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) plan, businesses and site selectors identified the lack of shovel-ready, or ready-to-build sites and lack of transparency and predictability in the development review process as deterrents to locating employment uses in Oro Valley. Specifically, site selectors need easy-to-develop sites that will allow a new building to be fully functional within roughly 12 months.  To address these needs and achieve the economic goals of the Strategic Leadership Plan and eliminate barriers to increasing Oro Valley's employment base, the proposed EEZ code amendment includes the following elements:  Allow shovel-ready or ready-to-build sites1. Require public open houses for sites near residential areas2. Allow administrative approval of code compliant sign criteria applications3. Eliminate the 20-day Town Council review period of an administrative approval4. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the proposed amendment on November 5, 2019, during a study session (for staff report, see Attachment 3, and for minutes, see Attachment 4) and considered it on December 3, 2019 (for staff report, see Attachment 5, and for minutes, see Attachment 6). The Commission recommended the following (reflected in Attachment 1):  Extend the public open house requirement to include all Tech-Park developments within 100' of a property Extend the public open house requirement to include all Tech-Park developments within 100' of a property used or intended for residential purposes In addition to meeting the goals of the Strategic Leadership Plan and CEDS Plan, the proposed code amendment also meets several goals and policies related to economic growth and compatibility in the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan. This item is for information purposes only to gather feedback from the Town Council. The proposed code amendment will be presented for action by the Town Council in February. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) was adopted in 2012 to attract primary employers to Innovation Park. The code was amended in 2018 to expand EEZ to include all Tech-Park zoned sites (see image to the right, Attachment 2). The EEZ allows a streamlined review process by exempting developments from the Commission/Council approval process.  A focus area in the Town's Strategic Leadership Plan is economic vitality; specifically, to attract primary employers and increase the employment base in Oro Valley. To achieve this goal, the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) identified barriers such as the lack of “shovel-ready” sites and development review times as deterrents to primary employers. The proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) reduces these barriers and includes four main areas of change:   Allow shovel-ready sites in EEZ only1.  Require open houses when the Tech-Park development is within 100' of a residential area 2.  Allow code compliant sign criteria applications to be administratively approved3.  Remove the 20-day Town Council review period4. The proposed code amendment is included in Attachment 1, with detailed information about each element provided below. 1. Allow shovel-ready sites in EEZ only Employment users are continually seeking easy to develop sites that will allow a new custom building to be fully functional within roughly 12 months. To achieve this need, jurisdictions (surrounding and nationwide) permit shovel-ready or ready-to-build sites as a mechanism to attract these employment users. Currently, the Town of Oro Valley allows preliminary grading on a limited case-by-case basis and at the discretion of the Town Engineer.  A strategy in the CEDS Plan is to identify code changes that could be implemented to better allow developers to have 'shovel ready' sites to put the Town at a regional competitive advantage. The proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) fulfills this strategy by allowing only EEZ sites to provide pre-graded sites. A focal point of this code amendment was the appearance of these pre-graded sites. The following parameters are included to balance the need of employment users and beauty of Oro Valley:  No grading within 25 feet of the future development envelope or within required buffer yards Identification and treatment of native plants. Transplanted material to be placed and temporarily irrigated within the buffer yards for additional screening of the site or areas that will remain undisturbed (i.e. washes) Identification and treatment of any archeological sites Compliance with the Town's assurance and stabilization requirements  2. Require open houses when the Tech-Park development is within 100' of a residential area The original intent of the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) was to streamline the development review process by exempting properties in the EEZ from the public outreach requirements (neighborhood meetings). When adopted, EEZ only applied to Innovation Park and properties at least 600 feet away from residential areas. In 2018, when EEZ was amended to include all Tech-Park properties, the exemption still applied although some properties are now closer to residential areas. Several developments in Innovation Park have conducted open houses, yet these were largely unattended which provided little value to the development or community. With that said, staff recognizes the 2018 code amendment placed some EEZ sites closer to residents and therefore, the proposed amendment aims to honor the existing exemption (which acknowledges low attendance occurs for developments surrounded by similar businesses) while allowing residents who will be most affected by a Tech-Park development to learn about new projects. 3. Allow a code compliant sign criteria application to be administratively approved Currently, all aspects of development review that are code compliant may be administratively approved in the EEZ, except for code compliant signs. A sign criteria requires code compliance and approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, which are required for all commercial or industrial centers with multiple buildings, prior to acquiring a sign permit. This inconsistency creates an unpredictable and inefficient development review process for employment uses. As such, the proposed code amendment allows a code compliant sign criteria to be eligible for administrative approval under EEZ. Conversely, a Master Sign Program that allows developments to tailor a cohesive sign design varying from the code will still require consideration by the Planning & Zoning Commission and Town Council.  3. Removing the 20-day Town Council review period The EEZ  includes a 20-day review period by Town Council from the day of administrative approval. Several properties such as Ventana Medical Systems, Securaplane and Icagen have been developed under EEZ; yet none to date have been appealed by Town Council. As such, this 20-day review time turns into an inefficient holding period that delays development, which has been reported as a concern for new employers considering Oro Valley. Furthermore, any administrative decision (ranging from issuance of building permits to approvals under EEZ) may be appealed by aggrieved parties to the Board of Adjustment. Therefore, an appeals process already exists. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed code amendment was reviewed for conformance with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan. By allowing shovel-ready sites, requiring a public open house for sites closest to residential areas and removing inefficiencies within the development review process, the amendment meets and supports the following goals and policies:  Goal B. A robust local economy and job market that provide opportunities for quality employment, build on Oro Valley’s assets and encourage high-quality growth. Goal C. A strong sector of targeted industries, including bioscience and aerospace, that provide opportunities for synergy and growth. Goal X. Effective transitions between differing land uses and intensities in the community. Policy E.1. Develop a diversified and robust economic base to support long-term economic stability. Policy E.2. Establish programs, strategies, investments and financial incentives that advance the Town’s economic prosperity. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the proposed code amendment on November 5, 2019, during a study session (for staff report, see Attachment 3 and for minutes see Attachment 4) and considered it for recommendation on December 3, 2019 (for staff report, see Attachment 5 and for minutes, see Attachment 6). The Commission recommended approval with the following change (reflected in Attachment 1):  Extend the public open house requirement to include all Tech-Park developments within 100' of a property used or intended for residential purposes SUMMARY The Town Council's Strategic Leadership Plan (derived from the General Plan) and Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy were adopted in March 2019 and September 2019, respectively. Both documents included goals and objectives to attract more employment uses. The proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) aims to fulfill these objectives by focusing on the following four elements:   Allow shovel-ready sites in EEZ only1.  Require open houses when the Tech-Park development is within 100' of a residential area2.  Allow code compliant sign criteria applications to be administratively approved3.  Remove the 20-day Town Council review period4. This item is for informational and discussion purposes only. The proposed code amendment will be presented for action by the Town Council in February. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: This item is for informational purposes only. The proposed code amendment will be presented for action by the Town Council in February. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1- DRAFT EEZ CODE AMENDMENTS  ATTACHMENT 2- MAP OF EEZ SITES  ATTACHMENT 3- PZC STAFF REPORT 11.5.19  ATTACHMENT 4- PZC MINUTES 11.5.19  ATTACHMENT 5- PZC STAFF REPORT 12.3.19  ATTACHMENT 6- PZC MINUTES 12.3.19  AM END the following in Section 22 and Section 24 of the Zoning Code. Additions shown in ALL CAPS, Deletions shown in strikethrough Section 22.10 Grading Permit Procedures C. Type 2 Grading Permits 3. Preliminary Grading Plan A. A preliminary grading plan shall be submitted concurrently with the initial submittal of a preliminary plat a nd development plan. B. AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 24.9, NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS OR EXPANSIONS TO EXISTING PROJECTS WITHIN THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE (EEZ) MAY BE ISSUED A PRELIMINARY TYPE 2 GRADING PERMIT PRIOR TO FINAL DESIGN PLAN OR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLEARING, BRUSHING, GRUBBING, PRELIMINARY EXCAVATION OR FILLING ONLY. PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE, A PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE MUST BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.9.B AND THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE REQUIRED FOR STAFF REVIEW AND APPROVAL: I. A GRADING PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 27.9 AND THE FOLLOWING: A. NO CLEARING, BRUSHING, GRUBBING, EXCAVATION OR FILLING SHALL TAKE PLACE WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET FROM THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPE OR WITHIN THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARDS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER; EXCLUDING ANY APPROVED ENTRY POINTS II. A NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION PLAN AND SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 27.6.B AND THE FOLLOWING: A. NATIVE PLANTS SALVAGED FROM THE SITE MUST BE IMMEDIATELY TRANSPLANTED IN PERMANENT LOCATIONS NOT DESIGNATED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, SUCH AS BUFFER YARDS, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS OR OTHER AREAS AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. B. A TEMPORARY ABOVE-GROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED FOR A MINIMUM OF FIVE YEARS TO ESTABLISH ALL TRANSPLANTED AND MITIGATED PLANT MATERIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IN SECTION 27.6.D. III. A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 27.2. IV. ASSURANCES MUST BE POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 26.6.B. 4. Permit Issuance and Expiration a. Issuance: UNLESS OTHERWISE STIPULATED IN THIS CODE, grading permits may not be issued by the Town until the Town Council has approved the final plat or development plan FINAL SITE PLAN and the necessary assurances have been posted. A copy of the permit and approved plan shall be kept in a conspicuous and accessible location on the site. b. Expiration: A grading permit shall be null and void if the authorized work has not been completed within twelve (12) months of permit issuance. c. At the discretion of the Town, a preliminary Type 2 Grading Permit may be issued prior to final plat o r development plan approval by the Town Council for the purposes of clearing, brushing and grubbing only, provided: i. The Town staff has reviewed the grading plans and determined that said plan is viable; and ii. The preliminary grading will occur in accordance with the approved preliminary grading plan and no clearing, brushing or grubbing will take place within twenty-five (25) feet from the boundaries of the future development envelope, exclusive of approved entry points; and iii. Restoration assurances for the preliminary grading are collected prior to issuance of the preliminary permit; and iv. The Town has received a copy of an archaeological clearance letter; and v. Town staff members responsible for signing/approving the preliminary grading permit concur with issuance of the preliminary grading permit. Section 24.9 Economic Expansion Zone A. Purpose The purpose of this overlay district is to provide a streamlined review process for development in the innovation park area as well as other business and technology park areas, thereby supporting Town economic development initiatives while preserving and protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the community. B. Applicability 1. The Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) review process is available to NEW DEVELOPMENTS, ADDITIONS, EXPANSIONS, OR CHANGES TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT S PROPOSING PERMITTED USES AND OTHERWISE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LOCATED IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS: A. INNOVATION PARK AND SURROUNDING all Rancho Vistoso areas AS depicted in the overlay map, attached to the ordinance codified in this section. B. and All technology park zoned land in the Town with the exception of any property with residential uses, a. The EEZ process is available to new development, additions, expansions, or changes to existing development proposing permitted uses and otherwise consistent with existing zoning and development standards. 2. The provisions of this section do not apply to applications for amendments to the zoning or pl anned area development standards, or applications for conditional use permits. C. General Provisions 1. Exemption from Conceptual Design Review and Approval Process . Development applications complying with the requirements of subsection B of this section shall be exempted from the following requirements: A. The submittal of conceptual design review applications AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.9.D INCLUDING THE associated Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council review. B. Public outreach requirements of Section 22.15 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF AN OPEN HOUSE WHEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET OF A PROPERTY USED OR INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. i. THE ABOVE DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE ABUTTING EDGE OF ANY PROPERTY USED OR INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES TO THE CLOSEST PROPERTY LINE OR LEASE LINE OF THE TECH-PARK DEVELOPMENT. THE LIMIT OF THE PROPERTY LINE OR LEASE LINE SHALL INCLUDE ALL REQUIRED PARKING, LANDSCAPING, AND SETBACKS OF THE TECH-PARK DEVELOPMENT. C. APPROVAL OF A FINAL DESIGN PLAN OR FINAL PLAT, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY TYPE 2 GRADING PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.10.C.3.B, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SHOVEL-READY SITES. 2. Approvals Required. Development applications complying with the requirements of subsection B of this section: shall comply with the following review and approval process: PROCEED THROUGH THE FOLLOWING PROGESSIVE REVIEW STAGES: A. A PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.9.B. B. IF APPLICABLE, THE SUBMITTAL OF A GRADING PLAN AND ASSOCIATED PLANS IN ACORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.10.C.3.B FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SHOVEL-READY SITES, PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR FINAL PLAT. C. THE SUBMITTAL OF FINAL DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.9.E. 3. 3. APPROVALS REQUIRED A. IF ALL ELEMENTS OF THE FINAL DESIGN SUBMITTAL MEET ALL TOWN REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 22.9.E, THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY APPROVE THE FINAL DESIGN AND THE FOLLOWING RELATED APPLICATIONS. i. AN ALTERNATIVE PARKING ANALYSIS, SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW CRITERIA OUTLINED IN SECTION 27.7.C. ii. SIGN CRITERIA IN CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 28.2.B.2. B. APPROVALS ARE SUBJECT TO SECTION 22.9.E.6. a. Final design review as provided in Section 22.9. i. The form and content of all submittals shall comply with Section 22.9.D.2. ii. The application shall be distributed for agency review consistent with Section 22.9.D.3. iii. The review time frames shall be consistent with established review periods. b. The Planning and Zoning Administrator shall evaluate conformance of final design review submit tals to the Zoning Code, with specific emphasis on: i. Conformance with conceptual design review principles (Sections 22.9.D.5 and 27.3.H). ii. Conformance with Addendum A design standards. c. Upon review of final design applications, the Planning and Zoning Administrator shall make specific findings of compliance with applicable conceptual design principles, Addendum A design standards, and other provisions of the Zoning Code and shall generate a report of said findings. d. The Planning and Zoning Administrator shall approve, disapprove or conditionally approve the final design submittal based on specific findings as outlined in the report. e. Conditions may be imposed in order to fully carry out the provisions and intent of the Zoning Code. f. Upon written request by the applicant, the Planning and Zoning Administrator may approve an alternative parking ratio, subject to the review criteria outlined in Section 27.7.C.2. An alternative parking ratio shall not be deemed inconsistent with the Zoning Code as referenced in subsection B.1 of this section. 3. Applicant Appeal of Administrative Decision a. The approval, with or without conditions, or denial of an application shall be final unless, within twenty (20) days from the date of the Planning and Zoning Administrator’s decision, the applicant files an appeal in writing to the Town Clerk. b. Such appeal shall be submitted in writing to the Town Clerk and shall indicate where, in the opinion of the appellant, the Planning and Zoning Administrator was in error. c. The Town Clerk shall schedule the appeal for Town Council review and the Town Council, at its meeting, shall uphold, modify or overrule the decision. d. The decision of the Town Council shall be final. 4. Town Council Review of Administrative Decision a. The approval, with or without conditions, or denial of an application shall be final unless, within twenty (20) days from the date of the Planning and Zoning Administrator’s decision, a majority of the Town Council requests review of the Planning and Zoning Administrator’s decision. b. The Town Council shall have the right and prerogative to initiate its own review of any decision of the Planning and Zoning Administrator. c. The Town Council shall uphold, modify, or overrule the decision or may refer the application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their recommendation prior to taking action. d. Notice of Town Council-initiated review of an administrative decision shall be given to the applicant by the Town Clerk within ten (10) days of Town Council action. e. The decision of the Town Council shall be final. Map of Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) Sites Attachment 2 Tangerine Rd.La Cañada Dr.EEZ Sites 12/13/2019 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&get_month=11&get_year=2019&dsp=min&seq=389 1/3 Return MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION November 5, 2019 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Swope called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present:Bob Swope, Chair Hal Bergsma, Commissioner Celeste Gambill, Commissioner Thomas Gribb, Commissioner Ellen Hong, Commissioner Skeet Posey, Commissioner Staff Present:Bill Rodman, Town Council Liaison Bayer Vella, Planning Manager Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney J.J. Johnston, Community and Economic Development Director PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Swope led the Commission and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. CALL TO AUDIENCE No speaker requests. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Bill Rodman provided updates on past and upcoming Council meetings. REGULAR SESSION AGENDA 1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 SPECIAL SESSION MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to approve the September 10, 2019 meeting minutes as written. Vote: 6 - 0 Carried 2.DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS TO C-1, C-2, AND TECHNOLOGICAL PARK ZONING DISTRICTS, IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE PROPERTY FOR PRIMARY EMPLOYMENT USES AND REVISE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Principal Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Background - Expand Amount of Available Property - Revise Development Standards for Consistency 12/13/2019 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&get_month=11&get_year=2019&dsp=min&seq=389 2/3 - Revise Specific Use Standards - Summary and Feedback Discussion ensued among Commission and staff. Chair Swope granted a public speaker request: Oro Valley resident Shirl Lamonna spoke as opposed to Agenda Item #2 as it is currently written. 3.DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE, SECTION 24.9 AND SECTION 22.10 Principal Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Background on Economic Expansion Zone - Allow Shovel-ready Sites - Refine Development Review and Approval Process - Summary and Feedback Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff. 4.DISCUSSION REGARDING THE TOWN’S PROGRESS ON IMPLEMENTING THE YOUR VOICE, OUR FUTURE GENERAL PLAN Principal Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Importance of Progress Report - Implementing the General Plan - Land Use and Zoning Tasks - Environment Use and Zoning Actions - Development Land Use and Zoning Actions - Current Planning Projects - Summary Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff. 5.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE PLANNING DIVISION WORK PLAN FOR FY 19/20 - FY 20/21 Planning Manager Bayer Vella provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Commission Role - Planning Work Plan - Short-term Action Items - Previous Work Plan - Summary Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff. Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to recommend approval of the Planning Division Work Plan FY19/20 - FY20/21 with the following changes: (1) add provision under short-term action items to do an annual review of the General Plan progress report; (2) add an amendment to Section 22.4 of the Zoning Code to ensure compliance with State Law; and (3) increase priority of new Planning Commission training. Motion by Chair Bob Swope, a Friendly Amendment to heighten the priorities of the design standards for custom-built homes and ESL review to the short-term action items category. The Friendly Amendment was accepted by both the Motioner and Seconder. 12/13/2019 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&get_month=11&get_year=2019&dsp=min&seq=389 3/3 Vote: 6 - 0 Carried 6.DISCUSSION ONLY REGARDING RECENT CHANGES TO TOWN CODE SECTION 3-6-6 LIAISON AND TOWN COUNCIL POLICIES 5 AND 8 REGARDING ADVISORY BOARDS AND ASSOCIATED COUNCIL LIAISONS Chair Swope inquired about the motivation for this change. Commissioner Bergsma asked for clarification in speaking to elected officials as a resident. Continued discussion ensued between the Commission and staff. PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Planning Manager Bayer Vella complimented Principal Planner Milini Simms for her successful leadership of the Community Academy this year and expects many great applications for the boards and commissions. He also spoke about upcoming cases for the next Commission agenda on December 3, 2019. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Skeet Posey, seconded by Commissioner Hal Bergsma to adjourn the meeting. Chair Swope adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m. Vote: 6 - 0 Carried 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 Planning and Zoning Commission of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 5th day of November, 2019. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 7th day of November, 2019. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist GO TO PREVIOUS PAGE GO TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE AgendaQuick ©2005 - 2019 Destiny Software Inc. All Rights Reserved. 12/13/2019 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&fp=swagit&get_month=12&get_year=2019&dsp=agm&seq=3171&rev=0&ag=402…1/4 Planning & Zoning Commission Return to the Agenda Go to the Previous Agenda Item Go to the Next Agenda Item AGENDA ITEM: 3. Meeting Date:12/03/2019 Requested by:Bayer Vella Case Number:1902616 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE, SECTION 24.9 AND SECTION 22.10 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) to allow “shovel- ready” sites and further refine the development review process in the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ). The purpose of the code amendment is to meet the Strategic Leadership Plan's goal to "implement strategies to improve opportunities to attract, grow and retain primary employers and expand local job opportunities." It was previously discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission during the November 5, 2019 meeting (for staff report see Attachment 2, for minutes see Attachment 3). Feedback from the Commission focused on three main elements: 1. Only requiring public open houses only for tech-park developments abutting residential areas 2. Allowing administrative approval of sign criteria applications 3. Eliminating the 20-day Town Council appeal period of an administrative approval Town staff reviewed the Commission's concerns, and provides the following background information for the Commission to consider: The existing code exempts all EEZ sites from public outreach requirements (open houses, etc.). Some developments in Innovation Park have conducted open houses; the majority of which had low attendance. However, when the code was amended in 2018 to expand EEZ, it placed some Tech-Park sites closer to residential. As such, the proposed code amendment aims to balance the intention and existing exemption in EEZ while recognizing the need for open houses when Tech-Park developments abut residential areas. A code compliant sign criteria is the only code compliant design review item not eligible for administrative approval under EEZ. The 20-day Town Council appeal period has never been utilized and reportedly is a concern for new employers considering Oro Valley. As such, staff recommends the appeal period be removed. It is at the Commission's discretion to recommend maintaining the 20-day appeal period, reducing it or removing it. If the appeal period is reduced rather than removed, staff recommends adding code language stipulating what constitutes an appeal. Based on the aforementioned information, the proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) does not reflect any changes from the previous discussion. In summary, staff finds it is in conformance with the General Plan and recommends approval. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: 12/13/2019 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&fp=swagit&get_month=12&get_year=2019&dsp=agm&seq=3171&rev=0&ag=402…2/4 The Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) was adopted in 2012 to attract primary employers to Innovation Park. The code was amended in 2018 to expand EEZ to include all Tech-Park zoned sites (see image to the right, Attachment 4). The EEZ allows a streamlined review process by exempting developments from the Commission/Council approval process. A focus area in the Town's Strategic Leadership Plan is economic vitality; specifically to attract primary employers and increase the employment base in Oro Valley. To achieve this goal, the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) identified barriers such as the lack of “shovel-ready” sites and development review times as deterrents to primary employers. The proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) reduces these barriers and includes three main areas of change: 1. Allow shovel-ready sites 2. Require public outreach when the Tech-Park development abuts residential areas 3. Remove inefficiencies in the development review process The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the proposed amendment on November 5, 2019 to provide feedback (for minutes, see Attachment 3) to staff. The Commission's concerns (underlined) and staff commentary are provided below. 1. EEZ/Tech-Park sites are exempt from neighborhood meeting requirements The original intent of the Economic Expansion Zone was to streamline the development review process by exempting properties in the Economic Expansion Zone from the public outreach requirements (neighborhood meetings). When adopted, EEZ only applied to Innovation Park and properties at least 600 feet away from residential areas. In 2018, when EEZ was amended to include all Tech-Park properties, the exemption still applied although some properties now abut residential areas. Several developments in Innovation Park have conducted open houses yet these were largely unattended providing little value to the development or community. With that said, staff recognizes the 2018 code amendment placed some EEZ sites closer to residents and therefore the proposed amendment aims to honor the existing exemption while allowing residents who will be most affected by a Tech-Park development to learn about new projects. 2. Allowing a sign criteria to be administratively approved Currently, all aspects of development review that are code compliant may be administratively approved in the EEZ - except for signs. A Sign Criteria requires code compliance and approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. A Sign Criteria is required for all commercial or industrial centers with multiple buildings, prior to acquiring a sign permit. Staff recommends a Sign Criteria, which complies with the Zoning Code and applicable Design Guidelines, be eligible for administrative approval under EEZ. Conversely, a Master Sign Program which allows developments to tailor a cohesive sign design that varies from the code will still require consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. 3. Removing the 20-day appeal period by Town Council The EEZ includes a 20-day appeal period by Town Council from the day of administrative approval. Several properties such as Ventana Medical Systems, Securaplane and Icagen have been developed under EEZ; yet none to date have been appealed by Town Council. As such, this 20-day appeal period turns into an inefficient holding period that delays development which has been reported as a concern for new employers considering Oro Valley. As such, staff recommends removing the appeal 12/13/2019 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&fp=swagit&get_month=12&get_year=2019&dsp=agm&seq=3171&rev=0&ag=402…3/4 period. Should the Commission keep the appeal period yet reduce it to five or ten days, staff recommends more information as to what constitutes an appeal be added to the code. For instance, within the designated timeframe - a Council member must have the appeal approved for the next Council meeting agenda. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed code amendment was reviewed for conformance with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan. By allowing shovel-ready sites and removing inefficiencies within the development review process, the amendment meets and supports the following goals and policies: Goal B. A robust local economy and job market that provide opportunities for quality employment, build on Oro Valley’s assets and encourage high-quality growth. Goal C. A strong sector of targeted industries, including bioscience and aerospace, that provide opportunities for synergy and growth. Policy E.1. Develop a diversified and robust economic base to support long-term economic stability. Policy E.2. Establish programs, strategies, investments and financial incentives that advance the Town’s economic prosperity. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Public Notice has been provided as stated below. A letter of support was received and is included in Attachment 5. All HOAs in Town were notified of this hearing All property owners of Tech-Park zoned property Public hearing notices were posted: In the Territorial Newspaper In the Arizona Daily Star At Town Hall On the Town website SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The Town Council's Strategic Leadership Plan (derived from the General Plan) and Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy were adopted in March 2019 and September 2019, respectively. Both included goals and objectives to attract more employment uses. The proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) aims to fulfill these objectives by allowing shovel-ready sites and removing inefficiencies in the development review process. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the proposed code amendment on November 5, 2019. The feedback provided has been discussed in this report. In summary, staff finds the proposed code amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may consider the following motions: I MOVE to recommend approval of the proposed code amendment to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) based on the finding it is in conformance with the General Plan. OR 12/13/2019 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&fp=swagit&get_month=12&get_year=2019&dsp=agm&seq=3171&rev=0&ag=402…4/4 I MOVE to recommend denial of the proposed code amendment to the Economic Expansion Zone based on the finding it ________. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1- PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT ATTACHMENT 2- PZC STAFF REPORT 11.5.19 ATTACHMENT 3- DRAFT PZC MINUTES 11.5.19 ATTACHMENT 4- MAP OF EEZ SITES ATTACHMENT 5- LETTER OF SUPPORT GO TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE AgendaQuick ©2005 - 2019 Destiny Software Inc. All Rights Reserved. D R A F T MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION December 3, 2019 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE            REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER Chair Swope called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Bob Swope, Chair Hal Bergsma, Commissioner Celeste Gambill, Commissioner Thomas Gribb, Commissioner Skeet Posey, Commissioner Absent: Ellen Hong, Commissioner Staff Present:Bayer Vella, Planning Manager Bill Rodman, Town Council Liaison J.J. Johnston, Community and Economic Development Director Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Swope led the Commission and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.   CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests.   COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Bill Rodman stated the golf issue and police chief recruitment process has been the focus of Council lately. He thanked outgoing Commissioners Bob Swope and Tom Gribb for their service, and also said this was his last meeting as the Council liaison for the Commission.   REGULAR SESSION AGENDA   1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 5, 2019 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES       Motion by Commissioner Thomas Gribb, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to approve the November 5, 2019 meeting minutes as written.  Vote: 5 - 0 Carried  Vote: 5 - 0 Carried   2.DISCUSSION AND OVERVIEW REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (CEDS)       Community and Economic Development Director J.J. Johnston provided a presentation that included the following: - Community and Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) plan - Overarching goals - Initial priorities - Process - Alignment with the Strategic Leadership Plan - Summary Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff.   3.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE, SECTION 24.9 AND SECTION 22.10       Community and Economic Development Director J.J. Johnston provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Planning and Zoning Commission feedback - Town Council 20-day appeal period - General Plan conformance - Summary and recommendation Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff.    Chair Swope opened the public hearing. There were no speaker requests. Chair Swope closed the public hearing. Further discussion continued among the Commission and staff.    Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Celeste Gambill to recommend approval of the proposed code amendment to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) based on the finding that it is in conformance with the General Plan.    Motion by Chair Bob Swope, seconded by Commissioner Thomas Gribb to offer a Friendly Amendment to modify the open house meeting requirement to apply to all properties within 100 feet of residential areas.    Vote: 5 - 0 Carried   4.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING PROPOSED ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED AMENDMENTS TO C-1, C-2, TECHNOLOGICAL PARK AND EQUIVALENT PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS REGARDING LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUCH AS BUILDING HEIGHTS, SETBACKS ETC. ITEM A: AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY REVISED ZONING CODE ITEM B: AMENDMENTS TO THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT    ITEM B: AMENDMENTS TO THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT ITEM C: AMENDMENTS TO THE LA RESERVE PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT    Principal Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Planning and Zoning Commission feedback - Permitted uses: low-impact employment uses - Provide parity among Tech Park zones - Permitted uses proposed in Tech Park zones - Ancillary uses in Tech Park - Proposed building heights in Tech Park Zones - Proposed building heights for Innovation Park and La Reserve - Intensity along scenic corridors - Specific use standards - General Plan conformance - Public outreach - Summary and recommendation Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff.    Chair Swope opened the public hearing Oro Valley resident Shirl Lamonna stated she generally supports bringing industry to the Town, but has concerns about warehousing and odor. She also commented on the CED report and to remember the reasons why people originally came to live in Oro Valley. Chair Swope closed the public hearing.    Further discussion ensued among the Commission and staff.    Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to recommend approval of [Item A] the proposed code amendments to the C-1,C-2 and Technological Park zoning districts and associated standards, with the modification that light warehousing and hotels/motels are changed from a permitted use to an ancillary use, based on the finding the changes are in conformance with the General Plan.    Motion by Commissioner Thomas Gribb, seconded by Chair Bob Swope to offer a Friendly Amendment that the verbiage also include the building height restrictions be extended to properties within 100 feet of residential areas.    Vote: 5 - 0 Carried    Motion by Commissioner Thomas Gribb, seconded by Commissioner Hal Bergsma to recommend approval of [Item B] the proposed code amendments to the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development, and include language that the building height restrictions be extended to properties within 100 feet of residential areas.  Vote: 5 - 0 Carried    Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Thomas Gribb to recommend approval [Item C] of the proposed code amendments to the La Reserve Planned Area Development based on the finding they are in conformance with the General Plan.  Vote: 5 - 0 Carried   PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY)    Planning Manager Bayer Vella spoke about the four (4) commissioner appointments open for consideration at Town Council on December 4, upcoming Commissioner training on December 19, the next Commission meeting will be January 6 (Monday) in the Hopi Conference Room and a neighborhood meeting is scheduled for January 9. He also thanked Chair Swope, Commissioner Gribb and Town Council liaison Bill Rodman for their service.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Commissioner Thomas Gribb, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to adjourn the meeting.  Vote: 5 - 0 Carried    Chair Swope adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m.     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 Planning and Zoning Commission of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 3rd day of December, 2019. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of ____________________, 2019. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist    Town Council Regular and Study Session 2. Meeting Date:01/08/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Submitted By:Milini Simms, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 1901679 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS TO C-1, C-2, AND TECHNOLOGICAL PARK AND EQUIVALENT PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS REGARDING LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUCH AS BUILDING HEIGHTS, SETBACKS, ETC. RECOMMENDATION: This item is for informational and discussion purposes only. The proposed code amendments will be presented for action by the Town Council in February. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to provide background and information regarding proposed amendments (Attachment 1, Attachment 2 and Attachment 3) to the commercial (C-1 and C-2 only) and Technological Park zoning districts in the Oro Valley Zoning Code and equivalent Planned Area Developments (for affected areas, see image to the right and Attachment 4). The proposed code amendments are intended to meet the economic goals (1A and 1B) of Town Council's Strategic Leadership Plan and implement actions in the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) Plan (for more information, see Attachment 5). The proposed code amendment focuses on four primary elements:  Expanding the amount of available property for employment uses by allowing low-impact employers in larger commercial zones. 1. Updating standards (such as increasing the building height in limited areas) and reducing discrepancies among the various codes regulating Tech-Park zoned land to establish a more consistent approach. 2. Increasing predictability for developments of similar size and design by utilizing commercial scenic corridor standards for tech-park developments. 3. Removing unintended barriers for attracting employment uses in balance with maintaining community values by adding flexibility and clarity to specific use requirements. For example, adding flexibility to the odor abatement plan requirements (Strategic Leadership Plan, Goal 5A) and increasing the means to regulate vibration, noise, air pollution, safety and other elements associated with manufacturing or warehousing uses. 4. The proposed amendments were discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 5, 2019, during a study session (see Attachment 5 and Attachment 6) and considered on December 3, 2019 (see Attachment 7 and Attachment 8). The Commission recommended the following:   Reduce the proposed 50' Tech-Park building height to 36' when the subject property is within 100' of a property used or intended for residential purposes (in addition to reducing the height to 36' when located along a scenic corridor)  Allow light warehousing as an ancillary use and hotels/motels as a conditional use in the Oro Valley Tech-Park zoning district These recommendations are reflected in the applicable codes (Attachment 1 and Attachment 2). The proposed code amendments support several of the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan's economic goals as well as policies to ensure compatibility and preserve views from scenic corridors. This item is being presented for informational purposes only. The proposed code amendments will be presented for action by the Town Council in February. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The proposed code amendments are intended to meet the economic goals of the Town Council's Strategic Leadership Plan and implement actions from the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) plan (for more information, see Attachment 5). The proposed code amendments fulfills these goals and objectives by focusing on the four primary elements:  Expanding the amount of available property for employment uses by allowing low-impact employers in larger commercial zones. Updating standards (such as increasing the building height in limited areas) and reducing discrepancies among the various codes regulating Tech-Park zoned land to establish a more consistent approach. Increasing predictability for developments of similar size and design by utilizing commercial scenic corridor standards for tech-park developments. Removing unintended barriers for attracting employment uses in balance with maintaining community values by adding flexibility and clarity to specific use requirements. For example, adding flexibility to the odor abatement plan requirements (Strategic Leadership Plan, Goal 5A) and increasing the means to regulate vibration, noise, air pollution, safety and other elements associated with manufacturing or warehousing uses. The proposed code amendments are included in Attachment 1 (Oro Valley Zoning Code), Attachment 2  (Rancho Vistoso PAD) and Attachment 3 (La Reserve PAD) with detailed information on each element is provided below. 1. Expanding the amount of available property for employment uses Existing Permitted Uses Employment uses, such as Ventana Roche Medical Systems, Icagen and Securaplane are only allowed in Oro Valley's Tech-Park zoning district, the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development (PAD)-Campus Park Industrial (CPI) district and the La Reserve PAD-Area D. The total amount of employment land in Oro Valley is approximately 405 acres with 235 acres remaining as vacant land. However, when accounting for areas not buildable due to topography or land already planned for development, the remaining amount of buildable employment space is reduced to roughly 188 acres.  A comparison of Oro Valley's employment space compared to other jurisdictions is depicted below:    Jurisdiction Oro Valley Marana Scottsdale Chandler Total land (sq/mi)36 121 185 65 Employment land (in acres), percent of total land 405; 2%9,818,13% 3,552; 3%6,135; 5% Percentage of buildable land left (acres, percentage)188; 47%1,473; 15%532; 15%3,485; 57% A goal of the CEDS Plan is to attract 2-3 employers a year, or 20-30 new and expanded employment users to Oro Valley by 2030. To meet this goal, the Town would need at least 300 acres of employment land available within the next 10 years. Several employment uses are low impact and function similar to a typical office space, which is currently a permitted use in commercial zoning districts. Commercial districts (C-1 and C-2 only) account for 284 acres of vacant, which due to the “Amazon” effect, is not in high demand for retail. By allowing more employment uses in commercial zones that are low impact and function similarly to the existing permitted commercial uses, the Town can meet the employment space demand while mitigating the “Amazon” effect. Enabling shopping centers to thrive by incorporating a bustling mix of uses and activity to foster retail is a nationally recognized strategy. Proposed Permitted Uses The proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) recommends allowing the following low-impact employment uses (see chart below) in C-1 and C-2 commercial zones. Additional primary and ancillary uses are proposed in the Tech-Park zoning district for consistency with the Planned Area Developments and to create mixed-use environments sought by employers/employees.     EXISTING CODE PROPOSED C-1 C-2 T-P C-1 C-2 T-P Bars P P  P P A Distillery   C   P Food processing, artisanal P P  P P P Warehousing, Heavy      C Warehousing, Light      A Research and Development    P P P Wholesaling     C P Medical Services (combined inpatient and outpatient)C P  P P P Vehicle rental establishments for less than 10 vehicles P P  P P A Vehicle Sales C C  C P   Hotels/Motels C P  C P C Fitness Centers or Health Spas (combined indoor and outdoor activity)P/C P/C P/C P P P P= Permitted C= Conditional A= Ancillary C-1 = Commercial C-2 = Regional Commercial T-P = Tech Park Per code, ancillary uses are subordinate to a primary use. In Tech-Park zoning districts, ancillary uses may only occupy 30% of the gross floor area per individual business or 20% of the total development and must be part of a Master Planned Development. A Master Planned Development is an area where large, multi-use developments are planned and developed in a comprehensive manner. Essentially, this assures ancillary uses remain subordinate to primary uses in Tech-Park zones and larger developments are designed cohesively.  2. Update standards and reduce discrepancies among the various development standards for Tech-Park sites As previously mentioned, Tech Park sites are regulated by three different codes; 1) Town of Oro Valley Zoning Code, 2) Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development and 3) La Reserve Planned Area Development (see image to the left and Attachment 9). Planned Area Developments have existed in Oro Valley since 1974, creating unique code requirements for specific geographic areas. The subject codes have evolved independently over time creating a variation of standards, specifically with regard to height and uses, for Tech Park sites. This causes confusion for prospective employment users and surrounding prospective employment users and surrounding residents. As such, to further assist in attracting employment uses and meet the economic goals of the Strategic Leadership Plan and CEDS Plan, the proposed amendment aims to provide some parity between the three different regulating documents.  Existing Building Height The existing building height allowed for Tech-Park uses ranges from 34' to 48', depending on if the property is regulated by the Town's Zoning Code or a Planned Area Development. Tech-park buildings tend to be larger and with limited space, many buildings must go vertical instead of building outward. To understand the needs of tech-park users, Town staff reviewed other jurisdictions' Tech-Park standards to recommend a building height that will be regionally competitive yet maintain the goals of the community. Additionally, input was provided by Oro Valley's largest employer, Ventana Roche, which is also seeking an increased height of 50' (see Attachment 10). A comparison between the existing codes and surrounding jurisdictions is provided below:    Height Oro Valley Zoning Code Rancho Vistoso PAD La Reserve PAD Tucson Marana Sahuarita Pima County Mesa Tempe Tech-Park*34'36', 44' or 48'35' or 42'50'50'44'44'40'30' *Height for surrounding jurisdictions is based on the zoning district most comparable with Oro Valley's Tech-Park zoning district. However, most jurisdictions also have industrial zoning districts which allow much taller building heights. Additionally, depicted is the max building height of the main structure, which does include an additional allowance for architectural features. Proposed Building Height As shown in the table above, there are currently six different building heights permitted among Tech-Park sites. The proposed code amendment aims to reduce disparity between sites and meet the needs of employment users while preserving views for surrounding homes and along scenic corridors. To accomplish these objectives, the existing heights have been consolidated to either 50' or 36' (see chart below and for map, see Attachment 11).    PROPOSED CODE ORO VALLEY RANCHO VISTOSO PAD LA RESERVE PAD 36'50' **50' ** ** To protect views from surrounding homes, the proposed 50' height is reduced to 36' when the subject property is within 100' of a property used or intended for residential purposes. Additionally, the code currently restricts building heights along Oracle and Tangerine Road to protect the views along these scenic corridors. The proposed code amendment retains these restrictions (the west side of Oracle Road is revised to match the commercial standards) and restricts the building height to 36' for properties fronting Oracle Road (Tangerine is reduced through the existing code). A summary of the scenic corridor standards and amendments is provided below:    Corridor EXISTING CODE PROPOSED CODE Tech-Park Commercial Tech-Park Tangerine Road Refers to commercial standards Restricted to 20’ if located within 100’ and visible from the Tangerine Road right-of-way. No change  Oracle Road West-side No buildings over 18' may be within 150’ of Oracle Road No buildings over 18' may be within a minimum of 60% of the frontage to a depth of 300' Refer to the commercial standard for consistency and restrict building height to 36' for lots fronting Oracle Road. Oracle Road East-side 60% of the frontage to a depth of 300' is maintained as a view corridor unless properties are less than 2 acres or 400' in depth, then heights over 25' are limited to 40% of the frontage. Maintain current requirements and restrict building height to 36' for lots fronting Oracle Road. Currently, the code allows a 10' allowance for architectural features upon Planning and Zoning Commission approval. These features, which include parapets, towers and cornices are important for screening mechanical equipment and creating architectural interest in varying the roof line (both of which are code requirements). However, since Tech-Park developments are administratively approved through the Economic Expansion Zone, this has been amended to be permitted by right. For consistency, the approval for the 10' foot allowance has been amended in commercial zones as well. Existing and Proposed Building Size Currently, in the Oro Valley Tech-Park Zoning District the building size for individual structures is restricted to 15,000 square feet on properties of 10 acres or fewer, unless a Conditional Use Permit is acquired. This requirement was established because Tech-Park buildings tend to be larger in scale (yet similar to those built in a C-2 commercial zoning district). Since this requirement was established, the Design Guidelines and Standards were adopted, which address many of the concerns (building scale and mass) associated with larger buildings. Additionally, other Tech-Park sites regulated by Planned Area Developments (I.E. Innovation Park and the Foothills Business Park) are not restricted. As such, this provision has been removed as it is outdated and creates parity among all Tech-Park sites. 3. Increase predictability for developments of similar size and design Existing and Proposed Setbacks Although similar in design and functionality, the setbacks for commercial centers (commercial zoning districts) and employment centers (Tech-Park zoning districts) are different; with the latter being more restrictive. The proposed code amendment makes the setbacks consistent for all commercial and the Tech-Park zoning districts regulated by the Oro Valley Zoning Code. The proposed code amendment also clarifies the setbacks are for the site perimeter rather than the individual buildings to create cohesive employment or commercial centers. Setbacks are intended to create a separation between developments and adjoining lots or streets. For commercial or employment centers, the intent is met through perimeter setbacks. The proposed code amendment includes a distance between buildings to account for fire safety and allow for pedestrian connectivity throughout the site.  Existing and Proposed Scenic Corridor Standards As previously mentioned, the Town of Oro Valley has two scenic corridors, Oracle Road and Tangerine Road (for map, see Attachment 12), which restrict developments in order to preserve the scenic character of these areas. The requirements for commercial centers and employment uses are different; with the latter being more restrictive. However, both types of developments include similar design elements such as large buildings, internal circulation patterns and larger parking areas.  The Tangerine Corridor acknowledges this similarity between commercial and employment centers by applying the same standards among both types of development. However, along Oracle Road the front setback and buffer yards are inconsistent (see chart below) with the Tech-Park standards being more extensive. For example, this means a permitted office would require a larger setback in a Tech-Park zone than it would in a commercial zone with the same height. As such, the setbacks along Oracle Road have been revised for greater consistency among the tech-park and commercial standards. Please see chart below for a summary of the proposed revisions.    TANGERINE ROAD SCENIC CORRIDOR  EXISTING CODE PROPOSED CODE Tech-Park Commercial Tech-Park Front setback Refers to commercial 4:1 (setback to height) No change- Existing standards are consistent between T-P and commercial.Side/Rear setbacks Refers to commercial Underlying Zoning district ORACLE ROAD SCENIC CORRIDOR   EXISTING CODE PROPOSED CODE Tech- Park Commercial Tech Park Front setback 150’ except for La Reserve PAD sites, which is 50’ Single structure: 60’ and 4:1 (setback to building height) Multiple structures: 120’ average Revised to refer to all the commercial standards Side/ Rear buffer yards 100 feet when abutting residential Silent – normal buffer yard requirements apply Revised to 40’ when abutting residential. Forty feet is the maximum depth of a buffer yard required in Section 27.6.C.4. 4. Remove Unintended Barriers  Section 25.1.B. of the Zoning Code has additional standards for specific uses. Minor changes were made for consistency with the permitted use table and provisions for manufacturing and warehouses were added to clearly delineate between the two subcategories (light or heavy) permitted for these uses.  Currently, manufacturing is categorized as either light or heavy based on whether the use impacts surrounding properties (based on noise, odor, etc.). Warehousing, which is currently permitted in Rancho Vistoso and La Reserve tech-parks is not categorized by intensity. As such the proposed code amendment adds restrictions on both uses to assure manufacturing and warehousing uses that may impact surrounding areas are approved through the public review process. Should the following restrictions not be met the use is deemed "heavy" and a Conditional Use Permit must be acquired (approved by Town Council).    USE REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED Manufacturing Vibration Only the La Reserve (LR) PAD restricts the amount of vibration that may occur. Shall not be discernible at the property line when the development abuts a residential property. Vibration shall not be discernible beyond the property line to the human sense of feeling for a duration of three minutes or more in any one hour of the day between the hours of 7:00 AM- 7:00 PM or of a duration of 30 seconds or more in any one hour between the hours of 7:00 PM - 7:00 AM, when the development abuts a non-residential property. Glare/Heat Shall not be discernible at the property line unless a CUP is acquired No change Fly ash, dust fumes, vapors, gasses and other forms of air pollution Only the La Reserve (LR) PAD has parameters for this. Add language consistent with the La Reserve PAD: No emission shall be permitted which can cause any damage to health, damage to animals or vegetation, or damage to or soiling of other forms of property.   Liquid and solid waste No provisions No waste shall be discharged in the streets, drainage ways or on any property except in appropriately designed disposal systems. Manufacturing and Warehousing Noise Shall not be discernible at the property line unless a CUP is acquired No change Odor Not discernible at the property line Add language to require an odor abatement plan when necessary. Warehousing Hazardous Material No provisions Storage of such shall not be permitted. Safety No provisions Distribution shall not result in the creation of traffic hazards or undue congestion.   Odor Abatement Currently, the odor abatement section of code requires all manufacturing uses to submit an odor abatement plan. However, not all manufacturing uses (I.E. Ventana Roche Medical Services) emit objectionable odorous material. Odor abatement systems are costly and the requirement to have one, especially when not necessary, is a deterrent for businesses from opening in Oro Valley. As such, the Strategic Leadership Plan specifically included amending this section of code under the Land Use focus area (Goal 5A).  The proposed code amendment provides flexibility to allow the Planning and Zoning Administrator to waive the odor abatement plan requirement if it is deemed unnecessary as the nature of operations create a low risk of emitting objectionable odors. The waiver may be reconsidered or revoked should issues arise.  GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed code amendment was reviewed for conformance with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan. By expanding the amount of property available for employment uses and amending associated standards while balancing the community's value to preserve views from homes and along the scenic corridors, the proposed code amendments support the following goals and policies.  Policy SD.6. Protect scenic corridors, public park and trail view sheds, and the distinctive visual character and visual appeal of Oro Valley. Goal B. A robust local economy and job market that provide opportunities for quality employment, build on Oro Valley’s assets and encourage high-quality growth. Goal C. A strong sector of targeted industries, including bioscience and aerospace, that provide opportunities for synergy and growth. Goal X. Effective transitions between differing land uses and intensities in the community. Policy E.1. Develop a diversified and robust economic base to support long-term economic stability. Policy E.2. Establish programs, strategies, investments and financial incentives that advance the Town’s economic prosperity. Policy CC.6. Promote the creation of unique community gathering places that are inviting, walkable, attractive and vibrant and offer commercial, entertainment or cultural activity. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION The proposed amendments were discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 5, 2019 during a study session (see Attachment 5 and Attachment 6) and considered on December 3, 2019 (see Attachment 7 and Attachment 8). The Commission recommended approval of all three items, with the following changes, which are reflected in the applicable codes (Attachment 1 and Attachment 2).  Reduce the proposed 50' Tech-Park building height to 36' when the subject property is within 100' of a property used or intended for residential purposes (in addition to reducing the height to 36' when located along a scenic corridor)  Allow light warehousing as an ancillary use and hotels/motels as a conditional use in the Oro Valley Tech-Park zoning district Please note, in La Reserve (Foothills Business Park) the existing height permitted on lots within 100' of residential property is 42'. As such, reducing it further to 36' could lead to a property rights issue. Additionally, the proposed height is 36' for all Tech-Park sites regulated by the Oro Valley Zoning Code. As such, the additional height restriction is only applicable in the Rancho Vistoso PAD (Innovation Park). SUMMARY The proposed code amendments are intended to meet the goals of the Town Council's Strategic Leadership Plan and strategies in the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy; specifically to attract and retain employment uses. The proposed code amendment achieves this by focusing four main elements:   Expanding the amount of available property for employment uses by allowing low-impact employers in larger commercial zones. 1. Updating standards (such as increasing the building height in limited areas) and reducing discrepancies among the various codes regulating Tech-Park zoned land to establish a more consistent approach. 2. Increasing predictability for developments of similar size and design by utilizing commercial scenic corridor standards for tech-park developments. 3. Removing unintended barriers for attracting employment uses in balance with maintaining community values by adding flexibility and clarity to specific use requirements. For example, adding flexibility to the odor abatement plan requirements (Strategic Leadership Plan, Goal 5A) and increasing the means to regulate vibration, noise, air pollution, safety and other elements associated with manufacturing or warehousing uses. 4. This item is for informational and discussion purposes only. The proposed code amendments will be presented for action by the Town Council in February. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: This item is for informational purposes only. The proposed code amendments will be presented for action by the Town Council in February. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1- AMENDMENTS TO ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE  ATTACHMENT 2 - RANCHO VISTOSO PAD AMENDMENTS  ATTACHMENT 3 - LA RESERVE PAD AMENDMENTS  ATTACHMENT 4- MAP OF COMMERCIAL AND TECH-PARK AREAS  ATTACHMENT 5- PZC STAFF REPORT 11.5.19  ATTACHMENT 6- PZC MINUTES 11.5.19  ATTACHMENT 7- PZC STAFF REPORT 12.3.19  ATTACHMENT 8- PZC DRAFT MINUTES 12.3.19  ATTACHMENT 9- REGULATORY CODES FOR TECH PARK SITES  ATTACHMENT 10- LETTER OF SUPPORT  ATTACHMENT 11- PROPOSED TECH-PARK HEIGHTS  ATTACHMENT 11- PROPOSED TECH-PARK HEIGHTS  ATTACHMENT 12- SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAYS  1 AMEND the following in Section 23, Section 25, Section 27, Chapter 31 and Addendum I of the Zoning Code. Additions shown in ALL CAPS, Deletions shown in strikethrough Section 23.1 Districts and Boundaries Thereof B. Purpose of Districts 18. T-P Technological Park District This district provides for administrative, research and specialized manufacturing activities at a low intensity. THIS DISTRICT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, SUCH AS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, BIOTECHNOLOGY, AND OTHER EMERGING INDUSTRIES. Uses include a mix of light industrial, professional office, office/showroom, office/warehouse, ASSEMBLY AND DISTRIBUTION, ancillary retail services and related uses. THESE USES GENERALLY OCCUR IN A BUSINESS PARK-TYPE ENVIRONMENT WITH CLUSTERED BUILDINGS AND INWARD FOCUSED ACTIVITY All uses shall be of a non-nuisance type and minimal scale having low silhouette, a variety of separate building masses and landscaped areas. This district is to provide employment near residential areas and the development standards are intended to be compatible to adjacent residential AREAS. uses and provide a park-like setting for employment. 2 TABLE 23-1: PERMITTED USES Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Other USE CATEGORY SPECIFIC USE TYPE R1- 300 R1- 144 R1- 72 R1- 43 R1- 36 R1- 20 R1- 10 R1 -7 S D H 6 R- 4 R- 4R R- S R- 6 C- N C- 1 C-2 PS T- P P O S NOTES ACCESSORY USES Accessory Uses Accessory Buildings and Uses P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 23.6 25.2.A AGRICULTURAL USES Agriculture Commercial Stables C C C 25.1.B.4 Farms and Ranches C P C C C C C C 25.1.B.10 Marketing of Products Raised on the Premises P 25.1.B.18 Medical Marijuana Dispensary Off- site Cultivation Location, Designated Caregiver Cultivation Location, Designated Qualifying Patient Cultivation Location P P 25.1.B.19 Plant Nursery C C P COMMERCIAL USES Food and Beverage Bars P P P A 25.1.B.3 Distillery C P Entertainment at Bars or Restaurants C C 25.1.B.9 Food Processing, Artisanal P P 3 TABLE 23-1: PERMITTED USES Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Other USE CATEGORY SPECIFIC USE TYPE R1- 300 R1- 144 R1- 72 R1- 43 R1- 36 R1- 20 R1- 10 R1 -7 S D H 6 R- 4 R- 4R R- S R- 6 C- N C- 1 C-2 PS T- P P O S NOTES Microbrewery A A P A P 25.1.B.20 Mobile Food Units, Including Food Trucks P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 25.1.B.21 Restaurant A P P P A 23.8.F Restaurant With Drive-in/Drive-thru C C C 25.1.B.6 25.1.B.25 Manufacturing & Processing FOOD PROCESSING, ARTISANAL P P P Food Processing, Large Scale C 25.1.B.13 Manufacturing Services, Heavy C Manufacturing Services, Light P P 25.1.B.17 WAREHOUSING, HEAVY C WAREHOUSING, LIGHT A Office & Professional Communication Studios P P P Offices P P P P P P RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT P P P Retail Sales Convenience Market C C C 25.1.B.6 Drive-thru Uses C C C 25.1.B.6 25.1.B.8 4 TABLE 23-1: PERMITTED USES Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Other USE CATEGORY SPECIFIC USE TYPE R1- 300 R1- 144 R1- 72 R1- 43 R1- 36 R1- 20 R1- 10 R1 -7 S D H 6 R- 4 R- 4R R- S R- 6 C- N C- 1 C-2 PS T- P P O S NOTES General Retail P P P A 23.8 Grocery Store P P P 23.8 Medical Marijuana Dispensary P P 25.1.B.20 WHOLESALING C P Service Animal Services P P P 25.1.B.2 Commercial or Fine Arts Studio P P P P P Daycare C C P P P P A 25.1.B.7 Drive-thru Uses, Not Including Banks C C C 25.1.B.6 25.1.B.8 Financial Services C P P P A Funeral Services P P Household Services P P Medical Services - Inpatient C P PC P Medical Services - Outpatient C C P Personal Services P P P P A Private Clubs Without Entertainment P P P 25.1.B.23 Private Clubs With Entertainment C C C 25.1.B.9 Self-Storage C C 5 TABLE 23-1: PERMITTED USES Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Other USE CATEGORY SPECIFIC USE TYPE R1- 300 R1- 144 R1- 72 R1- 43 R1- 36 R1- 20 R1- 10 R1 -7 S D H 6 R- 4 R- 4R R- S R- 6 C- N C- 1 C-2 PS T- P P O S NOTES Senior Care Facility P P P P P 25.1.B.26 Service (cont.) Sexually Oriented Businesses C 25.1.B.27 Technical Services P P P Theater C P Vehicle Gas Stations C C 25.1.B.6 25.1.B.14 Parts Store C P P 25.1.B.29 Rental Establishments, Less Than 10 Vehicles A P P A 25.1.B.30 Rental Establishments, Over 10 Vehicles C C 25.1.B.30 Rental Establishments, Moving Services C C 25.1.B.30 Repair Facilities C C 25.1.B.31 Sales C C P Storage Facility, Including Parking Garage P P P P P Washes/detailing C C 25.1.B.6 25.1.B.31 Boarding House or Lodging House C C C 6 TABLE 23-1: PERMITTED USES Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Other USE CATEGORY SPECIFIC USE TYPE R1- 300 R1- 144 R1- 72 R1- 43 R1- 36 R1- 20 R1- 10 R1 -7 S D H 6 R- 4 R- 4R R- S R- 6 C- N C- 1 C-2 PS T- P P O S NOTES Visitor Accommodation Guest Ranches P Hotels/motels P C P C Resorts P 25.1.B.33 Short-term Rental Properties P P P P P P P P P P P P P P PUBLIC, INSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIC USES Public, Institutional, Civic Arts & Cultural Use A A A A A A A A A A P P A P P P P P Cemetery C Fire Stations and Rescue Facilities, Private P P P P 25.1.B.12 General Aviation P Golf Course C C C C C C C C C 24.6 25.1.B.15 Golf Driving Range or Miniature Golf, Stand Alone C 25.1.B.15 Government Services P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Religious Institutions P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 25.1.B.24 Schools, Private C C P P P C Schools, Public Including Charter Schools P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 7 TABLE 23-1: PERMITTED USES Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Other USE CATEGORY SPECIFIC USE TYPE R1- 300 R1- 144 R1- 72 R1- 43 R1- 36 R1- 20 R1- 10 R1 -7 S D H 6 R- 4 R- 4R R- S R- 6 C- N C- 1 C-2 PS T- P P O S NOTES Utilities, Privately Owned C C C Utility Poles and Above Ground Wires, New C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 25.1.B.22 Recreation Buildings and Facilities, Not-for- Profit Community Service Organizations, such as Boys & Girls Clubs or YMCA C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P P P C Buildings and Facilities, Private, Including Fitness Centers or Health Spas P P P P 25.1.B.16 Buildings and Facilities With Outdoor Activities, Private, Including Fitness Centers or Health Spas C C C C RESIDENTIAL USES Residential Apartments P P P 26.5 Assisted Living Home P P P P P P P P P P 25.1.B.1 Dwelling Units, Single-Family P P P P P P P P P P P* *23.6.D.1 26.5 Dwelling Units, Site-Delivered, Single-Family P 8 TABLE 23-1: PERMITTED USES Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Other USE CATEGORY SPECIFIC USE TYPE R1- 300 R1- 144 R1- 72 R1- 43 R1- 36 R1- 20 R1- 10 R1 -7 S D H 6 R- 4 R- 4R R- S R- 6 C- N C- 1 C-2 PS T- P P O S NOTES Dwelling Units, Attached, Including Condominium, Patio Home or Townhouse P P P P 26.5 23.7 Home Occupations P P P P P P P P P P P P P 25.2.D Model Homes, Including Temporary Real Estate Office P P P P P P P P P P P P P 25.1.B.28 OTHER USES Other Antennas P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 25.1.B.5 Communication Facilities, Major C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 25.1.B.5 Communication Facilities, Minor P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 25.1.B.5 9 Table 23-2a: Dimensional Requirements Zoning District Minimum Property Size Yard Setbacks (feet) Maximum Building Height Min. Open Space Max. Floor Area Ratio Addl Regs Front Side Rear CN 0 acres 20* 0-50* 0-50* 25 feet or 2 stories* 25% .25 23.8.B C-1 5 acres 20* 0-50* 0-50* 25 feet or 2 stories* 20% .30 23.8.C C-2 10 acres 20* 0-50* 0-50* 30 feet or 2 stories* 20% .40 23.8.D PS 5 acres (schools only) * * * 1 story and 24-45 feet* 25% 23.8.E T-P 3 acres 3:1 20* 0-50* 0-50* 34 36 feet* 25% .50* 23.8.F POS 0-50* 0-50* 0-50* 1 story and 25-45 feet* * .15* 23.8.G Section 23.8 Property Development Standards for Nonresidential Districts B. C-N Neighborhood Commercial District 2. Building Height a. If a contiguous residential district has a more restrictive height standard, all buildings within eighty -five (85) feet of the property line of contiguous R-1 single-family residentially zoned property shall conform to that more restrictive standard of the contiguous zone. b. Architecturally appropriate elements such as bell towers or mechanical screening may exceed this limitation by no more than seven (7) feet, subject to approval by the Planning Division Manager. Additional height for architectural elements, up to thirty-five (35) feet, must be approved by the Town Council. B. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FEATURES SUCH AS CORNICES, LENTILS, CAPS, OR OTHER SIMILAR ELEMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THE PARAPET TO VARY THE ROOF LINE OR SCREEN MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MAY EXCEED THIS LIMITATION BY NO MORE THAN TEN (10) FEET. 4. SITE PERIMETER Yards and Setbacks a. Front: TWENTY (20) FEET OR W here adjacent to a residential district, the front setback regulations of the residential district shall apply; WHICHEVER IS GREATER b. Side and Rear Setbacks: i. Fifty (50) feet or 3:1, whichever is greater (setback to building height) where the lot abuts a PROPERTY USED OR INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, WHICHEVER IS GREATER ii. Twenty-five (25) feet where the lot abuts a multi-family residential or nonresidential district. C. DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS: MINIMUM DISTANCE OF TEN (10) FEET 10 C. C-1 Commercial District 2. Building Height Architectural DESIGN FEATURES elements such as bell towers, CORNICES, LENTILS, CAPS, OR OTHER SIMILAR ELEMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THE PARAPET TO VARY THE ROOF LINE OR SCREEN MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT may exceed this limitation by no more than ten (10) feet. subject to approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. D. C-2 Commercial District 1. Building Height Architectural DESIGN FEATURES elements such as bell towers, CORNICES, LENTILS, CAPS, OR OTHER SIMILAR ELEMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THE PARAPET TO VARY THE ROOF LINE OR SCREEN MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT may exceed this limitation by no more than ten (10) feet. subject to approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. F. T-P Technological Park District 1. BUILDING HEIGHT A. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FEATURES SUCH AS CORNICES, LENTILS, CAPS, OR OTHER SIMILAR ELEMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THE PARAPET TO VARY THE ROOF LINE OR SCREEN MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MAY EXCEED THIS LIMITATION BY NO MORE THAN TEN (10) FEET. 1. Retail Sales Uses Retail sales are allowed as an ancillary use directly related to and contained within the structure of the primary use. 2. Floor Area Limits ANCILLARY USES a. ANCILLARY USES MAY ONLY BE SITED WITHIN A MASTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. b. Ancillary uses shall be no greater than five thousand (5,000) square feet THIRTY PERCENT (30%) of gross floor area per individual business, except that expansions may be allowed with a conditional use permit. c. The gross floor area of ancillary uses, not contained within a primary use facility, is limited to no more than twenty percent (20%) OF THE TOTAL developed gross floor area OF THE DEVELOPMENT. d. The gross floor area of any one (1) structure shall not exceed fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet on lots less than ten (10) gross acres, except that expansions may be allowed with a conditional use permit. 3. Courtyards and Pedestrian Malls a. A portion of the development shall be oriented towards a landscaped courtyard or mall with seating areas and all or a portion of the required public art. b. The courtyard or mall shall be a minimum of two percent (2%) of the net lot area of the site in square feet, which shall be considered to be part of the required open space. c. The courtyard/mall requirement may be waived OR REDUCED by Town Council based on a suitable alternative design solution. being presented to and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 4. SITE PERIMETER Yards and Setbacks a. Front Yard: A ratio of three to one (3:1), shall be used. For buildings less than a height of twenty-five (25) feet, a ratio of two to one (2:1) will be permitted. TWENTY (20) FEET OR WHERE ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, THE FRONT SETBACK REGULATIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SHALL APPLY; WHICHEVER IS GREATER b. Side and Rear Setbacks: i. Fifty (50) feet or 3:1whichever is greater (setback to building height) where the lot abuts a PROPERTY USED OR INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, WHICHEVER IS GREATER a residential district or abuts an alley that is adjacent to a r esidential district. 11 ii. TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET WHERE THE LOT ABUTS A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. c. DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS: MINIMUM TEN (10) FEET Section 25.1 Requirements for Specific Uses A. General Requirements for All Non-Residential Uses 6. Odors A. DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS, AN ODOR ABATEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR ANY USE WHICH MAY EMIT ODOROUS MATTER DISCERNIBLE BEYOND THE ON-SITE PROPERTY BOUNDARY. USES INCLUDE RESTAURANTS, MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING, MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION DISTILLERIES, MICRO-BREWERIES, OR SIMILAR USES, AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. All restaurants, manufacturing and senior care uses shall provide an odor abatement plan at the time of Final Design submittal. The plan is subject to Planning and Zoning Administrator approval. Decisions may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. B. The odor abatement plan must contain the following elements: i. An inventory of potential or identified odor EMITTING emission point sources associated with the industry or land use. ACTIVITIES OR PROCESSES THAT TAKE PLACE AT THE FACILITY, THE SOURCES OF OCCURRENCE AND LENGTH OF TIME THE OCCURRENCE LASTS. ii. AN ODOR CONTROL plan detailing best available control technologies and appurtenances designed to eliminate or achieve the maximum reduction of odor emission from an emission point source inclusive of , but not necessarily limited to certain processes, procedures or operating methods intended to mitigate or control odor. THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND ENGINEERING CONTROLS THE FACILITY WILL IMPLEMENT TO CONTROL ODORS. A. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS INCLUDE PROCEDURAL ACTIVITIES, STAFF TRAINING PROCEDURES, RECORDKEEPING AND FORMS. B. ENGINEERING CONTROLS INCLUDE SYSTEM DESIGN, OPERATIONAL PROCESSES AND A MAINTENANCE PLAN. iii. A specification of the documentation that will be made available for Town review which will verify the data produced by the monitoring equipment, and which will verify that processes and procedures are conducted consistent with the specifications in the facility’s odor control study and plan. iv. A schedule for the implementation and installation of the control technologies, appurtenances and monitoring instrumentation. v. An acknowledgment of the authority of the Town and/or County and its agents to enter into the facility and its property to investigate complaints and to verify the facility’s adherence to the compliance plan. C. AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN ODOR ABATEMENT PLAN MAY BE WAIVED, IF DEEMED UNNECESSARY AS THE NATURE OF OPERATIONS CREATE A LOW RISK OF EMITTING OBJECTIONABLE ODORS. THE WAIVER IS SUBJECT TO RECONSIDERATION AND MAY BE REVOKED, IF ODORS ARE DETERMINED TO BE OBJECTIONABLE AFTER OCCUPANCY AND USE. B. Requirements for Specific Non-Residential Uses 12. Food Processing, Artisanal a. Artisanal food processing uses shall not exceed fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in gross floor area. 13. Food Processing, Large Scale a. Food processing uses greater than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of gross floor area. a.b. No slaughterhouses, meat processing and/or packing plants, or any other facilities used in the reduction of animal matter, or rendering of fats or oils are permitted. 16. Health Studio or Fitness Center 12 a. All activities must be indoor CONDUCTED within an entirely enclosed building OR A FULLY SCREENED YARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 25.1.A.4. 17. Manufacturing Services a. All activities must be conducted within an entirely enclosed building, including the storage of all materials. OR A FULLY SCREENED YARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 25.1.A.4. b. ALL Loading areas, INCLUDING DOCKS AND PLATFORMS shall not be visible from any property used or intended for residential purposes. b. MANUFACTURING SERVICES SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING OR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.5. c. None of the following shall be discernible at the property line: I. Noise NOISE SHALL NOT BE DISCERNIBLE AT THE PROPERTY LINE. II. Odor EMISSION OF ODOROUS MATTER IN SUCH A MANNER TO CREATE A NUISANCE OR HAZARD BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AN ODOR ABATEMENT PLAN MAY BE REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 25.1.A.6. III. Vibration a) WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT ABUTS A PROPERTY USED OR INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, VIBRATION SHALL NOT BE DISCERNIBLE BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE. b) WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT ABUTS A PROPERTY USED OR INTENDED FOR NON- RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, VIBRATION SHALL NOT BE DISCERNIBLE BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE HUMAN SENSE OF FEELING FOR A DURATION OF THREE MINUTES OR MORE IN ANY ONE HOUR OF THE DAY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. AND 7:00 P.M. OR OF A DURATION OF 30 SECONDS OR MORE IN ANY ONE HOUR BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 P.M. AND 7:00 A.M. IV. Glare/Heat ANY ACTIVITY PRODUCING INTENSE GLARE OR HEAT SHALL NOT BE DISCERNIBLE AT THE PROPERTY LINE. V. FLY ASH, DUST FUMES, VAPORS, GASSES AND OTHER FORMS OF AIR POLLUTION NO EMISSION SHALL BE PERMITTED WHICH CAN CAUSE ANY DAMAGE TO HEALTH, DAMAGE TO ANIMALS OR VEGETATION, OR DAMAGE TO OR SOILING OF OTHER FORMS OF PROPERTY. VI. LIQUID AND SOLID WASTE NO WASTE SHALL BE DISCHARGED IN THE STREETS, DRAINAGE WAYS OR ON ANY PROPERTY EXCEPT IN APPROPRIATELY DESIGNED DISPOSAL SYSTEMS. 20. Microbrewery a. No microbrewery may produce more than three hundred thousand (300,000) gallons annually. b. A microbrewery may be permitted as an ancillary use to a restaurant not to exceed forty percent (40%) of the gross floor area 33. Visitor Accommodations a. In the R-4R District, Ccommercial uses are permitted appurtenant to visitor accommodation use types, such as restaurants, excluding drive-in or drive-through types, cocktail lounges, and small retail shops; provided, that the entrance to any such appurtenant use shall be from the lobby, arcade, or interior patio, unless otherwise approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 13 34. WAREHOUSING a. A SHOWROOM IS PERMITTED AS AN ANCILLARY USE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 23.8.F. b. ALL LOADING AREAS, INCLUDING DOCKS AND PLATFORMS SHALL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM ANY PROPERTY USED OR INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. c. ALL OUTDOOR ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 25.1.A.4 AND FULLY SCREENED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 27.6.C.5. d. WAREHOUSING SERVICES SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING OR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.5 I. NOISE NOISE SHALL NOT BE DISCERNIBLE AT THE PROPERTY LINE. II. ODOR EMISSION OF ODOROUS MATTER IN SUCH A MANNER TO CREATE A NUISANCE OR HAZARD BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AN ODOR ABATEMENT PLAN MAY BE REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 25.1.A.6. III. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL THE KEEPING OF EXPLOSIVE, HIGHLY COMBUSTIBLE, CORROSIVE, TOXIC, HIGHLY OXIDIZING, RADIOACTIVE OR OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. IV. SAFETY THE DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS SHALL NOT RESULT IN THE CREATION OF TRAFFIC HAZARDS OR UNDUE CONGESTION ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET Section 27.10 Environmentally Sensitive Lands D. Environmentally Sensitive Lands Conservation System 3. Conservation Categories ESL conservation system categories and related conservation requirements are listed below. f. Scenic Resources Category vi. Site Development Oracle Road Scenic Corridor Overlay District (ORSCOD) and Tangerine Road Corridor Overlay District (TRCOD) (D) Employment/Institutional Regulations Campus developments on larger sites are especially desirable for preserving view corridors, adding variety to the specific plan area and creating activity balance with in -community destination sites. Special attention is required to maintain the corridor’s structural scale and efficient traffic management. Zoning district requirements apply, except as hereinafter provided, for properties classified under Sections 23.8.E, Private Schools (PS), and 23.8.F, Technological Park (T-P) Districts and located within the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor District. (i) Access to Oracle Road. Campus uses require a minimum frontage of six hundred sixty (660) feet on Oracle Road or other arterial streets, with roadway access located so as to be at least three hundred (300) feet from an established entry point to an adjacent property or street: (A) Multiple entries may be required if traffic projections for the proposed use so warrant. (B) Signalization, at appropriate spacing, is permitted only if warranted according to Arizona Department of Transportation criteria. (ii) Required Setbacks. A setback of not less than one hundred fifty (150) feet from the Oracle Road right-of-way is to be provided, the front one hundred (100) feet of which shall be landscaped or natural open space. THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SUBSECTION D.3.f.vi.a.3.C.ii. SHALL ALSO APPLY. 14 Natural open space or landscaped buffers (which may include natural washes) of not less than one hundred (100) FORTY (40) feet in width are required as WITHIN THE side or rear setbacks YARDS WHERE to any adjacent TO ANY PROPERTY USED OR INTENDED FOR residential district. PURPOSES. (iii) Density/Bulk. Development intensity for institutional or employment campus uses is limited to a maximum of 0.3 0.5 FAR and may be further limited by the Town Council. (iv) Landscaping Treatments. Not less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the gross site area is to be devoted to common landscaped or natural open space recreation area. (v) View Corridors. The applicant shall be responsible for identifying view corridors as provided in subsection D.3.f.iv of this section. FLEXIBILITY FROM THE VIEW CORRIDOR REQUIREMENTS DEFINED BELOW SHALL BE DETERMINED BY EXPRESS APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SUBSECTION D D.3.f.vi.a.3.C.v. OF THIS SECTION, SHALL APPLY. (A) Along the west side of Oracle Road, buildings over eighteen (18) feet or other structures, including walls, signs or mechanical equipment over four (4) feet in height, may not be placed within one hundred fifty (150) feet of any identified view corridor without express Planning and Zoning Commission approval. (B) Along the east side of Oracle Road, a minimum of sixty percent (6 0%) of the frontage to a depth of three hundred (300) feet along the east side of Oracle Road is maintained as a view corridor and is not used for building purposes. Building exposures will be measured to calculate the view corridor percentage. For properties along the east side of Oracle Road, with an average depth of four hundred (400) feet or less, or containing less than two (2) acres in size, building heights in excess of twenty-five (25) feet (as permitted by underlying zoning) shall be limited to forty percent (40%) of the frontage. The remaining buildable area heights shall be limited to twenty-five (25) feet. 5) Tangerine Road Corridor Overlay District Use Provisions (C) Employment and Institutional Regulations Sites for campus-type developments are established within the Tangerine Corridor’s natural context to create unique, unobtrusive opportunities for employment and institutional activity centers. Construction shall comply with the following provisions in addition to the applicable regulations of the underlying zoning district. (1) Roadway Access Access provisions of subsection D.3.f.vi.b.5.A.i and D.3.f.vi.b.5.A.ii of this section apply; however, multiple access points from Tangerine Road may be appropriate for institutional d evelopments exceeding twenty (20) acres in area, which experience high peak hour traffic demand. Construction of a public roadway perpendicular to Tangerine, separated by not less than one - quarter (1/4) mile from any arterial intersecting Tangerine, may be approved for the purpose of providing multiple entries to the campus. Secondary, alternative access to an intersecting arterial is also desirable. (2) Required Setbacks The commercial development regulations, subsection D.3.f.vi.b.5.B.ii of this section, shall also apply. (3) Building Height The commercial development regulations, subsection D.3.f.vi.b.5.B.iii of this section, shall apply. 15 (4) Building Bulk The following structural volumes may be built within the development envelopes establish ed by required setbacks: (a) The overall campus building area shall not exceed the FAR for the appropriate zoning district. (b) Buildings within the campus core (an area representing one-quarter (1/4) or less of the total site area surrounded by an equidistant peripheral band with lesser or no structural development; see Figure 27.10-12) shall not exceed 0.8 FAR. (c) Building area within peripheral area shall not exceed 0.4 0.5 FAR or the FAR for the appropriate zoning district, whichever is less. (5) Land Use Distinctions Uses permitted in the underlying zoning districts as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator shall be permitted except that the following may be sited only within master planned institutional or employment developments at a distance of two hundred (200) feet or more from the development’s nearest entry point: (a) Office buildings exceeding two (2) stories or thirty (30) feet in height. (b) Research, fabricating or manufacturing structures exceeding one (1) story or twenty-four (24) feet in height. (c) Hospitals/senior care facilities exceeding two (2) stories or thirty (30) feet in height. (d) Warehouse structures. (65) View Preservation The commercial development regulations, subsection D.3.f.vi.b.5.B.vi of this section, shall apply. (76) Site Planning The commercial development regulations, subsection D.3.f.vi.b.5.B.vii of this section, shall apply. Chapter 31. Definitions DISTILLERY A BUILDING OR USE THAT HAS A SERIES 18 LIQUOR LICENSE AND PRODUCES NO MORE THAN 20,000 GALLONS OF DISTILLED SPIRITS ANNUALLY. Manufacturing The fabricating or assembling of materials into finished or partially finished products by hand or by the use of machinery. Manufacturing Services An establishment whose primary business is the manufacturing of parts or materials into finished or partially finished products. These may include scientific analysis, laboratory or other similar uses. THE COMPOUNDING, PROCESSING, FABRICATING OR ASSEMBLING, PACKAGING OR TESTING OF GOODS OR EQUIPMENT. Heavy A manufacturing service which may have a negative impact on adjacent properties and that does not comply with Section 25.1.B.17 Light 16 A manufacturing service which does not have a negative impact on adjacent properties in accordance with Section 25.1.B.17. MASTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AN AREA WHERE LARGE, MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENTS SHOULD BE PLANNED AND DEVELOPED IN A COMPREHENSIVE MANNER. Medical Services An establishment providing INPATIENT OR OUTPATIENT medical care and/or treatment to patients, INCLUDING HOSPITALS, SURGERY CENTERS OR URGENT CARE FACILITIES. Inpatient An establishment providing medical care and/or treatment to patients for one (1) or more nights, including hospitals or surgery centers. Outpatient An establishment providing medical care and/or treatment to patients who are released and do not remain overnight, including urgent care facilities. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT THE CONDUCTING OF RESEARCH OF A COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR SCIENTIFIC NATURE, INCLUDING ANALYTIC, DIAGNOSTIC, PROCESSING, TESTING OR EXPERIMENTATION AND OTHER TYPES OF LABORATORY SERVICES BUT NOT FOR THE MANUFACTURE OR SALE OF PRODUCTS EXCEPT AS INCIDENTAL TO THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE LABORATORY. Technical Services An establishment providing services to businesses or individuals of a technical nature, including mail service, printing, photocopying, DATA and computer access centers. Warehouse A building or buildings AN ESTABLISHMENT WHERE THE PRIMARY SERVICE IS used for the storage AND DISTRIBUTION of goods of any type and where no retail operation is conducted A SHOWROOM IS PERMITTED AS AN ANCILLARY USE. HEAVY A WAREHOUSING ESTABLISHMENT WHICH MAY HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH SECTION 25.1.B.34 LIGHT A WAREHOUSING ESTABLISHMENT WHICH DOES NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 25.1.B.34. Addendum H: Scenic Resources Area Design Guidelines iv. Employment and Institutional 17 a) Adjacent to residential districts PROPERTIES USED OR INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL PUPROSES, setbacks of the residential district are to be met or exceeded, and to include a masonry wall with landscaping as augmentation. b) No outdoor storage visible from Oracle Road or adjacent residential neighborhoods. c) Provide pathway links to internal recreation facilities and external pathways and routes. d) Maintain view corridors through the site. e) No parking or access driveways within required setbacks. Tech-Park and Commercial Areas Attachment 4La CañadaTangerine Tech-Park C-1 C-2La Cholla Lambert InaLa Cañada 12/13/2019 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&get_month=11&get_year=2019&dsp=min&seq=389 1/3 Return MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION November 5, 2019 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Swope called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present:Bob Swope, Chair Hal Bergsma, Commissioner Celeste Gambill, Commissioner Thomas Gribb, Commissioner Ellen Hong, Commissioner Skeet Posey, Commissioner Staff Present:Bill Rodman, Town Council Liaison Bayer Vella, Planning Manager Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney J.J. Johnston, Community and Economic Development Director PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Swope led the Commission and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. CALL TO AUDIENCE No speaker requests. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Bill Rodman provided updates on past and upcoming Council meetings. REGULAR SESSION AGENDA 1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 SPECIAL SESSION MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to approve the September 10, 2019 meeting minutes as written. Vote: 6 - 0 Carried 2.DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS TO C-1, C-2, AND TECHNOLOGICAL PARK ZONING DISTRICTS, IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE PROPERTY FOR PRIMARY EMPLOYMENT USES AND REVISE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Principal Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Background - Expand Amount of Available Property - Revise Development Standards for Consistency 12/13/2019 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&get_month=11&get_year=2019&dsp=min&seq=389 2/3 - Revise Specific Use Standards - Summary and Feedback Discussion ensued among Commission and staff. Chair Swope granted a public speaker request: Oro Valley resident Shirl Lamonna spoke as opposed to Agenda Item #2 as it is currently written. 3.DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE, SECTION 24.9 AND SECTION 22.10 Principal Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Background on Economic Expansion Zone - Allow Shovel-ready Sites - Refine Development Review and Approval Process - Summary and Feedback Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff. 4.DISCUSSION REGARDING THE TOWN’S PROGRESS ON IMPLEMENTING THE YOUR VOICE, OUR FUTURE GENERAL PLAN Principal Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Importance of Progress Report - Implementing the General Plan - Land Use and Zoning Tasks - Environment Use and Zoning Actions - Development Land Use and Zoning Actions - Current Planning Projects - Summary Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff. 5.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE PLANNING DIVISION WORK PLAN FOR FY 19/20 - FY 20/21 Planning Manager Bayer Vella provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Commission Role - Planning Work Plan - Short-term Action Items - Previous Work Plan - Summary Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff. Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to recommend approval of the Planning Division Work Plan FY19/20 - FY20/21 with the following changes: (1) add provision under short-term action items to do an annual review of the General Plan progress report; (2) add an amendment to Section 22.4 of the Zoning Code to ensure compliance with State Law; and (3) increase priority of new Planning Commission training. Motion by Chair Bob Swope, a Friendly Amendment to heighten the priorities of the design standards for custom-built homes and ESL review to the short-term action items category. The Friendly Amendment was accepted by both the Motioner and Seconder. 12/13/2019 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&get_month=11&get_year=2019&dsp=min&seq=389 3/3 Vote: 6 - 0 Carried 6.DISCUSSION ONLY REGARDING RECENT CHANGES TO TOWN CODE SECTION 3-6-6 LIAISON AND TOWN COUNCIL POLICIES 5 AND 8 REGARDING ADVISORY BOARDS AND ASSOCIATED COUNCIL LIAISONS Chair Swope inquired about the motivation for this change. Commissioner Bergsma asked for clarification in speaking to elected officials as a resident. Continued discussion ensued between the Commission and staff. PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Planning Manager Bayer Vella complimented Principal Planner Milini Simms for her successful leadership of the Community Academy this year and expects many great applications for the boards and commissions. He also spoke about upcoming cases for the next Commission agenda on December 3, 2019. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Skeet Posey, seconded by Commissioner Hal Bergsma to adjourn the meeting. Chair Swope adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m. Vote: 6 - 0 Carried 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 Planning and Zoning Commission of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 5th day of November, 2019. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 7th day of November, 2019. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist GO TO PREVIOUS PAGE GO TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE AgendaQuick ©2005 - 2019 Destiny Software Inc. All Rights Reserved. 12/13/2019 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&fp=swagit&get_month=12&get_year=2019&dsp=agm&seq=3169&rev=0&ag=402…1/8 Planning & Zoning Commission Return to the Agenda Go to the Previous Agenda Item AGENDA ITEM: 4. Meeting Date:12/03/2019 Requested by:Bayer Vella Case Number:1901679 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING PROPOSED ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED AMENDMENTS TO C-1, C-2, TECHNOLOGICAL PARK AND EQUIVALENT PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS REGARDING LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUCH AS BUILDING HEIGHTS, SETBACKS ETC. ITEM A: AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY REVISED ZONING CODE ITEM B: AMENDMENTS TO THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT ITEM C: AMENDMENTS TO THE LA RESERVE PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of all three items. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of these items is to consider proposed code amendments (Attachment 1, Attachment 2 and Attachment 3) to the commercial (C-1 and C-2) and Technological Park zoning districts (see image to the right and Attachment 4) in order to expand the amount of available property for employment uses and revise associated zoning code standards to attract employers. The proposed code amendments are intended to meet the economic goals of the Strategic Leadership Plan, which are supported by the General Plan. The proposed code amendments were previously discussed on November 5, 2019 to gather feedback from the Commission (for staff report, see Attachment 5 and for minutes, see Attachment 6). The feedback focused on three main areas: 1. Permitted and ancillary uses- concern for allowing warehousing, self-storage, hotels/motels and private schools in a Tech-Park zoning district. There were further questions and concern regarding the development of ancillary uses. 2. Development standards- concern the proposed building height and the revisions to the setbacks and buffer yards along scenic corridors will impact views 3. Provisions for manufacturing- concern of vibration, noise and lighting impacting adjacent residences 12/13/2019 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&fp=swagit&get_month=12&get_year=2019&dsp=agm&seq=3169&rev=0&ag=402…2/8 Town staff revised the proposed code amendments to address many of the Commission's concerns. A summary of the proposed changes and clarifying information is provided in Attachment 7. Notable elements include: Adding provisions for only allowing ancillary uses in a Tech-Park zoning district as part of a master planned development, or area where multi-use tech-park sites are planned in a comprehensive manner. Revising the proposed building height to 36' for Oro Valley Tech-Park sites and 50' only for Tech- Park sites located within the Rancho Vistoso or La Reserve Planned Area Developments. Provisions are included to further restrict the height in these areas to 36' when the development abuts property used or intended for residential purposes or fronts Oracle Road Greater consistency between the setbacks for Tech-Park and Commercial developments Manufacturing provisions revised for when the development abuts property used or intended for residential purposes In summary, the revised code amendments are intended to address or clarify the Commission's concerns discussed during the previous meeting. Staff finds the proposed amendments are in conformance with the General Plan and recommends approval of all three items. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The proposed code amendments (Attachment 1, Attachment 2 and Attachment 3) are intended to meet the economic goals of the Town Council's Strategic Leadership Plan and supported by the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) plan (for more information, see Attachment 5). The proposed code amendments fulfill the objectives of each by focusing on three primary elements: 1. Expanding the amount of available property for employment uses. 2. Revising the development standards for consistency among tech-park and regional commercial areas. 3. Revising specific use (I.E. odor abatement standards) and Tech-Park development standards to remove unintended barriers for attracting primary employers The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the proposed changes on November 5, 2019 and provided feedback (see Attachment 6) to staff. Staff refined the proposed code amendments to address and clarify the Commission's questions and concerns. A summary of each is provided below. 1. Permitted and Ancillary Uses The proposed code amendments aim to expand the available property for employment by adding low-impact employment uses to the C-1 and C-2 commercial districts that function similar to the existing uses already permitted in each district (I.E. General Office). Additionally, the proposed code amendments update the permitted and ancillary uses in the Tech-Park zoning district to be consistent with the Planned Area Development tech-park zones (see image to the right and Attachment 8) and to create a mixed-use, live-work environment. The Commission's concerns are listed below, followed by staff commentary in italics. A. Concerns were raised about the amount of employment generated from the following permitted or conditional uses in a Tech-Park zone. The Commission recommended removing these uses from a Tech-Park zone. Warehousing Warehousing is currently permitted in both Rancho Vistoso and La Reserve Campus Park Industrial (Tech-Park) zoning districts. For consistency, staff recommends warehousing be added as a permitted use in the OV Tech-Park zone. Although big box retail is likely to 12/13/2019 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&fp=swagit&get_month=12&get_year=2019&dsp=agm&seq=3169&rev=0&ag=402…3/8 transform into full or partial warehousing operations, warehousing is not being proposed in commercial (C-1 or C-2) zones at this time. Hotels/Motels/Resorts These are currently allowed in the Rancho Vistoso Campus Park Industrial zoning district. Hotels/motels support tech-park business, many of which are national or global companies.Staff recommends permitting them in all Tech-Park areas for consistency and to allow the market to dictate concentration. Per code, resorts are a separate use and not proposed for a Tech-Park zoning district. Self-storage Self-storage is currently allowed in Tech-Park zoning districts with a conditional use permit. Removing them entirely, takes away an existing property right which puts the Town in a position to be sued/challenged under Prop 207. As such, staff recommends keeping it as a conditional use. Private Schools Similar to self-storage, private schools are currently allowed in a Tech-Park zoning district with a conditional use permit. Staff recommends it remain as a conditional use to not infringe on existing private property rights. A summary of all the proposed use changes is included in Attachment 7. B. Concerns with the timing of development for ancillary uses before a primary use was planned or constructed. Per Code, ancillary uses are those that are subordinate to a primary use. In Tech-Park zoning districts, the ancillary uses support the mixed-use, live-work type campus major employers are seeking. To meet the intent of the code definition and address the concerns raised by the Commission the following provisions are included for ancillary uses in a Tech-Park zoning district: Ancillary uses may be sited only within a Master Planned Development. Added a definition for a Master Planned Development, which is an area where large, multi- use developments are planned and developed in a comprehensive manner. Essentially, this assures the ancillary uses are subordinate to primary uses and larger developments are designed cohesively. 2. Development Standards A. Building Height The second element of the proposed amendment is to create consistency among the standards for all tech-park areas in the Town. As previously mentioned, Tech-Park sites are regulated by three different codes 1) Town of Oro Valley Zoning Code, 2) Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development and 3) La Reserve Planned Area Development. Currently, the building height in each is different with the maximum height of 48' for Ventana Medical Systems (see chart below). Previously, staff proposed a building height of 50' for all three regulating codes. The Commission's concerns are listed below, followed by staff commentary in italics. 1. The proposed height's view impact on existing residences. Per the Commission's feedback, the proposed code amendment has been revised to permit 36' for the Oro Valley Tech-Park sites and 50' only in the La Reserve and Rancho Vistoso Planned 12/13/2019 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&fp=swagit&get_month=12&get_year=2019&dsp=agm&seq=3169&rev=0&ag=402…4/8 Area Developments (PAD). The amendments to the Planned Area Developments (Item B and Item C) include provisions to restrict the proposed height to 36' when the property abuts a residential area or fronts along Oracle Road. The chart below provides a comparison between the existing and proposed code. EXISTING PROPOSED Oro Valley Code Rancho Vistoso PAD La Reserve PAD Oro Valley Code Rancho Vistoso PAD La Reserve PAD Height 34’36’-48’35’-42’36’ 50’*50’* *Reduced to 36’ for lots fronting Oracle or abutting residential. 2. The proposed height's view impacts to scenic corridors. Currently, the code restricts buildings heights along Oracle Road and Tangerine Road to protect the views along the scenic corridors. The proposed code amendment retains these restrictions, except for the west side of Oracle Road. Per the Commission's feedback, staff revised the restriction on the west side for greater consistency with the commercial standard. The La Reserve PAD currently restricts the height for Tech-Park lots fronting Oracle Road to a maximum of 35'. For parity, the proposed code amendments restrict height to a maximum of 36' for all Tech-Park lots fronting Oracle Road (see Attachment 2 and Attachment 3). The chart on the next page, summarizes the proposed amendments. 12/13/2019 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&fp=swagit&get_month=12&get_year=2019&dsp=agm&seq=3169&rev=0&ag=402…5/8 EXISTING CODE PROPOSED CODE Tech-Park Commercial Tech-Park Tangerine Road Refers to commercial standards Restricted to 20’ if located within 100’ and visible from the Tangerine Road right-of-way. No change Oracle Road West-side No buildings over 18' may be within 150’ of Oracle Road No buildings over 18' may be within a minimum of 60% of the frontage to a depth of 300' Refer to the commercial standard for consistency and restrict building height to 36' for lots fronting Oracle Road. Oracle Road East-side 60% of the frontage to a depth of 300' is maintained as a view corridor unless properties are less than 2 acres or 400' in depth, then heights over 25' are limited to 40% of the frontage. Maintain current requirements and restrict building height to 36' for lots fronting Oracle Road. B. Setbacks and Buffer yards Amending the setback and buffer yard requirements for Tech-Park zones is recommended for greater consistency between tech-park developments and commercial developments. Large commercial developments and tech-park campuses are designed similar in layout, circulation and building footprint. Specifically, the Commission was concerned with reducing the setbacks and buffer yards for Tech- Park developments along the scenic corridors. The Commission recommended greater balance between development and protecting the scenic corridor. Similar to the building height restrictions for scenic corridors, the setbacks along Tangerine Road are already consistent among commercial and tech-park sites. However, along Oracle Road the setbacks are a set standard for all Tech-Park development regardless of height. Whereas, the commercial standards factor in height to force taller buildings further away from Oracle Road and encouraging a lower building height along the corridor. For example, this means a permitted office would require a larger setback in a Tech-Park zone than it would in a commercial zone with the same size and height . Based on the Commission's feedback, the setbacks along Oracle Road have been revised for greater consistency among the tech-park and commercial standards. Please see chart below for a summary of the proposed revisions. EXISTING CODE PROPOSED CODE Tech-Park Commercial Tech-Park Front 3:1 (setback to building height) unless lower than 25' then it is 2:1 20’ or where adjacent to residential, residential setbacks apply Revise T-P front setbacks to be consistent with commercial. Side/Rear 50' or 3:1, whichever is greater when abutting residential 50' or 3:1, whichever is greater when abutting residential 25’ when abutting multi-family Add side/rear setbacks for when T-P abuts multi-family or non- residential (consistent with commercial) 12/13/2019 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&fp=swagit&get_month=12&get_year=2019&dsp=agm&seq=3169&rev=0&ag=402…6/8 or residential Tangerine Road Scenic Corridor Standards Front Refers to commercial 4:1 (setback to height)No change- Existing standards are consistent between T-P and commercial.Side/Rear Refers to commercial Underlying Zoning district Oracle Road Scenic Corridor Standards Front 150’ except for La Reserve PAD sites, which is 50’ Single structure: 60’ and 4:1 (setback to building height) Multiple structures: 120’ average Revised to refer to all the commercial standards Side/ Rear buffer yards 100 feet when abutting residential Silent – normal buffer yard requirements apply Revised to 40’ when abutting residential. Forty feet is the maximum depth of a buffer yard required in Section 27.6.C.4. 3. Specific Use Standards Section 25.1.B. of the Zoning Code has additional standards for specific non-residential uses. Provisions for manufacturing were expanded to clearly delineate between the two subcategories (light or heavy) permitted. The Commission was concerned with the following provisions (staff comments in italics) and their impacts on existing residences. Noise The proposed code amendment restricts noise from being discernible at the property line. Vibration (manufacturing only) Staff revised the code amendment to restrict vibration from being discernible at the property line when the development abuts a property used or intended for residential purposes. Outdoor lighting Section 27.5 of the Zoning Code establishes the requirements and design standards for outdoor lighting. The amount, location and types of lighting are all established by code. Although parking lot lighting is permitted for safety purposes, the lights must be shielded and placed away from nearby residences. A summary of the provisions for manufacturing and warehousing are included in Attachment 7. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed code amendment was reviewed for conformance with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan. By increasing the available space for employment uses and removing unintended barriers, the proposed code amendment meets and supports the following goals and policies: Goal B. A robust local economy and job market that provide opportunities for quality employment, build on Oro Valley’s assets and encourage high-quality growth. Goal C. A strong sector of targeted industries, including bioscience and aerospace, that provide opportunities for synergy and growth. Policy E.1. Develop a diversified and robust economic base to support long-term economic stability. Policy E.2. Establish programs, strategies, investments and financial incentives that advance the Town’s economic prosperity. 12/13/2019 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&fp=swagit&get_month=12&get_year=2019&dsp=agm&seq=3169&rev=0&ag=402…7/8 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Public Notice has been provided as stated below. A letter of support was received and included in Attachment 9. All HOAs in Town were notified of this hearing All property owners of Tech-Park zoned property Public hearing notices were posted: In the Territorial Newspaper In the Arizona Daily Star At Town Hall On the Town website SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed code amendment was initiated through the Town Council's Strategic Leadership Plan to achieve the goal of attracting more primary employment users. Substantiated by the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS), the main goals of the proposed code amendment are to: 1. Expand the amount of available property for employment uses. 2. Revise the development standards for consistency among tech-park and regional commercial areas. 3. Revise specific use (I.E. odor abatement standards) and Tech-Park development standards to remove unintended barriers for attracting primary employers. The Planning and Zoning Commission provided feedback on the proposed code amendments during the November 5, 2019 meeting (see Attachment 6). Staff further refined the code amendments to address or clarify the concerns raised. In summary, staff finds the proposed code amendments are in conformance with the General Plan and recommend approval of all three items. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: There are three separate motions for the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider. ITEM A: I MOVE to recommend approval of the proposed code amendments to the C-1, C-2 and Technological Park zoning districts and associated standards based on the finding they are in conformance with the General Plan. OR I MOVE to recommend denial of the proposed code amendments to the C-1, C-2 and Technological- Park zoning districts based on the finding________________. ITEM B: I MOVE to recommend approval of the proposed code amendments to the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development based on the finding they are in conformance with the General Plan. OR I MOVE to recommend denial of the proposed code amendments to the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development based on the finding________________. ITEM C: 12/13/2019 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&fp=swagit&get_month=12&get_year=2019&dsp=agm&seq=3169&rev=0&ag=402…8/8 I MOVE to recommend approval of the proposed code amendments to the La Reserve Planned Area Development based on the finding they are in conformance with the General Plan. OR I MOVE to recommend denial of the proposed code amendments to the La Reserve Planned Area Development based on the finding________________. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1- PROPOSED OV ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ATTACHMENT 2- RANCHO VISTOSO PAD AMENDMENTS ATTACHMENT 3- LA RESERVE PAD AMENDMENTS ATTACHMENT 4- TECH PARK AND COMMERCIAL AREAS ATTACHMENT 5- PZC STAFF REPORT 11.05.19 ATTACHMENT 6- DRAFT PZC MINUTES 11.05.19 ATTACHMENT 7- SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK AND REVISIONS ATTACHMENT 8- REGULATORY CODE FOR TECH-PARK SITES ATTACHMENT 9- LETTER OF SUPPORT GO TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE AgendaQuick ©2005 - 2019 Destiny Software Inc. All Rights Reserved. D R A F T MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION December 3, 2019 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE            REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER Chair Swope called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Bob Swope, Chair Hal Bergsma, Commissioner Celeste Gambill, Commissioner Thomas Gribb, Commissioner Skeet Posey, Commissioner Absent: Ellen Hong, Commissioner Staff Present:Bayer Vella, Planning Manager Bill Rodman, Town Council Liaison J.J. Johnston, Community and Economic Development Director Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Swope led the Commission and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.   CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests.   COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Bill Rodman stated the golf issue and police chief recruitment process has been the focus of Council lately. He thanked outgoing Commissioners Bob Swope and Tom Gribb for their service, and also said this was his last meeting as the Council liaison for the Commission.   REGULAR SESSION AGENDA   1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 5, 2019 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES       Motion by Commissioner Thomas Gribb, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to approve the November 5, 2019 meeting minutes as written.  Vote: 5 - 0 Carried  Vote: 5 - 0 Carried   2.DISCUSSION AND OVERVIEW REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (CEDS)       Community and Economic Development Director J.J. Johnston provided a presentation that included the following: - Community and Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) plan - Overarching goals - Initial priorities - Process - Alignment with the Strategic Leadership Plan - Summary Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff.   3.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE, SECTION 24.9 AND SECTION 22.10       Community and Economic Development Director J.J. Johnston provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Planning and Zoning Commission feedback - Town Council 20-day appeal period - General Plan conformance - Summary and recommendation Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff.    Chair Swope opened the public hearing. There were no speaker requests. Chair Swope closed the public hearing. Further discussion continued among the Commission and staff.    Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Celeste Gambill to recommend approval of the proposed code amendment to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) based on the finding that it is in conformance with the General Plan.    Motion by Chair Bob Swope, seconded by Commissioner Thomas Gribb to offer a Friendly Amendment to modify the open house meeting requirement to apply to all properties within 100 feet of residential areas.    Vote: 5 - 0 Carried   4.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING PROPOSED ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED AMENDMENTS TO C-1, C-2, TECHNOLOGICAL PARK AND EQUIVALENT PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS REGARDING LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUCH AS BUILDING HEIGHTS, SETBACKS ETC. ITEM A: AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY REVISED ZONING CODE ITEM B: AMENDMENTS TO THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT    ITEM B: AMENDMENTS TO THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT ITEM C: AMENDMENTS TO THE LA RESERVE PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT    Principal Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Planning and Zoning Commission feedback - Permitted uses: low-impact employment uses - Provide parity among Tech Park zones - Permitted uses proposed in Tech Park zones - Ancillary uses in Tech Park - Proposed building heights in Tech Park Zones - Proposed building heights for Innovation Park and La Reserve - Intensity along scenic corridors - Specific use standards - General Plan conformance - Public outreach - Summary and recommendation Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff.    Chair Swope opened the public hearing Oro Valley resident Shirl Lamonna stated she generally supports bringing industry to the Town, but has concerns about warehousing and odor. She also commented on the CED report and to remember the reasons why people originally came to live in Oro Valley. Chair Swope closed the public hearing.    Further discussion ensued among the Commission and staff.    Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to recommend approval of [Item A] the proposed code amendments to the C-1,C-2 and Technological Park zoning districts and associated standards, with the modification that light warehousing and hotels/motels are changed from a permitted use to an ancillary use, based on the finding the changes are in conformance with the General Plan.    Motion by Commissioner Thomas Gribb, seconded by Chair Bob Swope to offer a Friendly Amendment that the verbiage also include the building height restrictions be extended to properties within 100 feet of residential areas.    Vote: 5 - 0 Carried    Motion by Commissioner Thomas Gribb, seconded by Commissioner Hal Bergsma to recommend approval of [Item B] the proposed code amendments to the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development, and include language that the building height restrictions be extended to properties within 100 feet of residential areas.  Vote: 5 - 0 Carried    Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Thomas Gribb to recommend approval [Item C] of the proposed code amendments to the La Reserve Planned Area Development based on the finding they are in conformance with the General Plan.  Vote: 5 - 0 Carried   PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY)    Planning Manager Bayer Vella spoke about the four (4) commissioner appointments open for consideration at Town Council on December 4, upcoming Commissioner training on December 19, the next Commission meeting will be January 6 (Monday) in the Hopi Conference Room and a neighborhood meeting is scheduled for January 9. He also thanked Chair Swope, Commissioner Gribb and Town Council liaison Bill Rodman for their service.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Commissioner Thomas Gribb, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to adjourn the meeting.  Vote: 5 - 0 Carried    Chair Swope adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m.     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 Planning and Zoning Commission of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 3rd day of December, 2019. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of ____________________, 2019. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist Regulatory Codes for Tech-Park Sites Attachment 9 Tangerine Rd.La Cañada Dr.Tech-Park Rancho Vistoso PAD Oro Valley Zoning Code La Reserve PAD               Engineering • Planning  Surveying • Urban Design  Landscape Architecture  Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture  Offices located in Tucson, Phoenix, Flagstaff & Las Vegas • tucson@wlbgroup.com  4444 E. Broadway Blvd. • Tucson, AZ 85711 • (520) 881‐7480 • Fax (520) 881‐7492          November 4, 2019    Town of Oro Valley, Planning Division  Attn: Milini Simms, Principal Planner  11,000 N. La Canada Dr.  Oro Valley, AZ 85737    Subject: Withdrawal of a Text Amendment to the Rancho Vistoso PAD    Regarding Allowable Building Height on Selected Parcels within Innovation Park    WLB No. 185050‐VW‐05    Dear Milini:    We are pleased to see that the Town’s update of the OVZCR Technological Park Zoning District is going to  address the building height flexibility that we had sought in our proposed PAD amendment.  There is no  need to duplicate efforts, so we respectfully withdraw our application.  Please don’t hesitate to let us  know if you need additional information or if there is anything we can do to support the Town’s proposed  code amendment.    Sincerely,        THE WLB GROUP, INC.              Paul Oland        Copy:  Alec Kennedy, Roche Tissue Diagnostics (Ventana Medical Systems)    Neil Simon, Venture West      G:\Projects\19aa WLB Gen Svcs\a01\185050 N03 Bldg Ht PAD Amend 2019\Innov Park Bldg Ht PAD Amend Withdrawal Ltr.docx  Proposed Tech Park Heights Attachment 11 Tangerine Naranja Linda Vista 50 feet 36 feetLa CañadaScenic corridors Scenic Corridor Overlays Attachment 12 Tangerine Naranja Linda Vista OV Zoning La Reserve Rancho Vistoso Overlay DistrictsLa Cañada