Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1410)         AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR AND STUDY SESSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2020 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING Join Zoom Meeting: https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/93258145525 To attend via phone only, dial 1-669-900-6833 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 5:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER   ROLL CALL   EXECUTIVE SESSION - Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (4) and (7) regarding potential land annex and contract negotiations thereon   RECONVENE 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.Proclamation - National Preparedness Month   CONSENT AGENDA  (Consideration and/or possible action)   A.Minutes - July 15, July 22, and August 19, 2020   B.Resolution No. (R)20-41, authorizing and approving an extension to the lease for the Police Department substation currently located at Mountain View Plaza   C.Resolution No. (R)20-42, approving the Agenda Committee assignment for the period of September 1, 2020, to November 30, 2020   D.Request for approval of a Final Plat for Phase II of the Saguaro Viejos East residential subdivision, located near the northwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive   E.Approval of any direction to the Town Attorney and necessary staff as discussed in executive session   REGULAR AGENDA   1.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-43, DECLARING THE PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.10, SECTION 24.9, SECTION 27.9 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE RELATED TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-05, AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.10, SECTION 24.9, SECTION 27.9 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE   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)   ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR SESSION   STUDY SESSION   CALL TO ORDER   STUDY SESSION AGENDA   1.DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO THE NOISE ABATEMENT STANDARDS, ONLY FOR NEW AND SPECIFIC LAND USE TYPES, AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE USES OF THE ZONING CODE   ADJOURNMENT The Mayor and Council may, at the discretion of the meeting chairperson, discuss any Agenda item.   POSTED: 8/26/20 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. In accordance with Amendment #2 of the Mayoral Proclamation of Emergency issued on March 27, 2020, the following restrictions have been placed on all public meetings until further notice: 1. In-person attendance by members of the public is prohibited. 2. Members of the public can either watch the public meeting online https://www.orovalleyaz.gov/town/departments/town-clerk/meetings-and-agendas or, if they would like to participate in the meeting (e.g. speak at Call to Audience or speak on a Regular Agenda item), they can attend the meeting and participate via the on-line meeting application, Zoom, https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/93258145525 , or may participate telephonically only by dialing 1-669-900-6833 prior to or during the posted meeting. 3. If a member of the public would like to speak at either Call to Audience or on a Regular Agenda item, it is highly encouraged to email your request to speak to Bluecard@orovalleyaz.gov and include your name and town/city of residence in order to provide the Mayor/Chair with advance notice so you can be called upon more efficiently during the Zoom meeting. 4.  All members of the public who participate in the Zoom meeting either with video or telephonically will enter the meeting with microphones muted.  For those participating via computer/tablet/phone device, you may choose whether to turn your video on or not.  If you have not provided your name to speak prior to the meeting as specified in #3 above, you will have the opportunity to be recognized when you “raise your hand.”  Those participating via computer/tablet/phone device can click the “raise your hand” button during the Call to the Public or Regular Agenda item, and the Chair will call on you in order, following those who submit their names in advance.  For those participating by phone, you can press *9, which will show the Chair that your hand is raised.  When you are recognized at the meeting by the Chair, your microphone will be unmuted by a member of staff and you will have three minutes to speak before your microphone is again muted.  5. If a member of the public would like to submit written comments to the Town Council for their consideration prior to the meeting, please email those comments to mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov no later than sixty minutes before the public meeting .  Those comments will then be electronically distributed to the public body prior to the meeting. If you have questions, please contact Town Clerk, Mike Standish, at 520-229-4700 or email at mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov Thank you for your cooperation.    Town Council Regular Session 1. Meeting Date:09/02/2020   Proclamation - National Preparedness Month Subject Proclamation - National Preparedness Month Summary Attachments Proclamation     Town Council Regular Session A. Meeting Date:09/02/2020   Requested by: Mike Standish Submitted By:Michelle Stine, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: Minutes - July 15, July 22,  and August 19, 2020 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 July 15, July 22, and August 19, 2020, minutes.  Attachments 7-15-20 Draft Minutes  7-22-20 Draft Minutes  8-19-20 Draft Minutes  D R A F T   MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR AND SPECIAL SESSION JULY 15, 2020 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING            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 Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember Rhonda Piña, Councilmember Bill Rodman, Councilmember Steve Solomon, Councilmember Absent: Josh Nicolson, Councilmember PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE    Councilmember Rodman led the audiance in the Pledge of Allegiance   UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS    Town Clerk Mike Standish announced the upcoming Town meetings.   COUNCIL REPORTS    Councilmember Nicolson joined the Zoom meeting. Councilmember Solomon reported that he attended a recent Suffolk Hills HOA meeting. Mayor Winfield acknowledged Oro Valley residents for their diligence with wearing a mask, social distancing and following CDC guidelines.   TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT    Town Manager Mary Jacobs provided the following information during the Town Manager's Report; 7/15/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 1   Town Manager Mary Jacobs provided the following information during the Town Manager's Report; Ms. Jacobs welcomed Bernard Eaton as the new General Manager for Antares Golf Information regarding Proposition 480 is available on the Town's website The Aquatic Center had seen a large demand for lap swimming. As a result and to help meet the demand, lap swimming would be available on Mondays at the Community and Recreation Center Pool. The Town was working with Davidson Strategic to help develop and implement a customized program designed to assist businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic   ORDER OF BUSINESS    Mayor Winfield re-organized the agenda as follows: Regular Agenda item #4 would be moved to item #2 and the remaining items would follow in order.    Mayor Winfield provided the guidelines for participation in the Town Council's Regular and Special Session Zoom meeting.   INFORMATIONAL ITEMS    There were no informational items.   CALL TO AUDIENCE    No comments were received.   PRESENTATIONS   1.Proclamation - Drowning Impact Awareness Month       Mayor Winfield proclaimed August 2020 as Drowning Impact Awareness month and urged all communities and citizens of Arizona to participate in efforts to reduce drowning risk, strengthen families, and protect children and teens. Jody Layton, Program Coordinator for the Drowning Prevention Coalition of Arizona accepted the proclamation. Anne-Marie Braswell, Community Relations Manager for the Golder Ranch Fire District, spoke briefly regarding Drowning Impact Awareness month.   2.Proclamation - Child Support Awareness Month       Mayor Winfield proclaimed August 2020 as Child Support Awareness month. Justine McDilda, Outreach Coordinator for the Division of Child Support Services, accepted the proclamation.   3.Presentation and possible discussion of the Town's Fiscal year 2019/20 Financial Update through May 2020       Finance and Budget Administrator Wendy Gomez presented the Town's FY 19/20 Financial Update 7/15/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 2   Finance and Budget Administrator Wendy Gomez presented the Town's FY 19/20 Financial Update through May 2020 and included the following: General Fund Revenues General Fund Expenditures General Fund Highway Fund Community Center Fund Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the FY 19/20 Financial Update through May 2020.   ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR SESSION    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett to adjourn the Regular Session at 6:43 p.m.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   SPECIAL SESSION   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the Special Session to order at 6:43 p.m.   SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-38, APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE FINAL BUDGET OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020/21, INCLUDING APPROVAL OF THE 10-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FROM FY 2020/21 THROUGH FY 2029/30 AND THE FY 2020/21 SALARY CLASSIFICATION PLAN       Chief Financial Officer David Gephart presented Special Session item #1 and included the following: FY 20/21 Final Budget Changes from Tentative Budget Capital Improvement Program (CIP) In Summary Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding Special Session item #1.    Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. No comments were received. Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing. Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding Special Session item #1.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to approve Resolution No. (R)20-38, approving the adoption of the final budget of the Town of Oro Valley for the fiscal year 2020/21, including the FY 2020/21 Salary Classification Plan, and further move to approve the Town of Oro Valley 10-year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2020/21 through FY 2029/30 7/15/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 3   Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   ADJOURNMENT OF THE SPECIAL SESSION    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to adjourn the Special Session at 7:16 p.m.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   RECONVENE THE REGULAR SESSION    Mayor Winfield reconvened the Regular Session at 7:17 p.m.   CONSENT AGENDA   A.Minutes - July 1, 2020      B.Resolution No. (R)20-37, acceptance of a Water Utility Easement from Amphitheater School District Number 10      C.Resolution No. (R)20-33, authorizing the approval of an archery Shooting Range Development Grant Agreement between the Arizona Game & Fish Department and the Town of Oro Valley in the amount of $50,000 for the construction of a permanent restroom facility at the Naranja Park archery range       Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Rhonda Piña to approve consent agenda items (A) - (C).  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   REGULAR AGENDA   1.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN AGREEMENT ABOUT FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS TOWN GOLF OPERATIONS WITH 1) THE CANADA HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION/CANADA HILLS MASTER COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AND/OR 2) THE VILLAGES OF LA CANADA MASTER ASSOCIATION       Town Manager Mary Jacobs provided a brief overview of item #1.    Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve the agreement with the Canada Hills Community Association/Canada Hills Master Community Association and The Villages of La Canada Master Association.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   2.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE ORO VALLEY PRIMARY EMPLOYER INCENTIVE PROGRAM       Economic and Development Director JJ Johnston presented item #2 and included the following: Purpose of Proposed Primary Incentive Program Primary Employer Incentive Program Minimum Primary Employer Qualifications Menu of Potential Incentives (cont.) Summary Questions 7/15/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 4  The following individual spoke in support of item #2. Oro Valley resident and President and CEO of The Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce Dave Perry The following individual spoke on item #2. Oro Valley resident Tim Bohen Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #2.    Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett to approve the proposed Oro Valley Primary Employer Incentive Program.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried    Mayor Winfield recessed the meeting at 7:52 p.m. Mayor Winfield reconvened the meeting at 8:02 p.m.   3.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-34, DECLARING THE PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.10, SECTION 24.9, SECTION 27.9 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE RELATED TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-05, AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.10, SECTION 24.9, SECTION 27.9 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE       Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Resolution (R)20-34, declaring the proposed code amendments to the Economic Expansion Zone, Section 24.9 and other associated sections of code in Attachment 1 and filed with the Town Clerk, a public record.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried    Economic and Development Director JJ Johnston presented item #3 and included the following: Purpose Proposed Code Amendment Previous discussions Pre-grading New Public outreach requirements General Plan Conformance Public outreach for code amendment Summary and recommendation Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. The following individual spoke in support of item #3B. Oro Valley resident and President and CEO of The Greater Chamber of Commerce Dave Perry Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #3B. 7/15/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 5  Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #3B.    Principal Planner Milini Simms provided an overview of the potential areas for pre-grading.    Motion by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett, seconded by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield to approve Ordinance No. (O)20-05, amending the Zoning Code Section 22.10, Section 24.9, Section 27.9 and other associated sections of the code related to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) with the exception that the pre-grading requirements remain the way they currently are.    Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding item #3B.    Motion by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett, seconded by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield to approve Ordinance No. (O)20-05, amending the Zoning Code Section 22.10, Section 24.9, Section 27.9 and other associated sections of the code related to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) with the exception that the pre-grading requirements remain as they are.  Vote: 3 - 3 Failed  OPPOSED: Councilmember Rhonda Piña  Councilmember Bill Rodman  Councilmember Steve Solomon Other: Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey (ABSTAIN)    Motion by Councilmember Steve Solomon, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to approve Ordinance No. (O)20-05, amending the Zoning Code Section 22.10, Section 24.9, Section 27.9 and other associated sections of the code related to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ).  Vote: 3 - 3 Failed  OPPOSED: Mayor Joseph C. Winfield  Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett  Councilmember Josh Nicolson Other: Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey (ABSTAIN)    Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding item #3B.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Rhonda Piña to continue item #3B to the September 2, 2020 Town Council meeting and receive clarification from Legal Counsel.  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried  Other: Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett (ABSTAIN)    Mayor Winfield recessed the meeting at 10:07 p.m. Mayor Winfield reconvened the meeting at 10:13 p.m.   4.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE C-1, C-2, AND TECHNOLOGICAL PARK ZONING DISTRICTS AND EQUIVALENT PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS REGARDING LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUCH AS BUILDING HEIGHTS, SETBACKS, ETC A: RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-35, DECLARING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE, RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT AND LA RESERVE PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT RELATED TO THE COMMERCIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL PARK ZONING DISTRICTS IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND AS FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD    7/15/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 6  B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-06, AMENDING: THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT CAMPUS PARK INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT (EXHIBIT A) 1. THE LA RESERVE PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT CAMPUS PARK INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT (EXHIBIT B) 2. THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED C-1, C-2, AND TECHNOLOGICAL PARK ZONING DISTRICTS AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS (EXHIBIT C) 3.    Economic and Development Director JJ Johnston presented item #4B, 1-3 and included the following: Purpose Proposed code amendments Previous discussions No significant changes to areas near residential Allowing low-impact employment uses Proposed uses less impact than existing uses Commercial and office mixed-use example Creating commercial & employment mixed-use centers Apply consistent standards for employment uses General Plan conformance Public outreach for code amendment Summary and Recommendation Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. The following individuals spoke regarding item #4B. Oro Valley resident and President and CEO of The Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce Oro Valley resident Tim Bohen Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Resolution No.(R)20-35, declaring the proposed code amendments to the C-1, C-2 and Technological Park zoning districts and equivalent Planned Area Development districts in Attachment 1 and filed with the Town Clerk, a public record.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried    Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember Steve Solomon to approve Ordinance No.(O)20-06, amending the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development Campus Park Industrial Section, the La Reserve Planned Area Development Area E, and the Oro Valley Zoning Code C-1, C-2 and Technological Park zoning districts and other associated sections.    Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #4B.    Motion by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett, seconded by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield to amend the main motion to not allow the height in Innovation Park for residential use including senior care and that vehicle sales in C2 remain a conditional use permit.  Vote: 5 - 2 Carried  OPPOSED: Councilmember Rhonda Piña  Councilmember Steve Solomon   7/15/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 7   Motion by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett, seconded by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield to approve Ordinance No.(O)20-06, amending the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development Campus Park Industrial Section, the La Reserve Planned Area Development Area E, and the Oro Valley Zoning Code C-1, C-2 and Technological Park zoning districts and other associated sections with exception to not allow the height in Innovation Park for residential use including senior care and that vehicle sales in C2 remain a conditional use permit.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   5.RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-36, APPROVING A NEW ORO VALLEY ANNEXATION STRATEGY REPEALING AND REPLACING THE EXISTING ANNEXATION POLICY ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. (R)03-06       Strategic Initiative Manager Amanda Jacobs provided a brief overview of item #4.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Rhonda Piña to approve Resolution No. (R)20-36, approving a new Oro Valley Annexation Strategy repealing and replacing the existing annexation policy by adopted by Resolution No. (R)03-06;  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS    No future agenda items were requested.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Rhonda Piña to adjourn the meeting at 11:03 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 and special session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 15th day of July 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of ____________________, 2020. ___________________________ Michael Standish, CMC Town Clerk 7/15/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 8  D R A F T   MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL SESSION JULY 22, 2020 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING            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 5:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor Melanie Barrett, Vice-Mayor Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember Rhonda Piña, Councilmember Bill Rodman, Councilmember Steve Solomon, Councilmember Absent: Josh Nicolson, Councilmember SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA    Mayor Winfield provided the procedures for participation in the Town Council's Special Session Zoom meeting.   1.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE A GIFT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND CANADA DEL ORO LLC ACCEPTING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CENTER PAD       Town Manager Mary Jacobs provided a brief overview of item #1. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff.    Motion by Councilmember Rhonda Piña, seconded by Councilmember Steve Solomon to approve the gift agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and Canada Del Oro LLC for the receipt of Areas 3 and 4 of the Oro Valley Town Center PAD, and authorize the Town Manager to execute the property transfer upon satisfactory completion of due diligence.  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried   ADJOURNMENT 7-22-20 Minutes, Town Council Special Session 1     Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to adjourn the meeting at 5:19 p.m.  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried     _________________________________ Michelle Stine 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 22nd day of July 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of ____________________, 2020. ___________________________ Michael Standish, CMC Town Clerk 7-22-20 Minutes, Town Council Special Session 2  D R A F T   MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL SESSION AUGUST 19, 2020 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING            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 5:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor Melanie Barrett, Vice-Mayor Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember Josh Nicolson, Councilmember Rhonda Piña, Councilmember Bill Rodman, Councilmember Steve Solomon, Councilmember SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.Resolution No. (R)20-40, declaring and adopting the results of the Oro Valley Primary Election held on August 4, 2020       Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember Rhonda Piña to adopt Resolution No. (R)20-40, declaring and adopting the results of the Oro Valley Primary Election held on August 4, 2020.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Steve Solomon to adjourn the meeting at 5:02 p.m.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried     ________________________________ 8/19/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Special Session 1  ________________________________ 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 19th day of August 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of ____________________, 2020. ___________________________ Michael Standish, CMC Town Clerk 8/19/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Special Session 2     Town Council Regular Session B. Meeting Date:09/02/2020   Requested by: Kara Riley Submitted By:Catherine Hendrix, Police Department Department:Police Department SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R)20-41, authorizing and approving an extension to the lease for the Police Department substation currently located at Mountain View Plaza RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposed five-year extension to the current lease agreement, pertaining to the Police Department substation located at Mountain View Plaza, will allow the Town of Oro Valley Police Department to extend the duration of the current lease, which will expire December 31, 2020. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Town West Realty has offered a five-year extension to the current lease, while maintaining the monthly lease price of $16.48 per square foot of rental space, with all other terms and conditions remaining the same as the original lease.  FISCAL IMPACT: The approved fiscal year 2020/2021 budget includes the capacity for continuing this lease. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (approve or deny) Resolution No. (R)20-41, authorizing and approving an extension to the lease for the Police Department substation located at Mountain View Plaza. Attachments (R)20-41 Mt. View Lease Extension  Mt View Lease Extension  RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO THE LEASE FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SUBSTATION CURRENTLY LOCATED AT MOUNTAIN VIEW PLAZA; 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 current Lease with Mountain View Plaza, LLC for the Police Department substation located at Mountain View Plaza expires on December 31, 2020 ; and WHEREAS, the Town negotiated an extension to the Lease with Mountain View Plaza, LLC for the Police Department Substation, to extend the Lease for five (5) additional years ending on December 31, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Town renegotiated the monthly lease payments, to remain at the current base rate of $16.48 per square foot until the end of the proposed Lease period of December 31, 2025; and WHEREAS, It is in the best interest of the health, safety and wellbeing of the residents of the Town of Oro Valley to enter into the Lease Extension for the Police Department substation located at Mountain View Plaza, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference, with Mountain View Plaza, LLC. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, that: SECTION 1. The Extension to the Lease between the Town of Oro Valley and Mountain View Plaza, LLC, attached hereto as exhibit “A” for the Police Department substation located at Mountain View Plaza is hereby authorized and approved. SECTION 2. The Mayor, Chief of Police and other administrative officials are hereby authorized to take such steps as necessary to execute and implement the terms of the Extension of the Lease, and the Town Manager is hereby authorized to modify or extend the lease at its expiration, should continued use of the space be in the best interest of the Town. 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 2nd day of September, 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” IITOWN WEST m REAL ESTATE • DEVELOPMENT August 10, 2020 Oro Valley Police Depaiiment Kara M. Riley Chief of Police 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 RE: Mountain View Plaza, LLC and Town of Oro Valley Lease Renewal for the Oro Valley Police Department Substation Dear Chief Riley, Your lease te1m will be expiring on 12/31/2020 at Mountain View Plaza. Oro Valley Police Depaiiment has been a great tenant and we hope you have been satisfied with your experience. Cun-ently, your Lease Agreement does not provide an extension option, however, we would like to propose a five (5) year renewal option, keeping your Base Rent per square foot at the cun-ent rate of $16.48 as follows: PERIOD BASE RENT PER S.F. MONTHLY BASE RENT 1/1/2021 -12/31/2025 $16.48 $1,648.00 This space left blank intentionally. t: 520-615-7707 /555 E. River Rd Ste. 201/Tucson, AZ 85704/ www.townwestrealty.com    Town Council Regular Session C. Meeting Date:09/02/2020   Submitted By:Mike Standish, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R)20-42, approving the Agenda Committee assignment for the period of September 1, 2020, to November 30, 2020 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Per the Town Council Parliamentary Rules and Procedures & Code of Conduct, the Town Council shall set and approve the Agenda Committee meeting assignments. Attached is the proposed Agenda Committee meeting assignment of Councilmember Nicolson for the period of September 1, 2020, to November 30, 2020. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (APPROVE or DENY) Resolution No. (R)20-42, approving the Agenda Committee assignment for the period of September 1, 2020, to November 30, 2020. Attachments (R)20-42 Agenda Committee Assignment  RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, ASSIGNING COUNCILMEMBER JOSH NICOLSON TO THE AGENDA COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2020; 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, on September 19, 2001, the Mayor and Council adopted the Town Counc il Parliamentary Rules and Procedures and Code of Conduct; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 5.2 (A) Town Council Parliamentary Rules and Procedures & Code of Conduct , the Town Council shall set and approve the agenda committee meeting assignments; and WHEREAS, Town Council wishes assign Councilmember Josh Nicolson to the agenda committee for the period of September 1, 2020 through November 30, 2020. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, as follows: SECTION 1. That Councilmember Josh Nicolson is hereby assigned to the Agenda Committee for the period of September 1, 2020 through November 30, 2020. SECTION 2. That 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona , this 2nd day of September, 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: _____________________________    Town Council Regular Session D. Meeting Date:09/02/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Submitted By:Milini Simms, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 2001108 SUBJECT: Request for approval of a Final Plat for Phase II of the Saguaro Viejos East residential subdivision, located near the northwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. Final plat review is primarily an administrative function because the design was previously approved by Town Council. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this request is to consider a Final Plat for Phase II of the Saguaro Viejos East residential subdivision, located near the northwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive (see image to the right). Final Plats are legal documents used to formally subdivide the property to sell the individual lots. The entire subdivision includes 175 lots on approximately 86 acres and is being developed in two phases. The Final Plat for phase 1, which is currently under construction, was approved by Town Council in April 2019. The proposed Final Plat (see Attachment 1) for Phase II consists of 76 detached single-family residential lots (out of the 175 lots) on approximately 38 acres. The design for Phase II includes gated access from Glover Road. Additional access was approved during Phase I from La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive. The plat preserves approximately 17.7 acres of open space, which includes buffer yards and trails such as the Poppy Trail. Conservation of large Saguaros and the timing and improvements to Glover Road were major components for design approval. As such, stipulations for both are included as general notes (notes 7, 10 and 32, respectively) on the plat.  In summary, the Final Plat for Phase II of Saguaro Viejos East meets Town requirements and conforms to the approved rezoning and site plan designs. Therefore, staff recommends approval. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The Final Plat for Phase II (see Attachment 1) requires Town Council approval prior to being recorded with Pima County. Final plat review is primarily an administrative function because the design was previously approved by Town Council.  In 2018, the Town Council approved a rezoning and accompanying Tentative Development Plan for both phases of the Saguaro Viejos East development. The final plat for phase 1 was approved in 2019 and is currently under construction. Similar to Phase 1, there were several rezoning conditions applicable to the development and construction. Similar to Phase 1, there were several rezoning conditions applicable to the development and captured through general notes. Notable conditions include the following:   Conservation of Saguaros (General Note 7)  45% of the total area and associated saguaros have been conserved within designated open space. 98% of the Saguaros in the developable area of Phase II will be salvaged (287 out of 293). The six Saguaros being removed from the site are unhealthy as field verified by staff.  Phase II has seven significant Saguaros that must be preserved in place per the rezoning. These cacti will be protected by chain link fence throughout construction. The fencing is indicated on the associated design plans (site plan and native plant preservation plan) and inspected by staff periodically to ensure it is not removed.  General note 7 refers to the preservation of significant Saguaros and conformance with the Native Plant Preservation Plan, which includes the previously mentioned protection measure. Timing and Improvements to Glover Road (General Notes 10 and 32)  The improvements to Glover Road were stipulated during the rezoning process (note 10). Responsibility for improvements is shared between the Saguaro Viejos East subdivision and the Saguaro Viejos West subdivision General note 32 stipulates the timing of Glover Road improvements with regard to developing the subdivision. Plans have been approved to begin construction; however, the timing will be coordinated with the Amphi School District. Proposed Improvements:  Approximately 38 acres subdivided into 76 single-family residential lots Minimum lot size:7,000 s.f. Average lot size: 8,938 s.f. Gated community with access from Glover Road and existing access from La Cholla Blvd. and Naranja Rd. (Phase 1) Maximum building height: 25', 2-story Approximately 17.7 acres (45%) of open space, including buffer yards and trails A portion of the public Poppy Trail running north to south  Previous Approvals:  2007: Rezoning approved from R1-144 to R1-20 2014: Conceptual Site Plan approved for both Saguaro Viejos West and Saguaro Viejos East (expired in 2016) 2018: Block Plat approved to divide the property in two (Saguaro Viejos West and Saguaro Viejos East) 2018: Rezoning approved for Saguaro Viejos East from R1-20 to R1-7 2019: Phase I Final Plat and Site Plan approved 2020: Phase II Final Site Plan approved In summary, the Final Plat for Phase II conforms to the designs approved during the rezoning and design review process. Therefore, staff recommends approval. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to APPROVE the Final Plat for the Saguaro Viejos East Phase II residential subdivision, based on the finding that it meets Town requirements. OR I MOVE to DENY the Final Plat for the Saguaro Viejos East Phase II residential subdivision, based on the finding that ___________________. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1- Saguaro Viejos East Phase II Final Plat  BK.02, PG.37 (ROAD MAPS)(PUBLIC STREET)N89°58'29"W 758.18'N0°09'26"E 2571.50'S89°58'29"E (BASIS OF BEARING) 2639.95' N00°09'26"E 75.00' RIDGE R D W BIG H O R N 8-7-20 C5CA 'B' CA 'B' CA 'B' CA 'B' CA 'B'N SANDBELL LNN BAJA PLN00°09'26"E 75.00' SCALE 1"=300' PROJECT OVERVIEWCA 'B'CALICO LPN DESERTN DESERTCALICO LPBK.10, PG.57 (ROAD MAPS) (PUBLIC STREET) S89°49'25"E 2629.57' L6 L7 L13 L14 L15L18L19 L21L23 L24L25L26L27L28L29L30L32L34 L35L37 L38L39 L40L41 L42L43L44 L8 L9L10L11 L20 L16 L 5 L4L3 L2 L31 L33L1L12 L17L36 660.88'N CLIFFROSE LN Line Table Line # L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20 L21 L23 L24 L25 L26 L27 L28 L29 L30 L31 L32 L33 L34 L35 L36 L37 L38 L39 L40 L41 L42 L43 L44 Length 519.74' 100.40' 27.61' 64.03' 32.82' 88.68' 89.83' 168.30' 24.79' 7.95' 1.03' 56.41' 20.35' 168.24' 11.76' 64.60' 25.08' 204.01' 35.38' 25.00' 673.54' 695.58' 569.12' 293.05' 348.96' 395.04' 95.79' 150.66' 246.37' 239.20' 92.97' 29.78' 117.17' 179.77' 129.80' 175.37' 23.52' 25.00' 767.84' 357.75' 417.75' 471.10' 55.26' Direction S5°02'04"E S70°05'57"E N59°48'29"E S77°13'08"E S44°19'21"E N86°55'58"E N72°23'52"E N65°42'32"E N19°09'29"E N65°42'32"E N24°17'28"W N65°26'51"E S68°14'53"E N67°20'21"E N16°38'51"E N71°02'15"E N25°37'41"W N89°55'39"E N0°04'21"W N89°55'39"E N0°04'21"W N89°49'25"W S41°41'00"W N6°06'04"E N26°29'21"W N12°45'19"W N35°10'25"E N4°12'28"W N22°45'28"E N66°37'15"E S22°24'32"E S0°57'27"E N90°00'00"E N3°35'55"E N77°53'58"E N90°00'00"E S0°04'21"E N89°55'39"E S0°04'21"E S89°55'39"W S2°13'49"W S26°33'52"W N89°58'29"W Curve Table Curve # C1 Length 39.16' Radius 25.00 Delta 89°45'04" Chord N44°56'53"W Dist. 35.28' ”“” ’ ”“” ’ ” from Page 1 8-7-20 S89°49'25"E 144.54' S89°49'25"E 144.54' S44°59'05"E 15.66' S44°59'05"E 25.68' S44°59'05"E 31.91' S44°59'05"E 10.64' 15' WATER ESMT GRANTED PER THIS PLAT (PRIVATE)BK.02, PG.37 (ROAD MAPS)(PRIVATE)FL78FL79FL80FL81FL82FL83 FL84 FL85FL86FL87FL88FL89FL90FL91FL92 FL93FL94FL95FL96FL97FL98FL99FL100FL101FL102FL103FL104FL10 5 FL106FL107FL108 FL109 FL110 FL111 FL112 FL113FL114 FL115FL116FL117FL118 FL119 FL120 FL121 FL122 EH261EH262EHC7EHC8EH351EHC9EHC10EHC11 EH269EH278EH279 EHC13E H 2 8 1 EH282 EH283 EH284 EH285 EH286 EH287EH288 EH289 EH290 EH291 EH292 FND. BCSM E1 4 CORNER SEC. 4 7,804 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 59,653 sq.ft. 1.37 acres 9,387 sq.ft. 0.22 acres 7,168 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,238 sq.ft. 0.17 acres 7,451 sq.ft. 0.17 acres 9,097 sq.ft. 0.21 acres 8,452 sq.ft. 0.19 acres 19,364 sq.ft. 0.44 acres 9,620 sq.ft. 0.22 acres 8,127 sq.ft. 0.19 acres 7,504 sq.ft. 0.17 acres 8,022 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 8,025 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 33,253 sq.ft. 0.76 acres 10,699 sq.ft. 0.25 acres 9,253 sq.ft. 0.21 acres 7,223 sq.ft. 0.17 acres 9,235 sq.ft. 0.21 acres 105,128 sq.ft. 2.41 acres 7,918 sq.ft. 0.18 acres N12°31'02"E 72.08'N33°42'11"E 87.93'N0°00'00"E 82.00'S49°57'46" W 75.59'S23°02'25"W 68.65'S35°18'23"W55.59'S43°39'07"W 27.00'S20°46'31"W59.70'R=430.00'Δ=36°19'58"L=272.68'N90°00'00"W 100.00'N26°51'24"E 149.01'N90°00'00"E 102.84'S0°00'00"E 23.82'S33°42'11"W 60.64'303.66'S0°00'00"E36.64'S26°51'24"W 104.38'88.95'L4R=51.00 'Δ =2 4 5°15'40" L = 2 1 8.31'S17°04'56"W 281.89'R=300.00'Δ=31°08'35"L=163.06'N6 1 ° 1 1 ' 0 6 " W 1 3 0 . 4 3 ' N5 6 ° 1 7 ' 4 9 " W 1 3 0 . 0 0 ' S6 1 ° 0 0 ' 5 0 " E 1 3 0 . 4 4 ' N5 8 ° 2 1 ' 4 4 " W 1 3 0 . 2 8 ' N67 ° 5 5 ' 2 1 " W 1 3 1 . 0 0 ' N 4 6 ° 2 0 ' 5 3 "W 1 4 3 . 2 1 'S41°41'00"W 569.12'42.25'55.00'S43°39'07"W 23.55'36.04'36.04'36.04'38.91'33.23'54.69'71.80'32.58'13.65'10.72'49.92'48.94'50.00'4.00'56.64'4.00'33.67'18.69'22.88'41.38'73.26'79.18'80.00'80.00'136.80' R=25.00' L=39.16' Δ=89°45'04"673.54'N0°00'00"E 175.90'N90°00'00"W 102.84'S26°51'24"W 149.01'N33°42'11"E 60.64'S17°04'56"W 281.89'5.91'=278.35'R=275.00'Δ=33°42'11"L=161.76'R=400.00'Δ=16°47'43"L=117.25'S43°39'07"W 120.80' N87°38'21"W 26.00' C1 C 2 L1S17°04'56"W 281.89'C6L3C8C9C10C11 C12C13 C1 4 C 1 5 C 1 6 C17C18C31C32C33C34 C35 C36C37C38C398.44'C52C53C54 C55C56C63C64 C65C66C67C68C69C70C71C72C100C101C102 C103N 4 6 ° 2 0 ' 5 3 "W 1 4 3 . 2 1 ' N67 ° 5 5 ' 2 1 " W 1 3 1 . 0 0 ' S89°55'39"W 163.64'27.19'(PRIVATE)25.00' 25.00' 2 5 . 0 0 ' 2 5 . 0 0 ' 25. 0 0 ' 25. 0 0 ' (PRIVATE) 55,444 sq.ft. 1.27 acres 200,756 sq.ft. 4.61 acres 59,653 sq.ft. 10' P U E 10' PUE 10' P U E 10' P U E 10' P U E 339.66'60.00'73.49'10' PUETE5TE6TE7TE8TE9 56.16'46.68'C105C 1 0 950'AMPITHEATER SCHOOL DIST. NO. 10 DKT.10156 PG.667 SAGUAROS VIEJOS FINAL BLOCK PLAT 45'SEQ. 20191270447 BK.02, PG.37 (ROAD MAPS)(PUBLIC STREET)EROSION HAZARD SETBACK 10' PUBLIC TRAIL EASEMENT DEDICATED BY THIS PLAT 60' x 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT GRANTED PER THIS PLAT 60.00'20.00'20.00'100 YEAR FLOOD LINE EROSION HAZARD SETBACK 75' AMPITHEATER SCHOOL DIST. NO. 10 DKT. 10146 PG. 902 74.57'N89°55'39"E 75.00' 618.61'22.79'50.00'N0°04'21"W 673.54'N89°49'25"W 619.52'S17°04'56"W 281.89'N17°04'56"E 281.89'SLOPE ESMT SEQ. 20183510258 SLOPE ESMT SEQ. 20183510258S33°42'11"W 60.64'N22°04'39"E 74.96'N19°03'06"E49.28'N31°49'17"E 30.22'N19°03'06"E22.78'S89°34'14"E 122.62' N 5 3 ° 5 8 ' 2 1 " W 6 8 . 0 1 'S46°04'27"W 54.30'S26°51'24"WS52°06'13" W 28.31'S64°1 0' 3 9" W 58.73' S 4 6 ° 2 0 ' 5 3 " E 1 3 1 . 9 1 ' N90°00'00"E 123.84'S33°42'11"W 54.00'N60° 5 3' 3 3" E 59.76'N0°04'21"W 138.51'S19°44'52"W 139.05'S41°20'00"E 32.89'7'N43°39'07"E 120.80'R=250.00'Δ=33°42'11"L=147.06'S16°28'04"W 49.98'S43°39'07"W 120.80'N17°04'56"E 281.89'L31S0°00'00"E36.39'S10°16'21"W 52.36'5'N77°28' 5 8 " W 1 3 1 . 0 0 ' N 4 6 ° 2 0 ' 5 3 "W 1 4 0 . 9 9 ' N 4 6 ° 2 0 ' 5 3 "W 1 2 0 . 0 0 ' N 4 6 ° 2 0 ' 5 3 "W 1 3 7 . 7 2 ' N 5 5 ° 4 9 ' 5 5 " W 1 3 2 . 9 3 ' S6 3 ° 0 8 ' 3 6 " E 1 3 5 . 5 1 ' S70° 0 0 ' 1 2 " E 1 3 9 . 3 1 ' N84°12'48"W 13 0 . 1 9 ' N74°3 9 ' 1 1 " W 1 3 0 . 0 0 ' N6 5 ° 0 5 ' 3 3 " W 1 3 0 . 0 0 ' N6 3 ° 0 8 ' 3 6 " W 1 3 2 . 3 1 ' S89°55'39"W 163.64'C115C116C117C118 C119R=425.00'Δ=16°47'43"L=124.58'C120 C1 2 1 C 1 2 2 C 1 2 3 C124C125N6 1 ° 1 1 ' 0 6 " W 1 3 0 . 4 3 'TE35TE36TE37TE38TE39 TE40TE41 N89°49'25"W 695.58' S89°49'25"E 2629.57' 19,026 sq.ft. 0.44 acres 16,949 sq.ft. 0.39 acres N83°55'40"E 51.00'55.00'S42°32'06"W 33.36'7,804 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 7,263 sq.ft. 0.17 acres 7,918 sq.ft. 0.18 acres (PRIVATE)(PRIVATE)C106 S 4 5 ° 4 8 ' 4 6 " E 7 0 . 0 0 'N44°11'14"E 128.38'S44°11'14"W 140.27'L5 S89°55'39"W 142.03' S89°55'39"W 133.98'N0°04'21"W 70.00'N0°04'21"W 158.90'N6 0 ° 3 5 ' 0 5 " W 50. 3 7 ' 15' WATER EASEMENT GRANTED PER THIS PLAT SEE DETAIL SHEET 2 SHEET 4 SHEET 3 SHEET 5 SHEET 6 SHEET 7 SHEET 4 SHEET 4 8-7-20 (PRIVATE)(PR IVATE )(PRIVA T E S T R E E T)BK.02, PG.37 (ROAD MAPS)BK.02, PG.37 (ROAD MAPS)(PUBLIC STREET)(PRIVATE)(PRIVATE)FL42FL 4 3FL44FL45 FL46 FL47 FL48 FL49 FL50 F L 5 1 FL52 FL53 FL54 FL55 FL56 FL57FL58FL59 FL60 FL61 FL62 F L 6 3 FL64 FL65 FL66FL67FL68 FL69 FL70 FL71FL72 FL73 FL74 FL75 FL76 FL77FL78FL79FL80 FL81FL82FL83 FL84 FL85FL86FL87FL88FL89 FL119 FL120 FL121 FL122 FL123FC1F L 1 2 4 FL125 FL126 FL127 FL128 FL129 FL130 FL131FL132EH2 4 2 EH243EH244E H 2 4 5 EH246 EH247 EH248 EH249 EH250EH251EH252EH253EH254EH255EH256EH257 EH258 EH259EH260 EH261EH262EHC7EHC8EH270 EH271 E H 2 7 2EH273EH274EHC12 EH276EH277EH278EH2937,804 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 7,892 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 7,143 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,322 sq.ft. 0.17 acres 8,071 sq.ft. 0.19 acres 9,617 sq.ft. 0.22 acres 7,648 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 8,900 sq.ft. 0.20 acres 8,397 sq.ft. 0.19 acres 7,950 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 7,150 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,150 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,265 sq.ft. 0.17 acres 7,000 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 8,367 sq.ft. 0.19 acres 200,756 sq.ft. 4.61 acres 55,444 sq.ft. 1.27 acres 1,61 5 s q . f t . 0.04 a c r e s 16,413 sq.ft. 0.38 acres 8,602 sq.ft. 0.20 acres 9,387 sq.ft. 0.22 acres 7,168 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,238 sq.ft. 0.17 acres 9,097 sq.ft. 0.21 acres 8,127 sq.ft. 0.19 acres 7,504 sq.ft. 0.17 acres 8,022 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 8,025 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 8,025 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 8,025 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 7,977 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 7,846 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 7,000 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,000 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 11,792 sq.ft. 0.27 acres 18,805 sq.ft. 0.43 acres 10,699 sq.ft. 0.25 acres 10,435 sq.ft. 0.24 acres 7,223 sq.ft. 0.17 acres 9,235 sq.ft. 0.21 acres 7,918 sq.ft. 0.18 acres N24°17'28 "W 150 .00 'N24°17'28 "W39.51 'N15°51'12"W 66.24'N12°31'02"E 72.08'N33°42'11"E 87.93'N9°09'30"W 129.67'S20°46'31"W59.70'S41°57'26"W 65.03'S80°50'30"W 1 4 8 . 1 7 'R=430.00'Δ=36°19'58"L=272S12°43'49"W 97.84'S78°47'18" W 1 3 0 . 0 0 ' N89°55'39"E 204.01'N12°52'00"EN9°09'30"W 124.81'S33°42'11"W 60.64'R=300.00'Δ=57°59'39"L=303.66'S24°17'28 "E 157 .50 'R=205.00'Δ=52°48'37"L=188.95'S9°09'30"E 124.81'N11°10'20"W 11.95'S17°04'56"W 281.89'R=275.00'Δ=24°03'15"L=115.45'R=300.00'Δ=31°08'35S24°17'28 "E 157 .51 ' S80°50'30"W 1 4 8 . 2 5 ' S80°50'30"W 1 4 4 . 6 4 ' S80°50'30"W 1 4 1 . 3 7 ' N80°50'30"E 1 2 9 . 9 2 ' N80°50'30"E 1 3 0 . 0 0 ' N80°50'30"E 1 3 0 . 0 0 ' S85°20'41"E 130.00' S65°4 2' 3 2" W 1 4 0. 0 0' S83°23'47"W 131 . 0 0 ' N87°02'36"W 131.00' N77°09' 4 5 " W 1 4 0 . 3 2 ' N6 1 ° 1 1 ' 0 6 " W 1 3 0 . 4 3 ' N 5 6 ° 1 7 ' 4 9 " W 1 3 0 . 0 0 ' S6 1 ° 0 0 ' 5 0 " E 1 3 0 . 4 4 ' N5 8 ° 2 1 ' 4 4 " W 1 3 0 . 2 8 ' N67 ° 5 5 ' 2 1 " W 1 3 1 . 0 0 ' N 4 6 ° 2 0 ' 5 3 "W 1 4 3 . 2 1 ' N76°40'32 " E 1 3 5 . 7 4 ' N77°53'58 " E 1 2 9 . 8 0 ' N65°26'51"E 56.41' N72°23' 5 2 " E 8 9 . 8 3' N86°55'58"E 88.68'S5°02'04"E 519.74'51.59'45.63'48.65'50.13'50.13'55.14'55.14'36.51'50.00'38.30'50.14'19.67'55.00'55.00'55.00'19.67'1.31'42.25'55.00'S43°39'07"W 23.55'48.97 '50.00 '50.00 '50.00 '50.00 '50.00 '36.29'29.95'35.07'36.04'36.04'36.04'36.04'36.04'36.04'38.91'33.23'54.69'10.72'49.92'48.90'48.94'50.00'4.00'56.64'4.00'70.89'73.26'79.18'35.38'56.62'56.62'120.00'673.54'N33°42'11"E 60.64'S17°04'56"W 281.89'S11°10'20"E 72.20'S11°10'20"E 222.50'R=350.00'Δ=22°01'30"L=134.54'R=180.00'Δ=52°48'37"L=165.91'R=275.00'Δ=57°59'39"L=278.35'R=275.00'Δ=33°4R=400.00'Δ=16°47'43"L=117.25'R=300.00'Δ=28°15'16"L=147.94'N66°3 7' 1 5 " E 1 3 0. 0 1'S9°09'30"E 124.81'S65°4 2' 3 2 " W 1 3 1. 0 0' N66°30'33"W 20.58'R=375.00'Δ=22°01'30"L=144.15'S43°39'07"W 120.80' 25.00' 25.00' C3 8'L2 S17°04'56"W 281.89'C12C31C36C37C38C39C40C41C42C43C44C45C46C47C48C49C50C51 C53C54 C55C56C57C58C59C607.50'C61C62C63C64 C65C66C70C71C72C73C74C75C7625.00' 25.00'102.90'N 4 6 ° 2 0 ' 5 3 "W 1 4 3 . 2 1 ' N67 ° 5 5 ' 2 1 " W 1 3 1 . 0 0 ' S89°55'39"W 163.64' S68°14'53"E 20.35' N16°38'51"E 11.76' N25°37'41"W 25.08' 25.00' 25.00' 6.41'S0°04'21"E 80.00'56.48'23.52'N89°55'39"E 25.00'271.63'35.82'15.50'6.11'91.45'24.87'(PRIVATE)25.00' 25.00' 25.00' 25.00' 2 5 . 0 0 ' 2 5 . 0 0 ' 25.00' 25.00' 25.00'25.00' 25. 0 0 ' (PR IVATE )N12°52'00"E 96.47'54.64'41.83'S24°17'28 "E 207 .35 '50.99 '156.35 ' 59,653 sq.ft. 1.37 acres 10' PUE 10' PUE 10' PUE 10' P U E 10' P U E 10' P U E 10' P U E 10' P U E N24°17'28 "W43.48 ' N65°4 2' 3 2" E 3 3 6. 3 0' 208.0 5' 127.9 1' R =5 0 0 .0 0 ' L =1 1 4 .8 5 ' Δ =1 3 °0 9 '3 8 " N89°58'43"E 142.19'N11°10'20"W52.08'R =4 0 0.0 0 ' L =2 5 9 .0 5 ' Δ =3 7 °0 6 '21" 10' PU B LI C T R AI L E A S E M E N T PER S E Q. 2 0 1 9 0 3 0 0 1 0 22.37' TE12 TE14 TE15 TE16TE17C107C108(PRIVA T E S T R E E T)BK.02, PG.37 (ROAD MAPS)(PUBLIC STREET)EROSION HAZARD SETBACK 10' PUBLIC TRAILEASEMENT DEDICATEDBY THIS PLAT100 YEAR FLOOD LINE 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE EROSION HAZARD SETBACK N89°55'39"E 25.00'35.38'S0°04'21"E 92.00'10.25'S22°24'32"E 92 .97 '79.43 ' 75.00'1781.03'S 4 4 ° 1 9 ' 2 1 " E 3 2 . 8 2 ' N59°48'29"E 27.61' 25.00' 25.00' 7.00' 7.03' S77°13' 0 8 " E 6 4 . 0 3 '153.07'10.25' 7.95'N0°04'21"W 673.54'S25°55'41"W 12.22'S17°04'56"W 281.89'N17°04'56"E 281.89'SLOPE ESMT SEQ. 20183510258S33°42'11"W 60.64'S65°4 2' 3 2 " W 1 4 0. 0 0'N6°36'13"W 71.11'N2°57'24"E 72.08'N22°04'39"E 74.96'N19°03'06"ES77°08' 0 0 " E 1 3 0 . 0 0 'R=505.00'Δ=22°10'24"L=195.43'N9°09'30"W45.00'S80°50'30"W 1 2 5 . 0 0 ' S64°1 0' 3 9" W 58.73' S 4 6 ° 2 0 ' 5 3 " E 1 3 1 . 9 1 ' S75°1 4 ' 0 7 " E 9 7 . 4 9 'S33°42'11"W 54.00'N0°04'21"W 92.00'S76°04'48 " W 1 5 6 . 8 2 'S11°10'20"E 222.90'N11°10'20"W 222.09'R=155.00'Δ=52°48'37"L=142.87'N43°39'07"E 120.80'R=250.00'Δ=33S43°39'07"W 120.80'S12°52'00"WR=325.00'Δ=28°15'16"L=160.27'N17°04'56"E 281.89'R=250.00'Δ=57°59'39"L=253.05'N80°27'35" W 1 4 5 . 5 6 ' S84°48'31"W 151.33' S65°4 2' 3 2 " W 1 4 0. 0 0' S65°4 2' 3 2 " W 1 4 0. 0 0' S74°08'4 8 " W 1 3 1 . 0 4' N77°28' 5 8 " W 1 3 1 . 0 0 ' N 4 6 ° 2 0 ' 5 3 "W 1 4 0 . 9 9 ' N 4 6 ° 2 0 ' 5 3 "W 1 2 0 . 0 0 ' N 4 6 ° 2 0 ' 5 3 "W 1 3 7 . 7 2 ' N74°3 9 ' 1 1 " W 1 3 0 . 0 0 ' N6 5 ° 0 5 ' 3 3 " W 1 3 0 . 0 0 ' S89°55'39"W 163.64' S89°55'39"W 199.60' N90°00'00"E 175.37'N3°35'55"E 179.77'N66°3 7' 1 5 " E 2 3 9. 2 0' N67°2 0' 2 1 " E 1 6 8. 2 4' N65°4 2' 3 2 " E 1 6 8. 3 0' S70° 0 5 ' 5 7 " E 1 0 0 . 4 0 'R=325.00'Δ=22°01'30"L=124.93'C119R=425.00'Δ=16°47'43"L=124.58''N6 1 ° 1 1 ' 0 6 " W 1 3 0 . 4 3 ' N19°09'29"E 24.79' N16°38'51"E 11.76'N0°04'21"W 92.00'R =5 0 0 .0 0 ' L =9 7 .13 ' Δ =11°0 7 '5 0 " TE41 TE43TE44 TE45 TE4716,949 sq.ft. 0.39 acres N86°14'40"E 130.00'S41°41'00"W 569.12' 7,804 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 0.18 acres (PRIVATE)(PRIVATE)S80°50'30"W 1 4 8 . 2 3 ' S77°13' 0 8 " E 32.56' S89°55'39"W 142.03' S89°55'39"W 133.98'N0°04'21"W 70.00'N0°04'21"W 158.90'SHEET 4 SHEET 3 SHEET 5 SHEET 6 SHEET 7 SHEET 3 SHEET 5 SHEET 5 SHEET 3 8-7-20 FL16FL17 FL18FL19FL20FL21FL2 2FL23FL24 FL25FL26 FL27 FL28 FL29FL30FL31 FL32 FL33FL34FL35FL36 FL38 FL39FL40 FL41FL42FL 4 3FL44FL45 FL46 FL47 FL130 FL131FL132FL133FL134FL135 FL136 FL137 FL138 FL139 FL140FL141FL142 FL143FL144FL145 FL146 FL147 FL148FL149FL150FL151FL 1 5 2 FL153FL154FL155 FL156 FL181FL182 FC 2FC3FC4FC5FL183FL184FL185FL186 FL187 FL188 FL189 FL190 FL191 FL192 FL193 FL194 FL195 FL196 FL197 FL198 FL199 FL200EH224EH225EH226EH227EH228EH 2 2 9 EH230EH231EH232EH233EH234EH235 EH236 EH237EH238EH239EH240 EHC6EH2 4 2 EH243EH244EH246 EH293EH294EHC14EH296 EH297EH298 EH299EH300 EH301EH302 EH303EH304 EH3 0 5 EH306EH307EH308EH309EH310 EH C 1 9EHC20EHC21EHC22EH241 EH311EH312 EH320 EH321 EH322 EH328 EH329 EH332 EH331EH295 EH280 EH330EHC15EHC16EHC17EHC18EH275EH268EH267 EH266 EH265 EH264 EH263 FL37 10,489 sq.ft. 0.24 acres 9,950 sq.ft. 0.23 acres 8,836 sq.ft. 0.20 acres 9,430 sq.ft. 0.22 acres 30,127 sq.ft. 0.69 acres 8,071 sq.ft. 0.19 acres 9,617 sq.ft. 0.22 acres 7,648 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 8,906 sq.ft. 0.20 acres 7,546 sq.ft. 0.17 acres 7,150 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,013 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,150 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,073 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,150 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,075 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,150 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,075 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,150 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 8,900 sq.ft. 0.20 acres 7,935 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 8,397 sq.ft. 0.19 acres 7,950 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 7,000 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 8,367 sq.ft. 0.19 acres 1,61 5 s q . f t . 0.04 a c r e s 16,413 sq.ft. 0.38 acres 7,000 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,000 sq.ft. 0.16 acres S 5 0 ° 4 0 ' 3 0 " E 7 8 . 6 9 'S0°00'00"E 125.00'N90°00'00"W 65.00'N0°00'00"E 135.00'S0°57'27"E55.00'N24°17'28 "W 150 .00 'N4°07'40"E 83.78'S0°57'27"E 339.32'N12°52'00"ES24°17'28 "E 157 .50 'S24°17'28 "E 157 .51 ' S85°20'41"E 130.00' S65°4 2' 3 2" W 1 4 0. 0 0' N76°40'32 " E 1 3 5 . 7 4 ' N86°23'00"E 130.49' N89°02'33"E 130.00' N89°02'33"E 130.00'N0°00'00"E 135.00'N0°01'37"W 135.00'N89°02'33"E 131.01' N89°02'33"E 155.30' S89°02'33"W 131.01' S89°02'33"W 131.01'N22°45'28"E 246.37'S0°04'21"E 767.84'N77°53'58 " E 1 2 9 . 8 0 ' N65°26'51"E 56.41' N72°23' 5 2 " E 8 9 . 8 3' N86°55'58"E 88.68' 1.31'48.97 '50.00 '50.00 '50.00 '50.00 '54.00'54.00'54.00'S0°57'27"E52.00'S0°57'27"E50.00'55.00'55.00'55.00'55.00'55.00'39.92'13.55 '61.05'55.00'55.00'55.00'55.00'55.00'183.22'54.00'54.00'48.10'24.40'120.00'S11°10'20"E 72.20'S11°10'20"E 222.50'S4°07'40"W 172.10'N0°57'27"W 530.34'N0°57'27"W 530.34'R=350.00'Δ=22°01'30"L=134.54'N89°02'33"E 130.30' N89°02'33"E 130.00' N66°3 7' 1 5 " E 1 3 0. 0 1'166.32'5.78'R=375.00'Δ=22°01'30"L=144.15'N85°52'20"W 26.00' N6 2 ° 2 3 ' 0 8 " W 43. 9 3 'S0°57'27"E 64.94'29.78'25.00' 25.00' 65.00'65.00'S0°00'00"E 125.00'C3 R=300.00'Δ=22°13'35"L=116.38'C5C19C20C26C27C28C29C30C43C44C45C46C47C48C73C74C75C76C77C78C7 9 C80C81C91 C92 C93C94 C95C96C 9 7 C98 C99C104C82C759.20' 25.00' 25.00'102.90'S68°14'53"E 20.35' N16°38'51"E 11.76' 25.00' 25.00' 6.41' 453,926 sq.ft. 10.42 acres 453,926 sq.ft. 10.42 acres S0°04'21"E 80.00'56.48'23.52'N89°55'39"E 25.00'271.63'27.29'31.13'9.66'68.52'36.63'35.82'15.50'6.11'91.45'24.87'13.42 ' 97.29' 25.00'25.00' 25.00'25.00'(PRIVATE)N12°52'00"E 96.47'54.64'41.83'S24°17'28 "E 207 .35 '50.99 '156.35 ' 10 ' P U E 1 0 ' PUE 10' PUE 10' PUE 10' PUEN24°17'28 "W43.48 ' N65°4 2' 3 2 " E 3 3 6. 3 0' 208.0 5' 127.9 1' R =5 0 0 .0 0 ' L =1 1 4 .8 5 ' Δ =1 3 °0 9 '3 8 " N89°58'43"E 142.19'N11°10'20"W52.08'R =4 0 0.0 0 ' L =2 5 9.0 5 ' Δ =3 7 °0 6 '21" 10' PU B LI C T R AI L E A S E M E N T PER S E Q. 2 0 1 9 0 3 0 0 1 0 22.37'TE16TE17TE21395.22'N6 2 ° 2 3 ' 0 8 " W 51. 0 0 '(PRIVA T E S T R E E T)BK.02, PG.37 (ROAD MAPS)(PUBLIC STREET)N0°04'21"W 2639.57'EROSION HAZARD EROSION HAZARDSETBACKEROSION HAZARDSETBACK10' PUBLIC TRAILDEDICATED BY10' PUBLIC TRAILEASEMENTDEDICATED BYTHIS PLAT100 YEAR FLOOD LINE 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE 10.25'S22°24'32"E 92 .97 '79.43 ' 75.00'1781.03'S 4 4 ° 1 9 ' 2 1 " E 3 2 . 8 2 ' N59°48'29"E 27.61' 25.00' 25.00' 7.00' 7.03' S77°13' 0 8 " E 6 4 . 0 3 ' 7.95' 75' PUBLIC DRAINAGE ESMT SEQ. 20183510258 PUBLIC DRAINAGE ESMT SEQ. 20183510256 SLOPE ESMT SEQ. 20183510256 SLOPE ESMT SEQ. 20183510258 N89°02'33"E 130.08'S0°57'27"EN90°00'00"W 130.00' N60° 0 1' 3 7" E 44.63'S0°57'27"E 400.99'S89°02'33"W 130.00' S65°4 2' 3 2 " W 1 4 0. 0 0' S77°08' 0 0 " E 1 3 0 . 0 0 'R=505.00'Δ=22°10'24"L=195.43'S75°1 4 ' 0 7 " E 9 7 . 4 9 ' S76°04'48 " W 1 5 6 . 8 2'S11°10'20"E 222.90'S4°07'40"W 172.10'R=51.00'Δ=2 4 0°58'40"L=2 1 4 .5 0 'N11°10'20"W 222.09'N0°57'27"W 339.32'S12°52'00"WN80°27'35 " W 1 4 5 . 5 6 ' S84°48'31"W 151.33' S65°4 2' 3 2 " W 1 4 0. 0 0' N89°02'33"E 130.00' N89°02'33"E 130.00' N89°02'33"E 130.00' N89°02'33"E 148.13'N0°00'00"E 135.00'N90°00'00"E 74.11'S0°00'00"E 125.43'N4°12'28"W 150.66'N35°10'25"E 95.79'N90°00'00"E 175.37'N3°35'55"E 179.77'N90°00'00"E 117.17' N66°3 7' 1 5 " E 2 3 9. 2 0' N67°2 0' 2 1 " E 1 6 8. 2 4' N65°4 2' 3 2" E 1 6 8. 3 0' S70° 0 5 ' 5 7 " E 1 0 0 . 4 0 'R=325.00'Δ=22°01'30"L=124.93'N50°40'30"W 16.25'R=325.00'Δ=22°14'29"L=126.16'C126C127C133C134C135C136C137N19°09'29"E 24.79' N16°38'51"E 11.76' N89°02'33"E 131.01' R =5 0 0 .0 0 ' L =9 7 .13 ' Δ =11°0 7 '5 0 "TE47TE48TE49TE50TE51S40°51'10"W 50.00'N86°14'40"E 130.00'(PRIVATE)S77°13' 0 8 " E 32.56'(PRIVATE)(PRIVA T E S T R E E T)(PRIVATE)SHEET 4 SHEET 5 SHEET 6 SHEET 7 SHEET 6 8-7-20 SHEET 6 SHEET 5 FL8 FL9FL10FL11FL12 FL13FL14F L 1 5FL16FL17 FL154FL155 FL156 FL157 FL158FL159 FL160FL161 FL162FL163 FL164 FL165 F L 1 6 6 FL 1 6 7 FL168 F L 1 6 9 FL170 FL171FL172 FL173 FL 1 7 4 FL175FL176FL177FL178FL179 FL180 FL181FL200EH202 EH204 EH205EH206 EH207EH208EH209 EH210 EH211EH212EH213EH214EH215EH216 EH217EH218EH219EH220 EH221EH2 2 2EH223EH224 EH312 EH313 EH314EH315 EH316 EH317 EH31 8 EH319 EH320 EH321 EH322 EH323 EH324 EH325 EH326 EH327 EH328 EH329 EH332 EH3317,012 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,074 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 453,926 sq.ft. 10.42 acres 7,846 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 7,193 sq.ft. 0.17 acres 7,150 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,324 sq.ft. 0.17 acres 8,259 sq.ft. 0.19 acres 7,013 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,674 sq.ft. 0.18 acres 7,150 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,150 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 7,150 sq.ft. 0.16 acres 54,682 sq.ft. 1.26 acres 7,401 sq.ft. 0.17 acres N90°00'00"W 65.00'S0°57'27"E 79.22'S9°45'47"W 209.24'R=51.00'Δ=24 0 °58'40"L=214 .5 0 'N0°57'27"W 79.22'S80°14'13 " E 1 3 0 . 0 0 ' N89°02'33"E 130.00' S89°02'33"W 129.52' N89°02'33"E 131.01'S2°13'49"W 417.75'S0°57'27"E52.00'S0°57'27"E50.00'54.00'55.00'6.06'55.00'55.00'55.00'38.18'62.99'13.19'55.00'55.00'55.00'55.00'50.10'55.00'29.12'20.42'41.76'79.17'58.42'55.00'N0°57'27"W 530.34'N9°45'47"E 209.24'S80°14'13 " E 26.00' N89°02'33"E 130.70' S89°02'33"W 130.00' 65.00'65.00'N0°57'27"W 530.34'C4C20C21C22C23C24C25C26C7 9 C80C813.80'C83C84C85C8 6 C87C88C89 C90C104C82453,926 sq.ft. 10.42 acres 25.00'25.00' 4.96' 24.87'22.39'(PRIVATE)10' PUE 10' PUE TE22TE23TE24TE25TE26135.12'BK.02, PG.37 (ROAD MAPS)(PUBLIC STREET)N0°04'21"W 2639.57'98.30'EROSION HAZARDSETBACKEROSION HAZARD SETBACK 10' PUBLIC TRAILEASEMENTDEDICATED BYTHIS PLAT100 YEAR FLOOD LINE 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE 100 YEARFLOOD LINE35.52'270.00' 10' PUBLIC TRAIL EASEMENT DEDICATED BY THIS PLAT 1781.03'PUBLIC DRAINAGE ESMT SEQ. 20183510256 PUBLIC DRAINAGE ESMT SEQ. 20183510256 N89°02'33"E 130.08'S0°57'27"E55.00'S0°57'27"E 113.42'S9°45'47"W 296.18'N80°14'13 " W 1 3 0 . 0 0 ' N35°51'06"W 19.68' N90°00'00"W 130.00' S89°02'33"W 130.00'N9°45'47"E 120.92'S80°14'13 " E 1 3 0 . 0 0 ' S80°14'13 " E 1 3 0 . 0 0 ' S80°14'13 " E 1 3 0 . 0 0 ' S83°44'35"E 13 0 . 7 6 ' N89°02'33"E 154.86' S89°02'33"W 131.31' S89°02'33"W 155.70'N12°45'19"W 395.04'N26°29 '21 "W 348 .96 ' S89°55'39"W 357.75'C112C127C128C129C130C131C132C133N89°02'33"E 131.01'S0°04'21"E 767.84'TE52TE54TE55S40°51'10"W 50.00'N19°15'33"W51.00'S0°00'00"E55.00'N90°00'00"E 120.25'N0°57'27"W 109.00'(PRIVATE)(PRIVATE)BK.02, PG.37 (ROAD MAPS)(PUBLIC STREET)SHEET 4 SHEET 3 SHEET 5 SHEET 6 SHEET 7 SHEET 5 8-7-20 SHEET 7 FL1FL2 FL3FL4F L 5FL6FL7 FL8 EH201 EH202 EH203 EH204 EH205EH206 FND. 2-1/2" BCSM SE CORNER SEC. 4N6°06'04"E 293.05'S26°33'52"W 471.10'N89°58'29"W 55.26'29.52 '67.68 ' 453,926 sq.ft. 10.42 acres TE27TE28TE29TE3026.45'28.81'N0°01'31"E75.00'660.88' S89°58'29"E 2640.16'BK.02, PG.37 (ROAD MAPS)(PUBLIC STREET)N0°04'21"W 2639.57'10' PUBLIC TRAIL EASEMENT DEDICATED BYTHIS PLAT 100 YEAR FLOOD LINEN26°29 '21 "W 348 .96 ' 75'N26°29 '21 "W 348 .96 'TE57TE60SHEET 4 SHEET 3 SHEET 5 SHEET 6 SHEET 7 BK.10, PG.57 (ROAD MAPS) (PUBLIC STREET) SHEET 6 8-7-20 Curve Table Curve # C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 C27 C28 C29 C30 C31 C32 C33 C34 C35 C36 C37 C38 C39 C40 C41 C42 C43 C44 C45 C46 C47 C48 C49 C50 Length 55.10' 78.54' 5.80' 46.78' 80.11' 76.85' 106.59' 13.06' 56.27' 57.20' 83.92' 109.92' 27.55' 39.27' 112.02' 57.27' 56.27' 13.06' 21.03' 84.11' 21.03' 42.10' 53.21' 51.45' 21.03' 84.11' 21.03' 73.44' 86.79' 53.21' 21.55' 70.44' 47.46' 5.32' 78.60' 78.43' 31.49' 12.76' 59.38' 48.88' 56.23' 11.71' 22.50' 83.56' 18.87' 53.74' 55.05' 35.36' 4.86' 56.60' Radius 50.00 50.00 300.00 250.00 300.00 300.00 275.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 60.00 375.00 25.00 25.00 60.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 225.00 50.00 275.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 275.00 325.00 50.00 325.00 275.00 50.00 60.00 60.00 375.00 375.00 205.00 205.00 205.00 205.00 205.00 325.00 325.00 325.00 375.00 375.00 375.00 155.00 155.00 Delta 63°08'36" 90°00'00" 1°06'26" 10°43'14" 15°18'01" 14°40'36" 22°12'31" 29°55'35" 64°29'01" 131°05'23" 80°08'02" 16°47'43" 63°08'36" 90°00'00" 106°58'02" 131°15'06" 64°29'01" 29°55'35" 48°11'23" 96°22'46" 48°11'23" 10°43'14" 60°58'40" 10°43'14" 48°11'23" 96°22'46" 48°11'23" 15°18'01" 15°18'01" 60°58'40" 3°47'56" 14°40'36" 54°23'11" 5°04'41" 75°03'21" 11°59'02" 4°48'41" 3°33'56" 16°35'44" 13°39'42" 15°42'57" 3°16'18" 3°58'01" 14°43'54" 3°19'35" 8°12'41" 8°24'39" 5°24'10" 1°47'46" 20°55'16" Chord S58°25'42"W N45°00'00"W N23°44'15"W N4°24'10"E S3°31'20"E S9°44'38"W N12°03'42"W S14°57'48"W S2°18'55"E S31°02'24"W S56°31'05"W S35°15'15"W N58°25'42"E S45°00'00"E S43°12'40"E S31°04'08"E S2°18'55"W S14°57'48"E N23°08'15"E N0°57'27"W N25°03'08"W N4°24'10"E N40°15'07"E S4°24'10"W S23°08'15"W S0°57'27"E S25°03'08"E N3°31'20"W S3°31'20"E N34°37'01"E S15°10'58"W N9°44'38"E S40°28'36"W N85°57'15"W S53°58'44"W S32°50'55"W S41°14'46"W S41°52'09"W S31°47'19"W S16°39'36"W S1°58'16"W S7°31'21"E S7°10'30"E S2°10'28"W S11°12'13"W N8°45'40"E N0°26'59"E N6°27'25"W N8°15'37"W N3°05'54"E Dist. 52.36' 70.71' 5.80' 46.71' 79.87' 76.64' 105.93' 12.91' 53.35' 45.51' 77.24' 109.53' 26.18' 35.36' 96.44' 45.54' 53.35' 12.91' 20.41' 74.54' 20.41' 42.04' 50.74' 51.38' 20.41' 74.54' 20.41' 73.22' 86.53' 50.74' 21.54' 70.25' 45.70' 5.32' 73.10' 78.29' 31.48' 12.76' 59.17' 48.76' 56.05' 11.70' 22.50' 83.33' 18.87' 53.70' 55.00' 35.35' 4.86' 56.28' Curve Table Curve # C51 C52 C53 C54 C55 C56 C57 C58 C59 C60 C61 C62 C63 C64 C65 C66 C67 C68 C69 C70 C71 C72 C73 C74 C75 C76 C77 C78 C79 C80 C81 C82 C83 C84 C85 C86 C87 C88 C89 C90 C91 C92 C93 C94 C95 C96 C97 C98 C99 C100 Length 81.41' 87.25' 59.81' 10.81' 50.06' 50.06' 50.06' 50.06' 50.06' 42.55' 57.07' 104.94' 86.56' 4.48' 46.05' 50.06' 50.06' 16.89' 63.16' 71.75' 71.75' 66.01' 47.62' 74.13' 73.68' 56.01' 55.07' 15.08' 15.53' 31.23' 37.35' 42.05' 34.63' 16.83' 38.81' 175.69' 16.16' 25.94' 3.92' 17.11' 15.07' 5.96' 39.63' 13.58' 33.37' 51.26' 35.20' 56.24' 38.43' 65.64' Radius 155.00 250.00 250.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 430.00 430.00 430.00 430.00 505.00 505.00 505.00 325.00 325.00 325.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 275.00 275.00 51.00 51.00 225.00 225.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 50.00 50.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 Delta 30°05'35" 19°59'48" 13°42'23" 2°03'55" 9°33'37" 9°33'37" 9°33'37" 9°33'37" 9°33'37" 8°07'37" 13°04'45" 24°02'58" 19°50'20" 1°01'35" 8°47'44" 9°33'37" 9°33'37" 3°13'36" 8°24'59" 9°33'37" 9°33'37" 8°47'44" 5°24'10" 8°24'39" 8°21'34" 9°52'28" 9°42'28" 2°39'33" 17°47'27" 35°47'30" 42°47'48" 48°11'23" 7°12'52" 3°30'21" 43°35'59" 197°22'42" 4°06'56" 6°36'17" 8°58'43" 39°12'39" 34°32'06" 13°39'17" 45°24'41" 15°33'59" 37°29'28" 57°35'15" 39°32'56" 63°10'49" 43°10'12" 73°44'31" Chord N28°36'19"E S9°59'54"W S26°50'59"W S32°40'14"W S26°51'28"W S17°17'50"W S7°44'13"W S1°49'24"E S11°23'02"E S20°13'39"E S17°45'05"E S0°48'46"W S22°45'26"W S33°11'23"W S29°18'19"W S20°07'38"W S10°34'01"W S4°10'24"W S1°34'42"W S10°34'01"W S20°07'38"W S29°18'19"W N6°27'25"W N0°26'59"E N8°50'06"E S18°15'42"E S8°28'14"E S2°17'13"E S40°15'06"E S13°27'37"E S25°50'02"W N23°08'15"E S2°38'59"W S8°00'36"W S31°33'46"W N27°56'54"W N7°42'19"E N2°20'42"E N5°26'49"W N29°32'30"W N29°57'53"E N5°52'11"E N26°50'01"E N57°19'21"E N46°21'36"E N1°10'45"W N49°44'51"W S78°53'17"W S25°42'46"W S30°47'56"W Dist. 80.48' 86.81' 59.66' 10.81' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 42.52' 2732.34' 104.53' 86.15' 2724.81' 2727.49' 50.04' 50.04' 2731.05' 63.12' 71.68' 71.69' 66.11' 47.60' 74.07' 73.62' 55.94' 55.00' 15.08' 15.46' 30.73' 36.49' 40.82' 34.60' 16.82' 37.88' 100.83' 16.16' 25.92' 3.91' 16.78' 14.84' 5.94' 38.60' 13.54' 32.78' 49.13' 34.51' 53.43' 37.52' 61.20' Curve Table Curve # C101 C102 C103 C104 C105 C107 C108 C109 C112 C115 C116 C117 C118 C119 C120 C121 C122 C123 C124 C125 C126 C127 C128 C129 C130 C131 C132 C133 C134 C135 C136 C137 Length 24.87' 83.09' 44.72' 42.05' 21.36' 92.54' 22.91' 68.79' 46.78' 13.06' 56.27' 57.20' 83.92' 109.92' 27.55' 39.27' 112.02' 57.27' 56.27' 13.06' 21.03' 84.11' 21.03' 42.10' 53.21' 51.45' 21.03' 84.11' 21.03' 73.44' 86.79' 53.21' Radius 51.00 51.00 51.00 50.00 60.00 275.00 275.00 60.00 250.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 60.00 375.00 25.00 25.00 60.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 225.00 50.00 275.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 275.00 325.00 50.00 Delta 27°56'32" 93°20'30" 50°14'18" 48°11'23" 20°24'00" 19°16'51" 4°46'24" 65°41'07" 10°43'14" 29°55'35" 64°29'01" 131°05'23" 80°08'02" 16°47'43" 63°08'36" 90°00'00" 106°58'02" 131°15'06" 64°29'01" 29°55'35" 48°11'23" 96°22'46" 48°11'23" 10°43'14" 60°58'40" 10°43'14" 48°11'23" 96°22'46" 48°11'23" 15°18'01" 15°18'01" 60°58'40" Chord S20°02'35"E S80°41'06"E N27°31'30"E N25°03'08"W S0°04'21"W S2°40'06"W S14°41'44"W S42°58'12"E N4°24'10"E S14°57'48"W S2°18'55"E S31°02'24"W S56°31'05"W S35°15'15"W N58°25'42"E S45°00'00"E S43°12'40"E S31°04'08"E S2°18'55"W S14°57'48"E N23°08'15"E N0°57'27"W N25°03'08"W N4°24'10"E N40°15'07"E S4°24'10"W S23°08'15"W S0°57'27"E S25°03'08"E N3°31'20"W S3°31'20"E N34°37'01"E Dist. 24.63' 74.20' 43.30' 40.82' 21.25' 2724.83' 2723.37' 65.08' 46.71' 12.91' 53.35' 45.51' 77.24' 109.53' 26.18' 35.36' 96.44' 45.54' 53.35' 12.91' 20.41' 74.54' 20.41' 42.04' 50.74' 51.38' 20.41' 74.54' 20.41' 73.22' 86.53' 50.74' Trail Easement Line Table Line # L5 TE5 TE6 TE7 TE8 TE9 TE12 TE14 TE15 TE16 TE17 TE21 TE22 TE23 TE24 TE25 TE26 TE27 TE28 TE29 TE30 Length 10.00' 36.33' 79.15' 64.38' 79.06' 52.71' 93.24' 65.78' 72.43' 42.28' 82.25' 135.71' 109.94' 23.82' 86.84' 128.74' 99.66' 162.87' 131.19' 144.10' 38.49' Direction N14°11'14"E S22°29'05"W S28°03'24"W S19°01'06"W S10°21'21"E S3°25'05"W S14°41'11"W S15°00'36"E S9°54'52"E S10°03'41"W S20°36'42"W S26°34'52"E S9°36'47"E S22°57'56"W S19°25'01"W S9°02'24"W S33°27'03"W S27°28'14"W S13°31'56"W S16°58'19"W S0°00'00"E Trail Easement Line Table Line # L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 Length 23.82' 8.52' 20.94' 20.97' 10.00' Direction N0°00'00"E S11°10'20"E S2°24'20"W N2°24'20"E N14°11'14"E 8-7-20 100 Year Flood Line Table Line FL1 FL2 FL3 FL4 FL5 FL6 FL7 FL8 FL9 FL10 FL11 FL12 FL13 FL14 FL15 FL16 FL17 FL18 FL19 FL20 FL21 FL22 FL23 FL24 FL25 FL26 FL27 FL28 FL29 FL30 FL31 FL32 FL33 FL34 FL35 FL36 FL37 FL38 FL39 FL40 FL41 FL42 FL43 FL44 FL45 FL46 FL47 FL48 FL49 FL50 Length 18.03' 7.57' 7.98' 27.07' 20.47' 12.09' 24.40' 33.93' 95.08' 39.48' 99.47' 46.12' 203.77' 84.01' 34.62' 77.28' 32.91' 68.39' 47.69' 19.75' 53.56' 29.92' 20.01' 39.08' 26.07' 12.62' 8.89' 22.80' 33.07' 21.75' 12.11' 23.41' 20.63' 15.07' 17.56' 19.71' 7.23' 29.84' 29.50' 17.08' 11.89' 16.91' 13.00' 15.84' 16.63' 12.64' 6.14' 13.73' 4.83' 4.23' Direction N45°49'08"E S66°28'17"E N73°44'35"E N9°37'36"W N47°31'28"W N3°17'11"W N59°48'44"E N73°22'21"E N47°21'52"E N16°37'58"E N8°42'51"E N86°01'00"E N13°31'44"E N7°35'19"W N52°53'40"W N1°30'01"W N82°42'15"E N2°23'30"E N25°14'04"W N21°06'23"E N16°34'33"W N63°54'10"W N1°30'31"W N38°20'17"E N1°09'29"W N13°27'51"W N11°55'32"E N65°33'19"E N22°44'29"E N12°26'00"E N18°26'51"W N79°23'32"E N34°58'55"E N7°03'07"W N45°56'07"W N13°18'48"W S28°10'55"E N85°08'01"E N1°09'28"W N71°03'10"E N17°21'35"E N27°16'07"W N56°44'13"W N31°38'22"W N53°16'18"W N41°35'05"W N17°17'18"W N33°23'48"W N0°50'01"E N40°19'38"W 100 Year Flood Line Table Line FL51 FL52 FL53 FL54 FL55 FL56 FL57 FL58 FL59 FL60 FL61 FL62 FL63 FL64 FL65 FL66 FL67 FL68 FL69 FL70 FL71 FL72 FL73 FL74 FL75 FL76 FL77 FL78 FL79 FL80 FL81 FL82 FL83 FL84 FL85 FL86 FL87 FL88 FL89 FL90 FL91 FL92 FL93 FL94 FL95 FL96 FL97 FL98 FL99 FL100 Length 22.94' 8.13' 5.90' 13.16' 4.85' 8.36' 14.53' 5.54' 11.80' 3.10' 4.66' 5.60' 16.12' 26.28' 5.37' 14.38' 25.17' 8.29' 31.81' 22.99' 20.38' 23.39' 16.91' 7.85' 5.20' 7.05' 5.62' 23.38' 19.28' 15.34' 53.26' 22.08' 6.29' 15.50' 39.65' 17.39' 8.03' 33.95' 20.07' 27.59' 19.55' 5.95' 12.23' 14.59' 13.78' 10.17' 8.10' 22.07' 21.31' 27.02' Direction N43°18'40"W S66°20'57"W N18°09'55"W N43°46'52"W N10°59'48"E N40°18'47"W N74°28'04"W N49°34'23"E N80°03'14"E N20°35'32"E N49°17'47"W N10°16'07"W N46°55'49"W N19°32'46"W N43°35'21"W N3°24'24"E N32°57'43"W N12°15'04"E N88°20'56"E N58°01'55"E N35°54'44"E N52°14'52"E N27°35'30"E N13°06'08"W N52°12'17"E S74°53'12"E N58°24'40"E N8°46'20"W N49°41'51"E N10°58'40"E N22°50'09"E N31°53'06"W N25°01'59"E N79°21'32"E N26°34'55"E N3°45'40"E N51°00'53"E N6°53'46"E N19°03'37"W N9°51'05"E N45°21'15"E N2°19'25"W N49°08'32"W N4°44'28"E N45°16'48"E N2°54'02"W N43°05'26"E N19°45'59"W N10°26'10"E N24°10'50"W 100 Year Flood Line Table Line FL101 FL102 FL103 FL104 FL105 FL106 FL107 FL108 FL109 FL110 FL111 FL112 FL113 FL114 FL115 FL116 FL117 FL118 FL119 FL120 FL121 FL122 FL123 FL124 FL125 FL126 FL127 FL128 FL129 FL130 FL131 FL132 FL133 FL134 FL135 FL136 FL137 FL138 FL139 FL140 FL141 FL142 FL143 FL144 FL145 FL146 FL147 FL148 FL149 FL150 Length 58.56' 20.33' 13.37' 20.37' 27.33' 21.13' 9.64' 4.94' 8.06' 4.46' 43.70' 32.55' 28.45' 14.99' 83.21' 20.22' 51.69' 27.87' 28.42' 56.85' 51.11' 125.63' 39.51' 33.11' 12.98' 2.13' 7.99' 4.78' 0.78' 21.75' 26.45' 84.02' 103.79' 21.53' 65.34' 9.34' 24.59' 14.06' 21.08' 21.30' 20.89' 9.21' 24.71' 13.58' 15.86' 18.47' 13.41' 14.22' 34.80' 38.39' Direction N15°56'21"E N6°54'19"W N82°15'55"E N14°17'03"E N62°50'57"E N44°09'16"E S16°31'51"W S63°39'38"W S89°17'10"W S55°14'17"W S20°25'11"W S54°17'29"W S15°18'13"W S76°46'08"W S11°27'23"E S9°32'33"W S3°24'11"W S1°47'28"W S20°36'28"W S16°21'51"W S16°55'44"W S16°21'32"W S39°09'04"W S46°03'43"E S70°43'03"E S41°44'27"E S14°12'19"E S84°26'27"E S25°53'07"E S4°49'49"E S27°05'06"E S9°13'44"E S11°22'14"E S31°34'50"W S72°23'40"W S53°47'13"W S9°09'51"W S30°49'39"W S6°38'40"E S43°27'17"W S17°36'43"W S10°30'33"E S10°01'37"W S10°34'07"E S35°19'47"E S3°09'46"E S19°41'21"W S1°25'18"W S26°01'42"E S2°46'35"W 100 Year Flood Line Table Line FL151 FL152 FL153 FL154 FL155 FL156 FL157 FL158 FL159 FL160 FL161 FL162 FL163 FL164 FL165 FL166 FL167 FL168 FL169 FL170 FL171 FL172 FL173 FL174 FL175 FL176 FL177 FL178 FL179 FL180 FL181 FL182 FL183 FL184 FL185 FL186 FL187 FL188 FL189 FL190 FL191 FL192 FL193 FL194 FL195 FL196 FL197 FL198 FL199 FL200 Length 31.74' 23.30' 27.40' 26.12' 18.26' 9.64' 22.10' 43.55' 7.40' 27.16' 8.53' 13.00' 36.38' 32.56' 11.82' 26.30' 13.07' 14.71' 22.23' 19.42' 21.19' 14.09' 12.93' 5.69' 15.66' 12.80' 36.62' 13.34' 10.88' 6.42' 224.56' 34.42' 11.67' 36.11' 21.70' 20.73' 9.97' 9.63' 30.77' 17.79' 15.12' 18.58' 20.98' 13.84' 12.04' 6.01' 10.21' 26.32' 14.81' 282.95' Direction S4°38'16"E S34°59'58"E S1°53'03"W S2°04'41"E S62°47'51"E S21°11'27"E S18°03'57"W S14°52'42"E S84°44'29"E N50°49'04"E S86°27'32"E N40°10'55"E N51°40'15"E N80°11'18"E S83°24'18"E S37°00'12"E S58°10'22"E N77°07'44"E S44°29'03"E N78°31'42"E N24°27'56"E N64°50'22"E N82°18'40"E S60°02'25"E S5°32'04"W S32°19'38"W S7°54'41"E S10°11'39"W S31°46'13"W S18°15'34"E N0°04'55"E N79°53'47"W N85°07'27"E N1°38'06"E N12°35'49"E N67°20'50"E N87°05'29"E N3°20'58"E N85°47'33"E S74°47'15"E S14°32'59"E S82°53'01"E S35°46'08"W S1°16'27"W S33°19'33"E N88°41'49"E S42°57'51"W S9°27'20"W S33°43'48"E S0°18'10"W Erosion Hazard Setback Line Table Line EH201 EH202 EH203 EH204 EH205 EH206 EH207 EH208 EH209 EH210 EH211 EH212 EH213 EH214 EH215 EH216 EH217 EH218 EH219 EH220 EH221 EH222 EH223 EH224 EH225 EH226 EH227 EH228 EH229 EH230 EH231 EH232 EH233 EH234 EH235 EH236 EH237 EH238 EH239 EH240 EH241 EH242 EH243 EH244 EH245 EH246 EH247 EH248 EH249 EH250 Length 23.48' 31.10' 16.77' 25.09' 14.95' 24.08' 28.89' 20.55' 5.52' 4.80' 13.29' 19.42' 15.06' 19.88' 38.14' 28.74' 11.52' 14.27' 5.94' 181.19' 78.22' 33.38' 70.06' 38.63' 45.56' 52.24' 21.92' 34.07' 29.79' 51.39' 32.42' 14.40' 15.55' 27.16' 25.64' 21.01' 17.32' 20.66' 20.58' 16.44' 6.79' 35.73' 17.18' 20.67' 22.09' 7.93' 1.65' 7.41' 11.09' 27.75' Direction N81°03'09"E N72°52'25"E N79°39'45"E N71°46'00"E N60°05'11"E N47°13'25"E N46°16'00"E N46°03'11"E N36°20'50"E N25°52'59"E N10°12'39"E N20°31'29"E N9°04'54"E N6°25'42"E N8°53'13"E N11°02'46"E N30°02'43"E N54°43'35"E N49°02'06"E N16°33'04"E N1°48'11"W N34°47'58"W N1°25'00"W N20°10'56"E N3°16'42"W N25°14'04"W N21°06'23"E N16°34'33"W N63°54'10"W N0°57'27"W N38°20'17"E N1°09'29"W N13°27'51"W N11°55'32"E N65°33'19"E N22°44'29"E N24°45'31"E N35°04'44"E N37°43'37"E N53°23'10"E N45°07'39"E N35°07'38"W N15°15'48"W N30°46'20"W N50°20'22"W N87°52'49"W N82°52'53"W N85°14'23"W N56°19'45"W N18°59'00"W 100 Year Flood Curve Table Curve # FC1 FC2 FC3 FC4 FC5 Length 167.22' 44.66' 54.28' 65.93' 50.72' Radius 76.72 32.23 71.29 119.16 34.11 Delta 124°52'50" 79°23'37" 43°37'10" 31°42'06" 85°10'58" Chord S11°51'23"W N40°11'59"W N22°18'45"W N28°16'17"W N30°10'15"E Dist. 136.03' 41.17' 52.98' 65.09' 46.17' Erosion Hazard Setback Curve Table Curve # EHC6 EHC7 EHC8 EHC9 EHC10 EHC11 EHC12 EHC13 EHC14 EHC19 EHC20 EHC21 EHC22 Length 81.59' 107.01' 73.18' 19.02' 55.68' 81.17' 109.20' 48.09' 82.37' 64.68' 13.27' 45.04' 49.16' Radius 93.56 254.48 181.00 14.33 71.67 161.15 79.80 52.17 132.65 114.25 64.14 107.87 148.66 Delta 49°58'02" 24°05'36" 23°09'52" 76°02'34" 44°30'45" 28°51'39" 78°24'39" 52°49'04" 35°34'32" 32°26'02" 11°51'11" 23°55'29" 18°56'52" Chord N30°29'57"E N21°24'01"E N13°02'27"E N26°01'19"W N18°39'07"W N23°13'28"E N32°37'29"E N19°49'58"E S33°41'01"W N67°24'19"W N17°07'25"W N31°31'58"E N44°47'17"E Dist. 79.03' 106.22' 72.68' 17.66' 54.29' 80.32' 100.88' 46.41' 81.05' 63.82' 13.24' 44.72' 48.94' Erosion Hazard Setback Line Table Line EH251 EH252 EH253 EH254 EH255 EH256 EH257 EH258 EH259 EH260 EH261 EH262 EH263 EH264 EH265 EH266 EH267 EH268 EH269 EH270 EH271 EH272 EH273 EH274 EH275 EH276 EH277 EH278 EH279 EH280 EH281 EH282 EH283 EH284 EH285 EH286 EH287 EH288 EH289 EH290 EH291 EH292 EH293 EH294 EH295 EH296 EH297 EH298 EH299 EH300 Length 7.13' 25.02' 24.33' 21.55' 17.50' 14.90' 23.64' 33.55' 26.25' 11.71' 53.59' 59.46' 6.53' 36.57' 56.95' 12.17' 29.09' 37.04' 74.97' 13.96' 11.20' 45.40' 19.03' 24.98' 18.28' 33.98' 34.18' 260.17' 45.22' 17.13' 25.95' 6.92' 22.78' 9.64' 11.25' 9.85' 48.73' 44.11' 4.77' 12.40' 3.20' 7.08' 149.06' 63.79' 2.64' 14.03' 4.45' 20.07' 74.35' 8.21' Direction N18°26'48"W N28°25'20"W N16°09'20"W N21°12'29"W N5°22'49"E N34°21'57"E N68°21'26"E N48°14'30"E N44°04'16"E N35°29'21"E N22°27'15"E N22°22'35"E S14°32'59"E S74°47'15"E N85°47'33"E N3°20'58"E N67°20'50"E N12°35'49"E N35°04'56"E N40°19'09"W N69°57'18"W N44°43'27"W N33°20'56"W N16°15'11"W N1°38'06"E N31°57'08"E N25°37'48"E N16°21'03"E N3°19'29"E S89°49'55"W N43°20'06"W N3°09'50"E N20°35'55"E N25°29'04"W N4°39'51"W N26°31'05"E N36°32'08"E N19°21'39"E N60°01'42"E N90°00'00"E N63°28'16"E N9°02'22"E S8°18'33"E S12°48'51"E N48°05'47"W S87°02'23"W S9°09'51"W N90°00'00"W S0°01'37"E S43°27'17"W Erosion Hazard Setback Line Table Line EH301 EH302 EH303 EH304 EH305 EH306 EH307 EH308 EH309 EH310 EH311 EH312 EH313 EH314 EH315 EH316 EH317 EH318 EH319 EH320 EH321 EH322 EH323 EH324 EH325 EH326 EH327 EH328 EH329 EH330 EH331 EH332 Length 8.90' 7.48' 24.69' 3.55' 17.58' 30.73' 14.44' 4.09' 37.35' 13.11' 135.00' 20.56' 35.96' 37.06' 9.67' 6.67' 26.76' 18.39' 35.88' 35.79' 23.71' 9.59' 16.68' 16.05' 11.84' 9.38' 12.88' 12.70' 19.07' 13.46' 91.12' 25.47' Direction S17°36'43"W S10°30'33"E S10°01'37"W S10°34'07"E S35°19'47"E S3°09'46"E S19°41'21"W S1°25'18"W S26°01'42"E S60°01'37"W S0°00'00"E N90°00'00"E S15°19'00"W S10°48'38"E S32°06'29"E N77°06'25"E N48°00'20"E N61°11'28"E N51°55'25"E N73°15'23"E S78°00'19"E S25°10'24"E S51°11'49"E S85°33'35"E S53°59'34"E S83°39'52"E N67°51'26"E N25°13'57"E N68°24'51"E N79°53'47"W N0°03'52"W N81°34'23"E 8-7-20    Town Council Regular Session E. Meeting Date:09/02/2020   Submitted By:Mike Standish, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: Approval of any direction to the Town Attorney and necessary staff as discussed in executive session RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve any direction to the Town Attorney and staff as discussed in executive session. Attachments No file(s) attached.    Town Council Regular Session 1. Meeting Date:09/02/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Submitted By:Milini Simms, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 1902616 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-43, DECLARING THE PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.10, SECTION 24.9, SECTION 27.9 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE RELATED TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-05, AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.10, SECTION 24.9, SECTION 27.9 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE RECOMMENDATION: Item A is an administrative function only. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of Item B.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Item A (Attachment 1) is solely an administrative function declaring the proposed code amendment a public record. Item B (Attachment 2) is a proposed code amendment to the Economic Expansion Zone (see image to the right, Attachment 3) to meet the Town Council's Strategic Leadership Plan's goals for attracting and retaining employment uses while balancing the needs of residents.  The proposed code amendment was discussed by the Town Council on January 8, 2020 (see Attachment 4 for staff report and minutes), and February 5, 2020 (see Attachment 5 for staff report and minutes). Based on these discussions the proposed amendment was refined for consideration by the Town Council on July 15, 2020 (see Attachment 6 for staff report and draft minutes) and continued to September 2, 2020. For specific details of the proposed code amendment, please see the previous Town Council staff reports (Attachments 4 through 6). The purpose of this report is to provide updates and additional details in response to Town Council's recent inquiries and concerns. 1. Potential for proliferation and appearance of pre-graded sites.   The following represents new information and additions to the proposed code amendments:   Criteria have been added to further regulate the amount of pre-grading. The criteria provide the ability to review the viability of development and potential visual impacts on a case-by-case basis. Specifically, the applicant must demonstrate the following:  Evidence (such as leads or contracts) of their ability to develop the site within 5 years. After 10 years, the site must be re-vegetated unless an extension is granted by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Verification by a required visual analysis to establish there will not be a materially detrimental visual impact to adjacent residential properties or public roadways. The Planning and Zoning Administrator has the discretion to apply conditions to minimize view impacts. This enables a potential to increase buffer yards, vegetation, etc. on a case-by-case basis.  To improve the appearance of pre-graded sites, the proposed amendment now requires decomposed granite (gravel typically seen in parking islands and residential yards), to match natural desert earth tones as the ground cover (see Attachment 7 for example). This is in addition to the required buffer yards (ranging from 25'-150') and landscaping previously discussed during Town Council meetings.  To further illustrate the appearance of pre-graded sites, a visual analysis (photos and renderings) was conducted to evaluate views along roadways and nearby residential areas. Key findings include:   The site closest to a residential area will not be viewable by surrounding homes. All homes abutting and adjacent to the property (along the west side) are single-story. Windows and views of the site are blocked by existing neighborhood screen walls.  Sites along Oracle Road are not visible due to existing vegetation, hillsides, buffer yard and open space requirements. Specifically, sites must maintain a 100' buffer along the roadway (per the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor Standards and Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development). Out of the sites that could be pre-graded (vacant sites without previously approved development plans), 4 areas are visible from roadways or existing homes. The homes are located across Big Wash, which is roughly 12 football fields away from the visible area (see Attachment 8). Mitigation measures significantly reduce impacts of all the sites as indicated on the visual analysis. 2. Need and benefit of allowing pre-grading  The absorption rate of Tech Park zoned land has historically been very low in Oro Valley. As such, there is ample evidence that the Town needs to improve its approach in order to attract employers. In addition to the recently approved targeted incentives, these code amendments are a critical step forward. The Town foregoes consideration by 2-5 major employer leads a month due to the lack of "ready to build" sites. Site selectors require and locate clients in areas that will allow them to construct and occupy a custom-building within 12 months. Currently, the Town cannot meet this requirement due to the lack of available "ready to build" sites.  Oro Valley's current EEZ process requires a minimum of 16 months (from concept to occupancy). Due to the time and cost, a property owner is not likely to go through the current process to create a "ready-to-build" site. Pre-grading allows site work to be completed within 3 months. This will likely be completed by the owner rather than the employment use, which would save them time and allow occupancy of a custom-building within 12 months (see Attachment 9 for more information).  According to Sun Corridor, several advanced tech/HQ businesses have recently located in the Tucson region. Some of which, considered but passed on locating in Oro Valley. Historically, the lack of employment development has led to property owners seeking to convert their tech-park zoned property to residential or developing uses such as senior care facilities. 3. Applicability of pre-grading.  As discussed, the proposed code amendment limits the locations for plant removal before site plan approval to only developable EEZ areas. Additionally, pre-grading only applies to vacant sites without previously approved development plans. Out of the 111 EEZ parcels, 58 parcels are developed or have approved plans. Although there are some vacant building pads they are all very small and located in Innovation Corporate Center or the Commerce Center along Oracle. As such, pre-grading would only be applicable to 28 parcels (see Attachment 10). 4. Existing process to appeal administrative decisions.  All administrative decisions, including site plan approvals and permit issuance, may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment within 30 days of the approval by an aggrieved person.  An aggrieved person does not have to abut the property but must show the administrative decision caused material harm as part of an appeal application. In summary, the proposed code amendment has been updated in response to Town Council's inquiries and concerns. Additional details are also provided in this report. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the proposed code amendment on November 5,2019 (see Attachment 11 for staff report and minutes) and recommended approval on December 3, 2019 (see Attachment 12 and for staff report and minutes).  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The purpose of the proposed code amendment (Attachment 2) is to attract and retain employment uses while adding impactful safeguards to protect residents. The proposed code amendment includes the following:  Limits the locations for plant removal before site plan approval to only developable EEZ areas (currently allowed on all vacant sites in Oro Valley) and adding restrictions to further reduce visibility of pre-graded sites from surrounding residents and the public. Requires more public outreach for EEZ sites closest to residential areas. Clarifies zoning regulations by allowing a code compliant sign criteria to be administratively approved. Increases predictability by removing the 20-day Town Council review period while maintaining the existing appeal process  These items were discussed by Town Council on January 8, 2020, (for staff report and minutes, see Attachment 4) and February 5, 2020 (see Attachment 5) through study sessions. The proposed amendments were considered by the Town Council on July 15, 2020 (see Attachment 6) and continued to September 2, 2020.  The purpose of this report is to provide updates and additional information in response to Town Council's recent inquires and concerns about the following:  Potential for proliferation and appearance of pre-graded sites1. Need and benefit of pre-grading2. Applicability of pre-grading3. Existing process to appeal administrative decisions4. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: 1. Potential for proliferation and appearance of pre-graded sites. The Town Council had concerns regarding the sudden proliferation of pre-graded sites. Specifically with regard to the ability to develop pre-graded sites in a timely manner and the appearance/visibility of pre-graded sites. In response to these concerns, the following updates have been added to the proposed code amendment and new information (visual analysis) has been provided for consideration:  Criteria to evaluate the viability and view impacts of each site on a case-by-case basis. Applicant's must demonstrate the following, prior to permit issuance:  Ability to develop the site within 5 years after permit issuance. Evidence, such as leads, contracts or other documentation must be provided and approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. If undeveloped after 10 years, the site must be re-vegetated (not restored) unless an extension has been approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Extensions may only be granted in 2 year increments provided proof of pending development.  Verification there will not be a materially detrimental visual impact to adjacent properties used or intended for residential purposes and public roadways. A visual analysis must be provided for the Town to evaluate potential view impacts. The Planning and Zoning Administrator also has the discretion to apply conditions to minimize view impacts. These conditions include, but are not limited to, expanding the width of a buffer yard, increasing the amount of plants or extent of ground cover, or stipulating the types of trees planted to naturally screen the site.  Per code, a ground cover is required on all graded sites for dust control and stabilization. Methods range from hydro-seeding, decomposed granite to clear coating. To eliminate ambiguity of the appearance of pre-graded sites, the code now requires decomposed granite (gravel typically used in parking islands or front yards) matching the existing desert earth tones as the ground cover for pre-graded sites. An example of a recently graded site with decomposed granite is included in Attachment 7. This is in addition to the required buffer yards (ranging from 25'-150') and landscaping previously discussed during Town Council meetings.  To further illustrate the appearance of pre-graded sites, a visual analysis has been conducted. The analysis includes photos of sites with little to no visibility (due to existing walls, topography, etc.) and renderings of sites most visible to nearby residents and from roadways (see Attachment 8). The renderings depict the required buffer yards and decomposed granite ground cover. Key findings include:  The site closest to residential (within 150') will not be viewable by nearby homes. The homes abutting and adjacent to the property are all single-story. Windows and views are blocked by existing screen walls. Additionally, a 150' undisturbed space must remain between the homes and pre-graded area on the site. Sites along Oracle Road are naturally screened by steep slopes or existing dense vegetation. A 100' buffer yard is required along the roadway. Out of the 25 parcels that could be pre-graded, 4 areas are visible from roadways and existing homes.Visible sites are along the edges of Innovation Park and can be seen from Tangerine Road, Rancho Vistoso Blvd. and subdivision homes located across Big Wash (roughly 12 football fields away). As previously stated, a visual analysis is now required for all applicants seeking to pre-grade a site to evaluate view impacts on a case-by-case basis (unless deemed unnecessary due to character of the site, terrain or location).  2. The need and benefit of pre-graded sites. The Town Council discussed the need and benefit of pre-grading in relation to the current review and permitting process. The absorption rate of Tech Park zoned has historically been low in Oro Valley. As such, there is ample evidence that the Town needs to improve its approach in order to attract employers. In addition to quality of life (schools, safety, entertainment) factors and targeted incentives, such as the ones recently approved by Council, the availability of "ready to build" sites is a major factor consideration of site selectors. The Town foregoes consideration by 2-5 major employer leads a month because site selectors locate clients in cities that will allow them to construct and occupy a custom-building within 12 months. Currently, the Town cannot meet this requirement due to the lack of available "ready-to-build" sites (see Attachment 9). Within the current process, it could take a minimum of 16 months to occupy a custom-building. This timeframe is based on the following:  Site plan approval and work: Minimum of 6 months but typically 9 months  As discussed, it takes a minimum of 4-6 months to acquire plan approval, prior to doing any site work. This timeframe is driven by the applicant and does not account for their time to draft or revise plans. Looting at recent approvals in Innovation Park (Tucson Orthopedic, a shell building and Securaplane), it took an average of 7 months to acquire site and grading plan approval. Site work: Typically, it takes roughly 2 months to clear and grade a site. This timeframe is dependent on the size and complexity of the site.  Building plan approval and construction: Approximately 10 months, depending on size and complexity of the building. Due to the time and cost required to acquire approval in the current process, a property owner will not pursue creating a "ready-to build" site. Allowing pre-grading on a limited amount of sites (see section 3 below) in Oro Valley, gives the Town a better opportunity to compete with other cities and even be considered by employment users. Based on the following timeframes, an employer could realistically occupy a custom-building within 12 months.  Pre-grading: 3-4 months. Unlike the current process, this will generally be processed and completed by the property owner to create a "ready-to build"site. As such, the employment use may skip this part of the process and begin at the next step.  Plan approval (1-2 months) and site work (2 months, depending on size and complexity of the site). Detailed design plan and building plan approval: 1-2 months  The development review time would decrease since some work has been completed (e.g. plant inventory, site stabilization and drainage).  Building construction: Approximately 9 months, again depending on the size and complexity of the building. Total review and construction time for the employment use: 10-11 months  According to Sun Corridor, several advanced tech/HQ businesses have recently located in the Tucson region. Some of which, considered but passed on locating in Oro Valley. The Town will continue to be overlooked by site selectors if unable to provide "ready to build" sites. This low absorption rate of Tech-Park land leads to property owners seeking to convert their vacant tech-park land to residential or develop senior care facilities (where allowed).  3. Applicability of pre-graded sites. The Town Council had concerns about the amount of sites that would be pre-graded. As discussed, the proposed code amendment significantly reduces the amount of sites allowed to remove plants before site plan approval. Pre-grading only applies to sites are vacant do not have previously approved plan. Further details regarding the applicable sites are provided below (see Attachment 10).  There are roughly 111 parcels in the EEZ. The majority of which are located in Innovation Park (89 parcels)  54 are fully developed with buildings 25 are graded pads. However, these pads are very small (for a small office building) located in Innovation Corporate Center and the Commerce Plaza (north of Gaslight Theater). 4 have previously approved plans and could currently apply for grading permits. Based on this information, the proposed code amendment would limit the current Town-wide allowance to 28 parcels. All except seven are located in Innovation Park. The majority of which are located away from residential areas. 4. Existing process to appeal administrative decisions. With regard to removing the 20-day Town Council review period of an administrative decision in EEZ, the Town Council inquired about the existing process for appeals. Per code, administrative decisions, including but not limited to site plan approvals and permit issuance, may be appealed by any aggrieved person within 30 days to the Board of Adjustment. An aggrieved person does not have to abut a property, but it must be apparent the decision caused material harm.  Detailed information about the proposed code amendment, including the changes to the sign criteria approval process is included in Attachment 5 and Attachment 6. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed code amendment was reviewed for conformance with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan. By adding stricter provisions while increasing the Town's competitive advantage for attracting employment uses, the proposed code amendment meets several goals and policies. Please see Attachment 6 for specific details.  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 and minutes see Attachment 11) and recommended it for approval on December 3, 2019 (for staff report and minutes, see Attachment 12). Please see Attachments 4 through 6 for additional information about the Commission's discussions.  PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Outreach for the proposed code amendments complies with longstanding CED Standard Operating Procedures and State law. For this case, public notice has been provided as stated below.   All HOAs in Town were notified of this hearing All property owners of Tech-Park zoned property, Commerce/Office Park property and Innovation Park Public hearing notices were posted:  In the Territorial Newspaper In the Arizona Daily Star At Town Hall On the Town website  Furthermore, the proposed code amendment was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission twice and the Town Council three times as of July 15. A letter of support was received and is included in Attachment 13. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed code amendment (Attachment 2) aims to fulfill the goals of the Town Council's Strategic Leadership Plan and adopted Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) to attract and retain employment uses.  The proposed code amendment was discussed by the Town Council through study sessions in January and February 2020. Based on these discussions, the code amendments were refined for consideration on July 15, 2020 and continued to September 2, 2020. The following are in updates and additional information in response to Town Council's questions or concerns:  Criteria have been added to further regulate and review the viability of development and potential visual impacts of pre-graded sites. An applicant must provide evidence of their ability to develop the site within 5 years and verify view impacts will not be materially detrimental to adjacent residential properties or public roadways. In addition to enhanced buffer yards (25'-150'), the proposed code amendment now specifies the type of ground cover that must be used on pre-graded sites. Decomposed granite, matching the natural desert earth tones will minimize the visual impacts of the site. A visual analysis has been conducted and finds sites near residential and along Oracle road will not be viewable. Of the sites that could be pre-graded, only 4 areas are visible from roadways and homes.  The proposed code amendments are a critical step forward to attract employment uses. The absorption rate of Tech-Park land will continue to be low if the Town continues to forgo consideration by major employers. This has led to property owners seeking to convert tech-park land to residential uses or develop senior care facilities. The Town forgoes consideration by 2-5 employer leads every month and will continue to be overlooked due to lack of available sites and ability to occupy a custom-building in less than 12 months. Pre-grading resolves this major deterrent and positions the Town to be part of a site selectors options.  In summary, the proposed code amendment has been revised in response to Town Council's inquiries and concerns. On December 3, 2019, the Planning and Zoning Commission found the proposed code amendment to be in conformance with the General Plan and recommended approval.  FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: Item A: I MOVE to (APPROVE or DENY) Resolution No. (R)20-43, declaring the proposed code amendments to the Economic Expansion Zone, Section 24.9 and other associated sections of code in Attachment 1 and filed with the Town Clerk, a public record. Item B: I MOVE to (APPROVE or DENY) Ordinance No. (O)20-05, amending the Zoning Code Section 22.10, Section 24.9, Section 27.9 and other associated sections of the code related to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ). For Item B, if the Town Council wishes to continue the item to September 16 to allow additional public input on the proposed changes since July 15, the motion would read as follows: I MOVE to continue Ordinance No. (O)20-05 to the September 16, 2020 Town Council agenda. Attachments (R)20-43 EEZ Code Amendments  (O)20-05 EEZ Code Amendments  ATTACHMENT 3- MAP OF EEZ SITES  ATTACHMENT 4- TC STUDY SESSION REPORT AND MINUTES 1.8.2020  ATTACHMENT 5- TC STUDY SESSION REPORT AND MINUTES 2.5.2020  ATTACHMENT 6- TC REPORT AND DRAFT MINUTES 7.15.2020  ATTACHMENT 7- EXAMPLE OF DECOMPOSED GRANITE  ATTACHMENT 8- VISUAL ANALYSIS  ATTACHMENT 9- CURRENT AND PROPOSED PROCESS  ATTACHMENT 10- APPLICABLE PRE-GRADING SITES  ATTACHMENT 11- PZC STUDY SESSION REPORT AND MINUTES 11.5.2020  ATTACHMENT 12- PZC REPORT AND MINUTES 12.3.2020  ATTACHMENT 13- LETTER OF SUPPORT  EEZ Presentation  1 RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, DECLARING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE SECTION 22.10, GRADING PERMIT PROCEDURES SECTION 24.9 , ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE SECTION 27 .9 GRADING AND OTHER 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 the proposed amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Section 22.10, “Grading Permit Procedures” Section 24.9, “Economic Expansion Zone” and Section 27.9, “Grading”, three copies of the proposed amendments which are on file in the office of the Town Clerk, is hereby declared to be a public record, and said copies are ordere d 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 2nd day of September, 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: 2 Exhibit “A” Section 22.10 Grading Permit Procedures A. Applicability Grading permits are required prior to grading as specified BELOW AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH Section 27.9. 1. TYPES OF GRADING PERMITS a. B. Type 1 Grading Permits A TYPE I GRADING PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING: 1. A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON A SINGLE LOT, OTHER THAN THOSE DEFINED AS TYPE 2 OR 3. 2. ALTERATION OF EXISTING STABILIZED SLOPE OF 3:1 OR GREATER, ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT. 3. ADDITION OF PAVED AREAS SUCH AS CONCRETE OR ASPHALT, IN EXCESS OF 1000 SQUARE FEET ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT. 4. IMPORT AND STOCKPILING OF 100 CUBIC YARDS OR MORE OF EARTHEN MATERIALS ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT. 5. CLEARING VEGETATION FROM A RESIDENTIAL LOT, WHICH ENCOMPASSES AN AREA OF 1000 SQUARE FEET OR MORE. b.. TYPE 2 GRADING PERMIT A TYPE 2 GRADING PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR A NY NEW PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET OR ROADWAY, A COMMERCIAL, OFFICE OR RESORT PROJECT, OR ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF MORE THAN TWO (2) PLATTED LOTS. c.. TYPE 3 GRADING PERMIT A TYPE 3 GRADING PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING: 1. STOCKPILING OF EARTHEN MATERIALS. 2. INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR WHICH A TYPE 2 GRADING PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED. d. TYPE 4 GRADING PERMIT A TYPE 4 GRADING PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FUTURE BUILDING PADS, UTILITY INSTALLATION AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS AS NEEDED FOR DRAINAGE AND ACCESS PRIOR TO SITE PLAN OR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. 1. A TYPE 4 GRADING PERMIT IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO SITES MEETING THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONAL AND QUALIFYING STANDARDS: 3 a. LOCATED IN THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 24.9. b. PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE, THE APPLICANT MUST DEMONSTRATE THE FOLLOWING, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. i. EVIDENCE SUCH AS LEADS, CONTRACTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTATION SATISFACTORY TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ABILITY AND INTENTION TO DEVELOP THE SITE WITHIN FIVE (5) YEARS FROM PERMIT ISSUANCE. ii. A VISUAL ANALYSIS TO VERIFY THERE WILL NOT BE A MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL VISUAL IMPACT TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES USED OR INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AND PUBLIC ROADWAYS. 1. THE VISUAL ANALYSIS SHALL INCLUDE PHOTOGRAPHS AND ACCURATE COMPUTER GRAPHIC RENDERINGS DEPICTING THE PROPOSED EXTENT AND LOCATION OF GRADING WITH MITIGATION MEASURES. a. THE REQUIREMENT FOR A VISUAL ANALYSIS MAY B E WAIVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IF THE CHARACTER OF THE SITE, LOCATION OR TERRAIN RENDERS SUCH ANALYSIS UNNECESSARY. 2. AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, CONDITIONS TO ENHANCE THE BUFFER YARDS TO MINIMIZE VIEW IMPACTS MAY BE APPLIED. ENHANCEMENTS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, INCREASING THE EXTENT OF GROUND COVER, WIDTH OF LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, DENSITY OR TYPE OF PLANTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 27.6.C.4.B.VIII . 2. TYPE 4 GRADING PERMITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: a. NO CLEARING, BRUSHING, GRUBBING, EXCAVATING OR FILLING SHALL TAKE PLACE WITHIN ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY (150) FEET OF A PROPERTY USED OR INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. THE DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE ABUTTING EDGE OF ANY PROPERTY USED OR INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES TO THE CLOSEST PROPERTY 4 LINE OR LEASE LINE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE LIMIT OF THE PROPERTY LINE OR LEASE LINE SHALL INCLUDE ALL REQUIRED PARKING, LANDSCAPING, AND SETBACKS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. b. 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 YARD, WHICHEVER IS GREATER; EXCLUDING ANY APPROVED ENTRY POINTS. A MINIMUM FORTY (40) FOOT NATURAL DESERT BUFFERYARD IS REQUIRED ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND PUBLIC ROADWAYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 27.6.C.4.b.viii. c. 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. d. A TEMPORARY ABOVE -GROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED FOR A MINIMUM OF FIVE YEARS TO ESTABLISH ALL TR ANSPLANTED AND MITIGATED PLANT MATERIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IN SECTION 27.6.D. e. DECOMPOSED GRANITE, OR AN EQUIVALENT COVER AS APPROVED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MATCHING THE NATURAL DESERT EARTH TONES SHALL BE UTILIZED TO COVER THE ENTIRE CLEARED OR GRADED AREA IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 27.9.E.6. f. SHOULD THE SITE NOT BE DEVELOPED AFTER TEN (10) YEARS, IT SHALL BE REVEGETATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 27.6.C.8. i. THE APPLICANT MAY SUBMIT A REQUEST IN WRITING TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR A TIME EXTENSION IN NO MORE THAN TWO (2) YEAR INCREMENTS. EXTENSIONS WILL ONLY BE GRANTED UPON SATISFACTORY DEMONSTRATON OF PENDING DEVELOPMENT. 2. EXEMPTIONS THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES ARE EXEMPTED FROM ACQUIRING A GRADING PERMIT: a. UTILITY AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATION CONFINED TO THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND REQUIRING A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT. HOWEVER, A GRADING PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 27.9.E.4.A SHALL ACCOMPANY THE RIGHT-OF- WAY PERMIT APPLICATION. THE TOWN MAY WAIVE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 5 GRADING PLAN SHOULD STAFF DETERMINE THAT THE SCOPE OF THE GRADING ACTIVITY DOES NOT WARRANT SUCH A PLAN. b. THE CLEARING, BRUSHING OR GRUBBING FOR ACTIVITIES EXEMPTED IN THIS SUBSECTION; c. STOCKPILING OF LESS THAN 100 CUBIC YARDS OF UNCOMPACTED EARTH MATERIAL; d. RESURFACING OR MAINTENANCE OF AN EXISTING PAVED SURFACE; e. NEW PAVEMENT OF LESS THAN 1000 SQUARE FEET; f. INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM WITH A PIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PERMIT; g. EXCAVATION BELOW FINISHED GRADE FOR A BASEMENT, FOUNDATION, WALL OR SWIMMING POOL AUTHORIZED BY A BUILDING PERMIT OR ZONING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; h. EXCAVATION BELOW EXISTING GRADE FOR ANY STORY OF A STRUCTURE AS LONG AS THE FINISHED GRADE IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE THE STRUCTURE MEETS ALL OTHER CUT AND FILL LIMITATIONS. i. EXPLORATORY EXCAVATION UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A SOIL ENGINEER OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST PROVIDED ALL EXCAVATION IS PROPERTY BACKFILLED. WHENEVER POSSIBLE, SUCH EXPLORATORY EXCAVATION AND TESTING SHA LL BE CONDUCTED ONLY IN AREAS WHICH HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISTURBED; j. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION CONDUCTED UNDER STATE PERMIT BY A QUALIFIED ARCHAEOLOGIST; k. REMOVAL OF SELECTED INDIVIDUAL PLANTS FOR STORAGE AND REPLANTING; l. GRADING FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF AN EXISTING PRIVATE ACCESS, ROAD, OR DRIVEWAY, PROVIDED THAT IT EITHER EXISTED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF, OR WAS ESTABLISHED IN CONFORMANCE WITH, THIS ORDINANCE. B. GRADING PERMIT PROCEDURES 1. Permit Application and Review a. The grading permit application, grading plan, and other required materials should MUST be submitted for review to the Town FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 6 b. The grading permit application shall be completed and signed by the owner or owner’s authorized representative. b. The grading plan GRADING PLANS AND OTHER REQUIRED MATERIALS will be reviewed for consistency with the applicable regulations, and standards, AND ANY CONDITIONS IMPOSED UPON REZONING, DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL. If approved, a grading permit will be issued. The grading permit may be issued with additional conditions as deemed necessary by the Town. c. TYPE 2 GRADING PLANS, AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 22.10.B.2.AND RELATED SUBMITTALS WILL BE REVIEWED CONCURRENT WITH THE FINAL PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTED AFTER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL. d. AT THE DISCRETION OF THE TOWN ENGINEER AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, GRADING ASSURANCES MAY BE REQUIRED IN THE FORM OF ASSURANCE OR OTHER SECURITY ACCEPTABLE TO THE TOWN. IN THE EVENT THAT GRADING IS NOT COMPLETED AS APPROVED, THE ASSURANCES MAY BE APPLIED TO: i. ELIMINATE POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS; OR ii. MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF DUST, DRAINAGE, EROSION, VISUAL SCARS OR HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS IN A MANNER ACCEPTABLE TO THE TOWN. e. ONCE APPROVED, A GRADING PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED. THE GRADING PERMIT MAY BE ISSUED WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE TOWN. d. If determined to be inadequate, the materials submitted will be returned for corrections. The applicant may resubmit, without additional fees, corrected plans, or materials necessary to conform to submittal requirements. 2. Permit Issuance and Expiration a. Upon issuance of a grading permit, a copy of the permit and approved plan shall be kept in a conspicuous and accessible location on the site. 7 i. TYPE 2 GRADING PERMITS AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 22.10.A.1.B. MAY NOT BE ISSUED BY THE TOWN UNTIL THE TOWN COUNCIL HAS APPROVED THE FINAL PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE NECESSARY ASSURANCES HAVE BEEN POSTED. b. A grading permit shall be null and void if the authorized work has not been completed within 180 days of permit issuance, EXCEPT FOR A TYPE 2 GRADING PERMIT. A TYPE 2 GRADING PERMIT SHALL BE NULL AND VOID IF THE AUTHORIZED WORK HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN TWELVE (12) MONTHS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. 3. CHANGES TO GRADING PERMITS a. HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS: IF DRAINAGE PROBLEMS, FLOOD HAZARDS OR OTHER HAZARDS OCCUR, THE TOWN MAY REQUIRE THAT ENGINEERING MODIFICATIONS BE SUBMITTED IN A REPORT AND THE GRADING DESIGN BE MODIFIED. MODIFICATIONS SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A TIMELY MANNER AS APPROVED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER AND PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO PREVENT FURTHER HAZARDS FROM OCCURRING. b. NON-HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS: IF UNANTICIPATED NON-HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING, WHICH ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE GRADING PERMIT, THE PERMIT HOLDER MAY REQUEST ENGINEERING MODIFICATIONS IN A REPORT TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE TOWN. c. UPON APPROVAL OF THE MODIFICATIONS, A REVISED PERMIT WILL BE ISSU ED BY THE TOWN. 3 4. Permit Extensions and Reapplication a. Upon written request by the permit holder, the Town may grant a single extension up to 180 days. Requests must be submitted prior to the date of expiration. Consideration will be given to extension requests when quantifiable evidence is submitted. b. A reapplication for a grading permit shall be treated as a new application. Fees and additional conditions may be imposed as a result. 4 5. Inspections a. Pre-grading (when required by subdivision plat notes): The inspector will verify limitations for building pad and other areas to be graded, and identify vegetation required to be salvaged. The grading limitations must be staked or otherwise clearly identified prior to inspection. b. Rough grading (to be done prior to construction of residence): The inspe ctor will verify grading to be within limitations of approved plans. Certification of the building pad 8 elevation by a registered land surveyor or civil engineer shall be presented to the inspector at this time. c. Final grading (to be done prior to final building inspection): The inspector will verify that all prescriptive requirements of the approved grading/site plan have been satisfied. 1. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF GRADING OR STOCKPILING, THE PERMIT HOLDER SHALL REQUEST AN INSPECTION OF THE SITE WHERE SAID ACTIVITY IS TO OCCUR TO BE GRADED OR EARTHEN MATERIAL TO BE STOCKPILED AND VEGETATION TO BE SALVAGED SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED. ANY FENCING REQUIRED TO PROTECT NATURAL AREAS OR NATIVE PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND CERTIFICATION OF THE BUILDING PAD ELEVATION BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR OR CIVIL ENGINEER SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE INSPECTOR AT THIS TIME 2. ALL GRADING WHICH REQUIRES A TYPE 2 GRADING PERMIT PER SECTION 22.10.A.1.B. WILL ALSO BE INSPECTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: i. AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (ABC) MATERIAL PRIOR TO PAVING AND DURING COMPACTION TESTING OF THE SAME; AND ii. PAVING OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS AND COMPACTION/MATERIAL TESTING OF THE SAME; AND iii. OPEN WATER LINES AND ALL OTHER UTILITY TRENCHES AND BACKFILL MATERIALS PRIOR TO BURIAL OF TRENCH; AND iv. ANY GRADING ACTIVITY IN ADDITION TO WHAT WAS APPROVED ON THE GRADING PLANS; AND v. STOCKPILING AREAS ON OR OFF SITE; AND vi. ANY SPECIFIC GRADING ACTIVITIES OR AREAS IDENTIFIED BY THE TOWN AT THE PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING (HELD BETWEEN STAFF AND THE CONTRACTOR AT THE TIME OF PERMIT ISSUANCE) OR DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES; AND vii. ANY ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE COMPACTION TESTING OR ASPHALT CORING. 3. UPON COMPLETION OF GRADING ACTIVITY, THE PERMIT HOLDER SHALL REQUEST A FINAL GRADING INSPECTION TO VERIFY THAT ALL R EQUIREMENTS OF THE APPROVED GRADING PLAN AND PERMIT HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. A SIMILAR INSPECTION UPON REMOVAL OF STOCKPILED MATERIAL SHALL ALSO BE REQUESTED. i. THE FINAL GRADING INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF ASSURANCES FOR CIVIL WORK OR FINALIZATION OF THE PROJECT. ii. WHENEVER GRADING WORK REQUIRING TOWN INSPECTION IS CONCEALED BY ADDITIONAL WORK WITHOUT FIRST HAVING BEEN INSPECTED, THE TOWN MAY REQUIRE, BY WRITTEN NOTICE, THAT SUCH WORK IS: a. EXPOSED, FOR INSPECTION BY THE TOWN, AT NO COST TO THE TOWN; OR 9 b. CERTIFIED BY THE PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER AS BEING IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS AND APPLICABLE REGULATIONS VIA REGULAR INSPECTION OBSERVATION NOTES iii. WHERE CONDITIONS OF A GRADING PERMIT OR GRADING PLAN INCLUDE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF VEGETATION OR OTHER FINAL SITE GRADING WORK THAT EXTENDS BEYOND THE EXPIRATION OF THE GRADING PERMIT, THE PERMIT HOLDER SHALL REQUEST INSPECTIONS PER SUBSECTION 5.C OF THIS SECTION. 5 6. Incomplete Final Grading; Temporary Occupancy FOR TYPE 1 GRADING PERMITS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 22.10.A.1.a. a. In the event that the final grading cannot be completed in its entirety, an assurance, in a form acceptable to the Town, may be posted to allow inspection and occupancy of the residence. This assurance shall be in an amount equiva lent to one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the cost to complete the work as shown on the approved grading plan and/or in compliance with this Code. A cashier’s check made payable to the Town is an acceptable form of assurance for this purpose. b. The determination of the cost of the remaining work shall be by bids acquired by the permittee. The building official shall make the final judgment as to the adequacy of the assurance amount. c. If the balance of the work has not been completed within one hundred twe nty (120) days of the date of the temporary certificate of occupancy, the Town may use the assurance to complete the work. d. When an assurance is to be posted as a temporary substitute for a final grading inspection, it will still be necessary to have adequ ate drainage away from the structure. In addition, temporary or permanent means of preventing silting onto public rights-of-way will be required. C. Type 2 Grading Permits 1. Permit Application a. The grading permit application, grading plan and other required materials should be submitted to the Town for review and approval. 10 b. The grading permit application shall be completed and signed by the property owner or his/her authorized representative. c. At the discretion of the Town, grading assurances may be required in the form of assurance or other security acceptable to the Town. In the event that grading is not completed as approved, the assurances may be applied to: i. Eliminate potential hazardous conditions; or ii. Mitigate the effects of dust, drainage, erosion, visual scars or hazardous conditions in a manner acceptable to the Town. 2. Permit Application Review a. Grading plans and related submittals will be reviewed concurrent with the final plat or development plan (submitted after Plan ning and Zoning Commission approval), plant salvage and landscape plan for the project. b. Grading plans, soils and drainage reports will be reviewed for consistency with applicable regulations and standards, plant salvage and landscape plans and any cond itions imposed upon rezoning, development plan or subdivision plat approval. Plans determined to be inadequate or incomplete will be returned for correction and resubmittal. Where inconsistency between plans is evident, the appropriate plan will be resubmi tted for review and approval. c. The Town will provide written review comments and/or redlined plans to the applicant upon review. Should the grading plans need to be submitted three (3) or more times for 11 review by the Town, the applicant shall be required to pay an additional review fe e at the time of the third and each subsequent resubmittal of the grading plans for review by the Town. d. Prior to approval of the grading plan, soils report and drainage report, the Town may inspect the site to determine that the submittals are current and reflect existing conditions. e. The Town shall require the plans and specifications to be modified to make them consistent with this Code and/or any prior conditions placed upon approval of the project. A grading permit may be issued with additional conditions. f. When the grading plans (and improvement plans) meet applicable Town Codes to the satisfaction of the Town, the Town Community Development Director or his/her designee will sign the approval block on said plans. 3. Preliminary Grading Plan A preliminary grading plan shall be submitted concurrently with the initial submittal of a preliminary plat and development plans. 4. Permit Issuance and Expiration a. Issuance: Grading permits may not be issued by the Town until the Town Council has approved the final plat or development 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 t he 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 or development plan approval by the Town Council for the purpos es 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 12 iii. Restoration assurances for the preliminary grading are collected prior to issuanc e 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. 5. Permit Extension and Reapplication a. Upon written request by the permit holder, the Town may grant a single extension of up to one hundred eighty (180) days. Requests must be submitted prior to the date of expiration. Consideration will be given to extension requests when quantifiable evidence is submitted. b. A reapplication (after the one (1) time extension) for a grading permit shall be treated as a new application and additional conditions may be imposed as a result. 6. Changes to Type 2 Grading Permits a. Hazardous conditions: If drainage problems, flood hazards or other hazards occur, the Town may require that engineering modifications be submitted in a report and that the grading design be modified. b. Non-hazardous conditions: If unanticipa ted non-hazardous conditions are encountered during grading, which are beyond the scope of the grading permit, the permit holder may request engineering modifications in a report to be reviewed and approved by the Town. 7. General Inspections a. All grading which required a Type 2 Grading Permit will be inspected by the Town. The grading permit applicant (or applicant’s representative) shall request that a representative of the Town inspect or be on site for the following: i. Limits of grading and temporary fencing to protect natural areas; and ii. Rough grading to be done prior to construction of the project. The inspector will verify grading to be within the limitations of approved plans. Certification of the building pad elevation by a registered lan d surveyor or civil engineer shall be presented to the inspector at this time; and 13 iii. Aggregate base course (ABC) material prior to paving and during compaction testing of the same; and iv. Paving of public and private streets and compaction/material t esting of the same; and v. Open water line (and other utilities as specified by the Town) trenches and backfill materials prior to burial of trench; and vi. Any grading activity in addition to what was approved on the grading plans; and vii. Stockpiling areas on or off site; and viii. Any specific grading activities or areas identified by the Town at the pre - construction meeting (held between staff and the contractor at the time of permit issuance) or during the course of construction activities; and ix. Any on-site and off-site compaction testing or asphalt coring. b. The permit holder shall provide the Town with an inspection request notification at least twenty-four (24) (preferably forty -eight (48)) hours prior to (or as specified on the grading permit) the time the inspection is needed. c. The Town will provide an inspector within two (2) working days from the time the inspection request is received, with the exception of the final grading inspection done in conjunction with the release of assuran ce. d. The final grading inspection shall be done with the release of assurances for civil work or finalization of the project. Final grading inspections may be warranted at an earlier point in the project process. e. If the Town finds site conditions ar e not as stated in the approved grading permit conditions or approved grading plan, the Town may order work authorized by the grading permit to stop pursuant to subsection F.3 of this section. f. Whenever grading work requiring Town inspection is concealed by additional work without first having been inspected, the Town may require, by written notice, that such work is: i. Exposed, for inspection by the Town, at no cost to the Town; or 14 ii. Certified by the project civil engineer as being in conformance with approved plans and applicable regulations. 8. Final Grading Inspection a. All required grading work should be completed in accordance with the grading permit prior to final grading inspection by the Town and full release of assurances or final release of the project. b. Where conditions of a grading permit or grading plan include the establishment of vegetation or other final site grading work that extends beyond the expiration of the grading permit, the Town will make in spections per subsection C.7 of this section. 9. Maintenance of Revegetation The maintenance of revegetated areas shall be in accordance with Section 27.6.L of this Code. ((O)17-05, Amended, 06/07/2017; 6/11 supplement, Amended, 06/2011) D. Type 3 Grading Permit 1. Permit Application and Review a. Upon issuance of a grading permit, a copy of the permit and approved plan shall be kept in a conspicuous and accessible location on the site. b. A grading permit shall be null and void if t he authorized work has not been completed within 180 days of permit issuance. 2. Permit Extension and Reapplication 15 a. Upon written request by the permit holder, the Town may grant a single extension up to one hundred eighty (180) days. Requests must be submitted prior to the date of expiration. Consideration will be given to extension requests when quantifiable evidence is submitted. b. A reapplication for a grading permit shall be treated as a new application and additional conditions may be imposed as a result. 3. Permit Inspections a. Prior to commencement of grading (or stockpiling), the Town shall inspect the site where said activity is to occur. The applicant shall clearly identify areas to be graded (or earthen material stockpiled). Vegetation to be salvaged shall be identified. b. During construction/grading activity, the Town may occasionally inspect to ensure erosion/drainage control measures are in place, functional and maintained. c. Upon completion of grading activity, the Town shall in spect to verify that all prescriptive requirements of the approved grading plan and permit have been satisfied. The Town will do a similar inspection upon removal of stockpiled material. ED. GRADING Exceptions and Interpretation Review 1. Exceptions a. Scope: An exception from a provision of this section may be applied for, and may be granted by the Town Council, when the intent of this section can be met by other means and when strict application of these provisions could require unnecessary disturbance to the land, would create a hazard to adjacent property, would be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity or would be materially detrimental to the public welfare in general. b. Findings: Applications for Grading Exceptions shall address e ach of the FOLLOWING findings. The Planning and Zoning Commission will review and provide recommendation to the Town Council on all applications for grading exceptions at scheduled public hearings. When reviewing requests for grading exceptions, the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council shall consider each of the findings and address them in their deliberations. To grant an exception the Town Council shall find that the request addresses the concerns of each finding and is in substantial compliance with the findings as a whole. i. The exception meets the intent and purposes of this code; 16 ii. Granting the exception constitutes the minimum to allow the proposed improvement; iii. The conditions on the property are unique such that strict adherence to this section would cause an unnecessary hardship which substantially limits the preservation and enjoyment of property rights; iv. The exception imposes conditions so as not to constitute a granting of special privilege; and v. That the exception will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general. c. Conditions: At the Town Council’s discretion, conditions may be imposed on the exception that will: i. Assure that the intent and purpose of this chapter are met; and ii. Provide adequately for the protection of surrounding property owners and residents; and iii. Provide mitigation of scarring and restore the site to a natural appearance in terms of contours and vegetation, where po ssible. d. Application: The request for exceptions shall be made on a form provided by the Town. Hearing fees shall be required. e. Review and Notice: The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a duly noticed public hearing on the exception request and notice of the hearing will be mailed to all property owners within six hundred (600) feet of the grading site prior to such hearing. i. If any portion of a subdivision falls within the required notification area, the entire subdivision (as defined by subdivis ion name or unit number) may be required to be notified if the impacts of the proposal would have impacts affecting the entire subdivision or neighborhood, as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. F. REVIEW: THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WILL REVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL ON ALL APPLICATIONS FOR GRADING EXCEPTIONS AT SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS. WHEN REVIEWING REQUESTS FOR 17 GRADING EXCEPTIONS, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND TOWN COUNCIL SHALL CONSIDER EACH OF THE FINDINGS AND ADDRESS THEM IN THEIR DELIBERATIONS. TO GRANT AN EXCEPTION THE TOWN COUNCIL SHALL FIND THAT THE REQUEST ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS OF EACH FINDING AND IS IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE FINDINGS A S A WHOLE. g. The decision of the Town Council on a grading exception shall be final. 2. Requests for Interpretation a. Scope: Upon request, the appropriate Town representative shall render an interpretation of the regulations of this chapter. Should any person be aggrieved of said interpretation, a request for review of that interpretation may be made to the Planning and Zoning Commission. At a subsequent meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the interpretation in the matter and render its decision, either to uphold the interpretation or to make a different interpretation of this chapter. b. The request for review of an interpretation shall cite: i. The disputed interpretation; ii. The words alleged to have been misinterpreted. c. Application: The request shall be made on a form provided by the Planning and Zoning Department and will be heard within sixty (60) days. Hearing fees shall be required. d. Review and notice: The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on the interpretation issue and notice of the hearing will be mailed to the applicant and all property owners within six hundred (600) feet of the grading site prior to such hearing. F. Grading Permit Authorization, Liability, Enforcement and Penalties 1. Authorization to Proceed with Work a. The issuance of a grading permit shall constitute an authorization to do only that work that is described or illustrated on the application for the permit, or on the site plans and specifications as approved by the Town. The issuance of a permit, or the approval of drawings and specifications shall not be construed to be a permit for, nor the approval of, any violation of, or deviation from, the provisions of this or any other Town ordinance, code or regulation. A permit issued shall become invalid if, in the work completed, a violation of this Section or deviation there fro m ensued. 18 When such violation occurs, the permit shall be deemed to be canceled and the ground shall be restored to the condition it was in prior to start of the grading work. b. The issuance of a permit, based upon drawings and specifications, shall not pre vent the Town from thereafter requiring the correction of errors in said drawings and specifications, or from stopping unlawful construction operations being carried on thereunder. c. The Town may require grading operations and project designs be modified if weather-generated problems occur that were not considered at the time the grading permit was issued. 2. Liability Neither the issuance of a permit under the provisions of this ordinance, nor the compliance with provisions hereof, or with any conditions imposed in the permit issued hereunder, shall relieve any person from responsibility for damage to other persons or property, nor impose any liability upon the Town for damage to other persons or property. 3. Enforcement a. The enforcement of this Grading Ordinance and conditions of the grading permit shall be in accordance with this Section. b. If the Town makes a determination that noncompliance with the conditions of the grading permit, or any condition imposed by rezoning, plat or plan approval exists, the Town may issue a stop-work order and/or citation. Further, the Town shall hold in abeyance, by written notice, any/all Town review of other submittals related to the subject project and the issuance of Town permits for any aspect of it until remedial actions have received the written approval of the Town. 4. Stop-Work Orders a. Whenever the Town determines that grading does not comply with this ordinance or the grading permit conditions, or that the soil or conditions are not as stated on the permit, the Town may order the work stopped by written notice served on any person engaged in doing or causing such work to be done, and/or issue a citation. b. Any such person shall immediately stop such work until written authorization is granted by the Town to proceed with the work. 19 5. Citations If deemed necessary and appropriate, citations for grading violations may be issued. The Planning and Planning and Zoning Administrator will issue the citation. The Town Engineer shall co-sign citations issued for grading violations occurring within Town right -of-way. 6. Penalties a. Failure to obtain a grading permit: Unless exempted by this ordinance , failure to obtain a grading permit prior to commencement of grading shall be a violation of this ordinance. However, the Tow n may issue an exception permit if the Town finds that an emergency existed that made it impossible first to obtain a permit. Notification must be provided to the town within seventy -two (72) hours of occurrence. b. Violations: A violation of this ordinance may result in issuance by the Town of a stop-work order and/or a citation and penalties in accordance with paragraph 3 SUBSECTION C of this Section. Payment of fine shall not relieve any person from complying with the requirements of this ordinance. c. Penalties: Failure to comply with the approved grading plan, conditions of the grading permit, and/or grading not in compliance with this ordinance shall cause immediate revocation of all permits. At the Town’s discretion, a permit may be issued for the purposes of getting the illegally graded site into compliance with the grading ordinance, for the purposes of re-establishing the grades approved on the grading plan, and for replacing and maintaining protected native plant materials or public property destroyed as a result of the illegal grading operation. New permits for continuing the project shall not be issued until the required fines are paid to the Town. 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 20 1. The Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) review process is available to all NEW DEVELOPMENT, ADDITIONS, EXPANSIONS, OR CHANGES TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSING PERMITTED USES AND COMPLIANT WITH EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. property located within the EEZ Overlay District boundaries, which include: all Rancho Vistoso areas depicted in the overlay map, attached to the ordinance codified in this section, and all technology park zoned land in the Town with the exception of any property with residential uses. a. INNOVATION PARK AND SURROUNDING RANCHO VISTOSO AREAS AS DEPICTED IN THE OVERLAY MAP, ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE CODIFIED IN THIS SECTION. b. ALL TECHNOLOGY PARK ZONED LAND IN THE TOWN WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ANY PROPERTY WITH RESIDENTIAL U SES 1. 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 planned area development standards, or applications for conditional use permits. C. General Provisions 1. ExemptionS 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. Th e 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 AND FIFTY (150) FEET OF A PROPERTY USED OR INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. i. THE ABOVE DISTANCES 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 SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE LIMIT 21 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 TYPE 4 GRADING PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.10.A.1.D. 2. Approvals Required DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS 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 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN AND ASSOCIATED PLANS IN ACORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.10 AND SECTION 27.9. 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 INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: i. AN ALTERNATIVE PARKING ANALYSIS, SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW CRITERIA OUTLINED IN SECTION 27.7.C. ii. EXEMPTION FROM PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) SIGN STANDARDS, AS PERMITTED IN SECTION 28.2.B.3. FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF UTILIZING THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER CHAPTER 28 iii. SIGN CRITERIA IN CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 28.2.B.2. AND SECTION 28.2.B.3 b. APPROVALS SHALL EXPIRE IF IMPROVEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN STARTED WITHIN TWO (2) YEARS OF THE APPROVAL DATE. THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT IN WRITING A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE TIME BEYOND TWO (2) YEARS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR BEFORE EXPIRATION. i. THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY GRANT AN EXTENSION SHOULD THE CIRCUMSTANCES BE JUSTIFIED AND ADEQUATE FINANCIAL ASSURANCES BEEN MADE. IF THE APPROVED FINAL DESIGN IS ABANDONED, THE TOWN WILL RETURN THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCES LESS ANY EXPENSES THE TOWN HAS INCURRED. 22 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 submittals 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 ba sed 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 Admini strator’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. 23 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. Section 27.9 Grading A. Purpose The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the public health, safety, and general welfare and to protect and preserve the aesthetics of the natural DESERT environment through regulation of all types of excavation and earthwork on private an d/or public land. IT COMPLEMENTS THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE AND THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE AND DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ANY GRADING ACTIVITY PROHIBITED BY ANY TOWN ORDINANCE. The grading regulations contained in this ordinance are designed to: 1. Regulate the development of potentially hazardous terrain; and 2. Preserve, where possible, or recreate the natural contours, the native vegetation and the visual character of the site in harmony with the surrounding terrain; and 24 3. Enhance the quality and value of new development; and 4. Maintain property rights and property values of adjacent developed and undeveloped parcels. B. Intent The regulations, as set forth in this ordinance, have been prepared in the context of Oro Valley’s specific desert environment. They are intended to complement the applicable provisions of the Hillside Development Zone and the Floodplain Management Ordinance, and not to authorize any grading activity prohibited by this ordinance or any Town ordinance. FURTHER, Tthe intent of this grading ordinance is to assure that the design and implementation of all grading projects shall: 1. Avoid scarring and other adverse visual impacts resulting from cut, fill and any other type of ground disturbance; and 2. Blend with the natural contours of the land; and 3. Restrict the areas of disturbance and volume of material displaced to the minimum amount necessary to implement the planned development; and 4. Limit mass grading to residential subdivisions with an average lot size of 15,000 square feet or less; and 5. Employ measures that: a. Ensure that graded hillside, slopes or other areas subject to erosion are stabilized; and b. Reduce the erosion effects of storm water discharge, preserve the flood -carrying capacity of natur al or constructed waterways by limiting soil loss, and protect drainageways from siltation; and c. Minimize dust pollution and surface water drainage from graded areas during grading and development; and d. Ensure that proposed development activity is designed and implemented to avoid adverse impacts and appropriate restorative measures; and e. Encourage phased projects, to preserve natural contours and vegetative communities until such time as grading must necessarily occur on a site. 25 C. Protective Cover and Dust Control Cleared or graded land shall not be left at any time without dust control nor shall be left uncovered for more than 60 days without temporary or permanent protective cover of the entire cleared or graded area as determined by the Town Engineer. B. Applicability THE DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION, AND MITIGATION OF GRADING REGULATED BY THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE REVIEWED TO ENSURE FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS, REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFIC STANDARDS SET FORTH HEREIN, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING PERMIT TYPE AS DEFINED IN SECTION 22.10.B. This ordinance shall apply to all grading operation for which applications were received subsequent to its adoption date (August 19, 1998), unless exempted by Section 27.9.D.4 below SECTION 22.10.A.2. If a conflict between this and any other Town ordinance exists, the more restrictive shall apply. This grading ordinance shall not be construed to prevent the enforcement of other laws that prescribe more restrictive limitations, nor shall the provisions of this ordinance be presumed to waive any limitations imposed by other Town ordinances. The design, implementation, and mitigation of grading regulated by this ordinance shall be reviewed prior to the issuance of any grading permit, to ensu re full compliance with the regulations, requirements, and specific standards as set forth herein. Grading permits must be obtained, after plan approval, as follows: 1. Type I Grading Permit A Type I Grading Permit is required for the following: a. A residential development on a single lot, other than those defined as Type 2 or 3. b. Alteration of existing stabilized slope of 3:1 or greater, on a residential lot. c. Addition of paved areas such as concrete or asphalt, in excess of 1000 square fee t on a residential lot. d. Import and stockpiling of 100 cubic yards or more of earthen materials on a residential lot. e. Clearing vegetation from a residential lot, which encompasses an area of 1000 square feet or more. 2. Type 2 Grading Permit 26 A Type 2 Grading Permit is required for any new public or private street or roadway, a commercial, office or resort project, or any residential development consisting of more than two (2) platted lots. Mass grading, as defined herein, shall be permitted only fo r new residential subdivisions, with an average lot size of 10,000 square feet or less (R1 -10, R1-7, SDH-6 zoning designations). Mass grading on lots between 10,000 and 15,000 square feet is allowable with an Exception pursuant to Section 27.9.G.1. 3. Type 3 Grading Permit A Type 3 Grading Permit is required for stockpiling of earthen materials. A Type 3 grading permit shall be required for the installation of utilities and other infrastructure for w hich a Type 2 grading permit is not required. Utility and other infrastructure installation confined to the Town of Oro Valley right -of-way and requiring a right -of-way permit will not be required to obtain a Type 3 grading permit. However, a grading plan pursuant to Section 27.9.E.3.a shall accompany the right-of-way permit application. The Town may waive the requirements for the grading plan should staff determine that the scope of the grading activity does not warrant such a plan. 4. Exemptions to this Ordinance The following activities are exempted from this ordinance: a. The clearing, brushing or grubbing for activities exempted in this subsection; b. Stockpiling of less than 100 cubic yards of uncompacted earth material; c. Resurfacing or maintenance of an existing paved surface; d. New pavement of less than 1000 squ are feet; e. Individual sewage disposal system with a Pima County Department of Environmental Quality permit; f. Excavation below finished grade for a basement, foundation, wall or swimming pool authorized by a building permit or zoning construction perm it; g. Excavation below existing grade for any story of a structure as long as the finished grade immediately outside the structure meets all other cut and fill limitations. h. Exploratory excavation under the direction of a Soil Engineer or Engineering Geologist provided all excavation is property backfilled. Whenever possible, such exploratory excavation and testing shall be conducted only in areas which have been previously disturbed; 27 i. Archaeological exploration conducted under state permit by a qua lified archaeologist; j. Removal of selected individual plants for storage and replanting; k. Grading for the maintenance of an existing private access, road, or driveway, provided that it either existed prior to adoption of, or was established in confor mance with, this ordinance. E. General Grading Requirements and Notes 1. Cut and Fill Limitations Cut and fill slopes shall meet the following requirements: a. The maximum depth of a cut or fill shall not exceed six (6) feet measured vertically from the existing grade to the finished elevation. The depth of a cut or fill slope may be increased to eight (8) feet when terracing is utilized in conformance with Illustration 27.9 - 3. The terraces shall be landscaped to the satisfaction of the Town. For any construction, the height of exposed, constructed slopes shall not exceed 12 feet in vertical dimension. Should a PAD (Planned Area Development), existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance, have conflicting cut and fill limitations, the PAD limitations shall govern grading operations within the PAD area. b. Cut or fill slopes 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) or less steep shall be revegetated. At the Town’s discretion, the Town may retain sufficient funds from the restoration or landscape assurance to ensure revegetation of slopes again, should the initial revegetation efforts fail to become established to the satisfaction of the Town. c. Cut or fill slopes 2:1 or less steep (but steeper than 3:1) shall be rock riprapped with filter fabric installed beneath the rock. Filter fabrics used shall meet specifications found in the latest edition of the “Pima County - City of Tucson Standard Specifications for Public Improvements”. d. Cut or fill slopes steeper than 2:1 shall have grouted riprap or retaining walls as appropriate. No slope shall exceed 1:1. e. Alternative methods of stabilization may be allowed if in accordance with a registered geotechnical (soils) engineer’s recommendation and approved by the Town. 28 f. Fill shall be compacted and soil tested in accordance with a soil engineer’s recommendations and compaction tests shall be presented to the Town for the permanent record. g. Any structure used to retain slopes shall be designed to blend with the surrounding natural colors of the native rock and soils of the site. The surface shall be rough textured with heavy shadow patterns, which may be achieved by color -treated or veneered surfaces (or other methods approved by the Town). h. It shall be unlawful to dump or push dirt of any quantity over an existing slope (unless approved as part of a Type 1, 2 or 3 Ggrading Plan). 2. Site Revegetation and Stabilization a. All graded areas, except those to be used for agriculture or livestock purposes, shall be revegetated, stabilized, and/or constructed prior to the expiration of the g rading permit. Should the graded area not be revegetated and/or stabilized per approved grading plans or permit conditions at the time of expiration, the applicant shall have 60 days from the date of permit expiration to revegetate and/or stabilize per approved plans and permit conditions. If after the 60 day period, the applicant has not revegetated and/or stabilized graded areas, the applicant is in violation of this ordinance. The Town may use the posted restoration assurance to restore the native vegetative community or complete the revegetation and stabilization per the approved grading plan. b. The applicant shall provide the Town with an assurance in a form approved by the Town (See Section 26.6 ) equal to 120 percent of the monetary amount necessary to hydroseed and revegetate cut/fill slopes or graded areas. Said assurance shall be posted prior to any site disturbance. The assurance shall be held until such time as the grading operation, infrastructure installation, building construction is completed to the satisfaction of the Town, or until such time as the project is deemed abandoned. If, after 12 months from the date of commencement of work, revegetation efforts fail to establish growth to the satisfa ction of the Town, the Town may use the assurances to revegetate or apply other erosion control methods to cut/fill slopes or the graded area. c. Upon request by the applicant, an inspection will be performed by the Town for consideration of the release of the restoration assurance. 3. Driveways 29 All driveways shall be paved with a durable asphalt, concrete, brick, aggregate, or other surface that will maintain a dust free condition. 4. Slope Setbacks The Town may increase the following slope setbacks, if considered necessary for safety or stability, or to prevent possible damage from water, soil, or debris: a. Top of cut slope: The top of cut slopes shall be made not nearer to a site boundary line than one-fifth (1/5) of the vertical height of cut, with a minimum of two (2) feet, unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer and the Planning and Zoning Administrator and upon written consent from the adjacent property owner. The setback may need to be increased for any required interceptor drains. b. Toe of fill slope: The toe of fill slope shall be made not nearer to the site boundary line than one-half (1/2) the height of the slope, with a minimum of two (2) feet, unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer and the Planning and Zoning Administrator and upon written consent from the adjacent property owner. c. Building: Buildings shall be set back from the toe and top of slopes in accordance with the building codes (minimum five (5) feet, see Figure 27.9 – 1) and the approved soils report. In addition, the building setbacks of the applicable zoning district shall apply. d. Rights-of-way: The required setback of a slope toe adjacent to a public right -of-way may be reduced with the approval of the Town, if there will be no adverse effect and: i. Easements are not requir ed, or ii. Retaining walls are used. 5. Restriction of Slope Development a. For the purposes of this section, a regulated slope is one that has a minimum vertical difference of six (6) feet from its toe to top edge, and the regulated sloped area extends for a distance greater than thirty (30) feet in any horizontal direction. b. New subdivisions shall not create lots where access to any individual lot requires crossing a naturally occurring slope that is twenty -five percent (25%) or steeper. Nor shall new subdivisions be created where the actual building area for homes or buildings would require grading activity on slopes of twenty -five percent (25%) or steeper. 30 c. The design for new subdivisions shall be created to avoid construction on naturally occurring slopes fifteen percent (15%) or greater. On parcels or lots with fifteen percent (15%) or steeper slopes, any grading on said slopes shall be consistent with restrictions in the Hillside Development Zone, Section 27.10 . 6. PROTECTIVE COVER AND DUST CONTROL CLEARED OR GRADED LAND SHALL NOT BE LEFT AT ANY TIME WITHOUT DUST CONTROL NOR SHALL BE LEFT UNCOVERED FOR MORE THAN 60 DAYS WITHOUT TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT PROTECTIVE COVER OF THE ENTIRE CLEARED OR GRA DED AREA AS DETERMINED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER. 7. Erosion Control Systems a. Permanent Systems i. Permanent erosion control measures shall be implemented and property maintained to prevent erosion of slopes, and cleared, brushed, grubbed or graded areas . ii. Where cut slopes are not subject to erosion due to the erosion -resistant character of the native materials, erosion control may be omitted upon approval by the Town. iii. Stabilization devices to prevent erosion or sediment deposition on off -site property may be required by the Town. iv. The shoulders of a paved public or private roadway shall be protected against erosion wherever curbing or constructed spillways are not provided. v. Surface drainage: a) Cut and fill slopes shall be protected fro m erosion by surface drainage with appropriately designed methods (e.g., surface drainage interceptors); b) Drainage control shall be provided to keep drainage away from foundations; c) Any grading activities within a regulatory floodplain shall comply w ith the Oro Valley Floodplain Management Ordinance. d) Subsurface drainage: Should subsurface drainage be encountered or expected by the soils engineer or the Town, then appropriate measures shall be employed to ensure stability and protection of affected properties from ground water 31 seepage. Methods used to minimize impact by subsurface drainage/seepage shall be approved by the Town prior to installation. b. Interim Systems: Plans for interim erosion control systems shall be submitted with all grading permit applications and shall be approved by the Town. Erosion control measures shall be implemented and properly maintained to prevent erosion of slopes, and cleared, brushed, grubbed or graded areas. Stabilization devices to prevent erosion or sediment deposition on adjacent roads and off-site property shall be required. The applicant shall be responsible for the control of dust emissions and shall use appropriate dust control measures. Applicants who are required to submit a U.S.E.P.A. Notice of Intent (NO I) for coverage under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for their project shall provide a copy of the NOI and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the Town prior to issuance of a grading permit. 8. Import and Export of Earth Material a. Loading of earth material shall occur only within the time limits of subsection F.8 F.9 of this section, and dust emissions shall be controlled through appropriate dust control measures. b. The transportation of earth material on or across public rights -of-way shall be done in a manner that minimizes blowing soil and other hazards. 9. Hours of Grading a. Grading equipment operation within one-half (1/2) mile of an occupied residential structure shall only be conducted between 6:00 a.m. and sunset Monday through Friday. Grading equipment operation shall only be conducted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. b. Equipment maintenance involving lights, motors, or gen erators, and occurring within six hundred (600) feet of an occupied residential structure, shall not be conducted after sunset, or before 6:00 a.m. c. The Town may allow grading equipment operation or maintenance during other hours, if such operations are not detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of surrounding properties. 32 d. Permitted hours of operation or maintenance may be shortened by written notice to the permittee, if the Town finds a substantial adverse effect on the health , safety, or welfare of the surrounding community. 10. Phased Grading a. Repealed by (O)11 -15. b. For all projects ten (10) acres or larger requiring site plans, a phased grading concept plan may be required with the final site plan submittal. This pla n shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. c. In considering the phased grading plans, the Planning and Zoning Commission will review documentation and testimony leading to the following: i. A balance in cut and fills, ii. Efficient installation of infrastructure, iii. Minimal need for stockpiling earthen material for more than six (6) months, iv. Minimize the time that graded areas remain exposed, preferably not more than one (1) year. 11. Restriction of Vehicles a. No vehicles or equipment shall encroach onto areas designated to remain in a natural state on the approved final plat, development plan, grading, landscape, or native plant salvage plans. b. Points-of-entry to the site during grading shall be only as designated on the approv ed grading plan. c. Access roads to the site during grading shall be only as designated on the approved grading plan. 12. Additional Requirements a. During grading, and until revegetation or stabilization has taken place, dust shall be minimized through application of approved dust controls in accordance with subsection C of this section. 33 b. Public rights-of-way, sidewalks, and other improvements shall be maintained during grading in a neat and clean condition, free of loose so il, mud, construction debris, and trash. Any damaged areas shall be restored to original appearance at no cost to the Town of Oro Valley. c. Debris, fill, or equipment shall not be stored within a public right -of-way without a right- of-way use permit from the Town. d. If applicable, archaeological exploration and mitigation work, as recommended by a qualified archaeologist (see Section 27.3.E.2 ), shall be performed prior to commencement of grading operations on the affected portion of the site. If, during the grading phase of construction, unexpected archaeological findings are encountered, said grading shall cease and the grading permit shall be temporarily suspended until the significance of said fi nding is determined and mitigation is provided by a qualified archaeologist. The analysis of any finds shall be provided to the Town prior to reactivation of the grading permit, granting occupancy permits or release of assurances. The expiration date of a reactivated grading permit may be extended for a period equal to the time of suspension necessary to complete archaeological work. e. Adjoining property(ies) shall be protected in such a manner as to prevent damage to said property(ies). Protection from caving, settlement, and other similar occurrences shall be the responsibility of the permittee (see Section 22.10.E.2, Liability). Figure 27.9 - 1. Figure 27.9 - 1 (Continued). 34 Figure 27.9 - 2 (A). 35 Figure 27.9 - 2 (B). 36 Figure 27.9 - 3. 37 Figure 27.9 - 3 (continued). Chapter 31 Definitions 38 Mass grading Grading of the subdivision building site, in its entirety, during the initial development process, as authorized by the approved plans. MASS GRADING SHALL ONLY BE PERMITTED FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, WITH AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS. ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-05 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE ORO VALLEY ZONIN G CODE REVISED , CHAPTER 22, REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESSES, SECTION 22.10, GRADING PERMIT PROCEDURES, CHAPTER 24 SUPPLEMENTARY DIS TRICT REGULATIONS, SECTION 24.9, ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE, SECTION 27.9, GRADIN G AND OTHER APPLICAB LE SECTIONS OF CODE; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES AN D RULES OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; PRESERVING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES THAT HAVE ALREADY MATURED AND PR OCEEDINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEGUN THEREUNDER WHEREAS, on March 13, 1981, the Mayor and Council approved Ordinance (O)81-58, adopting that certain document entitled “Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised” (OVZCR); and WHEREAS, on October 3, 2012, the Mayor and Council approved Ordinance (O)12-15 adopting the creation of an Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) overlay district ; and, WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Section 22.10, Grading Permit Procedures and Section 24.9, Economic Expansion Zone and Section 27.9 Grading and other applicable sections, would allow plant removal and earthwork on EEZ before site plan or plat approval and only in areas at least 150’ away from a property used or intended for residential purposes, require public outreach when the Tech-Park development is within 150 feet of a property used or intended for residential purposes, and remove inefficiencies in the development review process; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments to Section 22.10 Grading Permit Procedures and Section 24.9, Economic Expansion Zone at a duly noticed public hearing on December 3, 2019, and recommended approval to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Oro Valley Town Council has considered the proposed amendments to Section 22.10, Grading Permit Procedures Section 24.9, Economic Expansion Zone and Section 27.9 Grading and the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation and finds that they are consistent with the Town's General Plan and other Town ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, that: SECTION 1. Section 22.10, Grading Permit Procedures Section 24.9, Economic Expansion Zone, Section 27.9 Grading and other applicable sections of code attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, is hereby amended with additions being shown in ALL CAPS and deletions being shown in strikethrough text. SECTION 3. 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. 2 SECTION 4. 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 Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 2nd day of September, 2020. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Joseph C. Winfie ld , Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM : Michael Standish, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: Date: 3 EXHIBIT “A” Section 22.10 Grading Permit Procedures A. Applicability Grading permits are required prior to grading as specified BELOW AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH Section 27.9. 1. TYPES OF GRADING PERMITS a. B. Type 1 Grading Permits A TYPE I GRADING PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING: 1. A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON A SINGLE LOT, OTHER THAN THOSE DEFINED AS TYPE 2 OR 3. 2. ALTERATION OF EXISTING STABILIZED SLOPE OF 3:1 OR GREATER, ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT. 3. ADDITION OF PAVED AREAS SUCH AS CONCRETE OR ASPHALT, IN EXCESS OF 1000 SQUARE FEET ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT. 4. IMPORT AND STOCKPILING OF 100 CUBIC YARDS OR MO RE OF EARTHEN MATERIALS ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT. 5. CLEARING VEGETATION FROM A RESIDENTIAL LOT, WHICH ENCOMPASSES AN AREA OF 1000 SQUARE FEET OR MORE. b.. TYPE 2 GRADING PERMIT A TYPE 2 GRADING PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ANY NEW PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET OR ROADWAY, A COMMERCIAL, OFFICE OR RESORT PROJECT, OR ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF MORE THAN TWO (2) PLATTED LOTS. c.. TYPE 3 GRADING PERMIT A TYPE 3 GRADING PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING: 1. STOCKPILING OF EARTHEN MATERIALS. 2. INSTALLATIO N OF UTILITIES AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR WHICH A TYPE 2 GRADING PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED. d. TYPE 4 GRADING PERMIT A TYPE 4 GRADING PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FUTURE BUILDING PADS, UTILITY INSTALLATION AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS AS NEEDE D FOR DRAINAGE AND ACCESS PRIOR TO SITE PLAN OR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. 1. A TYPE 4 GRADING PERMIT IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO SITES MEETING THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONAL AND QUALIFYING STANDARDS: 4 a. LOCATED IN THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 24.9. b. PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE, THE APPLICANT MUST DEMONSTRATE THE FOLLOWING, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. i. EVIDENCE SUCH AS LEADS, CONTRACTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTATION SATISFACTORY TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ABILITY AND INTENTION TO DEVELOP THE SITE WITHIN FIVE (5) YEARS FROM PERMIT ISSUANCE. ii. A VISUAL ANALYSIS TO VERIFY THERE WILL NOT BE A MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL VISUAL IMPACT TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES USED OR INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AND PUBLIC ROADWA YS. 1. THE VISUAL ANALYSIS SHALL INCLUDE PHOTOGRAPHS AND ACCURATE COMPUTER GRAPHIC RENDERINGS DEPICTING THE PROPOSED EXTENT AND LOCATION OF GRADING WITH MITIGATION MEASURES. a. THE REQUIREMENT FOR A VISUAL ANALYSIS MAY BE WAIVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IF THE CHARACTER OF THE SITE, LOCATION OR TERRAIN RENDERS SUCH ANALYSIS UNNECESSARY. 2. AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, CONDITIONS TO ENHANCE THE BUFFER YARDS TO MINIMIZE VIEW IMPACTS MAY BE APPLIED. ENHANCEMENTS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO , INCREASING THE EXTENT OF GROUND COVER, WIDTH OF LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, DENSITY OR TYPE OF PLANTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 27.6.C.4.B.VIII 2. TYPE 4 GRADING PERMITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: a. NO CLEARING, BRUSHING, GRUBBING, EXCAVATING OR FILLING SHALL TAKE PLACE WITHIN ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY (150) FEET OF A PROPERTY USED OR INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. THE DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE ABUTTING EDGE OF ANY PROPERTY USED OR 5 INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES TO THE CLOSEST P ROPERTY LINE OR LEASE LINE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE LIMIT OF THE PROPERTY LINE OR LEASE LINE SHALL INCLUDE ALL REQUIRED PARKING, LANDSCAPING, AND SETBACKS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. b. 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 YARD, WHICHEVER IS GREATER; EXCLUDING ANY APPROVED ENTRY POINTS. A MINIMUM FORTY (40) FOOT NATURAL DESERT BUFFERYARD IS REQUIRED ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND PUBLIC ROADWAYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 27.6.C.4.b.viii. c. NATIVE PLANTS SALVAGED FROM THE SITE MUST BE IMMEDIATELY TRANSPLANTED IN PERMANENT LOCATIONS NOT DESIGNATED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, SUCH AS BUFFER YARDS, ENVIRONMEN TALLY SENSITIVE LANDS OR OTHER AREAS AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. d. 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. e. DECOMPOSED GRANITE, OR AN EQUIVALENT COVER AS APPROVED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MATCHING THE NATURAL DESERT EARTH TONES SHALL BE UTILIZED TO COVER THE ENTIRE CLEARED OR GRADED AREA IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 27.9.E.6. f. SHOULD THE SITE NOT BE DEVELOPED AFTER TEN (10) YEARS, IT SHALL BE REVEGETATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 27.6.C.8. i. THE APPLICANT MAY SUBMIT A REQUEST IN WRITING TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING AD MINISTRATOR FOR A TIME EXTENSION IN NO MORE THAN TWO (2) YEAR INCREMENTS. EXTENSIONS WILL ONLY BE GRANTED UPON SATISFAC TORY DEMONSTRATON OF PENDING DEVELOPMENT. 2. EXEMPTIONS THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES ARE EXEMPTED FROM ACQUIRING A GRADING PERMIT: a. UTILITY AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATION CONFINED TO THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND REQUIRING A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT. HOWEVER, A GRADING PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 27.9.E.4.A SHALL ACCOMPANY THE RIGHT-OF- 6 WAY PERMIT APPLICATION. THE TOWN MAY WAIVE THE RE QUIREMENTS FOR THE GRADING PLAN SHOULD STAFF DETERMINE THAT THE SCOPE OF THE GRADING ACTIVITY DOES NOT WARRANT SUCH A PLAN. b. THE CLEARING, BRUSHING OR GRUBBING FOR ACTIVITIES EXEMPTED IN THIS SUBSECTION; c. STOCKPILING OF LESS THAN 100 CUBIC YARDS OF UNCOMPACTED EARTH MATERIAL; d. RESURFACING OR MAINTENANCE OF AN EXISTING PAVED SURFACE; e. NEW PAVEMENT OF LESS THAN 1000 SQUARE FEET; f. INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM WITH A PIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PERMIT; g. EXCAVATION BELOW FINISHED GRADE FOR A B ASEMENT, FOUNDATION, WALL OR SWIMMING POOL AUTHORIZED BY A BUILDING PERMIT OR ZONING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; h. EXCAVATION BELOW EXISTING GRADE FOR ANY STORY OF A STRUCTURE AS LONG AS THE FINISHED GRADE IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE THE STRUCTURE MEETS ALL OTHER CUT AND FILL LIMITATIONS. i. EXPLORATORY EXCAVATION UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A SOIL ENGINEER OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST PROVIDED ALL EXCAVATION IS PROPERTY BACKFILLED. WHENEVER POSSIBLE, SUCH EXPLORATORY EXCAVATION AND TESTING SHALL BE CONDUCTED ONLY IN AREAS WHICH HAVE B EEN PREVIOUSLY DISTURBED; j. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION CONDUCTED UNDER STATE PERMIT BY A QUALIFIED ARCHAEOLOGIST; k. REMOVAL OF SELECTED INDIVIDUAL PLANTS FOR STORAGE AND REPLANTING; l. GRADING FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF AN EXISTING PRIVATE ACCESS, ROAD, OR DRIVEWAY, PROVIDED THAT IT EITHER EXISTED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF, OR WAS ESTABLISHED IN CONFORMANCE WITH, THIS ORDINANCE. B. GRADING PERMIT PROCEDURES 1. Permit Application and Review a. The grading permit application, grading plan, and other required materials should MUST be submitted for review to the Town FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 7 b. The grading permit application shall be completed and signed by the owner or owner’s authorized representative. b. The grading plan GRADING PLANS AND OTHER REQUIRED MATERIALS will be reviewed for consistency with the applicable regulations, and standards, AND ANY CONDITIONS IMPOSED UPON REZONING, DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL. If approved, a grading permit will be issued. The grading permit may be issued with additional conditions as deemed necessary by the Town. c. TYPE 2 GRADING PLANS, AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 22.10.B.2.AND RELATED SUBMITTALS WILL BE REVIEWED CONCURRENT WITH THE FINAL PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTED AFTER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL. d. AT THE DISCRETION OF THE TOWN ENGINEER AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, GRADING ASSURANCES MAY BE REQUIRED IN THE FORM OF ASSURANCE OR OTHER SECURITY ACCEPTABLE TO THE TOWN. IN THE EVENT THAT GRADING IS NOT COMPLETED AS APPROVED, THE ASSURANCES MAY BE APPLIED TO: i. ELIMINATE POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS; OR ii. MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF DUST, DRAINAGE, EROSION, VISUAL SCARS OR HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS IN A MANNER ACCEPTABLE TO THE TOWN. e. ONCE APPROVED, A GRADING PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED. THE GRADING PERMIT MAY BE ISSUED WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE TOWN. d. If determined to be inadequate, the materials submitted will be returned for corrections. The applicant may resubmit, without additional fees, corrected plans, or materials necessary to conform to submittal requirements. 2. Permit Issuance and Expiration 8 a. Upon issuance of a grading permit, a copy of the permit and approved plan shall be kept in a conspicuous and accessible location on the site. i. TYPE 2 GRADING PERMITS AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 22.10.A.1.B. MAY NOT BE ISSUED BY THE TOWN UNTIL THE TOWN COUNCIL HAS APPROVED THE FINAL PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE NECESSARY ASSURANCES HAVE BEEN POSTED. b. A grading permit shall be null and void if the authorized work has not been completed within 180 days of permit issuance, EXCEPT FOR A TYPE 2 GRADING PERMIT. A TYPE 2 GRADING PERMIT SHALL BE NULL AND VOID IF THE AUTHORIZED WORK HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN TWELVE (12) MONTHS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. 3. CHANGES TO GRADING PERMITS a. HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS: IF DRAINAGE PROBLEMS, FLOOD HAZARDS OR OTHER HAZARDS OCCUR, THE TOWN MAY REQUIRE THAT ENGINEERING MODIFICATIONS BE SUBMITTED IN A REPORT AND THE GRADING DESIGN BE MODIFIED. MODIFICATIONS SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A TIMELY MANNER AS APPROVED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER AND PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO PREVENT FURTHER HAZARDS FROM OCCURRING. b. NON-HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS: IF UNANTICIPATED NON-HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING, WHICH ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE GRADING PERMIT, THE PERMIT HOLDER MAY REQUEST ENGINEERING MODIFICATIONS IN A REPORT TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE TOWN. c. UPON APPROVAL OF THE MODIFICATIONS, A REVISED PERMIT WILL BE ISSU ED BY THE TOWN. 3 4. Permit Extensions and Reapplication a. Upon written request by the permit holder, the Town may grant a single extension up to 180 days. Requests must be submitted prior to the date of expiration. Consideration will be given to extension requests when quantifiable evidence is submitted. b. A reapplication for a grading permit shall be treated as a new application. Fees and additional conditions may be imposed as a result. 4 5. Inspections a. Pre-grading (when required by subdivision plat notes): The inspector will verify limitations for building pad and other areas to be graded, and identify vegetation required to be salvaged. The grading limitations must be staked or otherwise clearly identified prior to inspection. 9 b. Rough grading (to be done prior to construction of residence): The inspe ctor will verify grading to be within limitations of approved plans. Certification of the building pad elevation by a registered land surveyor or civil engineer shall be presented to the inspector at this time. c. Final grading (to be done prior to final building inspection): The inspector will verify that all prescriptive requirements of the approved grading/site plan have been satisfied. 1. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF GRADING OR STOCKPILING, THE PERMIT HOLDER SHALL REQUEST AN INSPECTION OF THE SITE WHERE SAID ACTIVITY IS TO OCCUR TO BE GRADED OR EARTHEN MATERIAL TO BE STOCKPILED AND VEGETATION TO BE SALVAGED SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED. ANY FENCING REQUIRED TO PROTECT NATURAL AREAS OR NATIVE PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND CERTIFICATION OF THE BUILDING PAD ELEVATION BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR OR CIVIL ENGINEER SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE INSPECTOR AT THIS TIME 2. ALL GRADING WHICH REQUIRES A TYPE 2 GRADING PERMIT PER SECTION 22.10.A.1.B. WILL ALSO BE INSPECTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: i. AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (ABC) MATERIAL PRIOR TO PAVING AND DURING COMPACTION TESTING OF THE SAME; AND ii. PAVING OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS AND COMPACTION/MATERIAL TESTING OF THE SAME; AND iii. OPEN WATER LINES AND ALL OTHER UTILITY TRENCHES AND BACKFILL MATERIALS PRIOR TO BURIAL OF TRENCH; AND iv. ANY GRADING ACTIVITY IN ADDITION TO WHAT WAS APPROVED ON THE GRADING PLANS; AND v. STOCKPILING AREAS ON OR OFF SITE; AND vi. ANY SPECIFIC GRADING ACTIVITIES OR AREAS IDENTIFIED BY THE TOWN AT THE PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING (HELD BETWEEN STAFF AND THE CONTRACTOR AT THE TIME OF PERMIT ISSUANCE) OR DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES; AND vii. ANY ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE COMPACTION TESTING OR ASPHALT CORING. 3. UPON COMPLETION OF GRADING ACTIVITY, THE PERMIT HOLDER SHALL REQUEST A FINAL GRADING INSPECTION TO VERIFY THAT ALL R EQUIREMENTS OF THE APPROVED GRADING PLAN AND PERMIT HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. A SIMILAR INSPECTION UPON REMOVAL OF STOCKPILED MATERIAL SHALL ALSO BE REQUESTED. i. THE FINAL GRADING INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF ASSURANCES FOR CIVIL WORK OR FINALIZATION OF THE PROJECT. ii. WHENEVER GRADING WORK REQUIRING TOWN INSPECTION IS CONCEALED BY ADDITIONAL WORK WITHOUT FIRST HAVING BEEN 10 INSPECTED, THE TOWN MAY REQUIRE, BY WRITTEN NOTICE, THAT SUCH WORK IS: a. EXPOSED, FOR INSPECTION BY THE TOWN, AT NO COST TO THE TOWN; OR b. CERTIFIED BY THE PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER AS BEING IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS AND APPLICABLE REGULATIONS VIA REGULAR INSPECTION OBSERVATION NOTES iii. WHERE CONDITIONS OF A GRADING PERMIT OR GRADING PLAN INCLUDE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF VEGETATION OR OTHER FINAL SITE GRADING WORK THAT EXTENDS BEYOND THE EXPIRATION OF THE GRADING PERMIT, THE PERMIT HOLDER SHALL REQUEST INSPECTIONS PER SUBSECTION 5.C OF THIS SECTION. 5 6. Incomplete Final Grading; Temporary Occupancy FOR TYPE 1 GRADING PERMITS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 22.10.A.1.a. a. In the event that the final grading cannot be completed in its entirety, an assurance, in a form acceptable to the Town, may be posted to allow inspection and occupancy of the residence. This assurance shall be in an amount equiva lent to one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the cost to complete the work as shown on the approved grading plan and/or in compliance with this Code. A cashier’s check made payable to the Town is an acceptable form of assurance for this purpose. b. The determination of the cost of the remaining work shall be by bids acquired by the permittee. The building official shall make the final judgment as to the adequacy of the assurance amount. c. If the balance of the work has not been completed within one hundred twe nty (120) days of the date of the temporary certificate of occupancy, the Town may use the assurance to complete the work. d. When an assurance is to be posted as a temporary substitute for a final grading inspection, it will still be necessary to have adequ ate drainage away from the structure. In addition, temporary or permanent means of preventing silting onto public rights-of-way will be required. C. Type 2 Grading Permits 1. Permit Application 11 a. The grading permit application, grading plan and other required materials should be submitted to the Town for review and approval. b. The grading permit application shall be completed and signed by the property owner or his/her authorized representative. c. At the discretion of the Town, grading assurances may be required in the form of assurance or other security acceptable to the Town. In the event that grading is not completed as approved, the assurances may be applied to: i. Eliminate potential hazardous conditions; or ii. Mitigate the effects of dust, drainage, erosion, visual scars or hazardous conditions in a manner acceptable to the Town. 2. Permit Application Review a. Grading plans and related submittals will be reviewed concurrent with the final plat or development plan (submitted after Plan ning and Zoning Commission approval), plant salvage and landscape plan for the project. b. Grading plans, soils and drainage reports will be reviewed for consistency with applicable regulations and standards, plant salvage and landscape plans and any cond itions imposed upon rezoning, development plan or subdivision plat approval. Plans determined to be inadequate or incomplete will be returned for correction and resubmittal. Where 12 inconsistency between plans is evident, the appropriate plan will be resubmi tted for review and approval. c. The Town will provide written review comments and/or redlined plans to the applicant upon review. Should the grading plans need to be submitted three (3) or more times for review by the Town, the applicant shall be required to pay an additional review fe e at the time of the third and each subsequent resubmittal of the grading plans for review by the Town. d. Prior to approval of the grading plan, soils report and drainage report, the Town may inspect the site to determine that the submittals are current and reflect existing conditions. e. The Town shall require the plans and specifications to be modified to make them consistent with this Code and/or any prior conditions placed upon approval of the project. A grading permit may be issued with additional conditions. f. When the grading plans (and improvement plans) meet applicable Town Codes to the satisfaction of the Town, the Town Community Development Director or his/her designee will sign the approval block on said plans. 3. Preliminary Grading Plan A preliminary grading plan shall be submitted concurrently with the initial submittal of a preliminary plat and development plans. 4. Permit Issuance and Expiration a. Issuance: Grading permits may not be issued by the Town until the Town Council has approved the final plat or development 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 t he 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 or development plan approval by the Town Council for the purpos es of clearing, brushing and grubbing only, provided: 13 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 issuanc e 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. 5. Permit Extension and Reapplication a. Upon written request by the permit holder, the Town may grant a single extension of up to one hundred eighty (180) days. Requests must be submitted prior to the date of expiration. Consideration will be given to extension requests when quantifiable evidence is submitted. b. A reapplication (after the one (1) time extension) for a grading permit shall be treated as a new application and additional conditions may be imposed as a result. 6. Changes to Type 2 Grading Permits a. Hazardous conditions: If drainage problems, flood hazards or other hazards occur, the Town may require that engineering modifications be submitted in a report and that the grading design be modified. b. Non-hazardous conditions: If unanticipa ted non-hazardous conditions are encountered during grading, which are beyond the scope of the grading permit, the permit holder may request engineering modifications in a report to be reviewed and approved by the Town. 7. General Inspections a. All grading which required a Type 2 Grading Permit will be inspected by the Town. The grading permit applicant (or applicant’s representative) shall request that a representative of the Town inspect or be on site for the following: 14 i. Limits of grading and temporary fencing to protect natural areas; and ii. Rough grading to be done prior to construction of the project. The inspector will verify grading to be within the limitations of approved plans. Certification of the building pad elevation by a registered lan d surveyor or civil engineer shall be presented to the inspector at this time; and iii. Aggregate base course (ABC) material prior to paving and during compaction testing of the same; and iv. Paving of public and private streets and compaction/material t esting of the same; and v. Open water line (and other utilities as specified by the Town) trenches and backfill materials prior to burial of trench; and vi. Any grading activity in addition to what was approved on the grading plans; and vii. Stockpiling areas on or off site; and viii. Any specific grading activities or areas identified by the Town at the pre - construction meeting (held between staff and the contractor at the time of permit issuance) or during the course of construction activities; and ix. Any on-site and off-site compaction testing or asphalt coring. b. The permit holder shall provide the Town with an inspection request notification at least twenty-four (24) (preferably forty -eight (48)) hours prior to (or as specified on the grading permit) the time the inspection is needed. c. The Town will provide an inspector within two (2) working days from the time the inspection request is received, with the exception of the final grading inspection done in conjunction with the release of assuran ce. d. The final grading inspection shall be done with the release of assurances for civil work or finalization of the project. Final grading inspections may be warranted at an earlier point in the project process. e. If the Town finds site conditions ar e not as stated in the approved grading permit conditions or approved grading plan, the Town may order work authorized by the grading permit to stop pursuant to subsection F.3 of this section. 15 f. Whenever grading work requiring Town inspection is concealed by additional work without first having been inspected, the Town may require, by written notice, that such work is: i. Exposed, for inspection by the Town, at no cost to the Town; or ii. Certified by the project civil engineer as being in conformance with approved plans and applicable regulations. 8. Final Grading Inspection a. All required grading work should be completed in accordance with the grading permit prior to final grading inspection by the Town and full release of assurances or final release of the project. b. Where conditions of a grading permit or grading plan include the establishment of vegetation or other final site grading work that extends beyond the expiration of the grading permit, the Town will make in spections per subsection C.7 of this section. 9. Maintenance of Revegetation The maintenance of revegetated areas shall be in accordance with Section 27.6.L of this Code. ((O)17-05, Amended, 06/07/2017; 6/11 supplement, Amended, 06/2011) D. Type 3 Grading Permit 1. Permit Application and Review a. Upon issuance of a grading permit, a copy of the permit and approved plan shall be kept in a conspicuous and accessible location on the site. 16 b. A grading permit shall be null and void if t he authorized work has not been completed within 180 days of permit issuance. 2. Permit Extension and Reapplication a. Upon written request by the permit holder, the Town may grant a single extension up to one hundred eighty (180) days. Requests must be submitted prior to the date of expiration. Consideration will be given to extension requests when quantifiable evidence is submitted. b. A reapplication for a grading permit shall be treated as a new application and additional conditions may be imposed as a result. 3. Permit Inspections a. Prior to commencement of grading (or stockpiling), the Town shall inspect the site where said activity is to occur. The applicant shall clearly identify areas to be graded (or earthen material stockpiled). Vegetation to be salvaged shall be identified. b. During construction/grading activity, the Town may occasionally inspect to ensure erosion/drainage control measures are in place, functional and maintained. c. Upon completion of grading activity, the Town shall in spect to verify that all prescriptive requirements of the approved grading plan and permit have been satisfied. The Town will do a similar inspection upon removal of stockpiled material. ED. GRADING Exceptions and Interpretation Review 1. Exceptions 17 a. Scope: An exception from a provision of this section may be applied for, and may be granted by the Town Council, when the intent of this section can be met by other means and when strict application of these provisions could require unnecessary disturbance to the land, would create a hazard to adjacent property, would be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity or would be materially detrimental to the public welfare in general. b. Findings: Applications for Grading Exceptions shall address e ach of the FOLLOWING findings. The Planning and Zoning Commission will review and provide recommendation to the Town Council on all applications for grading exceptions at scheduled public hearings. When reviewing requests for grading exceptions, the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council shall consider each of the findings and address them in their deliberations. To grant an exception the Town Council shall find that the request addresses the concerns of each finding and is in substantial compliance with the findings as a whole. i. The exception meets the intent and purposes of this code; ii. Granting the exception constitutes the minimum to allow the proposed improvement; iii. The conditions on the property are unique such that strict adherence to this section would cause an unnecessary hardship which substantially limits the preservation and enjoyment of property rights; iv. The exception imposes conditions so as not to constitute a granting of special privilege; and v. That the exception will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general. c. Conditions: At the Town Council’s discretion, conditions may be imposed on the exception that will: i. Assure that the intent and purpose of this chapter are met; and ii. Provide adequately for the protection of surrounding property owners and residents; and 18 iii. Provide mitigation of scarring and restore the site to a natural appearance in terms of contours and vegetation, where po ssible. d. Application: The request for exceptions shall be made on a form provided by the Town. Hearing fees shall be required. e. Review and Notice: The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a duly noticed public hearing on the exception request and notice of the hearing will be mailed to all property owners within six hundred (600) feet of the grading site prior to such hearing. i. If any portion of a subdivision falls within the required notification area, the entire subdivision (as defined by subdivis ion name or unit number) may be required to be notified if the impacts of the proposal would have impacts affecting the entire subdivision or neighborhood, as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. F. REVIEW: THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WILL REVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL ON ALL APPLICATIONS FOR GRADING EXCEPTIONS AT SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS. WHEN REVIEWING REQUESTS FOR GRADING EXCEPTIONS, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND TOWN COUNCIL SHALL CONSIDER EACH OF THE FINDINGS AND ADDRESS THEM IN THEIR DELIBERATIONS. TO GRANT AN EXCEPTION THE TOWN COUNCIL SHALL FIND THAT THE REQUEST ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS OF EACH FINDING AND IS IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE FINDINGS A S A WHOLE. g. The decision of the Town Council on a grading exception shall be final. 2. Requests for Interpretation a. Scope: Upon request, the appropriate Town representative shall render an interpretation of the regulations of this chapter. Should any person be aggrieved of said interpretation, a request for review of that interpretation may be made to the Planning and Zoning Commission. At a subsequent meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the interpretation in the matter and render its decision, either to uphold the interpretation or to make a different interpretation of this chapter. b. The request for review of an interpretation shall cite: i. The disputed interpretation; 19 ii. The words alleged to have been misinterpreted. c. Application: The request shall be made on a form provided by the Planning and Zoning Department and will be heard within sixty (60) days. Hearing fees shall be required. d. Review and notice: The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on the interpretation issue and notice of the hearing will be mailed to the applicant and all property owners within six hundred (600) feet of the grading site prior to such hearing. F. Grading Permit Authorization, Liability, Enforcement and Penalties 1. Authorization to Proceed with Work a. The issuance of a grading permit shall constitute an authorization to do only that work that is described or illustrated on the application for the permit, or on the site plans and specifications as approved by the Town. The issuance of a permit, or the approval of drawings and specifications shall not be construed to be a permit for, nor the approval of, any violation of, or deviation from, the provisions of this or any other Town ordinance, code or regulation. A permit issued shall become invalid if, in the work completed, a violation of this Section or deviation there fro m ensued. When such violation occurs, the permit shall be deemed to be canceled and the ground shall be restored to the condition it was in prior to start of the grading work. b. The issuance of a permit, based upon drawings and specifications, shall not pre vent the Town from thereafter requiring the correction of errors in said drawings and specifications, or from stopping unlawful construction operations being carried on thereunder. c. The Town may require grading operations and project designs be modified if weather-generated problems occur that were not considered at the time the grading permit was issued. 2. Liability Neither the issuance of a permit under the provisions of this ordinance, nor the compliance with provisions hereof, or with any conditions imposed in the permit issued hereunder, shall relieve any person from responsibility for damage to other persons or property, nor impose any liability upon the Town for damage to other persons or property. 3. Enforcement 20 a. The enforcement of this Grading Ordinance and conditions of the grading permit shall be in accordance with this Section. b. If the Town makes a determination that noncompliance with the conditions of the grading permit, or any condition imposed by rezoning, plat or plan approval exists, the Town may issue a stop-work order and/or citation. Further, the Town shall hold in abeyance, by written notice, any/all Town review of other submittals related to the subject project and the issuance of Town permits for any aspect of it until remedial actions have received the written approval of the Town. 4. Stop-Work Orders a. Whenever the Town determines that grading does not comply with this ordinance or the grading permit conditions, or that the soil or conditions are not as stated on the permit, the Town may order the work stopped by written notice served on any person engaged in doing or causing such work to be done, and/or issue a citation. b. Any such person shall immediately stop such work until written authorization is granted by the Town to proceed with the work. 5. Citations If deemed necessary and appropriate, citations for grading violations may be issued. The Planning and Planning and Zoning Administrator will issue the citation. The Town Engineer shall co-sign citations issued for grading violations occurring within Town right -of-way. 6. Penalties a. Failure to obtain a grading permit: Unless exempted by this ordinance , failure to obtain a grading permit prior to commencement of grading shall be a violation of this ordinance. However, the Tow n may issue an exception permit if the Town finds that an emergency existed that made it impossible first to obtain a permit. Notification must be provided to the town within seventy -two (72) hours of occurrence. b. Violations: A violation of this ordinance may result in issuance by the Town of a stop-work order and/or a citation and penalties in accordance with paragraph 3 SUBSECTION C of this Section. Payment of fine shall not relieve any person from complying with the requirements of this ordinance. 21 c. Penalties: Failure to comply with the approved grading plan, conditions of the grading permit, and/or grading not in compliance with this ordinance shall cause immediate revocation of all permits. At the Town’s discretion, a permit may be issued for the purposes of getting the illegally graded site into compliance with the grading ordinance, for the purposes of re-establishing the grades approved on the grading plan, and for replacing and maintaining protected native plant materials or public property destroyed as a result of the illegal grading operation. New permits for continuing the project shall not be issued until the required fines are paid to the Town. 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 all NEW DEVELOPMENT, ADDITIONS, EXPANSIONS, OR CHANGES TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSING PERMITTED USES AND COMPLIANT WITH EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. property located within the EEZ Overlay District boundaries, which include: all Rancho Vistoso areas depicted in the overlay map, attached to the ordinance codified in this section, and all technology park zoned land in the Town with the exception of any property with residential uses. a. INNOVATION PARK AND SURROUNDING RANCHO VISTOSO AREAS AS DEPICTED IN THE OVERLAY MAP, ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE CODIFIED IN THIS SECTION. b. ALL TECHNOLOGY PARK ZONED LAND IN THE TOWN WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ANY PROPERTY WITH RESIDENTIAL U SES 22 1. 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 planned area development standards, or applications for conditional use permits. C. General Provisions 1. ExemptionS 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. Th e 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 AND FIFTY (150) FEET OF A PROPERTY USED OR INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. i. THE ABOVE DISTANCES 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 SUBJECT PROPERTY. 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 TYPE 4 GRADING PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.10.A.1.D. 2. Approvals Required DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS 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 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN AND ASSOCIATED PLANS IN ACORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.10 AND SECTION 27.9. 23 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 INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: i. AN ALTERNATIVE PARKING ANALYSIS, SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW CRITERIA OUTLINED IN SECTION 27.7.C. ii. EXEMPTION FROM PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) SIGN STANDARDS, AS PERMITTED IN SECTION 28.2.B.3. FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF UTILIZING THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER CHAPTER 28 iii. SIGN CRITERIA IN CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 28.2.B.2. AND SECTION 28.2.B.3 b. APPROVALS SHALL EXPIRE IF IMPROVEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN STARTED WITHIN TWO (2) YEARS OF THE APPROVAL DATE. THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT IN WRITING A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE TIME BEYOND TWO (2) YEARS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR BEFORE EXPIRATION. i. THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY GRANT AN EXTENSION SHOULD THE CIRCUMSTANCES BE JUSTIFIED AND ADEQUATE FINANCIAL ASSURANCES BEEN MADE. IF THE APPROVED FINAL DESIGN IS ABANDONED, THE TOWN WILL RETURN THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCES LESS ANY EXPENSES THE TOWN HAS INCURRED. 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 submittals to the Zoning Code, with specific emphasis on: i. Conformance with conceptual design review principles (Sections 22.9.D.5 and 27.3.H). 24 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 ba sed 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 Admini strator’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. 25 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. Section 27.9 Grading A. Purpose The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the public health, safety, and general welfare and to protect and preserve the aesthetics of the natural DESERT environment through regulation of all types of excavation and earthwork on private an d/or public land. IT COMPLEMENTS THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE AND THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE AND DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ANY GRADING ACTIVITY PROHIBITED BY ANY TOWN ORDINANCE. The grading regulations contained in this ordinance are designed to: 1. Regulate the development of potentially hazardous terrain; and 2. Preserve, where possible, or recreate the natural contours, the native vegetation and the visual character of the site in harmony with the surrounding terrain; and 3. Enhance the quality and value of new development; and 4. Maintain property rights and property values of adjacent developed and undeveloped parcels. B. Intent The regulations, as set forth in this ordinance, have been prepared in the context of Oro Valley’s specific desert environment. They are intended to complement the applicable provisions of the Hillside Development Zone and the Floodplain Management Ordinance, and not to authorize any grading activity prohibited by this ordinance or any Town ordinance. FURTHER, Tthe intent of this grading ordinance is to assure that the design and implementation of all grading projects shall: 26 1. Avoid scarring and other adverse visual impacts resulting from cut, fill and any other type of ground disturbance; and 2. Blend with the natural contours of the land; and 3. Restrict the areas of disturbance and volume of material displaced to the minimum amount necessary to implement the planned development; and 4. Limit mass grading to residential subdivisions with an average lot size of 15,000 square feet or less; and 5. Employ measures that: a. Ensure that graded hillside, slopes or other areas subject to erosion are stabilized; and b. Reduce the erosion effects of storm water discharge, preserve the flood -carrying capacity of natur al or constructed waterways by limiting soil loss, and protect drainageways from siltation; and c. Minimize dust pollution and surface water drainage from graded areas during grading and development; and d. Ensure that proposed development activity is designed and implemented to avoid adverse impacts and appropriate restorative measures; and e. Encourage phased projects, to preserve natural contours and vegetative communities until such time as grading must necessarily occur on a site. C. Protective Cover and Dust Control Cleared or graded land shall not be left at any time without dust control nor shall be left uncovered for more than 60 days without temporary or permanent protective cover of the entire cleared or graded area as determined by the Town Engineer. B. Applicability THE DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION, AND MITIGATION OF GRADING REGULATED BY THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE REVIEWED TO ENSURE FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS, REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFIC STANDARDS SET FORTH HEREIN, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING PERMIT TYPE AS DEFINED IN SECTION 22.10.B. This ordinance shall apply to all grading operation for which applications were received subsequent to its adoption date (August 19, 27 1998), unless exempted by Section 27.9.D.4 below SECTION 22.10.A.2. If a conflict between this and any other Town ordinance exists, the more restrictive shall apply. This grading ordinance shall not be construed to prevent the enforcement of other laws that prescribe more restrictive limitations, nor shall the provisions of this ordinance be presumed to waive any limitations imposed by other Town ordinances. The design, implementation, and mitigation of grading regulated by this ordinance shall be reviewed prior to the issuance of any grading permit, to ensu re full compliance with the regulations, requirements, and specific standards as set forth herein. Grading permits must be obtained, after plan approval, as follows: 1. Type I Grading Permit A Type I Grading Permit is required for the following: a. A residential development on a single lot, other than those defined as Type 2 or 3. b. Alteration of existing stabilized slope of 3:1 or greater, on a residential lot. c. Addition of paved areas such as concrete or asphalt, in excess of 1000 square feet on a residential lot. d. Import and stockpiling of 100 cubic yards or more of earthen materials on a residential lot. e. Clearing vegetation from a residential lot, which encompasses an area of 1000 square feet or more. 2. Type 2 Grading Permit A Type 2 Grading Permit is required for any new public or private street or roadway, a commercial, office or resort project, or any residential development consisting of more than two (2) platted lots. Mass grading, as defined herein, shall be permitted only for new residential subdivisions, with an average lot size of 10,000 square feet or less (R1 -10, R1-7, SDH-6 zoning designations). Mass grading on lots between 10,000 and 15,000 square feet is allowable with an Exception pursuant to Section 27.9.G.1. 3. Type 3 Grading Permit 28 A Type 3 Grading Permit is required for stockpiling of earthen materials. A Type 3 grading permit shall be required for the installation of utilities and other infrastructure for which a Type 2 grading permit is not required. Utility and other infrastructure installation confined to the Town of Oro Valley right -of-way and requiring a right -of-way permit will not be required to obtain a Type 3 grading permit. However, a grading plan pursua nt to Section 27.9.E.3.a shall accompany the right-of-way permit application. The Town may waive the requirements for the grading plan should staff determine that the scope of the grading activity d oes not warrant such a plan. 4. Exemptions to this Ordinance The following activities are exempted from this ordinance: a. The clearing, brushing or grubbing for activities exempted in this subsection; b. Stockpiling of less than 100 cubic yards of uncompacted earth material; c. Resurfacing or maintenance of an existing paved surface; d. New pavement of less than 1000 square feet; e. Individual sewage disposal system with a Pima County Department of Environmental Quality permit; f. Excavation below finished grade for a basement, foundation, wall or swimming pool authorized by a building permit or zoning construction permit; g. Excavation below existing grade for any story of a structure as long as the finished grade immediately outside the structure meets all other cut and fill limitations. h. Exploratory excavation under the direction of a Soil Engineer or Engineering Geologist provided all excavation is property backfilled. Whenever possible, such exploratory excavation and testing shall be conducted only in areas which have been previously disturbed; i. Archaeological exploration conducted under state permit by a qualified archaeologist; j. Removal of selected individual plants for storage and replanting; k. Grading for the maintenance of an existing private access, road, or driveway, provided that it either existed prior to adoption of, or was established in conformance with, this ordinance. 29 E. General Grading Requirements and Notes 1. Cut and Fill Limitations Cut and fill slopes shall meet the following requirements: a. The maximum depth of a cut or fill shall not exceed six (6) feet measured vertically from the existing grade to the finished elevation. The depth of a cut or fill slope may be increased to eight (8) feet when terracing is utili zed in conformance with Illustration 27.9 - 3. The terraces shall be landscaped to the satisfaction of the Town. For any construction, the height of exposed, constructed slopes shall not exceed 12 feet in vertical dimension. Should a PAD (Planned Area Deve lopment), existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance, have conflicting cut and fill limitations, the PAD limitations shall govern grading operations within the PAD area. b. Cut or fill slopes 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) or less steep shall be revegeta ted. At the Town’s discretion, the Town may retain sufficient funds from the restoration or landscape assurance to ensure revegetation of slopes again, should the initial revegetation efforts fail to become established to the satisfaction of the Town. c. Cut or fill slopes 2:1 or less steep (but steeper than 3:1) shall be rock riprapped with filter fabric installed beneath the rock. Filter fabrics used shall meet specifications found in the latest edition of the “Pima County - City of Tucson Standard Specifications for Public Improvements”. d. Cut or fill slopes steeper than 2:1 shall have grouted riprap or retaining walls as appropriate. No slope shall exceed 1:1. e. Alternative methods of stabilization may be allowed if in accordance with a registered geotechnical (soils) engineer’s recommendation and approved by the Town. f. Fill shall be compacted and soil tested in accordance with a soil engineer’s recommendations and compaction tests shall be presented to the Town for the permanent record. g. Any structure used t o retain slopes shall be designed to blend with the surrounding natural colors of the native rock and soils of the site. The surface shall be rough 30 textured with heavy shadow patterns, which may be achieved by color -treated or veneered surfaces (or other methods approved by the Town). h. It shall be unlawful to dump or push dirt of any quantity over an existing slope (unless approved as part of a Type 1, 2 or 3 Ggrading Plan). 2. Site Revegetation and Stabilization a. All graded areas, except those to be used for agriculture or livestock purposes, shall be revegetated, stabilized, and/or constructed prior to the expiration of the grading permit. Should the graded area not be revegetated and/or stabilized per approved grading plans or permit conditions at the ti me of expiration, the applicant shall have 60 days from the date of permit expiration to revegetate and/or stabilize per approved plans and permit conditions. If after the 60 day period, the applicant has not revegetated and/or stabilized graded areas, the applicant is in violation of this ordinance. The Town may use the posted restoration assurance to restore the native vegetative community or complete the revegetation and stabilization per the approved grading plan. b. The applicant shall provide the Town with an assurance in a form approved by the Town (See Section 26.6 ) equal to 120 percent of the monetary amount necessary to hydroseed and revegetate cut/fill slopes or graded areas. Said assurance shall be posted prior to any site disturbance. The assurance shall be held until such time as the grading operation, infrastructure installation, building construction is completed to the satisfaction of the Town, or until such time as the project is deemed abandoned. If, after 12 months from the date of commencement of work, revegetation efforts fail to establish growth to the satisfaction of the Town, the Town may use the assurances to revegetate or apply other erosion control methods to cut/fill slopes or the graded area. c. Upon request by the applicant, an inspection will be performed by the Town for consideration of the release of the restoration assurance. 3. Driveways All driveways shall be paved with a durable asphalt, concrete, brick, aggregate, or other su rface that will maintain a dust free condition. 4. Slope Setbacks 31 The Town may increase the following slope setbacks, if considered necessary for safety or stability, or to prevent possible damage from water, soil, or debris: a. Top of cut slope: The top of cut slopes shall be made not nearer to a site boundary line than one-fifth (1/5) of the vertical height of cut, with a minimum of two (2) feet, unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer and the Planning and Zoning Administrator and upon written consent from the adjacent property owner. The setback may need to be increased for any required interceptor drains. b. Toe of fill slope: The toe of fill slope shall be made not nearer to the site boundary line than one-half (1/2) the height of the slope, with a m inimum of two (2) feet, unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer and the Planning and Zoning Administrator and upon written consent from the adjacent property owner. c. Building: Buildings shall be set back from the toe and top of slopes in accordance w ith the building codes (minimum five (5) feet, see Figure 27.9 – 1) and the approved soils report. In addition, the building setbacks of the applicable zoning district shall apply. d. Rights-of-way: The required setback of a slope toe adjacent to a public rig ht-of-way may be reduced with the approval of the Town, if there will be no adverse effect and: i. Easements are not required, or ii. Retaining walls are used. 5. Restriction of Slope Development a. For the purposes of this section, a regulated slope is one that has a minimum vertical difference of six (6) feet from its toe to top edge, and the regulated sloped area extends for a distance greater than thirty (30) feet in any horizontal direction. b. New subdivisions shall not create lots where access to any individual lot requires crossing a naturally occurring slope that is twenty -five percent (25%) or steeper. Nor shall new subdivisions be created where the actual building area for homes or buildings would require grading activity on slopes of twenty -five percent (25%) or steeper. c. The design for new subdivisions shall be created to avoid construction on naturally occurring slopes fifteen percent (15%) or greater. On parcels or lots with fifteen 32 percent (15%) or steeper slopes, any grading on said slopes sh all be consistent with restrictions in the Hillside Development Zone, Section 27.10 . 6. PROTECTIVE COVER AND DUST CONTROL CLEARED OR GRADED LAND SHALL NOT BE LEFT AT ANY TIME WITHOUT DUST CONTROL NO R SHALL BE LEFT UNCOVERED FOR MORE THAN 60 DAYS WITHOUT TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT PROTECTIVE COVER OF THE ENTIRE CLEARED OR GRADED AREA AS DETERMINED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER. 7. Erosion Control Systems a. Permanent Systems i. Permanent erosion control measu res shall be implemented and property maintained to prevent erosion of slopes, and cleared, brushed, grubbed or graded areas. ii. Where cut slopes are not subject to erosion due to the erosion -resistant character of the native materials, erosion control may be omitted upon approval by the Town. iii. Stabilization devices to prevent erosion or sediment deposition on off -site property may be required by the Town. iv. The shoulders of a paved public or private roadway shall be protected against erosion wherever curbing or constructed spillways are not provided. v. Surface drainage: a) Cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion by surface drainage with appropriately designed methods (e.g., surface drainage interceptors); b) Drainage control shall be provided to keep drainage away from foundations; c) Any grading activities within a regulatory floodplain shall comply with the Oro Valley Floodplain Management Ordinance. d) Subsurface drainage: Should subsurface drainage be encountered or expected by the soils engineer or the Town, then appropriate measures shall be employed to ensure stability and protection of affected properties from ground water seepage. Methods used to minimize impact by subsurface drainage/seepage shall be approved by the Town prior to installation. 33 b. Interim Systems: Plans for interim erosion control systems shall be submitted with all grading permit applications and shall be approved by the Town. Erosion control measures shall be implemented and properly maintained to preven t erosion of slopes, and cleared, brushed, grubbed or graded areas. Stabilization devices to prevent erosion or sediment deposition on adjacent roads and off-site property shall be required. The applicant shall be responsible for the control of dust emissions and shall use appropriate dust control measures. Applicants who are required to submit a U.S.E.P.A. Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for their project shall provide a copy of the NOI and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the Town prior to issuance of a grading permit. 8. Import and Export of Earth Material a. Loading of earth material shall occur only within the time limits of subsection F.8 F.9 of this section, and dust emissions shall be controlled through appropriate dust control measures. b. The transportation of earth material on or across public rights -of-way shall be done in a manner that minimizes blowing soil and other hazards. 9. Hours of Grading a. Grading equipment operation within one-half (1/2) mile of an occupied residential structure shall only be conducted between 6:00 a.m. and sunset Monday through Friday. Grading equipment operation shall only be conducted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. b. Equipment maintenance involving lights, motors, or generators, and occurring within six hundred (600) feet of an occupied residential structure, shall not be cond ucted after sunset, or before 6:00 a.m. c. The Town may allow grading equipment operation or maintenance during other hours, if such operations are not detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of surrounding properties. d. Permitted hours of operation or maintenance may be shortened by written notice to the permittee, if the Town finds a substantial adverse effect on the health, safety, or welfare of the surrounding community. 34 10. Phased Grading a. Repealed by (O)11 -15. b. For all projects ten (10) acres or larger requiring site plans, a phased grading concept plan may be required with the final site plan submittal. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. c. In considering the phased grading plans, the Plan ning and Zoning Commission will review documentation and testimony leading to the following: i. A balance in cut and fills, ii. Efficient installation of infrastructure, iii. Minimal need for stockpiling earthen material for more than six (6) months, iv . Minimize the time that graded areas remain exposed, preferably not more than one (1) year. 11. Restriction of Vehicles a. No vehicles or equipment shall encroach onto areas designated to remain in a natural state on the approved final plat, development plan, grading, landscape, or native plant salvage plans. b. Points-of-entry to the site during grading shall be only as designated on the approved grading plan. c. Access roads to the site during grading shall be only as designated on the approved grading plan. 12. Additional Requirements a. During grading, and until revegetation or stabilization has taken place, dust shall be minimized through application of approved dust controls in accordance with subsection C of this section. b. Public rights-of-way, sidewalks, and other improvements shall be maintained during grading in a neat and clean condition, free of loose soil, mud, construction debris, and trash. Any damaged areas shall be restored to original appearance at no co st to the Town of Oro Valley. 35 c. Debris, fill, or equipment shall not be stored within a public right -of-way without a right- of-way use permit from the Town. d. If applicable, archaeological exploration and mitigation work, as recommended by a qualified archaeologist (see Section 27.3.E.2 ), shall be performed prior to commencement of grading operations on the affected portion of the site. If, during the grading phase of construction, unexpected archaeological findings are encountered, said grading shall cease and the grading permit shall be temporarily suspended until the significance of said finding is determined and mitigation is provided by a qualified archaeologist. The analysis of any finds shall be provided to the Town prior to reactivation of the grading permit, granting occupancy permits or release of assurances. The expiration date of a reactivated grading permit may be extended for a period equal to the time of suspension necessary to complete archaeological work. e. Adjoining property(ies) shall be protected in such a manner as to prevent damage to said property(ies). Protection from caving, settlement, and other similar occurrences shall be the responsibility of the permittee (see Section 2 2.10.E.2, Liability). Figure 27.9 - 1. Figure 27.9 - 1 (Continued). 36 Figure 27.9 - 2 (A). 37 Figure 27.9 - 2 (B). 38 Figure 27.9 - 3. 39 Figure 27.9 - 3 (continued). Chapter 31 Definitions 40 Mass grading Grading of the subdivision building site, in its entirety, during the initial development process, as authorized by the approved plans. MASS GRADING SHALL ONLY BE PERMITTED FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, WITH AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS. Map of Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) Sites Attachment 3 Tangerine Rd.La Cañada Dr.EEZ Sites MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION AND STUDY SESSION JANUARY 8, 2020 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 6:01 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 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 No Council reports were received. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT Town Manager Mary Jacobs thanked Council for their hard work in 2019 and wished the Council and residents a happy New Year. Town Clerk Mike Standish announced that new artwork was on display in the Council Chambers by artist Jan Sennewald. 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 No comments were received. PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation and update by President/CEO Dave Perry of the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce President and CEO of the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce Dave Perry presented the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce annual report. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding Presentation item #1. CONSENT AGENDA 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 Councilmember Rodman asked for clarification regarding the Planning and Zoning Commissions approval of a condition regarding a proposed Conceptual Archtecture for Two Oracle place, located west of Oracle Road Approximately 1/4 Mile North of Ina Road. Planning Manager Bayer Vella clarified that the condition reflects current code requirements and will be implemented upon building permit review. Motion by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett, seconded by Councilmember Steve Solomon to approve the Consent Agenda (A - D). Vote: 7 - 0 Carried 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 Town Clerk Mike Standish presented item #1. Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. No comments were received. Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember Steve Solomon to approve 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. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #1. Vote: 7 - 0 Carried 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) Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember Rhonda Piña to adopt 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. Vote: 7 - 0 Carried 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) Strategic Inititaves Manager Amanda Jacobs presented item #2B. Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. No comments were received. Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember Rhonda Piña to approve Ordinance No.(O)20-01, amending various sections of Article 8-3 of the Oro Valley Town Code relating to the Special Events Permit. Vote: 7 - 0 Carried 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 Strategic Initiatives Manager Amanda Jacobs gave a brief overview of item #3 and introduced Carson Bise, President of Tischler Bise. Mr. Bise presented item #3 and included the following: - 40-year consulting practice serving local government nationwide - Methodology Overview - Legal and Methodology - Arizona Legislation - Overview of Adoption Process - Land use Assumptions - Parks and Recreation - Projection of Demand: Developed Park Land - Projection of Demand: Amenities - Draft Parks and Recreational Development Fees - Police - Police Station Cost Recovery - Projection of Demand - Draft Police Development Fee - Streets - Streets IIP - Travel Demand - Proposed Streets Development Fees - Water - Water IIP - Proposed Water Facilities Development Fees - Utility Fee Comparison:Current vs. Proposed - Town Fee Comparison: Current vs. Proposed - SF Unit Fee Comparison: Other Communities Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. No comments were received. Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #3. Ms. Jacobs concluded the presentation and stated the item would come back to Council on February 19th for discussion and possible action. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Piña requested that a portrait of Chief Sharp, painted by resident Harry Green, be presented at a future meeting. CALL TO AUDIENCE No comments were received. ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR SESSION Mayor Winfield adjourned the Regular Session at 7:48 p.m. Mayor Winfield recessed the meeting at 7:49 p.m. Mayor Winfield reconvened the meeting at 8:01 p.m. STUDY SESSION CALL TO ORDER Mayor Winfield called the Study Session to order at 8:01 p.m. STUDY SESSION AGENDA 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE, SECTION 24.9 AND SECTION 22.10 Community and Economic Development Director JJ Johnston and Principal Planner Milini Simms presented item #1 and included the following: - Purpose - Meet Economic Goals and Strategies - Proposed Code Amendment - Economic Expansion Zone - Allow Shovel-Ready Sites - Require Public Open Houses - Admin. Approval of all Code Compliant Plans - Eliminate 20-Day Town Council Review Period - General Plan Conformance - Planning and Zoning Commission - Summary and Feedback Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding Study Session item #1. The following individual spoke regarding Study Session item #1. Developer Tom Warne Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding Study Session item #1. 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. Principal Planner Milini Simms presented Study Session item #2 and included the following: - Purpose - Meet Economic Goals and Strategies - Proposed Code Amendments - Expand available property for employers - Low-impact employment uses - Expand available property for employers - Update standards and reduce discrepancies - Building size - Permitted and ancillary uses - Ancillary uses - Building heights - Proposed building height - Rancho Vistoso - Proposed building height - La Reserve - Architectural features - Increase predictability - Remove unintended barriers - General Plan Conformance - Planning and Zoning Commission - Summary and Feedback Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #2. Motion by Councilmember Steve Solomon, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to continue Study Session item #2 to the January 22, 2020 Town Council meeting. Vote: 7 - 0 Carried ADJOURNMENT OF THE STUDY SESSION Mayor Winfiled adjourned the Study Session at 10:17 p.m. RECONVENE THE REGULAR SESSION Mayor Winfield reconvened the Regular Session at 10:17 p.m. 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. Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to go into Executive Session at 10:18 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 disputes, claims, proposals and/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 and Town Clerk Mike Standish. RESUME THE REGULAR SESSION Mayor Winfield resumed the Regular Session at 11:41 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Steve Solomon, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to adjourn the meeting at 11:42 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 and study session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 8th day of January, 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of ____________________, 2020. ___________________________ Michael Standish, CMC Town Clerk 3/12/2020 Print Council Communication https://destinyhosted.com/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3244&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=67682 1/6 Town Council Regular and Study Session Item # 2. Meeting Date:02/05/2020 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 purposes only. The proposed code amendment will be presented for action by the Town Council in March. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to provide additional information in response to Town Council's questions and concerns regarding a proposed code amendment to allow pre-graded sites and further refine the development review process in the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ). For map and summary of the proposed amendments, see image to the right and Attachment 1. The proposed code amendment was previously discussed by the Town Council during the January 8, 2020 meeting (for staff report see Attachment 2, for draft minutes see Attachment 3). Feedback from the Council focused on the following elements: 1. Pre-grading to create ready-to-build sites. Specifically with regard to the following questions and concerns: The existing process for grading The existing and proposed extent and process for preliminary grading The amount of time a pre-graded site could remain vacant Proximity of preliminary grading to existing residential areas 2. The extent and timing of requiring public open house for EEZ sites. With regard to the location of properties that are required to conduct open houses and when they will be conducted (before or after site work is started). 3. The public participation process for the proposed code amendments. Specifically, the methods utilized to notify the public and opportunities for residents to provide feedback. Town staff reviewed Town Council's feedback and are in the process revising the code to address the concerns. Notable changes and additional information is listed below. Major employment users are locating in jurisdictions that have the necessary processes to allow a new custom building be fully functional within roughly 12 months. This need was verified through a recent study by Deloitte, which found clients have ‘fast track expectations’ when it comes to building on a site. Site selectors, or business locating firms, will research and negotiate with several jurisdictions at a time. Nationally, a finalist community is one that can deliver a ‘fast-track’ site (one that meets all geotechnical conditions, proper zoning regulations, development codes and covenants, utilities logistical and environmental considerations, etc.). Site selectors are consistently asking the Town for a more predictable and time-efficient development process. Specifically, the pre- grading of Tech Park sites, as enabled by surrounding jurisdictions, will enable the Town to be more competitive by meeting site selector/employer fast track expectations. 3/12/2020 Print Council Communication https://destinyhosted.com/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3244&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=67682 2/6 Oro Valley is one of the jurisdictions being considered for a major employer relocation that is expected to generate approximately 250 jobs, construct 120,000 sq.ft. of advanced technology campus and bring approximately $90 Million in direct capital investment to the Town. None of the potential Oro Valley sites under consideration by the firm are pre-graded. In the Town's current process, it could take roughly 6 months for site work to begin. However, by allowing pre-grading, this time can be reduced significantly to 1-2 months. Pre-grading would help keep Oro Valley competitive against other jurisdictions already offering "fast-track sites." Oro Valley has a strong brand for being safe, family-friendly and beautiful community. However, in addition to these community amenities, the Deloitte study also found the most desirable incentives for site selection include infrastructure improvements and related tangible contributions to their bottom line. These are highly important for risk management, cost containment, time to market and sustained profitability greatly depend on the location of the company.The proposed code amendments help meets these needs and also adds a critical part to Oro Valley's economic development brand. Currently, pre-grading allows the clearing, brushing, and grubbing (removal of plants and roots) prior to having an approved site plan or plat at staff's discretion for any site in Town (regardless of the proximity to residential areas). The proposed code, provides restrictions to regulate where pre-grading is allowed to only EEZ areas located at least 200 feet away from a residential property. Per the Town Council's discussion, the proposed code amendment has been revised to also allow the installation of utilities and site stabilization (in addition to clearing, brushing and grubbing) to create ready-to-build sites in EEZ only. These additions are necessary to meet the demands of employment users. However, a pre-application meeting must be conducted and a grading plan and associated plans (e.g. a Native Plant Preservation Plan) to assure environmental and cultural resources are protected must be approved by staff first. Both pre-graded sites and sites graded during construction may be vacant for an unlimited time (e.g. Nakoma Sky). However, both require assurances (bonds) for remediation, when necessary. The proposed code provides additional restrictions for pre-graded sites to not allow pre-grading within 200 feet of a residential area, the required buffer yards or within 25 feet of the future development envelope. These additions further reduce potential of visual impacts and increase compatibility to surrounding areas. Staff reviewed the sites identified by Town Council as being in proximity to residential areas. Though these sites are located within 200 feet of residential areas; only 2 are vacant and undisturbed (for exhibit, see Attachment 4). However, for one the buildable area is over 200 feet away and 30 feet lower than the adjacent residential area; eliminating any potential for visibility impacts. In efforts to apply this code allowance uniformly to all EEZ sites and not create a significant disadvantage to only two sites while accounting for existing residential areas, the proposed code amendment restricts any pre-grading within 200 feet of a residential area (for exhibit, see Attachment 5). As proposed, public open houses are utilized as the pre-submittal (site plan only) neighborhood meeting; occurring at the beginning of the review process before any formal applications or site work has been conducted. Per Council's feedback, the new proposed requirement for public open houses has been extended to 200 feet (rather than 100 feet) to capture properties adjacent to residential areas (as identified by Town Council). Outreach for the proposed code amendment complies with the Town's approved public notice policies and State law. Additionally, public hearings for the proposed code amendment was posted multiple times on the Town's webpage and included as "featured news" on the homepage. Complex and broad code amendments require sustained research and prolonged engagement by participants. As such, they are not a suited to traditional neighborhood meetings nor required by code. However, neighborhood meetings will continue to be conducted for applicant driven and site specific/focused amendments that meet neighborhood meeting zoning criteria. The public is invited to speak during the public hearings for the larger Town-wide amendments. In summary, the proposed code amendment is being revised to reflect the additional information provided to address some of the Council's previous discussion. This item is for informational purposes only and the proposed code amendment will be presented for action by the Town Council in March. 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. 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 pre-graded sites and development review times as deterrents to primary employers. The proposed code amendment reduces these barriers and includes the following main areas of change (for summary and map see image to the right and Attachment 1): 1. Allow pre-grading within 200 feet of a residential property 2. Require public open houses when the Tech-Park development is near a residential area 3. Allow a code compliant sign criteria to be approved by staff 3/12/2020 Print Council Communication https://destinyhosted.com/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3244&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=67682 3/6 4. Eliminate the 20-day Town Council review period The Town Council discussed the proposed amendment on January 8, 2020 to provide feedback (for minutes, see Attachment 2) to staff. Staff refined the proposed code amendment to address many of Council's concerns. More information on each is provided below. 1. Preliminary grading to create ready-to build sites The proposed code amendment aims to allow preliminary grading by right for EEZ sites only. Site selectors seek development ready sites that would allow a new custom building to be fully functional within roughly 12 to 18 months. To attract employment uses, many jurisdictions permit preliminary grading to create ready-to-build sites. As such, allowing preliminary grading is an expectation and competitive advantage for property owners and jurisdictions that wish to attract major employers. This was verified through a recent study by Deloitte, which found clients have ‘fast track expectations’ when it comes to building on a site. Oro Valley is one of the jurisdictions being considered for Project "Alpha," which is a major employer relocating to the region(presented to Town Council through an executive session). If chosen, Project "Alpha" will create approximately 250 jobs, construct 120,000 sq.ft. advanced technology campus and bring approximately $90 Million in direct capital investment to the Town. Pre-grading would not only help meet Project "Alpha's" needs but will also keep Oro Valley competitive against the other jurisdictions already offering "fast-track sites."The proposed code amendment aims to balance this marketable advantage with the community's values. A. The existing and proposed processes for grading The proposed code amendment is important to meet the demands of employment site selectors. Typically, grading permits are not issued until a final plat or site plan is approved (in EEZ and throughout Town). In EEZ, site plan approval may take up to 4 months (includes the applicant's work and staff review time) with the grading plan taking an additional 1- 2 months. In total, it could take roughly 6 months to begin any site work. The proposed code amendment would allow issuance of a grading permit before a site plan is approved; reducing the time to start site work to roughly 1-2 months. The existing and proposed processes are depicted in the graphic below. Please note, staff review and approval (depicted below) includes the time for an applicant to address staff comments and resubmit for further review. Typically, at least two rounds of review is conducted, prior to approval. B. Clarification between the existing and proposed extent and process for pre-grading Existing Currently, pre-grading includes the clearing, brushing and grubbing (removal of plants) within 25 feet of a future development envelope on any site in Town. Per code, the development envelope includes the building pads, areas for parking and access drives. Town staff has the discretion to approve preliminary grading, prior to approval of a plat or site plan. The current process only requires a grading plan, archeological clearance letter and assurances for approval. As such, decision-making is arbitrary since there is no specified basis for denial. Essentially, if utilized by more developers, this could lead to scraped sites throughout Town; even next to residential properties. Proposed To address the shortcomings of the existing code and meet the intent discussed by Town Council, the proposed code amendment removes the ability for any site in Town to be cleared (prior to site plan approval) by restricting pre-grading to specific areas of Town. These areas are as follows: 3/12/2020 Print Council Communication https://destinyhosted.com/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3244&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=67682 4/6 Located within the Economic Expansion Zone, and In areas not within 200 feet of a property use or intended for residential purposes, and This criteria for identifying site that could be pre-graded also creates a mechanism for denial; making an approval predictable for an employment use and nearby residents. As proposed, preliminary grading will include the same items as previously mentioned yet also allow include the installation of utilities and excavation or filling needed to further stabilize the site (addressing drainage, etc.). These additions increase efficiency within the development process and create ready-to-build sites sought by site selectors. Another notable concern from Town Council was the length of time a pre-graded site could site vacant. The existing code, whether pre-graded or not enables a site to remain vacant for an unlimited length of time (e.g. Nakoma Sky). However, the existing and proposed code require assurances to provide remediation when necessary. In addition to the previously mentioned criteria, the proposed code includes provisions for increasing compatibility and reducing visual impact to surrounding areas by not allowing any pre-grading within the required buffer yards (ranging from 15-40 feet). This is in addition to the existing restriction not allowing pre-grading within 25 feet of the future development envelope. Lastly, similar to the existing code, the proposed code amendment includes provisions for protecting cultural resources and requiring assurances. However, it also includes further provisions for protecting native plants by requiring a plant inventory and associated landscape plan. Although done in practice with existing pre-graded sites, the proposed code explicitly requires these items. C. Proximity of preliminary grading to existing residential areas Allowing preliminary grading to create ready-to-build sites is a substantial benefit for EEZ sites. Staff reviewed the sites discussed by Town Council, which were within 200 feet of a residential property. Restricting preliminary grading on these sites would affect 10 properties. However, of these 10 properties only 2 remain vacant and undisturbed (for exhibit, see Attachment 4). Due to topography, the buildable area on one site is already naturally screened by being 30 feet lower and over 200 feet away from adjacent homes. Additionally, the requirements to maintain buffer yards and limit grading to within 25 feet of the development envelope will decrease visual impacts to surrounding neighbors. In an effort to apply this code allowance more uniformly to all EEZ sites and not create a significant disadvantage to only two sites, while accounting for existing residential areas, the proposed code amendment restricts any pre-grading within 200 feet of a residential area (for exhibit, see Attachment 5). As previously discussed, this provision is stricter than the current code allowance for clearing a site. Lastly, Town staff will also amend the standard operation procedure (SOP) policy to require mailings be sent to any residential property within 600 feet of a pre-graded site, prior to any site work. 2. The extent and timing of requiring public open house for EEZ sites. When EEZ was expanded to include all Tech-Park properties, it included some located near residential areas. The proposed amendment accounts for this proximity by requiring public open houses for these specific sites. Public open houses will be utilized as the pre-submittal neighborhood meeting; occurring at the beginning of the review process before any formal plans have been submitted or site work has been conducted. The open houses will be for informational purposes, providing residents with an opportunity to learn about the proposed project and both staff and the applicant opportunities to ensure a sensitive site design. Since EEZ only applies to projects developing under existing permitted uses and standards (opposed to a rezoning or conditional use), the applicant has substantial property rights once code compliant. As such, an open house is a useful venue for discussions with neighbors. Per Council's feedback, the distance for requiring public open houses has been extended to 200 feet (rather than 100 feet) to capture properties adjacent to residential areas (for map, see Attachment 1). As previously mentioned, this distance was expanded to include the properties identified during the Town Council's discussion. 3. Public outreach for proposed code amendments Notice requirements and outreach for public hearings Outreach for the proposed code amendment complies with longstanding CED Standard Operating Procedures and State law. Section 22 of the Zoning Code stipulates the outreach requirements for various projects. Amendments to this section were approved in 2016, which included Council's review and feedback on the Public Participation and Notification Policy, a standard operating procedure (SOP) directing staff. Specifically, the code states the following: In the event that requests for amendments to the general requirements and uses are made, no application, posting or mailing shall be required (Section 22.3.F.) Additionally, the State requires notice of public hearings to all owners of property being changed and for more significant changes (e.g. an increase in building height), the State requires larger newspaper ads in more widely distributed newspapers. For this case, outreach included sending postcards to all 115 homeowner's associations, all 59 property owners of land covered by the EEZ overlay, 1/4 page newspaper ads and multiple postings on the Town's webpage. Although the proposed amendment does not trigger the additional State requirement, an ad was placed in the Arizona 3/12/2020 Print Council Communication https://destinyhosted.com/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3244&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=67682 5/6 Daily Star (in addition to one placed in the Daily Territorial) and was included as "featured news" on the Town's website homepage. An additional step will be taken for the Town Council public hearing with a newspaper ad in the Explorer. Neighborhood meetings With regard to neighborhood meetings, State law does not require neighborhood meetings for zoning or land use applications of any type. However, in keeping with Town values - the Town's Zoning Code requires neighborhood meetings for the following applications: General Plan amendments Rezonings Conditional use permits Conceptual site and landscape plans Any other proposed action that results in significant change in the development intensity or compatibility with existing development as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator (Section 22.15.B.1). With regard to the last bullet point, the proposed code amendment does not appear to significantly change "development intensity or compatibility with existing development". The code amendment will: Further restrict grubbing and clearing a site of vegetation - which is currently permitted on all sites in OV without site plan approval. The proposed amendments only allowing grubbing and clearing within EEZ zone only - and incorporate a 200' no grading zone when adjacent to residential properties. Flexibility for further grading beyond grubbing and clearing is permitted prior to site plan approval in EEZ only. Increase requirements for public outreach by adding public open houses for site plan review. Furthermore, Town Standard Operating Procedures will now include mailings for all pre-graded sites near residential areas. Remove the 20-day Town Council review period and enables administrative approval of a code compliant Sign Criteria is not a change to adjacent properties. Town-wide zoning code amendments are treated differently from rezonings by state law and the zoning code for a reason. Each recognizes the difficulty of requiring expanded outreach (similar to a rezoning) for code amendments that are larger in area and scope. Complex and broad code amendments require sustained research, study and prolonged engagement by participants. As such, neighborhood meetings are not a suitable platform for such amendments nor standard practice by the Town. Neighborhood meetings will continue to be held for site specific/focused amendments to the Planned Area Developments (PADs) that are driven by private property owners and have a "significant change in intensity or compatibility" as proscribed by code. As mentioned previously, the public is invited and encouraged to provide feedback during the public hearings for Town-wide code amendments. SUMMARY Both the Town Council's Strategic Leadership Plan (derived from the General Plan) and Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy included goals and objectives to attract more employment uses. The proposed code amendment aims to fulfill these objectives by allowing shovel-ready sites and removing inefficiencies in the development review process. The Town Council discussed the proposed code amendment on January 8, 2020. This item is for informational purposes intended to clarify and address Council's concerns. The proposed code amendment is being refined to address many of the concerns and will be presented for action by the Town Council in March. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: This item is for information purposes only. The proposed code amendment is tentatively scheduled to be presented for action by the Town Council in March. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1- SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS ATTACHMENT 2- STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT 1.8.2020 ATTACHMENT 3- DRAFT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ATTACHMENT 4- EXHIBIT OF SITES NEAR RESIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 5- EXHIBIT OF PRE-GRADING AREA 3/12/2020 Print Council Communication https://destinyhosted.com/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3244&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=67682 6/6 3/12/2020 Minutes https://destinyhosted.com/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=67&id=67682&mode=External&reloaded=true&CFID=61882344&CFTOKEN=f14cefd…1/6 MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR AND STUDY SESSION FEBRUARY 5, 2020 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 Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember Josh Nicolson, Councilmember 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 invited citizens to participate in the 17th Annual Oro Valley Cup Golf Tournament. This event will be held on February 7th at the Oro Valley Community and Recreation Center with proceeds going to Project Graduation. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT No Town Manager reports were received. ORDER OF BUSINESS Mayor Winfield reviewed the order of business and stated that the order would stand as posted. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS There were no information items. 3/12/2020 Minutes https://destinyhosted.com/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=67&id=67682&mode=External&reloaded=true&CFID=61882344&CFTOKEN=f14cefd…2/6 CALL TO AUDIENCE Alyssa Page spoke regarding her vision and concerns for Oro Valley. Oro Valley resident Sasha Case encouraged citizens to attend the production of Witness for the Prosecution, presented by the Oro Valley Theatre Company on February 19, 26 and 27. Oro Valley resident Michael Quinn voiced his concerns regarding internet service at the Lomas de Oro neighborhood. PRESENTATIONS 1.Presentation of Youth Art by the Arts and Culture Ambassadors Arts and Cultural Ambassadors Shasha Case and Gail Munden introduced the pieces of artwork on display in the Council Chambers which were created by students from Wilson K-8 School, Copper Creek Elementary and Immaculate Heart School. CONSENT AGENDA A.Minutes - January 22, 2020 Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember Rhonda Piña to approve the Consent agenda item (A). Vote: 7 - 0 Carried REGULAR AGENDA 1.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPOINT KARA M. RILEY AS THE ORO VALLEY CHIEF OF POLICE AND TO APPROVE AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 22, 2020 Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Rhonda Piña to approve Kara M. Riley as the Oro Valley Chief of Police and to approve an Employment Agreement effective February 22, 2020. Council discussion and comments ensued regarding the possible action to appoint Kara M. Riley as the Oro Valley Chief of Police effective February 22, 2020. Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Rhonda Piña to approve Kara M. Riley as the Oro Valley Chief of Police and to approve an Employment Agreement effective February 22, 2020. Vote: 7 - 0 Carried Commander Riley voiced appreciation for her family, Council, Chief Sharp, Citizens and the dedicated men and women of the Oro Valley Police Department. Mayor Winfield recessed the meeting at 6:44 p.m. Mayor Winfield reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 3/12/2020 Minutes https://destinyhosted.com/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=67&id=67682&mode=External&reloaded=true&CFID=61882344&CFTOKEN=f14cefd…3/6 Councilmember Piña requested a future agenda item to recognize Oro Valley K-9 Bruno for his recent retirement after seven years of service and to recognize his replacement K-9 Risu. Seconded by Councilmember Solomon. CALL TO AUDIENCE No comments were received. ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR SESSION Mayor Winfield adjourned the Regular Session at 7:01 p.m. STUDY SESSION CALL TO ORDER Mayor Winfield called the Study Session to order at 7:02 p.m. STUDY SESSION AGENDA 1.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. Community and Economic Development Director J.J Johnston and Principal Planner Milini Simms presented item #1 and included the following: Purpose Meet economic goals and strategies Proposed code amendments Expand available property for employers Allow more employment uses in C-1 and C-2 zones Impact of retail verse employment uses Architecture of low-impact employment uses Mitigating the Amazon effect Update standards and reduce discrepancies Permitted and ancillary Tech-Park uses Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding Study Session item #1. Ms. Simms continued the presentation and included the following; Building size Tech-Park building heights Proposed building height - Rancho Vistoso Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding Study Session item #1. Ms. Simms continued the presentation and included the following: Proposed building height - Rancho Vistoso 3/12/2020 Minutes https://destinyhosted.com/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=67&id=67682&mode=External&reloaded=true&CFID=61882344&CFTOKEN=f14cefd…4/6 Properties near residential - Rancho Vistoso Proposed building height - La Reserve Properties near residential - La Reserve Increase predictability Remove unintended barriers General Plan conformance Planning and Zoning Commission Summary and feedback Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding Study Session item #1. 2.DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE, SECTION 24.9 AND SECTION 22.10 Community and Economic Development Director JJ Johnston and Principal Planner Milini Simms presented Study Session item #2 and included the following: Purpose Town Council Ms. Simms continued the presentation and included the following: Definition of pre-grading Areas for plant removal and earthwork Additional safeguards Proposed area 1 and area 2 Proposed area 3 Proposed area 4 Undisturbed areas closest to residential Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding Study Session item #2. Ms. Simms continued the presentation and included the following: Future of cleared sites Importance of plant removal and earthwork in select areas Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding Study Session item #2. Ms. Simms continued her presentation and included the following: Public outreach requirements Public process for code amendment Public outreach requirement Summary and feedback The following individual spoke regarding Study Session item #2. Developer Tom Warne 3/12/2020 Minutes https://destinyhosted.com/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=67&id=67682&mode=External&reloaded=true&CFID=61882344&CFTOKEN=f14cefd…5/6 Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding Study Session item #2. ADJOURNMENT OF THE STUDY SESSION Mayor Winfield adjourned the Study Session at 9:58 p.m. RECONVENE THE REGULAR SESSION Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to adjourn the meeting at 9:59 p.m. Vote: 7 - 0 Carried Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to reconsider the motion to adjourn and to go into Executive Session at 10:00 p.m. Vote: 7 - 0 Carried EXECUTIVE SESSION - 1. Pursuant to A.R.S. 38-431.03(A)(3) and (A)(4) for legal advice with the Town Attorneys, discussion and consultation with those attorneys regarding a possible settlement agreement 2. Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3) and/or (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 agreements related to the Town owned golf courses, HSL and/or Home Owners’ Associations proximate to those courses. 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, Legal Services Director Tobin Sidles and Town Clerk Mike Standish. RESUME THE REGULAR SESSION Mayor Winfield resumed the Regular Session at 10:21 p.m. 1.POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF ANY ITEMS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to approve the Council giving the Town Manager the authority to negotiate and settle the dispute with Meritage Homes as discussed in Executive Session. Vote: 7 - 0 Carried Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to approve the Town Council giving the Town Manager the authority to negotiate settlement with HSL as discussed in Executive Session. Vote: 7 - 0 Carried ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield to adjourn the meeting at 10:22 p.m. Vote: 7 - 0 Carried _____________________________________ Michelle Stine, MMC Deputy Town Clerk 3/12/2020 Minutes https://destinyhosted.com/public/publish/print_minutes.cfm?seq=67&id=67682&mode=External&reloaded=true&CFID=61882344&CFTOKEN=f14cefd…6/6 I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular and study session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 5th day of February 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of ____________________, 2020. ___________________________ Michael Standish, CMC Town Clerk 8/19/2020 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&fp=swagit&get_month=8&get_year=2020&dsp=agm&seq=3323&rev=0&ag=485&l…1/5 Town Council Regular Session Return to the Agenda Go to the Previous Agenda Item Go to the Next Agenda Item Item # 2. Meeting Date:07/15/2020 Requested by:Bayer Vella Submitted By:Milini Simms, Community and Economic Development Case Number:1902616 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-34, DECLARING THE PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.10, SECTION 24.9, SECTION 27.9 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE RELATED TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-05, AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.10, SECTION 24.9, SECTION 27.9 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE RECOMMENDATION: Item A is an administrative function only. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of Item B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Item A (Attachment 1) is solely an administrative function declaring the proposed code amendment a public record. Item B (Attachment 2) is a proposed code amendment to the Economic Expansion Zone (see image to the right, Attachment 3) to meet the Town's Strategic Leadership Plan's goals for attracting and retaining employment users. The proposed code amendment makes the Town more competitive while incorporating more restrictions to safeguard residents. Major employment users are choosing jurisdictions that offer predictable and efficient processes that allow a custom-building to be fully functional within roughly 12 months. Although Oro Valley has a strong brand of being a safe, family-friendly and beautiful community, not having pre-graded sites, inconsistent code applications and an unpredictable process are barriers deterring site selectors from developing here. The proposed code amendment removes these barriers for potential employment users while adding stricter provisions to reduce potential impacts to surrounding neighbors. For specific details about the proposed code amendment, please see the Town Council study session reports in Attachment 4 (for minutes, see Attachment 5) and Attachment 6 (for minutes, see Attachment 7). Notable elements balancing the needs of residents and employment users include the following: 8/19/2020 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&fp=swagit&get_month=8&get_year=2020&dsp=agm&seq=3323&rev=0&ag=485&l…2/5 1. Limiting the locations for plant removal before site plan approval to only EEZ areas and adding provisions to reduce visibility of pre-graded sites from surrounding residents and the public - currently any site in Town can remove plants before a site plan is approved. The proposed code amendment limits this allowance to only areas in the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) and prohibits any clearance within 150' (or 1/2 a football field) of any residence and 40' of any roadway or the front property line. Although the majority of EEZ sites are located away from homes and in Innovation Park, these additional restrictions reduce visibility of pre-graded sites from surrounding homes and the public. 2. Requiring more public outreach for specific Economic Expansion Zone sites - currently all properties within the Economic Expansion Zone are exempt from doing public outreach (e.g. neighborhood meetings, open houses, etc.). The proposed code amendment requires all EEZ properties within 150' of a residential property to conduct an open house at the beginning of the review process. 3. Consistently applying the zoning code by allowing a code compliant sign criteria to be administratively approved. Please note, master sign programs, which allow unique designs beyond code requirements, still require public review. 4. Increasing predictability by removing the 20-day Town Council review period, yet maintaining the standard appeal process allowing any resident aggrieved by the decision to appeal. The proposed code amendment was discussed by the Town Council on January 8, 2020, and February 5, 2020 (for reports and minutes, see attachments 4 through 7). Based on input from Town Council, the code amendment was refined to further reduce visibility of pre-graded sites. Specifically and as new information, pre-grading may not occur within 40' of a roadway or the front property line nor within 150' (or 1/2 a football field) of a property used or intended for residential purposes. These areas must remain natural desert and be enhanced (if necessary) to reduce visibility. By balancing the needs of employment users while increasing restrictions to safeguard residents, the proposed code amendment meets several of the economic and community goals and policies in the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan. In summary, on December 3, 2019 (for staff report, see Attachment 8 and for minutes, see Attachment 9) the Planning and Zoning Commission found the proposed code amendment to be in conformance with the General Plan and recommended approval. 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 3). 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 “pre-graded” sites and development review times as deterrents to employers. The proposed code amendment (Attachment 2) removes these barriers while adding more protections to safeguard the community through the following: 1. Limiting the locations for plant removal before site plan approval to only EEZ areas and adding restrictions to reduce visibility of pre-graded sites from surrounding residents and the public 2. Requiring more public outreach for EEZ sites closest to residential areas 3. Consistently applying the zoning code by allowing a code compliant sign criteria to be administratively approved. Please note, master sign programs, which allow unique designs beyond code requirements, still require public review. 8/19/2020 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&fp=swagit&get_month=8&get_year=2020&dsp=agm&seq=3323&rev=0&ag=485&l…3/5 4. Increasing predictability by removing the 20-day Town Council review period yet maintaining the standard appeal process allowing any resident aggrieved by the decision to appeal The proposed code amendment was discussed by Town Council on January 8, 2020, (for staff report, see Attachment 4 and for minutes, see Attachment 5) and February 5, 2020 (for staff report see Attachment 6 and for minutes, see Attachment 7). Based on input from Town Council, the code amendment was refined to further protect surrounding residents and reduce visibility of pre-graded sites. Specifically, this includes limiting the area pre-grading can occur (not within 150' of a residential property or 40' of a roadway or the front property line) and requiring enhanced buffer yards, if needed, to further reduce visibility. Notable elements focused on during the Town Council study sessions are discussed below. Limiting plant removal before site plan approval to EEZ sites only Currently, at the Town's discretion, any property can remove plants within 25' of the future development envelope before a site plan is approved. The proposed code amendment significantly reduces the number of properties that can utilize this allowance to only areas in the EEZ. Although the majority of EEZ sites are in Innovation Park away from homes, the following restrictions have been added to further reduce visibility of these sites from nearby neighbors and the public: No clearance within 150' (1/2 a football field) of a residence A minimum 40' natural buffer yard must be maintained along any roadway or front of the property. Per code, the intent of the buffer yard is to create a natural screen wall reducing visibility of the site. As such, the Planning and Zoning Administrator can require additional plants (either salvaged from the site or nursery stock) be placed to enhance the buffer yard, if needed. In addition to removing plants, the proposed code amendment allows some earthwork to create building pads. This additional allowance fulfills a site selector's need to have a fully functional building within roughly a year. By limiting these allowances to specific areas and adding restrictions to reduce visibility, the proposed code amendment not only appeals to employment users but also protects surrounding neighbors and the entire community. Requiring more public outreach The original intent of the EEZ was to streamline the development review process by exempting these properties 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 yet was expanded to all Tech-Park properties in 2018. The exemption still applied although some properties are closer to residential areas. Since the 2018 code amendment placed some EEZ sites closer to residents, the proposed amendment aims to honor the existing exemption while allowing residents who will be most affected by a Tech-Park development to learn and provide feedback on new projects. As such, the proposed code amendment requires all EEZ properties within 150' of a property used or intended for residential purposes to conduct a public open house at the beginning of the development review process. More information about the proposed code amendment, including the changes to the sign approval process and appeals, is included in Attachment 4 and Attachment 6. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed code amendment was reviewed for conformance with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan. By adding stricter provisions while increasing the Town's competitive advantage for attracting employment uses, the proposed code amendment meets the following goals and policies. 8/19/2020 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&fp=swagit&get_month=8&get_year=2020&dsp=agm&seq=3323&rev=0&ag=485&l…4/5 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 8 and for minutes see Attachment 9) and considered it for recommendation on December 3, 2019 (for staff report, see Attachment 10 and for minutes, see Attachment 11). The Commission recommended approval with the public outreach requirement extended to include more EEZ properties adjacent to homes. As such, public outreach is required for properties within 150' feet of a property used or intended for residential purposes. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Outreach for the proposed code amendments complies with longstanding CED Standard Operating Procedures and State law. For this case, public notice has been provided as stated below. An additional step was taken to promote the Town Council public hearing with a newspaper ad in the Explorer. All HOAs in Town were notified of this hearing All property owners of Tech-Park zoned property, Commerce/Office Park property and Innovation Park Public hearing notices were posted: In the Territorial Newspaper In the Arizona Daily Star At Town Hall On the Town website Newspaper ad in the Tucson Explorer Furthermore, the proposed code amendment was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission twice and the Town Council twice as of July 1. A letter of support was received and is included in Attachment 12. 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 2) aims to fulfill these objectives by allowing pre-graded sites, applying the code consistently and providing a predictable review process. The proposed code amendment not only makes the Town more competitive in attracting and retaining employers but also adds restrictions to safeguard the community. These include: Limiting the locations for plant removal before site plan approval to only EEZ areas Adding provisions to reduce visibility of pre-graded sites from surrounding residents and the public Requiring public open houses for EEZ properties near residential areas 8/19/2020 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&fp=swagit&get_month=8&get_year=2020&dsp=agm&seq=3323&rev=0&ag=485&l…5/5 Consistent application of the zoning code by allowing a code compliant sign criteria to be administratively approved while still requiring public review for Master Sign Programs Increasing predictability by removing the 20-day Town Council review period of administrative decisions while maintaining the standard appeal process for all residents On December 3, 2020, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed code amendment (Item B) and recommended approval. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: Item A: I MOVE to (APPROVE or DENY) Resolution (R)20-34, declaring the proposed code amendments to the Economic Expansion Zone, Section 24.9 and other associated sections of code in Attachment 1 and filed with the Town Clerk, a public record. Item B: I MOVE to (APPROVE or DENY) Ordinance No. (O)20-05, amending the Zoning Code Section 22.10, Section 24.9, Section 27.9 and other associated sections of the code related to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ). Attachments RESOLUTION (R)20-34 ORDINANCE (O)20-05 ATTACHMENT 3- MAP OF EEZ SITES ATTACHMENT 4- TC STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT 1.8.2020 ATTACHMENT 5- TC STUDY SESSION MINUTES 1.8.2020 ATTACHMENT 6- TC STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT 2.5.2020 ATTACHMENT 7- TC STUDY SESSION MINUTES 2.5.2020 ATTACHMENT 8- PZC STUDY SESSION REPORT ATTACHMENT 9- PZC STUDY SESSION MINUTES ATTACHMENT 10- PZC STAFF REPORT 12.3.19 ATTACHMENT 11- PZC MINUTES 12.3.19 ATTACHMENT 12- LETTER OF SUPPORT EEZ Code Amendment Presentation GO TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE AgendaQuick ©2005 - 2020 Destiny Software Inc. All Rights Reserved. D R A F T   MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR AND SPECIAL SESSION JULY 15, 2020 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING            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 Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember Rhonda Piña, Councilmember Bill Rodman, Councilmember Steve Solomon, Councilmember Absent: Josh Nicolson, Councilmember PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE    Councilmember Rodman led the audiance in the Pledge of Allegiance   UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS    Town Clerk Mike Standish announced the upcoming Town meetings.   COUNCIL REPORTS    Councilmember Nicolson joined the Zoom meeting. Councilmember Solomon reported that he attended a recent Suffolk Hills HOA meeting. Mayor Winfield acknowledged Oro Valley residents for their diligence with wearing a mask, social distancing and following CDC guidelines.   TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT    Town Manager Mary Jacobs provided the following information during the Town Manager's Report; 7/15/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 1   Town Manager Mary Jacobs provided the following information during the Town Manager's Report; Ms. Jacobs welcomed Bernard Eaton as the new General Manager for Antares Golf Information regarding Proposition 480 is available on the Town's website The Aquatic Center had seen a large demand for lap swimming. As a result and to help meet the demand, lap swimming would be available on Mondays at the Community and Recreation Center Pool. The Town was working with Davidson Strategic to help develop and implement a customized program designed to assist businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic   ORDER OF BUSINESS    Mayor Winfield re-organized the agenda as follows: Regular Agenda item #4 would be moved to item #2 and the remaining items would follow in order.    Mayor Winfield provided the guidelines for participation in the Town Council's Regular and Special Session Zoom meeting.   INFORMATIONAL ITEMS    There were no informational items.   CALL TO AUDIENCE    No comments were received.   PRESENTATIONS   1.Proclamation - Drowning Impact Awareness Month       Mayor Winfield proclaimed August 2020 as Drowning Impact Awareness month and urged all communities and citizens of Arizona to participate in efforts to reduce drowning risk, strengthen families, and protect children and teens. Jody Layton, Program Coordinator for the Drowning Prevention Coalition of Arizona accepted the proclamation. Anne-Marie Braswell, Community Relations Manager for the Golder Ranch Fire District, spoke briefly regarding Drowning Impact Awareness month.   2.Proclamation - Child Support Awareness Month       Mayor Winfield proclaimed August 2020 as Child Support Awareness month. Justine McDilda, Outreach Coordinator for the Division of Child Support Services, accepted the proclamation.   3.Presentation and possible discussion of the Town's Fiscal year 2019/20 Financial Update through May 2020       Finance and Budget Administrator Wendy Gomez presented the Town's FY 19/20 Financial Update 7/15/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 2   Finance and Budget Administrator Wendy Gomez presented the Town's FY 19/20 Financial Update through May 2020 and included the following: General Fund Revenues General Fund Expenditures General Fund Highway Fund Community Center Fund Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the FY 19/20 Financial Update through May 2020.   ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR SESSION    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett to adjourn the Regular Session at 6:43 p.m.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   SPECIAL SESSION   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the Special Session to order at 6:43 p.m.   SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-38, APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE FINAL BUDGET OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020/21, INCLUDING APPROVAL OF THE 10-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FROM FY 2020/21 THROUGH FY 2029/30 AND THE FY 2020/21 SALARY CLASSIFICATION PLAN       Chief Financial Officer David Gephart presented Special Session item #1 and included the following: FY 20/21 Final Budget Changes from Tentative Budget Capital Improvement Program (CIP) In Summary Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding Special Session item #1.    Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. No comments were received. Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing. Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding Special Session item #1.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to approve Resolution No. (R)20-38, approving the adoption of the final budget of the Town of Oro Valley for the fiscal year 2020/21, including the FY 2020/21 Salary Classification Plan, and further move to approve the Town of Oro Valley 10-year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2020/21 through FY 2029/30 7/15/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 3   Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   ADJOURNMENT OF THE SPECIAL SESSION    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to adjourn the Special Session at 7:16 p.m.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   RECONVENE THE REGULAR SESSION    Mayor Winfield reconvened the Regular Session at 7:17 p.m.   CONSENT AGENDA   A.Minutes - July 1, 2020      B.Resolution No. (R)20-37, acceptance of a Water Utility Easement from Amphitheater School District Number 10      C.Resolution No. (R)20-33, authorizing the approval of an archery Shooting Range Development Grant Agreement between the Arizona Game & Fish Department and the Town of Oro Valley in the amount of $50,000 for the construction of a permanent restroom facility at the Naranja Park archery range       Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Rhonda Piña to approve consent agenda items (A) - (C).  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   REGULAR AGENDA   1.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN AGREEMENT ABOUT FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS TOWN GOLF OPERATIONS WITH 1) THE CANADA HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION/CANADA HILLS MASTER COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AND/OR 2) THE VILLAGES OF LA CANADA MASTER ASSOCIATION       Town Manager Mary Jacobs provided a brief overview of item #1.    Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve the agreement with the Canada Hills Community Association/Canada Hills Master Community Association and The Villages of La Canada Master Association.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   2.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE ORO VALLEY PRIMARY EMPLOYER INCENTIVE PROGRAM       Economic and Development Director JJ Johnston presented item #2 and included the following: Purpose of Proposed Primary Incentive Program Primary Employer Incentive Program Minimum Primary Employer Qualifications Menu of Potential Incentives (cont.) Summary Questions 7/15/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 4  The following individual spoke in support of item #2. Oro Valley resident and President and CEO of The Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce Dave Perry The following individual spoke on item #2. Oro Valley resident Tim Bohen Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #2.    Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett to approve the proposed Oro Valley Primary Employer Incentive Program.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried    Mayor Winfield recessed the meeting at 7:52 p.m. Mayor Winfield reconvened the meeting at 8:02 p.m.   3.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-34, DECLARING THE PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.10, SECTION 24.9, SECTION 27.9 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE RELATED TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-05, AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.10, SECTION 24.9, SECTION 27.9 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE       Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Resolution (R)20-34, declaring the proposed code amendments to the Economic Expansion Zone, Section 24.9 and other associated sections of code in Attachment 1 and filed with the Town Clerk, a public record.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried    Economic and Development Director JJ Johnston presented item #3 and included the following: Purpose Proposed Code Amendment Previous discussions Pre-grading New Public outreach requirements General Plan Conformance Public outreach for code amendment Summary and recommendation Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. The following individual spoke in support of item #3B. Oro Valley resident and President and CEO of The Greater Chamber of Commerce Dave Perry Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #3B. 7/15/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 5  Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #3B.    Principal Planner Milini Simms provided an overview of the potential areas for pre-grading.    Motion by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett, seconded by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield to approve Ordinance No. (O)20-05, amending the Zoning Code Section 22.10, Section 24.9, Section 27.9 and other associated sections of the code related to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) with the exception that the pre-grading requirements remain the way they currently are.    Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding item #3B.    Motion by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett, seconded by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield to approve Ordinance No. (O)20-05, amending the Zoning Code Section 22.10, Section 24.9, Section 27.9 and other associated sections of the code related to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) with the exception that the pre-grading requirements remain as they are.  Vote: 3 - 3 Failed  OPPOSED: Councilmember Rhonda Piña  Councilmember Bill Rodman  Councilmember Steve Solomon Other: Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey (ABSTAIN)    Motion by Councilmember Steve Solomon, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to approve Ordinance No. (O)20-05, amending the Zoning Code Section 22.10, Section 24.9, Section 27.9 and other associated sections of the code related to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ).  Vote: 3 - 3 Failed  OPPOSED: Mayor Joseph C. Winfield  Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett  Councilmember Josh Nicolson Other: Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey (ABSTAIN)    Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding item #3B.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Rhonda Piña to continue item #3B to the September 2, 2020 Town Council meeting and receive clarification from Legal Counsel.  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried  Other: Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett (ABSTAIN)    Mayor Winfield recessed the meeting at 10:07 p.m. Mayor Winfield reconvened the meeting at 10:13 p.m.   4.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE C-1, C-2, AND TECHNOLOGICAL PARK ZONING DISTRICTS AND EQUIVALENT PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS REGARDING LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUCH AS BUILDING HEIGHTS, SETBACKS, ETC A: RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-35, DECLARING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE, RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT AND LA RESERVE PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT RELATED TO THE COMMERCIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL PARK ZONING DISTRICTS IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND AS FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD    7/15/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 6  B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-06, AMENDING: THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT CAMPUS PARK INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT (EXHIBIT A) 1. THE LA RESERVE PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT CAMPUS PARK INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT (EXHIBIT B) 2. THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED C-1, C-2, AND TECHNOLOGICAL PARK ZONING DISTRICTS AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS (EXHIBIT C) 3.    Economic and Development Director JJ Johnston presented item #4B, 1-3 and included the following: Purpose Proposed code amendments Previous discussions No significant changes to areas near residential Allowing low-impact employment uses Proposed uses less impact than existing uses Commercial and office mixed-use example Creating commercial & employment mixed-use centers Apply consistent standards for employment uses General Plan conformance Public outreach for code amendment Summary and Recommendation Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. The following individuals spoke regarding item #4B. Oro Valley resident and President and CEO of The Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce Oro Valley resident Tim Bohen Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Resolution No.(R)20-35, declaring the proposed code amendments to the C-1, C-2 and Technological Park zoning districts and equivalent Planned Area Development districts in Attachment 1 and filed with the Town Clerk, a public record.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried    Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember Steve Solomon to approve Ordinance No.(O)20-06, amending the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development Campus Park Industrial Section, the La Reserve Planned Area Development Area E, and the Oro Valley Zoning Code C-1, C-2 and Technological Park zoning districts and other associated sections.    Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #4B.    Motion by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett, seconded by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield to amend the main motion to not allow the height in Innovation Park for residential use including senior care and that vehicle sales in C2 remain a conditional use permit.  Vote: 5 - 2 Carried  OPPOSED: Councilmember Rhonda Piña  Councilmember Steve Solomon   7/15/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 7   Motion by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett, seconded by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield to approve Ordinance No.(O)20-06, amending the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development Campus Park Industrial Section, the La Reserve Planned Area Development Area E, and the Oro Valley Zoning Code C-1, C-2 and Technological Park zoning districts and other associated sections with exception to not allow the height in Innovation Park for residential use including senior care and that vehicle sales in C2 remain a conditional use permit.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   5.RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-36, APPROVING A NEW ORO VALLEY ANNEXATION STRATEGY REPEALING AND REPLACING THE EXISTING ANNEXATION POLICY ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. (R)03-06       Strategic Initiative Manager Amanda Jacobs provided a brief overview of item #4.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Rhonda Piña to approve Resolution No. (R)20-36, approving a new Oro Valley Annexation Strategy repealing and replacing the existing annexation policy by adopted by Resolution No. (R)03-06;  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS    No future agenda items were requested.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Rhonda Piña to adjourn the meeting at 11:03 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 and special session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 15th day of July 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of ____________________, 2020. ___________________________ Michael Standish, CMC Town Clerk 7/15/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 8  Examples of a graded site with decomposed granite Attachment 7 Big Horn Commerce Legend Vantage points EEZ sites Attachment 8-Visual analysis of proposed pre-graded sites in EEZ Visual analysis of the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) sites proposed for pre-grading. Applicable areas include Innovation Park, the Foothills Business Park and a parcel near Oracle Rd. and El Conquistador Way. Vantage points are based on visibility from public roadways and adjacent homes. 1-View from subdivision homes across Big Wash 2-View from Rancho Vistoso Blvd. bridge 3-View from Vistoso Commerce Loop and surrounding homes 4-View from Oracle Road 5-View from Tangerine Road 6-View from Tangerine Road bridge 7-View from Steam Pump Village/Oracle Road 8-View from Oracle Road near El Conquistador Way 1 8 Oracle RoadEl Conquistador Way 7 1 6 Oracle Road5 3 4 2 Legend Photo simulation vantage points EEZ sites Key Map –Innovation Park View 1: From subdivision homes across Big Wash towards EEZ sites within Innovation Park. BeforeAfter1 6 Oracle Road5 3 4 12 football fields 2 Attachment 8-Visual analysis of proposed pre-graded sites in EEZ 2 After: Rendering with required buffer yards and undevelopable areas notated. Legend 25’ buffer yard Embankment to remain Berm to remain Attachment 8-Visual analysis of proposed pre-graded sites in EEZ 3 View 1 (cont.): From subdivision homes across Big Wash towards EEZ sites within Innovation Park. Legend Photo vantage points EEZ sites Key Map –Innovation Park View 2: From the Rancho Vistoso Blvd. bridge towards EEZ sites within Innovation Park. BeforeAfter1 6 Oracle Road5 3 4 2 Attachment 8-Visual analysis of proposed pre-graded sites in EEZ 4 After: Rendering with required buffer yards and undevelopable areas notated. Legend 25’ buffer yard Slope to remain Attachment 8-Visual analysis of proposed pre-graded sites in EEZ 5 View 2 (cont.): From the Rancho Vistoso Blvd. bridge towards EEZ sites within Innovation Park. Legend Photo simulation vantage points EEZ sites Key Map –Innovation Park View 3: From Vistoso Commerce Loop towards EEZ site.BeforeAfter1 6 Oracle Road5 3 4 2 Gradeable area is behind dense vegetation (40’ width). Attachment 8-Visual analysis of proposed pre-graded sites in EEZ 6 As shown, all homes abutting the property and along the west side are single-story (outlined in yellow). Windows and views are blocked by an existing wall (as depicted in the photos). Graded area will not be viewable from homes. View 3 (cont.): Photos of homes abutting and adjacent to EEZ site . Homes along the western side. Homes abutting the property. Homes abutting the property. Attachment 8-Visual analysis of proposed pre-graded sites in EEZ 7 Portion of the 150’ no grade area 150’ no grade area Portion of the 150’ no grade area As shown, steep slopes block the view of the gradeable areas on these parcels. Additionally, a 100’ wide area abutting Oracle Road is designated as Open Space per the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development. Legend Photo vantage points EEZ Sites Key Map –Innovation Park View 4: Photos of EEZ sites located along Oracle Road. Gradeable area is behind the hill shown below and a 100’ wide open space area. Gradeable area is behind the hill shown below and a 100’ wide open space area. 1 6 Oracle Road5 3 4 2 Attachment 8-Visual analysis of proposed pre-graded sites in EEZ 8 Legend Photo vantage points EEZ Sites Key Map –Innovation Park View 5: From Tangerine Road towards EEZ sites within Innovation Park.BeforeAfter1 6 Oracle Road5 3 4 2 Attachment 8-Visual analysis of proposed pre-graded sites in EEZ 9 After: Rendering with required and buffer yards notated. Legend 50-25’ buffer yard Attachment 8-Visual analysis of proposed pre-graded sites in EEZ 10 View 5 (cont.): From Tangerine Road towards EEZ sites within Innovation Park. 1 6 Oracle Road5 3 4 2 Legend Photo vantage points EEZ sites Key Map –Innovation Park View 6: From Tangerine Road towards EEZ sites within Innovation Park.BeforeAfterAttachment 8-Visual analysis of proposed pre-graded sites in EEZ 11 Legend Photo vantage points EEZ Sites Key Map –Foothills Business Park View 7: From Steam Pump Village/Oracle Road towards EEZ sites within Foothills Business Park.BeforeAfter7 Gradeable area is behind dense vegetation (100’ width). Attachment 8-Visual analysis of proposed pre-graded sites in EEZ 12 Similar to the Foothills Business Park, dense vegetation naturally screens this site. Additionally, this site has a very rough terrain (see image below) and requires a 100’ buffer along Oracle Road. 8 Oracle RoadLegend Photo vantage points EEZ Site Key Map –Site near Oracle and El Conquistador Way View 8: From Oracle Road towards EEZ site near El Conquistador Way. Attachment 8-Visual analysis of proposed pre-graded sites in EEZ 13 El Conquistador Way Pre-application Submit design plans (site plan) Staff review and approval Submit grading plans Staff Review and Approval Begin site work Building construction Staff review and approval Submit building plans Staff Review and Approval Submit architecture Attachment 9-Current and proposed development process (concept to occupancy)1 Current development process for an employment use (concept to occupancy) Site plan approval and work: minimum 6 months Building plan approval and construction: minimum 10 months Employer Proposed development process for an employment use (concept to occupancy) Pre- application Submit pre- grading plans Staff review and approval Begin site work Pre-grading: 3-4. This will likely be completed by a property owner and the employment use will skip this part of the process. Employer Building construction Staff review and approval of all plans Submit building plans Staff Review Submit design plans Plan approval and construction: minimum 10 months Applicable Pre-Grading Sites Attachment 10La Cañada Dr.Tangerine Rd. Linda Vista Blvd. Map of all EEZ Sites 2. Oracle sites 3. Miller Ranch 1. La Reserve Sites (Foothills Business Park Tangerine Rd.La Cañada Dr.3 1 2 4 Applicable EEZ Sites (undisturbed/ vacant without an approved plan. Total = 7 parcels. Includes multiple lots. Applicable Pre-Grading Sites Attachment 10 Applicable EEZ Sites (undisturbed/ vacant without an approved plan. Total = 21 parcels.Oracle Rd.4. Innovation Park Tangerine Rd. 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. 3/12/2020 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&get_month=12&get_year=2019&dsp=min&seq=404 1/4 Return 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 Other:Commissioner Ellen Hong (ABSENT) 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) 3/12/2020 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&get_month=12&get_year=2019&dsp=min&seq=404 2/4 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. Other:Commissioner Ellen Hong (ABSENT) 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. Other:Commissioner Ellen Hong (ABSENT) Vote: 5 - 0 Carried Other:Commissioner Ellen Hong (ABSENT) 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 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 3/12/2020 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&get_month=12&get_year=2019&dsp=min&seq=404 3/4 - 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. Other:Commissioner Ellen Hong (ABSENT) 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. Other:Commissioner Ellen Hong (ABSENT) Vote: 5 - 0 Carried Other:Commissioner Ellen Hong (ABSENT) 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 Other:Commissioner Ellen Hong (ABSENT) 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 Other:Commissioner Ellen Hong (ABSENT) 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 3/12/2020 Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&get_month=12&get_year=2019&dsp=min&seq=404 4/4 Other:Commissioner Ellen Hong (ABSENT) 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 6th day of December, 2019. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist GO TO PREVIOUS PAGE GO TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE AgendaQuick ©2005 - 2020 Destiny Software Inc. All Rights Reserved. Thomas W. Warne 70 West Cushing Street Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 884-8843 Phone (520) 882-2640 Fax (520) 907-0672 Cell November 19, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission, c/o Bayer Vella, AICP, Planning Manager 11000 N. La Cañada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Re- Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) Dear Planning and Zoning Commission, The purpose of this transmittal is to share my experience(s) in dealing with technical and industrial properties. I have been a developer in Southern Arizona for approximately 35 years and currently hold a position as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Campus Research Corporation (CRC) – UA Tech Park. My recent and current involvement with Oro Valley has been with the approval of the UA Center for Innovation at Oro Valley and as a principal in placing the approximate 15 acres at 2105 – 2157 East Rancho Vistoso Boulevard in escrow. I and my partner, Don Semro, hold previous experience in Oro Valley as the developers with BFL Construction in the design and development of the original Ventana Medical office and lab facilities. I am very enthused to see that the town of Oro Valley is considering amendments to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ). In securing and attracting Primary Employers in today’s competitive world of municipalities, states, and regions within the United States, it has become significant to have predictability, as well as clear, efficient development guidelines and codes, to enable permit-ready sites. With the increasing change of pace in the world of technology and research, time has become extremely important to the Primary Employer. It is a known fact that predictability and efficiency in the development process attract capital. To experience Oro Valley’s vision presented in the Town Council Strategic Leadership Plan for attracting quality and Primary Employers in order to improve economic vitality and lifestyle of the town, in my opinion, is very exciting. It has been my experience that economic consultants and site-selectors acting on behalf of the Primary Employer are very focused on governmental goals and the development processes in finalizing recommendations to the Primary Employer. The existence of permit-ready and clear, efficient guidelines give a competitive edge in the selection process, especially in considering Oro Valley’s quality of life in addition to these key points. I am hopeful that the Planning Commission is in a position to recommend the subject Code Amendments to the Mayor and Council. It is great to be a part of the quality growth of Oro Valley, once again. Respectfully Submitted, Thomas Warne Proposed Code Amendments to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) Town Council September 2, 2020 Purpose Meet the economic goals of the Town Council’s Strategic Leadership Plan to attract and retain employers Presented to Town Council through two study sessions and a public hearing Additional info and changes made in response to Town Council’s concerns and inquiries Recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission Our focus tonight… Tangerine Rd.La Cañada Dr.EEZ sites Additional information about the need and benefit of pre-grading Town loses 2-5 leads per month due to lack of available ready-to -build sites Critical in attracting and retaining employers Changes made to address concerns of possible proliferation and appearance of pre-graded sites Review economic viability and view impacts on a case-by-case basis Visual analysis conducted to evaluate sites visible from homes and roadways 1. Need and benefit of pre-grading The Town’s lack of available “ready-to- build” sites Loss of 2-5 employment leads a month Historically, low absorption rate of Tech-Park land Requests to convert Tech-Park land to residential and develop non -employment uses (e.g. Senior Care Facilities) 1. Need and benefit of pre-grading Checklist provided by a potential employment user Major requirements (highlighted in yellow): Location and site ownership Site Size: Minimum of 20 acres Topography: Generally flat (nominal leveling required) Timing: Shovel-ready. Only requires project specific approvals Pre-grading fulfills timing requirement Sanofi Building 1. Need and benefit of pre-grading Current process: Discourages property owners to create “ready-to-build” sites Does not meet an employer’s time requirements Removes the Town from consideration by employers Site plan approval (4-6 mos.) Create “ready to build site” (2 mos.) Building plan approval and construction (9-10 mos.) Proposed process: Allows site work to be completed earlier in the process Site design still reviewed but at more appropriate time Meets employers requirements and positions Town for consideration Minimum 16 months Minimum 10 months for employer* Create “ready to build site” (3-4 mos.) Site plan approval (1-2 mos.)* Building plan approval and construction (9-10 mos.)* 2. Changes to address proliferation of pre-grading concern Individual site review Criteria added to approve requests on a case -by-case basis Focus on ability to develop site and view impacts Viability of economic development Evidence of ability to develop within 5 years of permit issuance Revegetation after 10 years (2 year extensions may be approved) Impacts to views Evaluated through a required visual analysis Ability to add conditions to minimize potential view impacts 2. Changes to regulate appearance of sites Requiring decomposed granite as ground cover in addition to enhanced landscape and buffer yards (25’-150’) around site Decomposed granite at Big Horn Commerce 3. Visual Analysis –View 1 from subdivision homes 1 12 football fields Before After 3. Visual Analysis –View 2 from Rancho Vistoso bridge Before After 2 Slope to remain undisturbed 3. Visual Analysis –View 3 from Vistoso Commerce Loop Before After Gradeable area is behind 40’ of dense vegetation 3 3. Visual Analysis –Photos of nearby homes Gradeable area not visible from homes All single-story Blocked by existing walls 150’ buffer required 150’ no grade area Homes along the western side. Portion of the 150’ no grade area Homes abutting site. 3. Visual Analysis –View 4 from Tangerine Rd. Before After 4 25’-50’ enhanced buffer yard 3. Visual Analysis –View 5 from Tangerine Rd. bridge Before After 5 Key Points Findings from the visual analysis: Site nearest to homes will not be visible Sites along Oracle are naturally screened 3 areas are very distantly visible to nearby residential and along roads Changes made in response to Town Council’s concerns regarding potential proliferation and appearance of pre-graded sites Criteria to review viability of development and view impacts case-by-case Appearance of sites improved by specifying ground cover Pre-grading positions the Town for consideration by employers Town loses 2-5 employment leads a month due to lack of available “ready-to- build” sites Historically low absorption rates of Tech-Park land will continue to requests to convert tech park land to residential or develop non-employment uses Summary and recommendation Critical path forward to be considered by employers and meet the goals of the Town Council’s Strategic Leadership Plan Changes made in response to Town Council’s recent concerns Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval    Town Council Regular Session 1. Meeting Date:09/02/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Submitted By:Michael Spaeth, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 1901670 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO THE NOISE ABATEMENT STANDARDS, ONLY FOR NEW AND SPECIFIC LAND USE TYPES, AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE USES OF THE ZONING CODE RECOMMENDATION: This item is for presentation and discussion only. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to discuss a proposed Zoning Code amendment (Attachment 1) related to 1) noise abatement standards as a component of development review and 2) separation requirements for convenience uses. This item is on the Planning Division Workplan and Town's Strategic Plan. This Zoning Code amendment accomplishes the following:  Establishes a proactive and effective approach in mitigating noise impacts during design review1. Eliminates the unusably low existing noise threshold of "40 decibels." The decibel thresholds have been right sized using international standards and extensive consulting services by a qualified noise expert. 2. Replaces an overly simplistic "one size fits all" approach to regulating noise that does not account for the type of adjacent land uses or time of day. Standards that are land use specific and attuned to time of day have been added. 3. Adjusts land use distance separation requirements for convenience uses (gas stations, drive-thru's, small  markets like Circle K and car washes) that are, in some cases, redundant and unnecessarily punitive. The amendment enables Town Council to adjust distance requirements between a convenience use and residential subdivision/home, park or school based on site specific conditions when potential impacts are negated by barriers (hills, wide streets, buildings etc.). 4. Relative to the regulation of noise, the result is a model code that is superior to other Arizona communities and will serve as a template for other jurisdictions in the future.  Part 1 - Noise standards relative to development review The first part of this proposed code amendment deals with noise standards for new development review applications only. The primary goal of this code amendment is to establish noise standards in the Zoning Code that will be proactive and used only  during development review for new land uses. The current Zoning Code standards address, among other things, noise generating businesses (e.g. restaurants with outdoor speakers or auto shops) and are generally meant to be proactive as they are often associated with a corresponding Conditional Use Permit, but not in all instances. The proposed code language represent a more effective, efficient and equitable means of dealing with potential noise issues preemptively during design review. Beyond the Zoning Code, noise impacts are also addressed in Town Code. However, as opposed to the Zoning Code, these standards are "reactive" and deal with nuisances after a complaint is received. The proposed amendment is not intended to deal with these types of nuisances arising from "unreasonable noise" emanating from an existing land use - or once a new building is operational. Those types of noise violations are handled exclusively by Town Code via the Oro Valley Police Department.  In addition to which standards are applied and when, the existing Zoning Code standards present several other impractical challenges. Those standards (shown below) apply to all non-residential land uses: Section 25.1.A.3  Noise from internal loudspeakers, paging systems, live entertainment or stereo speakers shall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the property line of any adjacent property used or intended for residential purposes. 1. No external speakers, except for drive-thru order purposes, piped-in-ambiance music that is not discernible (less than (40) decibels) from on-site property lines, special events and/or approved outdoor entertainment venues, shall be permitted on premises. 2. Typically, many of the examples listed above are addressed through appropriate mitigation (e.g. larger buffers, building orientation, etc.) as part of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). However, these standards also apply to non-residential uses that do not require a CUP, some of which may generate noise impacts. For these uses, and specifically those which may occupy an existing vacant building where site design has been previously approved, a standard process and scale for evaluating noise impacts during development review is necessary. The existing standards listed above represents a "one size fits all" approach that is unreasonable as 40 decibels is more representative of a causal conversation, rather than noise generated from a business. Both requirements are broken as not only is the threshold unreasonably low, in fact often less than surrounding background noise, but different land uses should have different noise standards as a standard for a residential subdivision is likely not appropriate for tech park areas. It is clear the standard needs to be updated. With that said, this part of the code amendment will address those existing issues by establishing:  When a noise abatement study is required; 1. The ability for the Planning and Zoning Administrator to develop a standard protocol for measuring noise during the development review process; 2. What mitigation measures may be appropriate (e.g. enhanced landscaping, sound walls, acoustic insulation, etc.); 3. A scale for analyzing noise impacts of proposed development4. As part of the due diligence process, staff conducted an expansive research effort through which it became clear the existing standard is impractical and unrealistic. For comparison (also highlighted in Attachment 2), normal breathing is generally between 20-25 decibels, while a typical conversation is somewhere between 60-70 decibels. 40 decibels is an unreasonably low standard when compared to other everyday activities and a realistic standard staff can use to evaluate impacts needs to be developed. In fact, it is often lower than the surrounding background noise at the particular location.  The proposed amendment will establish noise limits for development review analysis only based on two factors. The first is the type of land use "receiving" the noise (e.g. residential, commercial, multi-family, etc.). For example, if the noise is being generated from a commercial use and is being heard from an adjoining residential use, the "receiving" use, is the neighboring residential property. The second factor is the time of day, with different nighttime and daytime limits. Both factors are shown in the table in Attachment 1 which includes a more reasonable standard based on the context of the noise and will serve as a much more efficient means of evaluating sound impacts as part of development review. The noise standards are similar to other southern Arizona jurisdictions, a comparison of which is included in Attachment 3. This table is intended to only serve as a benchmark for development review analysis and will not impact "unreasonable or nuisance noise" for existing or newly built land uses cited in Town Code. Those issues will be strictly handled by the Oro Valley Police Department when complaints are received.  Part 2 - Separation requirements for convenience uses The second part of this amendment deals with the separation requirements for convenience uses. Currently, the zoning code requires minimum separation requirements for convenience uses (gas stations, drive-thru's, small markets like Circle K and car washes) to minimize potential nuisances to surrounding land uses from impacts like noise, odor and visual impacts. The required separation is as follows:  like noise, odor and visual impacts. The required separation is as follows:  Two-hundred fifty (250) feet from any property used or intended for residential purposes Five-hundred (500) feet from any public park or school The proposed amendment will provide Town Council the flexibility to reduce this minimum requirement in certain instances where "major barriers" exist between a convenience use and a residential, public park or school use. Major barriers include:  Buildings, which will clearly impact sound levels Topographical features such as hillsides Major arterial intersections The minimum separation requirements are appropriate where no extenuating circumstances exist; however, when there are barriers such as those listed above, the requirement is redundant as the potential nuisance impacts will likely be negligible. A reduction in the requirement may be appropriate on a case by case basis.  The proposed amendment was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 2, 2020, and July 7, 2020, and has recommended approval. The staff reports are included as Attachments 4 and 5, respectively. The approved minutes from both meetings are included as Attachments 6 and 7.  Again, this item is being presented for discussion only.  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The purpose of this Strategic Plan initiative is to address a proposed Zoning Code amendment (Attachment 1) to the following:    Update the noise standards relative to development review only for new and specific land use types; and1. Provide an avenue, where appropriate, for the separation requirements of convenience uses (gas stations, drive-thru's, small markets like Circle K and car washes) to be reduced as part of a Conditional Use Permit review when there are mitigating factors like topography, physical barriers or wide roadway separation, etc. 2. Part 1 - Noise standards relative to development review for new land uses The first part of this proposed code amendment deals with noise standards relative to only new development review applications. The primary goal of this code amendment is to establish noise standards in the Zoning Code that will be proactive and used only  during development review for new land uses. The current Zoning Code standards address, among other things, noise generating businesses (e.g. restaurants with outdoor speakers or auto shops) and are generally meant to be proactive as they are often associated with a corresponding Conditional Use Permit, but not in all instances. The proposed code language represent a more efficient and equitable means of dealing with potential noise issues preemptively during design review. Beyond the Zoning Code, noise impacts are also addressed in Town Code. However, as opposed to the Zoning Code, these standards are "reactive" and deal with nuisances after a complaint is received. The proposed amendment is not intended to deal with these types of nuisances arising from "unreasonable noise" emanating from an existing land use - or once a new building is operational. Those types of noise violations are handled exclusively by Town Code. The Oro Valley Police Department was consulted during the development of the code amendment and is in full support of the proposed changes.  The current zoning standards (shown below) apply to all non-residential land uses: Section 25.1.A.3  Noise from internal loudspeakers, paging systems, live entertainment or stereo speakers shall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the property line of any adjacent property used or intended for residential purposes. 1. No external speakers, except for drive-thru order purposes, piped-in-ambiance music that is not discernible (less than (40) decibels) from on-site property lines, special events and/or approved outdoor entertainment venues, shall be permitted on premises. 2. Typically, many of the instances listed above are addressed through appropriate mitigation (e.g. larger buffers, building orientation, etc.) as part of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) review. However, these standards also apply to non-residential uses that do not require a CUP, some of which may generate noise impacts. For these uses, and specifically those which may occupy an existing vacant building where site design has been previously approved, a standard process and scale for evaluating noise impacts is necessary.  First, the proposed code amendment will establish a requirement for a noise abatement study concurrent with development review (i.e. new site design and improvements to existing buildings) when a use may generate noise beyond the on-site property boundary. For these uses, the noise study will be a submittal requirement to determine appropriate mitigation measures during the design review process.   For example, when a new auto garage is proposed, the new standards provide a more targeted and effective means of evaluating the impacts to surrounding properties. If the development is proposed along a major roadway next to other commercial uses, the criteria would allow for appropriate evaluation of the impacts in that context. In that scenario where maximum sound levels would be higher, there may not be a need for much mitigation. Conversely, if the development is proposed near less intensive uses (e.g. residential) where the maximum sound levels would be lower, the criteria allows for specific evaluation in that context to ensure more substantial and effective mitigation is incorporated. This could include, among other measures, sound walls, and/or re-orienting the building away from the residential. Again, the existing standard is broken and the proposed amendment allows for more targeted and appropriate evaluation as part of the initial development review process.  As part of the due diligence process, staff conducted an expansive research effort through which it became clear the existing standard (40 decibels) is impractical and unrealistic. For comparison (as highlighted at right and shown in Attachment 2), normal breathing is generally between 20-25 decibels, while a typical conversation is somewhere between 60-70 decibels. Forty (40) decibels is an unreasonably low standard when compared to other everyday activities and a realistic standard staff can use to evaluate impacts during development review needs to be incorporated. To aid in this effort, the Town hired a sound consultant to help develop and define a more realistic and appropriate sound standard. The proposed amendment will establish noise limits for development review analysis based on two factors. The first is the type of land use "receiving" the noise (e.g. residential, commercial, multi-family, etc.). For example, as shown in the graphic below, if the noise is being generated from a commercial use (shown in red) and is being heard at the point of measurement (identified with a blue X) from an adjoining residential use (shown in peach), the "receiving" use is the neighboring residential property. The second factor is the time of day, with different limitations for nighttime and daytime. Both factors are shown in the table below and in Attachment 1.  The above table will establish a more reasonable standard based on the context of the noise and will serve as a much more efficient means of evaluating sound impacts as part of development review. The noise standards are similar to other southern Arizona jurisdictions, a comparison of which is included in Attachment 3. This table is intended to only serve as a benchmark for development review analysis and will not impact noise or nuisance noise as cited in Town Code.  Lastly, a key component of any noise abatement study is to establish a standard methodology to determine how to measure sound. The code amendment will enable the Planning and Zoning Administrator to develop a standard protocol for measuring noise impacts as part of development review. The protocol will include, among other things, what type of measurement tool is required, how to calibrate said tool, how a noise study is to be conducted and how to measure the noise. The protocol is not intended to be part of the code, as technology changes quickly and updates to the procedures will likely be frequent to maintain an updated standard. However, staff has worked with a noise consultant to develop a technical bulletin which will help inform the standard protocol and those conducting future noise studies.  Part 2 - Separation requirements for convenience uses The second part of this amendment deals with the separation requirements for convenience uses. Currently, the zoning code requires minimum separation requirements for convenience uses to minimize potential nuisances to surrounding land uses from, among other things, noise, odor and visual impacts. The required separation is as follows:  Two-hundred fifty (250) feet from any property used or intended for residential purposes Five-hundred (500) feet from any public park or school The above distances are measured from "...the abutting edge of the residential district to the closest property line or lease line of the convenience use" and "...includes all required parking, landscaping and setbacks of the use". The second part of the proposed amendment will provide Town Council the flexibility to reduce this minimum requirement in certain instances where "major barriers" exist between a convenience use and residential, park or requirement in certain instances where "major barriers" exist between a convenience use and residential, park or school uses. Major barriers include:  Buildings Topographical features such as hillsides Major arterial intersections The minimum separation requirements are appropriate where no extenuating circumstances exist, however; when there are barriers such as those listed above, the requirement is redundant as the potential nuisance impacts will likely be negligible. For example, several commercial properties along Oracle Road are across (west) from Pusch Ridge Christian Academy. Though these properties are separated from the school by a major roadway (also a State highway), they are within 500 feet of the school property. As such, though the wide right-of-way or intersection effectively eliminates most potential impacts, no convenience uses are allowed within the 500 feet area. The proposed amendment would allow Town Council to determine whether or not a reduction is appropriate. Finally, by limiting this flexibility to only apply when major barriers exist, ensures a balance between development applications and neighbors surrounding the property.  PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The proposed amendment was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 2, 2020 and July 7, 2020 and has recommended approval. The discussion among Commissioners focused on the enforcement of noise standards and the extent of changes. The staff reports are included as Attachments 4 and 5, respectively. The approved minutes from both meetings are included as Attachments 6 and 7.  SUMMARY The proposed Zoning Code Amendments have been reviewed for conformance with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan Vision, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies and are in general conformance. Furthermore, the proposed amendments address an existing item on both the Planning Division Workplan and Town Strategic Plan. This Zoning Code amendment accomplishes the following:  Establishes a proactive and effective approach in mitigating noise impacts during design review1. Eliminates the unusably low existing noise threshold of "40 decibels ". The decibel thresholds have been right sized using international standards and extensive consulting services by a qualified noise expert. 2. Replaces an overly simplistic "one size fits all" approach to regulating noise that does not account for the type of adjacent land uses or time of day. Standards that are land use specific and attuned to time of day have been added. 3. Adjusts land use distance separation requirements for convenience uses (gas stations, drive-thru's, small  markets like Circle K and car washes) that are, in some cases, redundant and unnecessarily punitive. The amendment enables Town Council to adjust distance requirements between a convenience use and residential subdivision/home, park or school based on site specific conditions when potential impacts are negated by barriers (hills, wide streets, buildings etc.). 4. Relative to the regulation of noise, the result is a model code that is superior to other Arizona communities and will serve as a template for other jurisdictions in the future.  FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: This item is for presentation and discussion only. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 - PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT  ATTACHMENT 2 - TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS  ATTACHMENT 3 - COMPARISON OF SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS  ATTACHMENT 3 - COMPARISON OF SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS  ATTACHMENT 4 - JUNE 2, 2020 PZC STAFF REPORT  ATTACHMENT 5 - JULY 7, 2020 PZC STAFF REPORT  ATTACHMENT 6 - JUNE 2, 2020 PZC MEETING MINUTES  ATTACHMENT 7 - JULY 7, 2020 PZC MINUTES  Staff Presentation  Additions are shown in ALL CAPS font --- deletions shown in strikethrough font Page 1 Section 25.1 Requirements for Specific Uses This section applies to all non-residential uses, excluding parks. The requirements specified herein are in addition to those in the corresponding zoning district. A. General Requirements for All Non-Residential Uses 1. Fire Access: At least two (2) driveways should be provided for circulation and emergency vehicle access, subject to Fire Marshal review. 2. Conceptual Architecture; Subject to Planning Zoning Commission Approval: a. Accessory structures (structures other than the primary building(s) such as screen walls, gas station canopies, carports, signage structures) shall be coordinated with the primary building(s) in terms of materials, colors and style. b. Exterior finishes of a building shall not exceed a reflectivity of sixty percent (60%). 3. Noise a. Noise from internal loudspeakers, paging systems, live entertainment or stereo speakers shall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the property line of any adjacent property used or intended for residential purposes. a.A NOISE IMPACT STUDY IS REQUIRED AS PART OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OR TENANT IMPROVEMENT FOR ANY USE WHICH MAY GENERATE NOISE BEYOND THE ON-SITE PROPERTY BOUNDARY. USES WHICH REQUIRE A STUDY INCLUDE DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS, LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT BARS OR RESTAURANTS, PIPED IN AMBIANCE MUSIC, VEHICLE REPAIR SHOPS, VEHICLE WASHES OR OTHER SIMILAR USES AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. b.ANY STUDY REQUIRED IN SECTION 25.1.A.3.a SHALL DEMONSTRATE CONFORMANCE WITH THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED IN TABLE 25-1.A. IF SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS EXCEED THESE LIMITS, A NOISE ABATEMENT PLAN TO ACHIEVE CONFORMANCE SHALL BE REQUIRED. Additions are shown in ALL CAPS font --- deletions shown in strikethrough font Page 2 TABLE 25-1.A Land Use of Receiving Premise Time One Hour Average limits* Maximum Sound limits** One Minute Limits*** 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.55 75 65 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.50 70 65 Single Family Residential 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.45 65 65 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.60 80 65 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.55 75 65 Multi-Family Residential 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.50 70 65 Commercial, Office, Institutional, Schools, Parks and Open Space, Animal Husbandry all hours 65 85 70 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.65 85 70 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.60 80 65 Hospitals, Hotels 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.55 75 65 Technological Park (Industrial)all hours 75 90 75 * Measured as One-hour Equivalent-Continuous Sound Pressure Level (dBA) ** Measured as Fast Exponential Time Weighted Sound Pressure Level (dBA) *** Measured as Octave Band Equivalent-Continuous Sound Pressure Level, unweighted 16, 31.5 and 62 Hz Bands (dB) c. ALL MEASUREMENTS IN TABLE 25-1.A SHALL BE REPRESENTED AT THE NEAREST PROPERTY BOUNDARY OF THE USE RECEIVING SOUND FROM THE NOISE SOURCE AS INDICATED IN THE FIGURE 25-1.A. Additions are shown in ALL CAPS font --- deletions shown in strikethrough font Page 3 FIGURE 25.1.A NOISE STUDY MEASUREMENT LOCATION MEASUREMENTS SHALL BE TAKEN FROM A POINT NO LESS THAN TWELVE FEET FROM THE NOISE SOURCE OR ANY STRUCTURE. d.WHEN BACKGROUND SOUND INTERFERES, THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY IS NOT ACCESSIBLE, OR HIGHER SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS OCCUR WITHIN THE RECEIVING PROPERTY, AN ALTERNATIVE MEASUREMENT LOCATION MAY BE APPROVED AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. e. THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH AND MODIFY NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNICAL BULLETIN ESTABLISHING PROTOCOL FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF NOISE DURING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. f.A BACKGROUND NOISE CORRECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNICAL BULLETIN SHALL BE MADE IF THE BACKGROUND SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL IS WITHIN TEN DECIBELS OF THE AMBIENT SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL. g. NOISE SOURCES WITH A-WEIGHTED EQUIVALENT-CONTINUOUS SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL OR OCTAVE BAND EQUIVALENT-CONTINUOUS SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL CHARACTERISTICS SHALL ADD THE ADJUSTMENTS LISTED IN TABLE 25-1.B. IF MORE THAN ONE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTIC APPLIES TO A NOISE SOURCE, ONLY THE LARGEST ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE APPLIED. TABLE 25-1.B SOUND SOURCE CHARACTERISTIC ADJUSTMENT (DECIBEL) REGULAR IMPULSIVE 5 HIGHLY IMPULSIVE 12 TONAL 5 h.ANY MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN A NOISE ABATEMENT PLAN ARE REQUIRED AS PART OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OR TENANT IMPROVEMENT TO ENSURE NOISE Additions are shown in ALL CAPS font --- deletions shown in strikethrough font Page 4 LEVELS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH TABLE 25-1.A. MITIGATION MEASURES MAY INCLUDE: i. ACOUSTIC INSULATION ii.ENHANCED BUFFER YARDS AND SOUND WALLS iii.REGULATION OF OPERATING HOURS iv.OTHER SIMILAR MEASURES AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR i. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL REGULATE NOISE OR SUPERCEDE NUISANCE NOISE REGULATIONS IN TOWN CODE. j.No external speakers, except for drive-through order purposes, piped-in ambiance music that is not discernible (less than forty (40) decibels) from on-site property lines, special events and/or approved outdoor entertainment venues, shall be permitted on the premises. k.SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS WILL BE MADE USING A TYPE I SOUND LEVEL METER (SLM) CALIBRATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER’S SPECIFICATIONS AS REQUIRED IN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNICAL BULLETIN. l.EXEMPTIONS i.ALERTING PERSONS TO THE EXISTENCE OF AN EMERGENCY. ii.PERFORMANCE OF EMERGENCY WORK. iii.PERFORMANCE OF AN ACTIVITY FOR WHICH, PURSUANT TO THIS CODE, THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HAS EXPRESSLY GIVEN A TEMPORARY SPECIAL USE PERMIT. iv.AIRCRAFT AND AIRPORT OPERATIONS. v.WARNING DEVICES REQUIRED ON VEHICLES BY ANY STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS. vi.THE LAWFUL OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ON A RIGHT-OF-WAY. vii.THE OPERATION OF ESSENTIAL SERVICE VEHICLES (E.G., POLICE AND FIRE VEHICLES, SANITATION AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT VEHICLES). viii.NONCOMMERCIAL UNAMPLIFIED PUBLIC SPEAKING AND PUBLIC ASSEMBLY ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON ANY PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTY. ix.CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH TOWN CODE B. Requirements for Specific Non-Residential Uses 6. Convenience Uses a. Standards for All Convenience Uses i. Locational Requirements a) Convenience uses shall be a minimum of two hundred fifty (250) feet from any property used or intended for residential purposes. b) Convenience uses shall be a minimum of five hundred (500) feet from any public park or school. c) The above distances shall be measured from the abutting edge of the residential district to the closest property line or lease line of the convenience use. The limit of the property line or lease line shall include all required parking, landscaping, and setbacks of the specific convenience use. Additions are shown in ALL CAPS font --- deletions shown in strikethrough font Page 5 d) THE ABOVE DISTANCES MAY BE REDUCED BY TOWN COUNCIL WHEN MAJOR BARRIERS EXIST TO MITIGATE IMPACTS ON ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL, PUBLIC PARK OR SCHOOL PROPERTIES. MAJOR BARRIER(S) INCLUDE BUILDINGS, TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES (I.E. HILLSIDES) AND ARTERIAL ROADWAYS AND MUST DEMONSTRATE CONFORMANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING: i. NOISE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE LEVELS LISTED IN TABLE 25-1.A ii. ODOR ABATEMENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 25.1.A.6 iii. VISIBILITY OF DRIVE-THRU USES AND STACKING LANES SHALL BE MITIGATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 25.1.B.8. AND SCREENED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 27.6.C.5. e) Convenience uses shall be ancillary to and located in shopping centers, office parks, or a combination of a shopping center and office park. Convenience uses shall not be permitted in office parks in an R-6 district. ii. Number of Convenience Uses per Center a) The total number of convenience uses shall not exceed one (1) pad per four and one-half (4.5) acres of shopping center or office park. No more than one (1) drive- in, drive-through, gas station, or convenience use shall be permitted for every nine (9) acres of office park. iii. Access a) No convenience use shall have direct vehicular access onto any street which provides a lower level of service than a collector street. b) All convenience uses shall be accessed through a common driveway serving the center or office park. If traffic safety warrants, one (1) direct access per arterial frontage may be approved by the Town Engineer for an individual convenience use. c) All convenience uses shall provide access points to the internal circulation driveways and parking areas of the center unless otherwise approved by the Town Council. iv. Timing of Development a) Convenience uses shall not be open for business until a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the net floor area for the non-convenience use structures within the shopping center have been constructed. Section 31 Definitions AMBIENT SOUND Additions are shown in ALL CAPS font --- deletions shown in strikethrough font Page 6 SOUND FROM ALL NORMAL EXISTING SOURCES NEAR AND FAR AT A GIVEN LOCATION, INCLUDING THE NOISE SOURCE BEING EVALUATED. BACKGROUND SOUND SOUND FROM ALL EXISTING SOURCES NEAR AND FAR THAT MAY INTERFERE WITH A SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL MEASUREMENT, NOT TO INCLUDE THE NOISE SOURCE BEING EVALUATED. DECIBEL (dB) A UNIT OF LEVEL WHICH DENOTES THE RATIO OF TWO QUANTITIES THAT ARE PROPORTIONAL TO POWER AS DEFINED IN THE NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNICAL BULLETIN. IMPULSIVE SOUND SOUND THAT IS CHARACTERIZED BY BRIEF DISTURBANCES OF SOUND PRESSURE, TYPICALLY LESS THAN ONE SECOND, WHEN PEAK SOUND PRESSURE EXCEEDS THE BACKGROUND SOUND PRESSURE. HIGHLY IMPULSIVE SOUND HAVING VERY RAPID ONSET RATE (GREATER THAN 150 DB PER SECOND) TYPICALLY RESULTING FROM IMPACT PROCESSES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: METAL HAMMERING, WOOD HAMMERING, DROP HAMMERING, PILE DRIVING, DROP FORGING, PNEUMATIC HAMMERING, PICKLEBALL PADDLE AND BALL IMPACTS, PAVEMENT BREAKING, METAL IMPACTS AND RIVETING. REGULAR IMPULSIVE SOUND THAT IS NOT HIGHLY IMPULSIVE SOUND. THIS INCLUDES SPEECH AND MUSIC. NOISE ANY SOUND WHICH ANNOYS OR DISTURBS HUMANS OR WHICH CAUSES OR TENDS TO CAUSE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON HUMANS, DOMESTICATED ANIMALS OR LIVESTOCK. NOISE ABATEMENT PLAN A DETAILED PLAN DEMONSTRATING THE MITIGATION MEASURES TO BE TAKEN IN ORDER TO MEET THE NOISE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CODE. NOISE IMPACT STUDY AN ANALYSIS PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED ACOUSTICAL ENGINEER WHICH DETERMINES THE POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS OF A PROPOSED USE. SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL A DESCRIPTOR FOR CHARACTERIZING THE SOUND FROM INDIVIDUAL ACOUSTICAL EVENTS. Additions are shown in ALL CAPS font --- deletions shown in strikethrough font Page 7 A-WEIGHTED SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL A SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL OBTAINED FROM AN A-WEIGHTED SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL. SOUND PRESSURE A DISTURBANCE OF THE ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE WITH RESPECT TO THE MEAN BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PRODUCING THE SENSATION OF HEARING OR VIBRATION MEASURED IN UNITS OF PASCAL (Pa). PEAK SOUND PRESSURE THE LARGEST ABSOLUTE VALUE OF THE INSTANTANEOUS SOUND PRESSURE IN PASCALS (Pa) IN A STATED FREQUENCY BAND DURING A SPECIFIED TIME INTERVAL. SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL THE SOUND PRESSURE EXPRESSED AS A DECIBEL. A-WEIGHTED SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL OBTAINED USING AN 'A' FREQUENCY WEIGHTING FILTER AS DEFINED IN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNICAL BULLETIN. EQUIVALENT-CONTINUOUS SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL THE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL OF A STEADY, CONTINUOUS SOUND HAVING THE SAME SOUND ENERGY AS THE TIME VARYING SOUND MEASURED. SOUND LEVEL METER (SLM), TYPE 1 AN INSTRUMENT USED TO MEASURE SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS MEETING THE STANDARDS FOR ACCURACY ESTABLISHED IN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY NOISE ABATEMENT TECHINICAL BULLETIN. TONAL SOUND SOUND HAVING ONE OR MORE SINGLE FREQUENCY OSCILLATIONS (PURE TONES) OR THAT IS CONFINED TO A NARROW BAND OF FREQUENCIES MEETING THE CRITERIA FOR TONAL PROMINENCE. NOISE NOISE ABATEMENT CODE AMENDMENT (1901670) Attachment 2 Decibels (db) * Source: OSHA 2017 Proposed Amendment Tucson Pima County Marana Tempe Gilbert Residential 7 am – 10 pm 55 70 Not to be heard beyond 125 feet -55 55 10 pm – 7 am 45 62 Not to be heard beyond property line -45 45 Multi-family 7 am – 10 pm 60 70 Not to be heard beyond 125 feet -55 55 10 pm – 7 am 50 62 Not to be heard beyond property line -45 45 Commercial 7 am – 10 pm 65 72 Not to be heard beyond 125 feet -65 65 10 pm – 7 am 65 65 Not to be heard beyond property line -55 55 Industrial 7 am – 10 pm 75 85 Not to be heard beyond 125 feet -70 70 10 pm – 7 am 75 70 Not to be heard beyond property line -60 60 Park 7 am – 10 pm 65 -Not to be heard beyond 125 feet 55 -- 10 pm – 7 am 65 -Not to be heard beyond property line 50 --    Planning & Zoning Commission AGENDA ITEM: 4. Meeting Date:06/02/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Case Number: 1901670 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO THE NOISE ABATEMENT STANDARDS ONLY FOR NEW AND SPECIFIC LAND USE TYPES AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE USES OF THE ZONING CODE RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed Zoning Code amendment (Attachment 1) related to noise abatement standards as a component of development review and separation requirements for convenience uses. This item is on the Planning Division Workplan and Town's Strategic Plan. It is a focal item as our current standard is unreasonable and overly simplistic. The existing code threshold of "40 decibels" is more representative of a casual conversation, rather than noise generated by a land use. Furthermore, a "one size fits all" approach is not realistic as different land uses (e.g. residential) necessarily should have a lower allowed noise threshold than a tech park area or large commercial center. Staff conducted thorough review of model codes from other jurisdictions and hired a noise consultant to assist with the development of the proposed code amendment. With that said, request includes two areas of proposed changes. Those include:  Update the noise standards relative to development review only for new and specific land use types; and 1. Provide an avenue, where appropriate, for the separation requirements of convenience uses to be reduced as part of a Conditional Use Permit review when there are mitigating factors like topography, physical barriers or wide roadway separation, etc. 2. Part 1 - Noise standards relative to development review The first part of this proposed code amendment deals with noise standards relative to new development review applications. Noise impacts are addressed in a number of ways throughout the Town. Town Code deals with nuisances, while the Zoning Code addresses, among other things, noise generating businesses (e.g. restaurants with outdoor speakers or auto shops). Often these limits are associated with a corresponding Conditional Use Permit, but not in all instances. The intent of this code amendment is to only establish noise standards in the Zoning Code that will be used during development review for new land uses. It is not intended to deal with noise violations or nuisances arising from "unreasonable noise" emanating from an existing land use - or once a new building is operational, as those are handled exclusively by Town Code.  Currently, the Zoning Code also establishes the following noise standards for all non-residential land uses: Section 25.1.A.3  Noise from internal loudspeakers, paging systems, live entertainment or stereo speakers shall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the property line of any adjacent property used or intended for 1. residential purposes. No external speakers, except for drive-thru order purposes, piped-in-ambiance music that is not discernible (less than (40) decibels) from on-site property lines, special events and/or approved outdoor entertainment venues, shall be permitted on premises. 2. Typically, many of the instances listed above are addressed through appropriate mitigation (e.g. larger buffers, building orientation, etc.) as part of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). However, these standards also apply to non-residential uses that do not require a CUP, some of which may generate noise impacts. For these uses, and specifically those which may occupy an existing vacant building where site design has been previously approved, a standard process and scale for evaluating noise impacts during development review is necessary. The existing standards listed above represents a "one size fits all" approach that is unreasonable as 40 decibels is more representative of a causal conversation, rather than noise generated from a business. Both are broken as not only is the threshold unreasonably low, different land uses should have different noise standards as a standard for residential subdivision is likely not appropriate for tech park areas. It is clear the standard needs to be updated. With that said, this part of the code amendment will address those existing issues by establishing:  When a noise abatement study is required; 1. The ability for the Planning and Zoning Administrator to develop a standard protocol for measuring noise during the development review process; 2. What mitigation measures may be appropriate (e.g. enhanced landscaping, sound walls, acoustic insulation,etc.); 3. A scale for analyzing noise impacts of proposed development4. As part of the due diligence process, staff conducted an expansive research effort through which it became clear the existing standard is impractical and unrealistic. For comparison (also highlighted in Attachment 2), normal breathing is generally between 20-25 decibels, while a typical conversation is somewhere between 60-70 decibels. Forty (40) decibels is an unreasonably low standard when compared to other everyday activities and a realistic standard staff can use to evaluate impacts needs to be developed. The proposed amendment will establish noise limits for development review analysis based on two factors. The first is the type of land use "receiving" the noise (e.g. residential, commercial, multi-family, etc.). For example, if the noise is being generated from a commercial use and is being heard from an adjoining residential use, the "receiving" use, is the neighboring residential property. The second factor is the time of day, with different nighttime and daytime limits. Both factors are shown in the table below and in Attachment 1.     The above table includes a more reasonable standard based on the context of the noise and will serve as a much more efficient means of evaluating sound impacts as part of development review. The noise standards are similar to other southern Arizona jurisdictions, a comparison of which is included in Attachment 3. This table is intended to only serve as a benchmark for development review analysis and will not impact noise or nuisance noise for existing or newly built land uses cited in Town Code.  Part 2 - Separation requirements for convenience uses The second part of this amendment deals with the separation requirements for convenience uses. Currently, the zoning code requires minimum separation requirements for convenience uses to minimize potential nuisances to surrounding land uses from, among other things, noise, odor and visual impacts. The required separation is as follows:  Two-hundred fifty (250) feet from any property used or intended for residential purposes Five-hundred (500) feet from any public park or school The proposed amendment will provide Town Council the flexibility to reduce this minimum requirement in certain instances where "major barriers" exist between a convenience use and a residential, public park or school use. Major barriers include:  Buildings, which will clearly impact sound levels Topographical features such as hillsides Major arterial intersections The minimum separation requirements are appropriate where no extenuating circumstances exist, however; when there are barriers such as those listed above, the requirement is redundant as the potential nuisance impacts will likely be negligible.  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed Zoning Code amendment (Attachment 1) related to noise abatement standards as a component of development review and separation requirements for convenience uses. This item is on the Planning Division Work plan and the Town's Strategic Plan. It is a focal item as our current standard is broken, unreasonable and overly simplistic. The existing code threshold of "40 decibels" is more representative of a casual conversation, rather than noise generated by a land use. Furthermore, a "one size fits all" approach is not realistic as different land uses (e.g. residential) necessarily should have a lower allowed noise threshold than a tech park area. Staff conducted thorough review of model codes from other jurisdictions and hired a noise consultant to assist with the development of the proposed code amendment. With that said, request includes two areas of proposed changes. Those include:  Update the noise standards relative to development review only for new and specific land use types; and 1. Provide an avenue, where appropriate, for the separation requirements of convenience uses to be reduced as part of a Conditional Use Permit review when there are mitigating factors like topography, physical barriers or wide roadway separation, etc. 2. Part 1 - Noise standards relative to development review for new land uses The first part of the proposed code amendment deals with noise standards relative to new development review. Noise impacts are addressed in a number of ways throughout Town Code, including the Zoning Code. For example, Article 10-1-4 in the Town Code addresses "unreasonable noise" for existing and newly built properties throughout the Town, while the Zoning Code establishes, among other things, restrictions on when construction activity can occur and impacts arising from noise associated with a land use. The intent of this code amendment is to only establish standards for the evaluation of noise impacts during development review. It is not intended to deal with noise or nuisance noise for existing or newly built buildings, as those are handled exclusively by Town Code.  The Zoning Code also establishes the following noise standards for all non-residential land uses: Section 25.1.A.3  Noise from internal loudspeakers, paging systems, live entertainment or stereo speakers shall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the property line of any adjacent property used or intended for 1. exceed forty (40) decibels at the property line of any adjacent property used or intended for residential purposes. No external speakers, except for drive-thru order purposes, piped-in-ambiance music that is not discernible (less than (40) decibels) from on-site property lines, special events and/or approved outdoor entertainment venues, shall be permitted on premises. 2. Typically, many of the instances listed above are addressed through appropriate mitigation (e.g. larger buffers, building orientation, etc.) as part of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) review. However, these standards also apply to non-residential uses that do not require a CUP, some of which may generate noise impacts. For these uses, and specifically those which may occupy an existing vacant building where site design has been previously approved, a standard process and scale for evaluating noise impacts is necessary.  First, the proposed code amendment will establish a requirement for a noise abatement study concurrent with development review (i.e. new site design and improvements to existing buildings) when a use may generate noise beyond the on-site property boundary. For these uses, the noise study will be a submittal requirement to determine appropriate mitigation measures during the design review process.   For example, when a new auto garage is proposed, the new standards provide a more targeted and effective means of evaluating the impacts to surrounding properties. If the development is proposed along a major roadway next to other commercial uses, the criteria would allow for appropriate evaluation of the impacts in that context. In that scenario where maximum sound levels would be higher, there may not be a need for much mitigation. Conversely, if the development is proposed near less intensive uses (e.g. residential) where the maximum sound levels would be lower, the criteria allows for specific evaluation in that context to ensure more substantial and effective mitigation is incorporated. This could include, among other measures, sound walls, and/or re-orienting the building away from the residential. Again, the existing standard is broken and the proposed amendment allows for more targeted and appropriate evaluation as part of the initial development review process.  As part of the due diligence process, staff conducted an expansive research effort through which it became clear the existing standard (40 decibels) is impractical and unrealistic. For comparison (as highlighted at right and shown in Attachment 2), normal breathing is generally between 20-25 decibels, while a typical conversation is somewhere between 60-70 decibels. Forty (40) decibels is an unreasonably low standard when compared to other everyday activities and a realistic standard staff can use to evaluate impacts during development review needs to be incorporated. To aid in this effort, the Town hired a sound consultant to help develop and define a more realistic and appropriate sound standard. The proposed amendment will establish noise limits for development review analysis based on two factors. The first is the type of land use "receiving" the noise (e.g. residential, commercial, multi-family, etc.). For example, as shown in the graphic below, if the noise is being generated from a commercial use (shown in red) and is being heard at the point of measurement (identified with a blue X) from an adjoining residential use (shown in peach), the "receiving" use is the neighboring residential property. The second factor is the time of  day, with different limitations for nighttime and daytime. Both factors are shown in the table below and in Attachment 1.   The above table will establish a more reasonable standard based on the context of the noise and will serve as a much more efficient means of evaluating sound impacts as part of development review. The noise standards are similar to other southern Arizona jurisdictions, a comparison of which is included in Attachment 3. This table is intended to only serve as a benchmark for development review analysis and will not impact noise or nuisance noise as cited in Town Code.  Lastly, a key component of any noise abatement study is to establish a standard methodology to determine how to measure sound. The code amendment will enable the Planning and Zoning Administrator to develop a standard protocol for measuring noise impacts as part of development review. The protocol will include, among other things, what type of measurement tool is required, how to calibrate said tool, how a noise study is to be conducted and how to measure the noise. The protocol is not intended to be part of the code, as technology changes quickly and updates to the procedures will likely be frequent to maintain an updated standard. However, staff has worked with a noise consultant to develop a technical bulletin which will help inform the standard protocol and those conducting future noise studies.  Part 2 - Separation requirements for convenience uses The second part of this amendment deals with the separation requirements for convenience uses. Currently, the zoning code requires minimum separation requirements for convenience uses to minimize potential nuisances to surrounding land uses from, among other things, noise, odor and visual impacts. The required separation is as follows:  Two-hundred fifty (250) feet from any property used or intended for residential purposes Five-hundred (500) feet from any public park or school The above distances are measured from "...the abutting edge of the residential district to the closest property line or lease line of the convenience use" and "...includes all required parking, landscaping and setbacks of the use".  The second part of the proposed amendment will provide Town Council the flexibility to reduce this minimum requirement in certain instances where "major barriers" exist between a convenience use and residential, park or school uses. Major barriers include:  Buildings Topographical features such as hillsides Major arterial intersections Major arterial intersections The minimum separation requirements are appropriate where no extenuating circumstances exist, however; when there are barriers such as those listed above, the requirement is redundant as the potential nuisance impacts will likely be negligible. For example, several commercial properties along Oracle Road are across (west) from Pusch Ridge Christian Academy. Though these properties are separated from the school by a major roadway (also a State highway), they are within 500 feet of the school property. As such, though the wide right-of-way or intersection effectively eliminates most potential impacts, no convenience uses are allowed within the 500 feet area. The proposed amendment would allow Town Council to determine whether or not a reduction could be justified. Finally, by limiting this flexibility to only apply when major barriers exist, ensures a balance between development applications and neighbors surrounding the property.  SUMMARY The proposed Zoning Code Amendments have been reviewed for conformance with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan Vision, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies and are in general conformance. The existing noise standards are unreasonable.The amendment represents opportunities to incorporate targeted, fair and protective code requirements. Lastly, the proposed amendments address an existing item on both the Planning Division Workplan and Town Strategic Plan.  As such, Staff recommends approval of the Zoning Code Amendments. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may wish to consider one of the following motions:  I MOVE to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed code amendment based on a finding it is in conformance with Vision, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies of the General Plan OR I MOVE to recommend DENIAL of the proposed code amendment based on a finding that _____________. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 - PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT  ATTACHMENT 2 - TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS  ATTACHMENT 3 - COMPARISON OF SOUTHERN ARIZONA COMMUNITIES NOISE STANDARDS     Planning & Zoning Commission AGENDA ITEM: 3. Meeting Date:07/07/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Case Number: 1901670 SUBJECT: CONTINUED ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO THE NOISE ABATEMENT STANDARDS ONLY FOR NEW AND SPECIFIC LAND USE TYPES AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE USES OF THE ZONING CODE RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed Zoning Code amendment (Attachment 1) related to noise abatement standards, as a component of development review, and separation requirements for convenience uses. This item is on the Planning Division Workplan and Town's Strategic Plan. The zoning code amendment was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 2, 2020, and was continued to the following meeting. The staff report and draft meeting minutes for the June meeting can be viewed in Attachments 2 and 3, respectively. This report provides additional information to address the questions raised by the Commission during the hearing. Those questions related to the following topics:  A comparison of the proposed noise standards to surrounding jurisdictions;1. National standards for noise abatement; and2. Enforcement procedures for noise complaints3. Surround jurisdiction comparison To address the first topic, staff updated the surrounding jurisdiction analysis (Attachment 4) to include the "one-hour average limits" rather than the "maximum sound limits" which is more reflective of the standards applied in other southern Arizona communities. The proposed standards are slightly higher in some instances and lower in others as a result of being "right sized". The thresholds proposed in Table 25-1.A (Attachment 1) are more representative of National Standards, strike a balance between development and surrounding land uses and should serve as a template for other jurisdictions.  National Standards The National Standards used throughout the United States are the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). These standards provide methodologies for quantifying the long term community impact of a wide variety of sound classifications. The standards establish appropriate adjustments (based on external factors) and measurement methodologies for a variety of sound classifications. References to these standards are detailed more extensively in the associated technical bulletin provided by the Acoustic Engineer consultant (table of contents provided for reference in Attachment 5). These standards directly informed the "one hour average limits" and appropriate adjustments for nighttime and evening hours as well as those for special characteristics, such as background noise and road noise. A table from ANSI Section 12.9 Part 5, detailing land use compatibly for a variety of uses relative to noise impacts, is included as Attachment 6. As you can see, the proposed thresholds in Attachment 1 are consistent with the table and are either compatible or marginally compatible.   Enforcement As discussed in the June staff report, the proposed code amendment will only apply during the development review process for new land uses. It is not intended to deal with noise violations or nuisances arising from "unreasonable noise" emanating from an existing land use - or once a new use is operational, as those are handled exclusively by Town Code. The proposed standards will be used during the initial project review to determine necessary mitigation measures. Once approved and constructed, any noise complaints will be handled by the Town of Oro Valley Police Department based on the criteria in Town Code. The sole exception to this is if the new use received a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and is exceeding the approved noise thresholds. In this scenario, possible reconsideration of the CUP may be required.  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed Zoning Code amendment (Attachment 1) related to noise abatement standards, as a component of development review, and separation requirements for convenience uses. This item is on the Planning Division Workplan and Town's Strategic Plan. The zoning code amendment was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 2, 2020, and was continued to the July meeting. The staff report and draft meeting minutes for the June meeting can be viewed in Attachments 2 and 3, respectively. This report provides additional information to address the questions raised by the Commission during the hearing. Those questions related to the following topics:  A comparison of the proposed noise standards to surrounding jurisdictions;1. National standards for noise abatement; and2. Enforcement procedures for noise complaints3. Surround jurisdiction comparison To address the first topic, staff updated the surrounding jurisdiction analysis table (Attachment 4) to include the "one-hour average limits" rather than the "maximum sound limits" which is more reflective of the standards applied in other southern Arizona communities. Please note, some jurisdictions did not indicate how they calculate noise levels, so the average limits proposed are again a more reasonable comparison. The proposed standards are slightly higher in some instances and lower in others as a result of being "right sized" that are more representative of National Standards.  Again, the aim is to strike a balance between development and any impacts on neighboring properties.    National Standards The National Standards used throughout the United States are known as the American National Standar ds Institute (ANSI). These standards provide methodologies for quantifying the long term community impact of a wide variety of sound classifications. The standards establish appropriate adjustments (based on external factors) and measurement methodologies for a variety of sound classifications. References to these standards are detailed more extensively in the associated technical bulletin provided by the Acoustic Engineer consultant (table of contents provided for reference in Attachment 5). These standards directly informed the "one hour average limits" and appropriate adjustments for nighttime and evening hours as well as those for special characteristics, such as background noise and road noise. The table at right (from ANSI Section 12.9 Part 5), generated from the methodologies included in the National Standards, establish a range of land use compatibility for a variety of uses, relative to noise levels. This table, representing the "one-hour average noise levels" includes 4 levels of compatibility based on the respective land use type. The thresholds in Table 25-1.A of the proposed amendment are consistent with the National Standards. Enforcement As discussed in the June staff report, the proposed code amendment is intended to only apply during the development review process for new land uses. It is not intended to deal with noise violations or nuisances arising from "unreasonable noise" emanating from an existing land use - or once a new use is operational, as those are handled exclusively by Town Code. The proposed standards will be used solely during the initial project review to determine necessary mitigation measures. Once approved and constructed, any noise complaints will be handled by the Town of Oro Valley Police Department based on the criteria in Town Code. While Town Code is purposefully subjective, it does establish several factors to be considered when a noise complaint is received. Those include:    Section 10.1.4.D.  D. Factors that may be considered in determining the reasonableness of the noise are, but not limited to: 1. The level, character, frequency and duration of the noise; 2. The necessity of the noise; 3. The proximity of the source to inhabited structures; 4. Hardship to the perpetrator if noise discontinued or limited; 5. Character and zoning of neighborhood; 6. Time of noise.   Again, enforcement of noise complaints will solely be conducted by the Oro Valley Police Department. The only exception would be when the new use received a Conditional Use Permit, which considers noise impacts (levels), and is exceeding the approved noise thresholds. Should that scenario happen, possible reconsideration of the Permit may be required.  FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may wish to consider one of the following motions:  I MOVE to recommend approval of the proposed code amendment based on a finding it is in conformance with Vision, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies of the General Plan OR I MOVE to recommend denial of the proposed code amendment based on a finding that _____________. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 - PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT  ATTACHMENT 2 - JUNE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT  ATTACHMENT 3 - DRAFT JUNE PZC MEETING MINUTES  ATTACHMENT 4 - COMPARISON OF SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS  ATTACHMENT 5 - TECH. BULLETIN TABLE OF CONTENTS  ATTACHMENT 6 - LAND USE COMPATIBILITY  Return MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION June 2, 2020 MEETING HELD VIA ZOOM REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Gambill called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Celeste Gambill, Chair Jacob Herrington, Vice Chair Hal Bergsma, Commissioner Neal Herst, Commissioner Ellen Hong, Commissioner Skeet Posey, Commissioner Daniel Sturmon, Commissioner Staff Present: Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney Commissioner Hong arrived at 6:02 p.m. Chair Gambill provided instructions on how to participate in tonight's meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Melanie Barrett provided updates on past and upcoming Council meeting agenda items. REGULAR SESSION AGENDA 1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE MAY 5, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Neal Herst, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to approve the May 5, 2020 meeting minutes as written. A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&ge... 1 of 5 8/20/2020, 5:55 PM Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Vote: 7 - 0 Carried 2.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE REQUEST FOR A NEW MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING AT PUSCH RIDGE CHRISTIAN ACADEMY, 2000761 Senior Planner Hannah Oden provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Location - Proposed building location - Proposed multi-purpose building - View from Oracle Road - Compatibility with existing campus development - Summary and recommendation Applicant Mark Cueva with Carhuff and Cueva Architects, provided a presentation that included the following: - The reason/need for the building - Exterior perspectives of the building - Site plan showing location of the building - Sample of materials proposed - Detailed layout of the floor plan and uses - Building elevations - Site photos of the campus - View from Oracle Road Discussion ensued among the Commission and applicant. Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. There were no speaker requests. Chair Gambill closed the public hearing. Further discussion ensued among the Commission and applicant. Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to recommend approval of the Conceptual Architecture for the proposed multi-purpose building at Pusch Ridge Christian Academy, based on the findings that the request complies with the Design Principles and Design Standards of the Zoning Code. A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Vote: 7 - 0 Carried Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&ge... 2 of 5 8/20/2020, 5:55 PM 3.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL MODEL HOME ARCHITECTURE FOR THE MILLER RANCH SUBDIVISION, LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TANGERINE ROAD AND LA CAÑADA DRIVE, 2000236 Planning Intern Michela Wilson provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Location - Approved site plan - Design principles and standards - Elevations - Colors and materials - Compatibility - photos from surrounding area - Condition of Approval 1 - Condition of Approval 2 - Summary and recommendation Applicant Brent Davis, representing D.R. Horton, provided a presentation that included the following: - Rendering of entrance sign for the subdivision - Site layout - Six floor plans with three elevations and six color schemes - Architectural features - Colors and materials - All homes meet energy star certification and include smart home technology - Review of the model plans and elevations: Opal, Jade, Onyx, Savannah, Sabino and Ventana - Aerial view of area - Existing homes in the area - Photos of Lehman Academy and neighboring community Discussion ensued among the Commission and applicant. Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. There were no speaker requests. Chair Gambill closed the public hearing. Further discussion continued among the Commission and applicant. Motion by Commissioner Skeet Posey, seconded by Commissioner Neal Herst to approve the Conceptual Model Home Architecture for six (6) model homes in the Miller Ranch subdivision, subject to both conditions in Attachment #1, based on the findings that the request complies with the Design Principles and Design Standards of the Zoning Code. A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&ge... 3 of 5 8/20/2020, 5:55 PM Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Vote: 7 - 0 Carried 4.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO THE NOISE ABATEMENT STANDARDS ONLY FOR NEW AND SPECIFIC LAND USE TYPES AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE USES OF THE ZONING CODE Chair Gambill introduced the consultant, Dr. Lance Willis with Spendarian and Willis Acoustics and Noise Control, who was in attendance to answer any questions related to this agenda item. Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Part 1: Noise abatement - existing standard is broken - Part 1: Noise abatement - background - Part 1: Noise abatement - proposed amendment - Part 1: Noise abatement - scenario - Part 2 Convenience use separation - convenience uses - Part 2 Convenience use separation - proposal - Part 2 Convenience use separation - scenario - General Plan - Summary and recommendation Discussion ensued between the Commission, staff and the consultant. Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. - Keri Silvyn, a Zoning and Land Use lawyer who represents many developers in Oro Valley, spoke in support of Agenda Item #4 - OV resident Tim Bohen spoke on Agenda Item #4 Discussion ensued in response to the public hearing comments. Chair Gambill closed the public hearing. Further discussion continued among the Commission and staff. Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington to continue consideration of this matter until a future meeting to give staff time to provide more evidence related to how the proposed standards compare to other jurisdictions in the area, in Arizona, and the rest of the country. Staff asked for clarification on what information is being requested to provide. Commissioner Bergsma stated what information he is requesting. A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Nay Vice Chair Herrington - Nay Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Nay Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Nay Vote: 3 - 4 Failed Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&ge... 4 of 5 8/20/2020, 5:55 PM OPPOSED:Chair Celeste Gambill Vice Chair Jacob Herrington Commissioner Neal Herst Commissioner Daniel Sturmon Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to continue reconsideration of this matter to the next Commission meeting in July, allowing staff time to elaborate on their findings and evidence by showing how the proposed standards compare to other jurisdictions, both locally and nationally. Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff. A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Nay Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Vote: 6 - 1 Carried OPPOSED:Chair Celeste Gambill PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided updates on upcoming neighborhood meetings and tentative items on the next Commission agenda. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to adjourn the meeting. Chair Gambill adjourned the meeting at 8:34 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 2nd day of June 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 11th day of June 2020. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist GO TO PREVIOUS PAGE GO TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE AgendaQuick ©2005 - 2020 Destiny Software Inc. All Rights Reserved. Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&ge... 5 of 5 8/20/2020, 5:55 PM Return MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION July 7, 2020 MEETING HELD VIA ZOOM REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Gambill called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Celeste Gambill, Chair Jacob Herrington, Vice Chair Hal Bergsma, Commissioner Neal Herst, Commissioner Ellen Hong, Commissioner Skeet Posey, Commissioner Daniel Sturmon, Commissioner Staff Present: Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Attendees: Melanie Barrett, Town Council Liaison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Gambill recited the Pledge of Allegiance for the Commission and audience. CALL TO AUDIENCE Oro Valley resident Gary Bagnoche stated he had planned to speak regarding his objections to the proposed Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit request at Oracle Road and Suffolk Drive, but decided to wait until the case is before the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Melanie Barrett provided updates on past and upcoming Town Council meetings. She also advised the Town Council will be on summer break for the month of August. REGULAR SESSION AGENDA 1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 2, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Neal Herst, seconded by Commissioner Hal Bergsma to approve the June 2, 2020 meeting minutes as written. A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&ge... 1 of 4 8/20/2020, 5:56 PM Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Vote: 7 - 0 Carried 2.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO INITIATE A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW Principal Planner Milini Simms provided background on the request to initiate a code amendment to allow staff to review and update the criteria for variances. A recent case highlighted the need to review and update the five findings and ensure compliance with state law. Discussion ensued between the Commission and staff. Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington to initiate the zoning code amendment to update the required findings for a variance to be in compliance with State law. A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Vote: 7 - 0 Carried 3.CONTINUED ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO THE NOISE ABATEMENT STANDARDS ONLY FOR NEW AND SPECIFIC LAND USE TYPES AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE USES OF THE ZONING CODE Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Part 1: Noise abatement - existing standard unreasonable - Part 1: Noise abatement - background - Part 1: Noise abatement - proposed amendment - National standards - Part 1: Noise abatement - scenario - Part 2: Convenience use separation - convenience uses - Part 2: Convenience use separation - proposal - Part 2: Convenience use separation - scenario - Summary and recommendation Mr. Spaeth stated the consultant, Dr. Lance Willis was present and available to answer any questions. Discussion ensued between the Commission, staff and Dr. Willis. Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. There were no speaker requests. Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&ge... 2 of 4 8/20/2020, 5:56 PM Chair Gambill closed the public hearing. Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to recommend approval of the proposed code amendment based on a finding it is in conformance with Vision, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies of the General Plan. Discussion ensured among the Commission. An update to the motion was requested with a specific change related to school and park standards. Legal Services Director Tobin Sidles advised the Commission that a separate motion needed to be made for the requested change, including a seconder, and that it must be voted on before the original motion is voted on. Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Ellen Hong to recommend an amendment to the original motion and update Table 25-1.A in the proposed code amendment to reflect single-family residential, schools and parks all require the same standard. A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Nay Vice Chair Herrington - Nay Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Nay Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Nay Vote: 3 - 4 Failed OPPOSED:Chair Celeste Gambill Vice Chair Jacob Herrington Commissioner Neal Herst Commissioner Daniel Sturmon Mr. Sidles advised the original motion can now be voted on. Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to recommend approval of the proposed code amendment based on a finding it is in conformance with Vision, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies of the General Plan. A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Nay Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Nay Commissioner Posey - Nay Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Vote: 4 - 3 Carried OPPOSED:Commissioner Hal Bergsma Commissioner Ellen Hong Commissioner Skeet Posey PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided an update on the next Commission meeting scheduled for August 11, 2020. ADJOURNMENT Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&ge... 3 of 4 8/20/2020, 5:56 PM Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to adjourn the meeting. Chair Gambill adjourned the meeting at 7:16 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 7th day of July, 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 8th day of July, 2020. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist GO TO PREVIOUS PAGE GO TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE AgendaQuick ©2005 - 2020 Destiny Software Inc. All Rights Reserved. Agenda - View Meetings https://destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=67682&mt=ALL&ge... 4 of 4 8/20/2020, 5:56 PM Noise Abatement and Convenience Use Separation Code Amendment Town Council Study Session September 2, 2020 Purpose Zoning Code Amendment: Part I: Noise abatement Proactive vs. Reactive Existing Standard is unusable and “One size fits all” Proposed amendment uses best practices and both Federal and International standards Part II: Convenience use separation General Plan conformance Summary and discussion Part I: Noise abatement –Why are we here? Lambert Lane La Cañada Drive Part I: Noise Abatement –40 db limit is unusable Part I: Noise abatement -Objectives Existing issue Proposed fix Reactive following a noise complaint Proactive review of noise generating uses at the design review phase to determine necessary mitigation measures. Unusably low New standard has been right sized using international standards and extensive consulting services by a qualified noise expert. “One-size” fits all approach Accounts for context (type of use receiving the sound) and time of day Part I: Noise abatement -Applicability New “noise generating” development only Drive-thru restaurants Gas stations Auto repair facilities Car Washes Live entertainment Part I: Noise Abatement –Proactive vs. Reactive Design of New Development Zoning Code Proactive Noise Study Mitigation measures Increased setbacks and/or bufferyards Orientation of the building Acoustic insulation Noise Complaint Process Town Code Reactive Nuisance noise Existing or newly built development Reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit, if applicable Town Code 10-1-4 Noise A. No person shall negligently make, cause, or permit unreasonable noise. D. Factors that may be considered in determining the reasonableness of the noise are, but not limited to: 1. The level, character, frequency and duration of the noise; 2. The necessity of the noise; 3. The proximity of the source to inhabited structures; 4. Hardship to the perpetrator if noise discontinued or limited; 5. Character and zoning of neighborhood; 6. Time of noise Part I: Noise abatement –What is a reasonable standard? General Plan Noise Consultant Federal Guidelines American National Standards Institute (1983 – 2007) Acoustical Society of America (2012) International Standards International Organization for Standardization (2003) World Health Organization Research of other jurisdictions – Arizona and California Part I: Noise abatement –What is a reasonable standard? Part I: Noise abatement –Proposed amendment Part I: Noise abatement –Scenario Lambert Lane La Cañada DriveMulti-family 55 decibels Single-family 50 decibels Commercial 65 decibels Commercial 65 decibels Part II: Convenience use separation –Convenience uses What is a convenience use? Gas Stations Drive-thru restaurants Car washes Convenience Markets Existing separation requirements: Section 25.1.B.6: Convenience Uses a. “…250 feet from any property used/intended for residential b. “…500 feet from any school or park” Part II: Convenience use separation –Proposal Major barriers Arterial intersections Existing or future buildings Topography Diminish potential impacts Noise Visual Lighting Odors Part II: Convenience use separation -Scenario New application for drive-thru Typical Impacts: Noise Odor Visual impacts What are the true impacts? General Plan Goal D –“A community with a wide range of services, amenities, shopping and dining” Goal X – “Effective transitions between differing land uses…” Policy LU.6 – “Maintain the small- town, neighborly character and improve the design and safety of the built environment” Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2020 and July 7, 2020 Receiving Use Enforcement of noise violations Loudness of increases in decibel levels Recommend approval Summary and Recommendation Part I – Noise Abatement Proactive vs. Reactive Existing Standard is unusable and “One size fits all” Proposed amendment uses best practices and both Federal and International standards Strategic Plan/Planning Division Workplan Part II – Convenience Uses Flexibility while balancing needs of residents Your Voice, Our Future General Plan For discussion only