The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPackets - Council Packets (1408) Town Council Meeting Executive Session Regular & Study Session September 2, 2020 1 2 Town Council Meeting Announcements 3 Upcoming Meetings 4 Upcoming Meetings 5 Taking a short break. We’ll be back at 8 p.m. 6 Discuss feature on Town’s website Purpose Review Model Home Architecture Splendido retirement community Expanding their campus 3 new model home designs Built on only 7 lots 7 OVsafesteps Purpose Review Model Home Architecture Splendido retirement community Expanding their campus 3 new model home designs Built on only 7 lots 8 9 Proposed Code Amendments to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) Town Council September 2, 2020 10 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 2 Presented previously to Town Council. Focus tonight is to provide additional information and present changes made in response to Town Council’s recent concerns. 11 Our focus tonight… Oracle Rd. 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 3 Specifically, focusing on the following concerns and inquiries heard: The need and benefit of pre-grading. TC recently approved incentives to further attract employers. Allowing pre-grading is the second step to position the Town to compete for their business. Changes made to address Council’s concerns. Heard concerns about the amount of pre-grading that could happen, specifically with regard to the sites being developed in a timely manner and appearance of sites. Staff added new requirements to review both on a case by case basis To further illustrate what approval of pre-grading could look like, a visual analysis was conducted of all sites visible from homes and roadways 12 1. Need and benefit of pre-grading The Town’s lack of available “ready-to-build” sites 4 The Town’s current approach does not meet employers needs and has us overlooked by national/global site selectors. Due to the lack of available ready to build sites, the Town has experienced: Loss of 2-5 leads a month Historically a low absorption rate of Tech-Park land Owners requesting to convert tech park land to residential or develop non-employment uses such as senior care facilities Experience has shown, a change is needed to attract employers to Oro Valley. 13 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 5 The checklist on the screen was provided to the Town by a potential employer. Major requirements include…. Employment users need a minimum of 20 acres that can be developed efficiently. Specifically they are looking for shovel-ready sites that only require project specific approvals. This is so they occupy a custom-building within 12 months, which is a major requirement the Town’s current process cannot meet. Without this, the Town will continue to lose employer leads. 14 Sanofi Building 6 15 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 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* 7 Current process is shown on the screen. This includes information seen before but has now been extended to show the full development process from concept to occupancy. The main issue is requiring site design plan review before you can grade a site. Unless a tenant is known, site design is a guess and will likely be done twice. As such, the current process discourages pre-grading Process takes too much time for an employer to consider the Town. Same elements are required for the proposed process. The only difference is site plan approval is not required until after a site is per-graded. More appropriate time in process for employer. Meets time requirements and is efficient for a property owner to create ready to build sites. 16 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 8 Already discussed how the proposed code significantly limits the ability to remove plants before site plan approval from a Town-wide allowance to only applicable EEZ sites. Changes have been made to address TC concerns regarding the proliferation of pre-grading. Specifically, a criteria has been added to approve requests on a case-by-case basis. Applicants must show evidence of their ability to develop a site within 5 years. Revegetation is required after 10 years. Extensions may be approved in 2 year increments if a development is pending. Applicants must also provide a visual analysis for staff to evaluate the view impacts of each site. Conditions may be added to further minimize impacts such as larger buffer yards, more trees, etc. 17 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 9 As previously discussed, proposed code requires more landscaping and buffer yards than the current code for pre-graded sites. However, to address Council’s concerns about the appearance of these sites, a change has been made to require decomposed granite as the ground cover. Code requires ground cover to control dust and stabilize a graded site. Ground covers range from hydro-seeding to decomposed granite. DG, is the gravel one typically sees in front yards or parking islands and is the most visually aesthetic of the options. The example shown on the screen is Big Horn Commerce, which is a site recently graded near Oracle and Tangerine. 18 3. Visual Analysis – View 1 from subdivision homes Innovation Park Before After 10 View 1- from existing homes west of Innovation Park that are located roughly 12 football fields away 19 3. Visual Analysis – View 2 from Rancho Vistoso bridge Innovation Park Before After Innovation Park Rancho Vistoso Slope to remain undisturbed 11 View 2- From bridge on Rancho Vistoso towards sites within Innovation Park. 20 3. Visual Analysis – View 3 from Vistoso Commerce Loop Before After Gradeable area is behind 40’ of dense vegetation Vistoso Commerce Loop Rancho Vistoso Blvd. 3 12 View 3- From Vistoso Commerce Loop towards EEZ site. 21 3. Visual Analysis – Photos of nearby homes Gradeable area not visible from homes All single-story Blocked by existing walls 150’ buffer required Vistoso Commerce Loop 150’ no grade area Homes along the western side. Portion of the 150’ no grade area Homes abutting site. 13 As you are aware, there is one site abutting residential. As shown, the gradeable area will not be visible to surrounding homes. All homes are single-story and blocked by an existing wall. 22 3. Visual Analysis – View 4 from Tangerine Rd. Before After Tangerine Rd. 4 25’-50’ enhanced buffer yard 14 View 5 is from Tangerine Road looking northwest towards Innovation Park. Site is visible from road but views are minimized through the required landscape buffer yards. 23 3. Visual Analysis – View 5 from Tangerine Rd. bridge Before After Tangerine Rd. 5 6 football fields 15 View 6- From Tangerine Road looking northeast. Sites are over 6 football fields away. 24 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 16 25 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 17 Critical path forward needed for consideration by employers and meet the SLP goals. Combined with previously approved incentives, Town is positioned to compete for employers. Changes made in response to Town Councils recent concerns. Specifically to further regulate the amount of pre-grading and approve on a case-by-case basis and evaluate view impacts 26 27 Noise Abatement and Convenience Use Separation Code Amendment Town Council Study Session September 2, 2020 28 Thank you and good evening. 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 The purpose for this item is to discuss a proposed code amendment to the Town’s Zoning Code. The amendment has two related components: 1. The first is to update the Town’s Noise Abatement Standards. This amendment is included on both the Town’s Strategic Plan and the Planning Division Workplan, in fact, it has been on the Workplan for some time. 2. The second relates to separation requirements for convenience uses. Please note, we have several development applications awaiting both of these amendments. During my presentation: - As I go through both parts of the proposed amendment - I want to highlight the 3 primary objectives of the noise code component, which include: - Allow for addressing noise impacts Proactively vs. Reactively - Detail how the existing standard is unusable and one-size fits all and how the proposed amendment addresses both - discuss how the proposed amendment uses best practices and standards - I am going to discuss how the proposed amendments would work in real world scenarios - I will cover General Plan Conformance - And finally, will provide a summary for discussion. 29 Part I: Noise abatement – Why are we here? Lambert Lane La Cañada Drive To start - I’d like to explain why we are here. The town has received several noise complaints regarding outdoor live entertainment at Noble Hops (yellow star) near the southwest corner of Lambert Land and La Canada Drive. In the process of following up on those complaints, staff realized the existing standard (40 decibels) is entirely unusable. It is unusable because noise generating uses like noble hops are almost always located next to busy roadways. The baseline background noise in those areas is already higher than the existing 40 db threshold making the standard unenforceable. This realization prompted staff to conduct background research of other Arizona’s jurisdictions and their noise code standards. That effort made clear, that although some were more advanced than our standard, most of them were still deficient in certain ways. With that in mind, staff hired an Acoustic Engineer, Mr. Lance Willis, to help develop a more advanced and thorough standard that addresses the issues we are facing and can serve as a model for other jurisdictions in the future. 30 Part I: Noise Abatement – 40 db limit is unusable To demonstrate another way how unusable the existing standard is, is shown on-screen. Many of you will recognize that this is McDoanld’s drive-thru on the northeast corner of Oracle Road and Magee. In an effort to take a measurement of the noise generated by the speaker box, the background noise alone (if you can make out the number on the scale) was about 68dbs. Again well beyond the existing 40 db threshold. 31 Part I: Noise abatement - Objectives As was discussed in the staff report, there several very specific objectives of the first component of the proposed amendment to address existing issues First, the current standard is an inefficient way of evaluating noise during the design review phase of a project. It is reactive rather than proactive. This amendment will allow staff to addresses potential noise impacts to identify possible mitigation measures early in the process. Second, the existing code requirement for noise is to “…not exceed 40 dbs at the property line”! Again, this threshold is often less than the baseline background noise present on a site. A standard for commercial uses which is entirely impractical! Lastly, the standard is 40 db regardless of where the noise is being measured. A “one-size-fits-all” standard is overly simplistic. A noise standard for gas stations should not be the same for the standard applied to residential neighborhoods. The standards should take into account things like, hours of operation, the type of use and the location or context of the noise. All things the current standard omits. 32 Part I: Noise abatement - Applicability New “noise generating” development only Drive-thru restaurants Gas stations Auto repair facilities Car Washes Live entertainment The proposed amendment would only apply to new “noise generating uses”. They would not apply to any use/building already constructed and in use. Noise generating uses include, among others: Drive-thru restaurants Gas stations Auto repair facilities Car washes Live entertainment 33 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 Now that we’ve established what type of uses these standards would apply to I’d like to address the 1st objective, being proactive rather than reactive The current code is reactive in that the decibel standard is only considered when a complain is received. Because this standard is unusable as I mentioned earlier, the OVPD who responds uses the “nuisance noise standards” in Town code which are shown in the box on the screen. While this will still be the case for existing uses/buildings, the code amendment allows staff to be proactive and address the potential noise standards early in the design review phase of the process through a noise study. This would allow us to identify and incorporate mitigation measures early in the process which could include: Increased setbacks or bufferyards Changing the orientation of the building Acoustic insulation . 34 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 Now, with regard to the 2nd objective. Earlier we demonstrated just how unusable the existing standard is. So the next question is, what a reasonable standard? To determine this staff first evaluated the YV, OF General Plan for guidance regarding balancing economic development with the needs of the community. Secondly, as mentioned previously, we hired a noise consultant (the first community to do so) to help develop a more thorough and advanced noise standard. As such Mr. Lance Willis helped develop a standard that is based on best practices and guidelines, both Federal and International. Lastly, we evaluated other jurisdictions throughout Arizona and California. 35 Part I: Noise abatement – What is a reasonable standard? Staff conducted a thorough analysis of other jurisdictions in southern Arizona to evaluate their noise standards. The proposed amendment that you will see on the next slide is much more in-line with these jurisdictions than the existing standard. As discussed previously, these standards are “right sized” based on national and international standards Lastly, staff and Mr. Willis conducted several site visits to evaluate the proposed standards. We visited both a drive-thru restaurant and a venue with live music. The new standards are much more reasonable, while still protecting adjoining property owners. 36 Part I: Noise abatement – Proposed amendment Now I’d like to discuss how the amendment address the 3rd objective The 1 and 2 columns now take into account context and time of day, no longer being a one-size fits all approach. The first column represents the land use of the receiving property while the The second column takes into account the time of day The last three columns are standards for different types of noises using different ways of measuring for each. This is a much more thorough way of addressing noise impacts. Again, these standards are for New development only. The table on screen will be used to evaluate new development applications only as part of a required Noise Study. Lastly, there are exemptions from these standards like emergency vehicles or Town events, among others. Ultimately, these standard are much more realistic and reasonable. 37 Part I: Noise abatement – Scenario Lambert Lane La Cañada Drive Multi-family 55 decibels Single-family 50 decibels Commercial 65 decibels Single-family 50 decibels Commercial 65 decibels Now I’d like to quickly demonstrate how the proposed amendment would work. If NH was a new use, a Noise Study would be required. In that study, they would have to demonstrate that the anticipated noise would meet the noise standards shown in Table 25-1.A on the previous slide. As an example, I’ve pulled the maximum allowed decibels (1 hour average) for the nearby land uses. The levels are the 7pm – 10pm limits. If the use would exceed these limits, or any others in the table, the design would have to implement mitigation measures to meet these requirements. 38 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” Now for Part II: Convenience Use Separation First what is a convenience use? “A use by which the method of operation produces a moderate or high level of traffic and impacts on surrounding uses.” These include, drive-thru restaurants, gas stations, car washes and convenience markets These uses, by code, have separation requirements from certain uses as shown on screen: First, they must be a minimum of 250 ft from residential properties And secondly, they must be a minimum of 500 feet from any school or park While these separation requirements are necessary, in some situations they may prove to be redundant. 39 Part II: Convenience use separation – Proposal Major barriers Arterial intersections Existing or future buildings Topography Diminish potential impacts Noise Visual Lighting Odors This is where the proposed code amendment comes in. In certain instances they may be redundant when major barriers exist between the two uses. Major barriers include things like: - wide arterial intersections - Existing of future buildings between the uses - hillsides or other topographical features - among others Typically, these major barriers inherently diminish potential impacts, including: - noise - visual impacts - lighting - odor The existence of these barriers can make the separation requirements redundant. The proposed amendment allows Town Council to consider these major barriers to determine if a reduction in the separation requirements could be appropriate. Any reduction will necessarily need to consider a balance between flexibility and protecting neighbors. 40 Part II: Convenience use separation - Scenario New application for drive-thru Typical Impacts: Noise Odor Visual impacts What are the true impacts? Now for a scenario for part 2: Lets say a drive-thru is proposed on the corner in a commercial area as shown on screen across the intersection from a school (approximately 225 feet away). Everyone knows the typical impacts generated by fast-food drive-thru uses right: - Noise from an outdoor speaker - Odor impacts - Visual impacts from vehicles stacking in the drive-thru So in this scenario, on the surface the separation requirements might seem appropriate However, as you can see on screen, the intersection (in this case Oracle Road) is a large, arterial roadway (in fact state highway) between the two properties. So what might the real impacts be? Likely, not much considering the impact of the arterial intersection. With this in mind, a reduction in separation requirements might be appropriate. 41 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” The proposed code amendments support a number of Your Voice, Our Future General Plan goals and policies, including those focused on expanding economic activity while balancing the needs of neighbors. 42 Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2020 and July 7, 2020 Receiving Use Enforcement of noise violations Loudness of increases in decibel levels Recommends approval 43 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 In summary, the first part of the proposed code amendment addresses several objectives that fix current issues with the existing standard. Those include: Establishing a proactive vs. reactive approach to dealing with noise generating uses Eliminates the unusable existing standard that is no longer one-size fits all.The amendment takes into account context and time of day making it a more reasonable and enforceable requirement. Further, it address an item on both the Town’s Strategic Plan and Planning Division workplan The second part provides some flexibility for convenience uses while maintaining a balance for neighboring property owners. The proposed amendments are in conformance with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan We’ve also reached out to the Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce who….. As a reminder, this item is for discussion only. Mr. Lance Wills is also here to answer questions as needed. 44 Thanks for watching! 45