Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1553) **AMENDED 8/03/99 4:30 p.m. AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 4, 1999 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM **1. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) to obtain legal advice relating to Economic Development Incentives in Relation to the Lodging Industry. 2. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) to obtain legal advice relating to Tortolita v. Town of Oro Valley Cause No. 328365/1-CA-CV 00-0022 and related matters. 3. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(1) personnel matters relating to finalization of job description/recruiting plan for Police Chief Position (FY 1999-2000) RESUME REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS —TOWN MANAGER 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 CALL TO AUDIENCE —According to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, the Town Council may only discuss matters listed on the Town Council Agenda. Matters brought up by the public under "Call to Audience" cannot be discussed by the Town Council as they have not been placed on the agenda. Any items must be addressed to the whole Council, not a specific member. In order to speak during "Call to Audience'; please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Consideration and/or possible action) A. Minutes, July 12, 16, 21,1999 8/04/99 Agenda, Council Regular Session 2 B. Police Report, June 1999 C. Building Safety Division Activity Report, June 1999 D. OV12-96-14 Approval of Substitute Assurance Agreement for Tangerine Heights E. Resolution No. (R)99-76 Authorizing the Town to contract with Curtis Lueck & Associates to study the Town's development impact fee ordinance and re-evaluate the fee structure F. Resolution No. (R)99-77 Approval of the application for additional funding for transit/transportation via House Bill 2565 G. Resolution No. (R)99-78 Approval of a cooperative purchase agreement with the City of Tucson for the possible purchase of replacement vehicle(s) for Coyote Run H. Approval of agreement with El Tour de Tucson for the 1999 El Tour de Tucson Bicycle Ride 2. ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE REPORTS - SENATOR ANN DAY, REPRESENTATIVES STEVE HUFFMAN AND DAN SCHOTTEL 3. OV12-99-2 WOODBURNE AVENUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PROPERTY LOCATED ON WOODBURNE AVENUE BETWEEN MOORE ROAD AND ARROWSMITH DRIVE) 4. OV12-99-2 WOODBURNE AVENUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LANDSCAPE PLAN (PROPERTY LOCATED ON WOODBURNE AVENUE BETWEEN MOORE ROAD AND ARROWSMITH DRIVE) 5. PUBLIC HEARING — OV12-99-07 GRADING EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR LA CANADA/LAMBERT COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE) 6. OV12-99-07 LA CANADA/LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE) 7. 0V12-99-7 LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN (PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE) 8. RESOLUTION NO. (R)99- 79 ADOPTING AN INCENTIVE POLICY FOR THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY RELATING TO THE LODGING INDUSTRY 9. PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-42 RELATING TO AMENDMENTS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 2-101 DEFINITIONS, AND CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE 14-1, NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED FROM 07-07-99) 8/04/99 Agenda, Council Regular Session 3 10. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-44 AMENDING CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11-3-N OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE REVISING THE SPEED LIMIT FOR TANGERINE ROAD FROM THE WEST ORO VALLEY TOWN LIMITS TO FIRST AVENUE 11. PUBLIC HEARING - OV12-94-32 SUNRIDGE II RECREATION AREA IN-LIEU FEE PROPOSAL (PROPERTY LOCATED ONE MILE WEST OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND % MILE NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD) 12. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-45 OV9-99-51 PARCEL #224-23-0120 AND PARCEL #224-24-0130, TRANSLATING RECENTLY ANNEXED LAND KNOWN AS THE HALLAQ PROPERTIES, FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1, TR AND CR-2 TO ORO VALLEY C-2, R-6 AND R1-10, WITH CONDITIONS (PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD 13. OV13-98-33 ORO VALLEY RETAIL CENTER SIGN PACKAGE AMENDMENT LOCATED ON PARCEL D OF THE ROONEY RANCH PAD, AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND NORTH FIRST AVENUE TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT ENGINEER'S REPORT FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT WATER UTILITY DIRECTOR'S REPORT COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS CALL TO AUDIENCE- According to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, the Town Council may only discuss matters listed on the Town Council Agenda. Matters brought up by the public under "Call to Audience" cannot be discussed by the Town Council, as they have not been placed on the agenda. Any items must be addressed to the whole Council, not a specific member. In order to speak during "Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. ADJOURNMENT POSTED: 07/28/99 REPOSTED: 8/03/99 4:30 P.M. 4:30 P.M. lh lh 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 8:30 a.m. - 5:00p.m. 8/04/99 Agenda, Council Regular Session 4 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 Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk, at 297-2591. INSTRUCTIONS TO SPEAKERS Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted public hearing. However, those items not listed as a public hearing are for consideration and action by the Town Council during the course of their business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. If you wish to address the Town Council on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete a speaker card located on the Agenda table at the back of the room and give it to the Town Clerk. Please indicate on the speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on, or if you wish to speak during "Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. Please step forward to the podium when the Mayor announces the item(s) on the agenda which you are interested in addressing. 1. Please state your name and address for the record. 2. Speak only on the issue currently being discussed by Council. Please organize your speech, you will only be allowed to address the Council once regarding the topic being discussed. 3. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. 4. During "Call to Audience" you may address the Council on any issue you wish. 5. Any member of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present. Thank you for your cooperation. AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 4, 1999 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM 1. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) to obtain legal advice relating to Incentive Policy. 2. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) to obtain legal advice relating to Tortolita v. Town of Oro Valley Cause No. 328365/1-CA-CV 00-0022 and related matters. 3. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(1) personnel matters relating to finalization of job description/recruiting plan for Police Chief Position (FY 1999-2000) RESUME REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS — TOWN MANAGER 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 CALL TO AUDIENCE —According to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, the Town Council may only discuss matters listed on the Town Council Agenda. Matters brought up by the public under "Call to Audience" cannot be discussed by the Town Council as they have not been placed on the agenda. Any items must be addressed to the whole Council, not a specific member. In order to speak during "Call to Audience'; please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Consideration and/or possible action) A. Minutes, July 12, 16, 21,1999 B. Police Report, June 1999 C. Building Safety Division Activity Report, June 1999 8/04/99 Agenda, Council Regular Session 2 D. OV12-96-14 Approval of Substitute Assurance Agreement for Tangerine Heights E. Resolution No. (R)99-76 Authorizing the Town to contract with Curtis Lueck & Associates to study the Town's development impact fee ordinance and re-evaluate the fee structure F. Resolution No. (R)99-77 Approval of the application for additional funding for transit/transportation via House Bill 2565 G. Resolution No. (R)99-78 Approval of a cooperative purchase agreement with the City of Tucson for the possible purchase of replacement vehicle(s) for Coyote Run H. Approval of agreement with El Tour de Tucson for the 1999 El Tour de Tucson Bicycle Ride 2. ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE REPORTS - SENATOR ANN DAY, REPRESENTATIVES STEVE HUFFMAN AND DAN SCHOTTEL 3. OV12-99-2 WOODBURNE AVENUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PROPERTY LOCATED ON WOODBURNE AVENUE BETWEEN MOORE ROAD AND ARROWSMITH DRIVE) 4. OV12-99-2 WOODBURNE AVENUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LANDSCAPE PLAN (PROPERTY LOCATED ON WOODBURNE AVENUE BETWEEN MOORE ROAD AND ARROWSMITH DRIVE) 5. PUBLIC HEARING — OV12-99-07 GRADING EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR LA CANADA/LAMBERT COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE) 6. OV12-99-07 LA CANADA/LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE) 7. 0V12-99-7 LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN (PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE) 8. RESOLUTION NO. (R)99- 79 ADOPTING AN INCENTIVE POLICY FOR THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY RELATING TO THE LODGING INDUSTRY 9. PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-42 RELATING TO AMENDMENTS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 2-101 DEFINITIONS, AND CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE 14-1, NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED FROM 07-07-99) 8/04/99 Agenda, Council Regular Session 3 10. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-44 AMENDING CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11-3-N OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE REVISING THE SPEED LIMIT FOR TANGERINE ROAD FROM THE WEST ORO VALLEY TOWN LIMITS TO FIRST AVENUE 11. PUBLIC HEARING - OV12-94-32 SUNRIDGE II RECREATION AREA IN-LIEU FEE PROPOSAL (PROPERTY LOCATED ONE MILE WEST OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND 1/2 MILE NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD) 12. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-45 OV9-99-51 PARCEL #224-23-0120 AND PARCEL #224-24-0130, TRANSLATING RECENTLY ANNEXED LAND KNOWN AS THE HALLAQ PROPERTIES, FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1, TR AND CR-2 TO ORO VALLEY C-2, R-6 AND R1-10, WITH CONDITIONS (PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD 13. OV13-98-33 ORO VALLEY RETAIL CENTER SIGN PACKAGE AMENDMENT LOCATED ON PARCEL D OF THE ROONEY RANCH PAD, AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND NORTH FIRST AVENUE TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT ENGINEER'S REPORT FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT WATER UTILITY DIRECTOR'S REPORT COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS CALL TO AUDIENCE- According to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, the Town Council may only discuss matters listed on the Town Council Agenda. Matters brought up by the public under "Call to Audience" cannot be discussed by the Town Council, as they have not been placed on the agenda. Any items must be addressed to the whole Council, not a specific member. In order to speak during "Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. ADJOURNMENT POSTED: 07/28/99 4:30 P.M. Ih 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 8:30 a.m. - 5:00p.m. 8/04/99 Agenda, Council Regular Session 4 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 Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk, at 297-2591. INSTRUCTIONS TO SPEAKERS Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted public hearing. However, those items not listed as a public hearing are for consideration and action by the Town Council during the course of their business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. If you wish to address the Town Council on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete a speaker card located on the Agenda table at the back of the room and give it to the Town Clerk. Please indicate on the speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on, or if you wish to speak during "Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. Please step forward to the podium when the Mayor announces the item(s) on the agenda which you are interested in addressing. 1. Please state your name and address for the record. 2. Speak only on the issue currently being discussed by Council. Please organize your speech, you will only be allowed to address the Council once regarding the topic being discussed. 3. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. 4. During "Call to Audience" you may address the Council on any issue you wish. 5. Any member of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present. Thank you for your cooperation. A MINUSES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL SESSION AND STUDY SESSION 404� July 12, 1999 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE SPECIAL SESSION - AT OR AFTER 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis, Mayor Paul Parisi, Council Member Fran LaSala, Council Member Wayne Bryant, Council Member EXCUSED: Dick Johnson, Vice Mayor EXECUTIVE SESSION - AT OR AFTER 6:00 P.M. A MOTION was made by Council Member LaSala and SECONDED by Council Member Parisi to go into Executive Session at 6:03 p.m. MOTION carried, 4 - 0. Mayor Loomis announced that Frank Cassidy, Outside Legal Counsel would be present in Executive Session for Item 1 and Economic Development Administrator Jeff Weir would be present for Item 2. The Executive Session was called for the following purpose: 1. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3) Legal Advice relating to Tortolita v. Town of Oro Valley Cause No. C-328365/1-CA-CV 99-0022 and related matters. 2. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) and ARS 38-431.03 (D) Legal Advice and Legal Action relating to negotiation of Economic Incentive matters to relocate a major employer. A MOTION was made by Council Member Bryant and SECONDED by Council Member LaSala to go out of Executive Session at 7:11 p.m. MOTION carried, 4—0. ADJOURNMENT OF SPECIAL SESSION A MOTION was made by Council Member Bryant and SECONDED by Council Member Parisi to adjourn the Special Session at 7:12 p.m. Motion carried, 3 —0. (Council Member LaSala was not present at the time the motion was made.) 7/12/99 Minutes, Special/Study Session 2 STUDY SESSION—AT OR AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE SPECIAL SESSION NOTED ABOVE (APPROXIMATELY 7:00 P.M.) CALL TO ORDER 7:25 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis, Mayor Paul Parisi, Council Member Fran LaSala, Council Member Wayne Bryant, Council Member EXCUSED: Dick Johnson, Vice Mayor 1. ANNUAL ANALYSIS OF ZONING CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN'S GENERAL PLAN Planning and Zoning Administrator Bryant Nodine reviewed the process for analyzing parcels within the Town and how they conform to the General Plan. He explained that the General Plan land use designations are used to determine future zoning of properties but conflicts may exist between existing zoning and the desired pattern of growth described in the Plan. He stated that the annual analysis is required by the Zoning Code. Mr. Nodine reviewed ways that the Town ensures that zoning is in conformance with the General Plan. Some of these are: 1) Rezoning requests must be in conformance with the Plan, 2) Subdivision plats, development and architectural plans are reviewed in relation to compliance, 3) Zoning Code revisions must be in conformance with applicable General Plan policies, and 4) the Annual Analysis. Mr. Nodine explained that the Analysis first looks at how parcels with existing zoning conform to the General Plan. Problem statements are developed and then conflict priority lists and action plans are created. (Non-conforming parcels are ranked by degree of threat based on environmental, land use compatibility and service system issues.) Mr. Nodine reviewed the properties that were classified as high priority. Parcels 7636 & 7861 (Northwest and Southwest corners of Naranja and La Canada Drive): Zoned Commercial Office, Residential (PAD) with Medium Density Residential designation in the General Plan. Issues are compatibility with nearby residential use, lighting, building height and police issues. Proposed action is to create performance standards for protecting existing residential properties and encourage neighborhood g compatible uses. Council Member Parisi stated that the rights of hard zoning have to be addressed but he suggested encouraging property owners to voluntarily change rather than putting artificial restrictions on properties. 7/12/99 Minutes, Special/Study Session 3 In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala, Mr. Nodine explained that allowed commercial uses on the property could be convenience stores, gas stations, offices, apartments, etc. Mike Carlier, representing the property owners, stated that the owners have a degree of respect for the overall integrity of the General Plan. He stated that they are concerned with maintaining vested rights but they are willing to discuss types of uses for the site with the Town's staff. In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis, Mr. Nodine explained that the lighting would be addressed with the Town's normal lighting ordinance. Mayor Loomis stated that he felt that the Town could work with the property owners to create development guidelines to bring the parcels into conformance with the surrounding community. PARCEL 8411 (Melcor PAD, north of Lambert Lane) Zoned C-2 Commercial, designated Medium Density Residential in the General Plan. Issues are that it is surrounded by residential, no buffer, possible traffic impacts to Lambert Lane and environmental impacts to groundwater. Proposed action is to change zoning to medium density residential. Charles Hulsey, stated that when the plan was developed for the Melcor property, the El Conquistador PAD had not been approved and the property at First Avenue and Lambert Lane had not been planned. He stated that there was no plan for a convenient neighborhood center at that time and they hoped to create the neighborhood center by creating the commercial piece. In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala, Mr. Hulsey stated that the need for that commercial piece was probably not needed any longer. In answer to questions from Council Member Bryant regarding zoning for properties north and west, Mr. Nodine explained that there is CR-2, CR-5 and some TR zoning. He explained that the density decreases as you move north. He also explained that they would look at good erosion control in the area. PARCEL 14480 (Monterra Hills PAD, north of Calmat site) Zoned CB 1, designated Medium Density Residential in the General Plan. Issues are design and residential compatibility, sewer service and environmental impacts and limited Tangerine Road access. Proposed action is to tie performance standards of commercial use to nearby residential and proposed Calmat park facility. Terry Klinger, representing the owners, stated that they are looking at potential uses for the property. He stated that the parcel is 16.3 acres of CB-1 and 15.7 acres of TR zoning. (Mr. Nodine stated that the CB-1 zoning is the area that has a high degree of non- conformance.) Mr. Klinger stated that they will continue to study the property's 7/12/99 Minutes, Special/Study Session 4 infrastructure and uses for the site. He also stated that they are open to working with the Town on studying uses for the property. PARCEL 14090 (Rancho Vistoso PAD) Zoned C-, Club House and Natural Open Space, designated Medium Density Residential and Park/Open Space. Issues are that the site is bordered by riparian habitat, environmental impacts, and sewer service adequacy. Proposed actions are to change the General Plan to reflect Park/Open Space portion of PAD, and to study and apply performance standards to evaluate viewshed impact and compatibility with the riparian habitat. Mr. Nodine and Charles Hulsey reviewed a map of the Rancho Vistoso PAD and pointed out the areas of concern. Dick Maes, Vistoso Partners, stated that their concerns are with the continuous changes on the property and issues raised regarding riparian habitat considerations. He stated that a lot of studies were done on the property and they plan on following through with the uses as zoned and planned for the area. He stated that they had no problem with building quality projects but intend to utilize the property as designated in the land use map. He also explained that the proposed golf course area is down in the bottom of the wash area and would not impact viewsheds. Mayor Loomis stated that the Town is very sensitive to developments' impact to viewsheds. Impact of development must be considered from all directions. Mr. Nodine stated that if the Council recommends carrying through with any of the proposed actions, staff would work over the next six months with the property owners to implement recommendations. CONSENSUS: Mayor Loomis stated that the first properties to work on were the Naranja/La Canada sites (Parcels 7636 & 7861.) The remaining properties could wait until the General Plan is revised next year. d In answer to a question from Council Member Bryant, Mr. Nodine stated that if there was ample notice time, the action plan could come before Council by mid-August. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Council Member Bryant MOVED to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4—0. Respectfully submitted, Roxana Garrity, Deputy Town Cle 7/12/99 Minutes, Special/Study Session 5 I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the SpeciaUStudy session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 12th day of July 1999. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this day of , 1999. Kathryn E. Cuvelier, CMC MINUTES 4015 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL SESSION JULY 16TH, 1999 4TAIsAp, ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE SPECIAL SESSION—AT OR AFTER 6:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER 6:35 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis, Mayor Paul Parisi, Council Member Fran LaSala, Council Member Wayne Bryant, Council Member EXCUSED: Dick Johnson, Vice Mayor 1. DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO AUTHORIZE THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY TO EXPEND AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,500,000.00 TO PURCHASE UP TO 200 ACRES OF LAND (INCLUDING A POSSIBLE SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FIRST AVENUE AND TANGERINE ROAD-APPROXIMATELY 150 ACRES) WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF ORO VALLEY JOINTLY WITH OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH AMPHITHEATER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 10 FOR PUBLIC USE. Town Manager Chuck Sweet explained that the proposed school site at Shannon and Naranja has been tied up in Federal District Court for several months due to the Endangered Species Act. Therefore, Amphitheater School District has been attempting to select a new site for the high school. Mr. Sweet stated that many citizens have expressed a desire to have the new high school located within the town limits. He reported that one of the most viable sites under consideration is located at the southeast corner of Tangerine Road and North First Avenue. Mr. Sweet explained that Finance Director David Andrews has analyzed the Town's ability to participate financially in the acquisition of land with the School District in the amount of up to $1.5 million. He further explained that if the Council is in agreement with the financial participation with the Amphitheater School District, the immediate benefit would be the location of the new high school within the town's limits. The long- term benefit would be one of community facilities and recreational amenities for the community's use. In the interest of time, Mayor Loomis allowed the following citizens to speak on the issue. Kathleen Dyhr, 3 051 W. Camino Alto, stated that it was important to have the school within the Town of Oro Valley. Ms. Dyhr said that it was important for the children to be 07/16/99 Minutes, Special Session 2 close to the school (eliminating extensive bus trips, etc.) and it would be a great benefit to the people and most importantly to the students. Paula Copeland, 930 W. GrayThorn Place, stated that she would like to see the third high school located in Oro Valley but she felt that it was fiscally irresponsible for two bodies of duly elected officials to spend over three million tax payer dollars on an alternate site when it was not necessary. She explained that the State's Students First Program would probably pay for most if not all of the entire Wilds Road site (located in Catalina.) She further stated that if the School District and the Town joined together to purchase the Tangerine/First Avenue site, it would probably be without the state funds. Ms. Copeland stated that the entire tax burden would fall on Amphi and Oro Valley residents. She asked that the Town Council withdraw their consideration for approving monies for the school site and let Amphi School District move forward on the Wilds Road site with state tax dollars that are now available. Holly Polston, 12540 N. Forest Lake Way, stated that she was in favor of the Oro Valley location for the new high school. She explained that she worries about where her children will be going to school and she is not in favor of bussing her children to a different community to attend school. Ms. Polston stated that she is in favor of her children attending a community school, where community pride would be evident. She stated that the school could be used for other functions and would be a benefit to the entire Town. She said that there were a lot of citizens in favor of having the new high school in the Town as evidenced by their attendance at tonight's meeting. Thomas Snyder, 11884 N. Meteor Place, stated that he attended the Amphitheater School Board meeting but was still confused about the impact that the high school might have on Palisades Road. He asked that consideration be made regarding not having the main entrance to the school parking lot off Palisades Road. He asked that the traffic issue be explored further even if 404 Permitting was necessary to help alleviate traffic off Palisades. Christy Radez, 12347 Mt. Bigelow, stated that she supports the proposed school site at First Avenue and Tangerine Road. She felt that the proposed site would benefit the children in the area and she would be interested in having the facilities available for other activities. Richard Feinberg, 1451 E. Triton Place, stated that he was trying to have an open mind about the proposed school site. He stated that he had some concerns as the school would be right behind his subdivision. He questioned how much"strength" the Town would have in convincing the Arizona Department of Transportation to allow the main entrance to the school to come off Tangerine Road. He said some of the negatives would be light and noise pollution, traffic congestion on Palisades Road, trespassing into common areas, and designing property that may not be homeowner friendly. He stated that some of the positives would be in not bussing children, a sense of pride in the community, and access to facilities. He stated that he is undecided about the school site but would like to do the right thing for the community. 07/16/99 Minutes, Special Session 3 In response to a question from Council Member LaSala, Town Manger Chuck Sweet reported that the agreement between Amphitheater School District and the Town (for the school site at Rancho Vistoso) was completed in approximately 6— 8 weeks. Council Member LaSala stated that it makes sense to locate the high school in Oro Valley because of the demographics and growth of the Town. He stated that he understands the financial aspects but he felt that the Town should move forward on the issue because "it fits." Council Member Bryant stated that this is a rare opportunity for government entities to work together for the children. He stated that Cathy Esposito from Amphi School District worked with the neighbors and the Town on the school site at Rancho Vistoso and he felt comfortable that the same would happen with the new site. He also stated that if the school was not located on the site, alternatives could be apartments and more commercial businesses. He said that open spaces and archaeological sites could be utilized by the children. He also explained that the integrity of the riverbed would be maintained. Council Member Parisi stated that co-operation between government entities benefits everyone and this would be a way for the Town and the School District to jointly develop property for the benefit of all. Mayor Loomis thanked Town staff for their work on putting together materials for the proposal. He said that this would be a great opportunity for the Town and School District to work together and everyone would gain from the joint effort. Mayor Loomis explained that Tangerine Road is already scheduled for improvements and those improvements will be completed by the time the school would open. He also explained that safety improvements are already being funded for First Avenue so traffic concerns can be addressed. Mayor Loomis also stated that he has talked with Vice Mayor Johnson and he has echoed his support for the location of the high school in Oro Valley. Council Member LaSala recognized Girl Scout Troop 682 who were present in the audience. He explained that they were working on their Citizen Involvement Badges. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to authorize up to $1.5 million for land acquisition at the southeast corner of Tangerine and North First Avenue in conjunction with the Amphitheater School District's effort to locate the new high school in Oro Valley. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: Council Member Bryant stated that he made a statement at the Amphitheater School Board meeting that too much politics is being played. He stated that this is an example of putting politics aside and doing what is the best for the children. Motion carried, 4 —0. 07/16/99 Minutes, Special Session 4 ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Council Member Bryant MOVED to adjourn at 7:12 p.m. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. Respectfully submitted, '"‘4\ -(- (--------Z___ <-QL,----c._- ----YQ)..._!w, Roxana Garrity, Deputy Town Cler 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 16th day of July 1999. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this day of , 1999. Kathryn E. Cuvelier, CMC MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL DRAFT REGULAR SESSION JULY 21, 1999 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis, Mayor Paul Parisi, Council Member Fran LaSala, Council Member Wayne Bryant, Council Member EXCUSED: Dick Johnson, Vice Mayor EXECUTIVE SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 P.M. MOTION: A MOTION was made by Council Member LaSala and SECONDED by Council Member Bryant to go into Executive Session at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Loomis announced that Brent Sinclair would be present in Executive Session and Bryant Nodine and Bayer Vella would be present for Item 1 only. 1. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3) Legal Advice regarding Endangered Species Act. 2. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3)Legal Advice relating to Tortolita vs. Town of Oro Valley Cause No. 328365/1-CA-CV 00-0022 and related matters. Motion carried, 4-0. MOTION: A MOTION was made by Council Member LaSala and SECONDED by Council Member Parisi to go out of Executive Session at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried, 4-0. REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis, Mayor Paul Parisi, Council Member Wayne Bryant, Council Member Fran LaSala, Council Member July 21, 1999 Minutes, Regular Town Council Meeting 2 EXCUSED: Dick Johnson, Vice Mayor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Loomis led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Town Manager Chuck Sweet reviewed the upcoming meetings. He announced that on July 26, 1999, there would be a joint meeting of the Town Council with Amphi School District Board of Directors at 7:00 p.m. at Cross Middle School, regarding the selection of the new high school site. Mr. Sweet introduced the new Community Development Director, Brent Sinclair. CALL TO AUDIENCE No speckers. 1. CONSENT AGENDA At the request of Council Member LaSala, Mayor Loomis removed Item B from the Consent Agenda. At the request of Council Member Bryant, Mayor Loomis removed Item C from the Consent Agenda. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda Items A and D. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. A. Minutes, 7/07/99 B. Resolution No. (R)99-76, Consideration and Approval of a Financial Participation Agreement with the Greater Tucson Economic Council (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) C. Resolution No. (R)99-77, Consideration and Approval of a Financial Participation Agreement with the Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) D. Resolution No. (R)99-78, Award of Contract for Project No. 98-99 12, Oracle/Linda Vista Roads Traffic Signal Installation, Median Adjustment, and Roadway Widening July 21, 1999 Minutes, Regular Town Council Meeting 3 B. RESOLUTION NO. (R)99-76, CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF A FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE GREATER TUCSON ECONOMIC COUNCIL Jeff Weir, Economic Development Administrator, reviewed the report. He stated that the Town has had a good rapport with Greater Tucson Economic Council (GTEC) over the years. He explained that for the first time the Town will be able to bring facilities and recruits as identified in the report for Oro Valley. He added that staff is looking forward to a very positive relationship with GTEC and that John Grabow was available for any questions. Council Member LaSala clarified that the amount of funding for the agreement is $20,000. He asked if Oro Valley has attracted any businesses that can be related directly to GTEC. Mr. Weir explained that the Town has had opportunities, but has had no office space available. He added that GTEC has taken the lead on legislative issues for the entire Tucson area and they have been extremely successful. He explained that the Town has had opportunities to participate and work with GTEC regarding legislative issues. He concluded that the Town needs office space and new ground made available for high tech manufacturing facilities. Council Member LaSala inquired in the Greater Tucson area, how many businesses can be directly linked to GTEC in the past year. John Grabow, 7255 East Snyder Road, representative of GTEC, stated over the past 12 months, GTEC has been directly involved with 12 new corporate citizens joining the community. He stated that this has created approximately 1000 jobs. He explained that over the past 6 years, GTEC has been directly involved with approximately 100 companies creating nearly 18,000 direct jobs. He explained that out of the 54,000 jobs created, 33% has been through the business attraction component of Economic Development. (Not including Raytheon) In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala, Mr. Grabow stated that there was definitely a plan for Oro Valley in GTEC. He stated since Mr. Weir has come aboard, they have developed a very good rapport in participating in the GTEC Economic Strategic Plan. He explained that the next level of importance will be to attract entrepreneurs, capital formation, technology transfer, infrastructure related issues, specifically telecommunication, high technology program service centers, which are parts of industry that will insulate the industry as a whole from recession. In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis, Mr. Grabow gave a brief summary of the GTEC current focuses and functions. • Tucson and Pima County are well known as "Optics Valley". Mr. Grabow explained that the University of Arizona Optical Sciences Center graduated more students in optics than any other university in the nation. July 21, 1999 Minutes, Regular Town Council Meeting 4 • Information technology industry in greater Tucson in 1998 had sales in excess of 3.4 billion dollars • Environmental technology will continue to grow because of Tucson's close proximity to Sonora, Mexico • Established a strong relationship with Allied Signal • Aerospace because of the regions ability to fly 24 hours a day and the Military gives an anchor in industrial recruitment in aerospace • Bio-industry will be rooted in the University of Arizona Health Science Center • Teleservices found Tucson, GTEC did not market this category • Electronics and electronic components is a growing industry • Plastics and metal fabrication are 2 areas that have grown foundations from other industries, particularly aerospace and general manufacturing companies Council Member Bryant asked how many years had the Town been involved in giving GTEC money and what has been gained from this expense. Mr. Weir explained that it was difficult to give a precise dollar amount, but that it does exist. He explained one benefit is that Allied Signal stayed because of GTEC and that this impacts Oro Valley because employees that work at Allied Signal also live in Oro Valley. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to approve Resolution No. (R)99-76 executing a Financial Participation Agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and the Greater Tucson Economic Council. Motion SECONDED by Council Member Parisi. Motion carried, 3-1, Council Member Bryant opposed. C. RESOLUTION NO. (R)99-77, CONSIDERATION APPROVAL OF A FINANCIAL VISITORS BUREAU Council Member Bryant stated that our taxpayer monies could be used in better areas because he felt this is a duplication of services since Jeff Weir is our Economic Development Administrator. Council Member Parisi explained that the MTCVB brings in money to Tucson and the surrounding areas. He stated that in reality we're all in this valley together and if the El Conquistador Resort supports this tax, this is evidence alone that it must be working. In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala, Mr. Weir stated that the 1% Bed Tax in Oro Valley is the lowest in Pima County. He added there are communities in the area that 3 times higher than Oro Valley. Council Member Bryant agreed but expressed concern with the MTCVB losing money. Mayor Loomis explained that working with GTEC and MTCVB is one opportunity to get the most bang for the buck. He stated that he is very much in favor of this item because July 21, 1999 Minutes, Regular Town Council Meeting 5 the town is able to take advantage of the effort made by MTCVB. Therefore, he feels this is a worthwhile effort. Mr. Walker stated that the MTCVB are partners with the Sheraton El Conquistador and last year sold over 35,000 room nights which accounted for well over six to seven million dollars being spent in Oro Valley. He added that the MTCVB has a staff of 34 people, including 10 sales people who travel around the world promoting Tucson, Pima County and Oro Valley. MOTION: Council Member Parisi MOVED to approve Resolution No. (R)99-77 executing a Financial Participation Agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and the Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau. Motion SECONDED by Council Member LaSala. Motion carried, 3-1, Council Member Bryant opposed. 2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR'S APRIL-JUNE 1999 QUARTERLY UPDATE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL Jeff Weir, Economic Development Administrator review the staff report. He distributed a report from the Chamber that was not included in the Council packet. Mr. Weir stated that Mr. John Bowers from the Chamber was present to answer any question. He added regarding the construction activity report, there is a significant increase in single family residential and an increase in quality commercial development. In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala, Mr. Weir stated that he had not heard of any businesses leaving the area but he has heard of expansion. He explained that with Mr. John Bowers (Executive Director of the Northwest Chambers) on board the staffs major effort will be to retain expansion. Council Member Parisi stated this is a partnership between the Chamber and the Town's Economic Development that is working wonderfully. Mayor Loomis moved Item 9 and Item 10 to follow Item 2. 9. RESOLUTION NO. (R)99-81-PROPOSED INTERGOVERNMENTAL WITH PIMA COUNTY FOR LIBRARY BOND PROCEEDS TO DEVELOP THE ORO VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY Chuck Sweet, Town Manager reviewed the staff report and noted the revision made to number 5 in the Intergovernmental Agreement. Mr. Henry Suozzi, 117333 Mandarin Lane, representing the Library Advisory Committee informed the Council that there would not be any meeting rooms in Phase I and hoped to expand into Phase II. He added that the Committee strongly recommends approval of the IGA and the request for proposal for architectural services. July 21, 1999 Minutes, Regular Town Council Meeting 6 MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to approve the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement with Pima County for the receipt of Library Bond proceeds, in the amount of$2,000,000, and to set forth the responsibility of both parties for the design and construction of the Oro Valley Public Library along with the substitute language that has been submitted. Amended Language for Seciton 5 of IGA with Pima Councty for Library: The parties mutually agree that the site for the library is in close proximity to an area designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as critical habitat for the Cactus Ferruginous pygmy-Owl. Because of this proximity, the parties agree that consultation with the Service on this project and its potential to adversely impacting critical habitat is imperative. The parties agree that County shall initiate this consultation, with the full participation of Town. The parties also agree to abide by decisions of the Service regarding factors such as the need, timing and number of pygmy- owl surgeys or whether design and construction of the project should proceed under the auspices of the County's Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. Motion carried, 4-0. 10. APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE ORO VALLEY LIBRARY Mr. Sweet explained that this Item was directly related to the IGA in Item 9. He added that this would authorize the Town Manager to schedule an appropriate advertising date if this was the Council's desire. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to approve the request for Proposal for Architectural and Engineering Services, contingent upon the Pima County Board of Supervisors' approval of the IGA for Bond proceeds at their August 3rd, 1999 meeting, and authorizing the Town Manager to schedule appropriate advertisement dates after Board of Supervisor approval of the IGA. Motion SECONDED by Council Member Bryant. AMENDED MOTION: Mayor Loomis amended the motion to delete the date as to state "Contingent upon Pima County Board of Supervisor approval of the IGA for Bond proceeds and Authorizing"the Town Manager to schedule appropriate advertisement dates after Board of Supervisor approval of the IGA. Motion carried, 4-0. Mayor Loomis called a recess at 8:10 p.m. Meeting back in session at 8:20 p.m. 3. OV12-97-18B CARL'S JR. PUBLIC ART PROPOSAL (CONTINUED FROM 07-07-99) July 21, 1999 Minutes, Regular Town Council Meeting 7 Bryant Nodine, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator reviewed the report. He explained this item was continued from July 7th due to some concern regarding engineering and safety. He explained that the engineering staff has reviewed the plans, and is not comfortable with what is being proposed. He explained that staff recommended that a registered engineer or architect check the foundation and certify the plan for potential loads that the structure might receive. MOTION: Council Member Parisi MOVED to approve OV 12- 97-18B Carl's Jr. at Oro Valley Retail Center Art, subject to the condition set forth in Exhibit"A". Motion SECONDED by Council Member LaSala. Exhibit"A" 1. An Engineer or Architect registered in the State of Arizona shall check the foundation and attachment designs for live, dead, and wind loads. A report must be submitted recommending the type and size of foundation and anchoring system for the artwork, and is to include all supporting calculations. Motion carried, 4-0. 4. OV12-99-06 CHURCH OF THE APOSTLES DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TANGERINROAD AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD (CONTINUED FROM 07 -07-99) Chuck Cowles, 1475 East Charoolean Place stated that the church would be an asset to Oro Valley and the community and urged the Council to approve the development plan. Mayor Loomis expressed concern not knowing when Phase II would occur and did not want to commit another Council therefore he was opposed to approving the potential future expansion. However, he is in favor of the Church of the Apostles development plan as is and requiring Phase II to be presented before Council when it occurs. Council Member Parisi stated what better neighbor could a person have than to have a church and a church school. He stated we should encourage people like this to come to Oro Valley. MOTION: Council Member Parisi MOVED to recommend approval of OV 12-99-06, Church of the Apostles Development Plan along with the conditions attached as Exhibit «A” Motion SECONDED by Council Member LaSala. DISCUSSION: Council Member LaSala stated that he did not understand the Mayor's concerns. July 21, 1999 Minutes, Regular Town Council Meeting 8 Mayor Loomis clarified that he was concerned about the items future accesses, future location of parking lots, etc. However, if Council approves this item as it stands today, the approval for Phase II will stand and the church can apply for a building permit 10 years from now without a re-submittal of a development plan. Mr. Nodine, stated in terms of a development plan, it is only about 30% of the site. He added that this is a long-term development plan because of the monies involved and that Phase II is only about 30% of the site that is being developed and that is why staff felt that it fits. He added that it really is a small impact on the site because of the setback and the total amount of development. In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala, Dan Dudley, Town Attorney explained that there is no legislative requirement that would require the Council not to approve this type of plan. He explained if Council chooses, they could impose limitation in terms of number of years on the plan, therefore Phase II could be limited to being developed within a specified time limit. Motion failed 2-2, Mayor Loomis and Council Member Bryant opposed. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to recommend approval of OV12-99-06, Church of the Apostles Development Plan along with condition"1" in attachment"A". Motion SECONDED by Council Member Parisi. Motion carried, 3-1, Council Member Bryant opposed. «A» 1. Improvements on Tangerine Road, Limewood Drive and Como Road shall be. submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuing a grading permit 5. OV12-99-06 CHURCH OF THE APOSTLES LANDSCAPE PLAN (PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TANGERINE ROAD AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD (CONTINUED FROM 07-07-99) MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to recommend approval of OV12-99-06, Church or the Apostles Landscape Plan along with the conditions attached to Exhibit "A". Motion SECONDED by Council Member Parisi. Motion carried, 4-0. «A» 1. Per Section 14-207, all graded areas not landscaped, stabilized or developed upon expiration of the grading permit shall be revegetated in conformance with the following standards within 30 days of expiration. The treatment of all graded areas shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. July 21, 1999 Minutes, Regular Town Council Meeting 9 6. PUBLIC HEARING-RESOLUTION NO. (R)99-79 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY,ARIZONA, INCREASING WATER RATES FOR THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala, Shirley Seng, Acting Water Utility Director stated that the monies received from the golf course as a result of this rate increase would be used for the alternative water resource. Council Member Bryant suggested making OV#1 and the wholesale customers at the same rate as the water customers in Rancho Vistoso and Canada Hills, which is $1.73. He expressed that it was unfair that some customers are paying more than others and everyone is paying more that the golf courses. He asked to make the cost uniform across the board and set a standard rate. Ron Kozoman, Certified Accountant and Consultant, clarified that the golf course is paying the same price of$1.73 per 1000 gallons. Council Member Parisi stated that the town also received the water rights for the golf course when the contract was signed. He explained that Oro Valley Country Club has their own well and there is nothing the town can do to stop them from pumping water. He explained that this was a first in Pima County to voluntarily give up their water rights and still pay over twice as much as what it would cost them to pump their own ground water. In answer to a question from Council Member Parisi, Ms. Seng stated that staff would inquire about the rate involving the wholesale customers that live in the La Cholla Air Park. Mr. Sweet explained that the La Cholla Air Park Wholesale Water Agreement was in place when the town purchased the Rancho Vistoso Water Company. He explained that the town negotiated agreement with them because the rate was $1.00 and negotiated to a $1.45. He explained that there is only one meter that feeds the entire distribution system for the entire air park and anything past this point the town does not maintain. He explained that he would be reluctant to assume an area where the maintenance and operation cost would far exceed our revenue. He added that the Air Park water system is not up to municipal standards. Council Member Parisi requested that staff look into seeing them pay for bring this up to standards if they want to be in the town's water company. Mr. Kozoman explained that the rate of return that is being provided for the water is 11% and that compares to the overall utilities rate of a return of.29%. He added that 53% is being returned from the golf course. In answer to a question from Council Member Bryant, Mr. Kozoman stated that the average residential 5/8 meter uses 149 million gallons; La Cholla 17 million gallons; July 21, 1999 Minutes, Regular Town Council Meeting 10 Rancho Vistoso Golf Course is 111 million gallons; the other golf courses are using 372 million gallons. In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis, Mr. Sweet stated that he did not have the contract amount, but the original wholesale agreement was entered into in 1996 when the water company was purchased. He added that he would review the contract to determine if a yearly review is required. Mr. Sweet explained that the reason the OV#1 rates are so different is because the system is much older than the Rancho Vistoso and Canada Hills system. Therefore, it is a higher cost for maintenance and operations and cautioned the Council about reducing the rate. In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis, Ms. Seng explained there would be approximately 341 million gallons a year for all users with the exception of the golf courses that would pay the conservation rate. In answer to a question from Council Member Bryant, Mr. Kozoman gave the following reasons for the rate increase. • C.A.P. cost—is now$300, 000 • Testing cost—is quite substantial • Power bill—runs $700,000 a year • Interest cost - $1,480,000 a year • Labor cost- $650,000 annually In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala, Mr. Kozoman stated consumption average usage for a 5/8 meter per capita is about 8,552 gallons per month Council Member LaSala expressed that the community needs to get serious about conserving water in Oro Valley. Council Member Parisi stated that this increase in the water rate was very modest. Council Member Bryant stated that he would like to see some type of reward mechanism for those people who conserve water. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. Robert Robino, 13 878 North Lobelia Way stated that the people are using more water than nature is replacing and that the one very important strategy is conservation. He added that the proposed rate structure does not encourage conservation but discourages it. He stated that he would like to have seen much more progressive rate structure by using the monies recovered from the "water hogs" used to reduce the fixed charge. There being no further comments, Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. July 21, 1999 Minutes, Regular Town Council Meeting 11 Mayor Loomis suggested if the Council wanted to significantly change the rates from what has been presented tonight, Council should continue this to a future meeting. MOTION: He recommended accepting the water rate as proposed with direction to the water commission to review the rate again and come forward next year with the following proposal. (1) Equalizing the rate (2) reviewing conservation and developing a reserve fund for conservation. Motion SECONDED by Council Member Parisi. DISCUSSION: Council Member Bryant suggested continuing this item until next month and set up a reserve fund for conservation. Council Member Parisi agreed and explained if Council moved forward with the Mayor's motion, the town would have immediate remedy. Motion carried, 3-1, Council Member Bryant opposed. 7. RESOLUTION NO (R)99-80, PROVIDING NOTICE OF INTENT TO INCREASE ERVICE FEES AND CHARGES FOR THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to approve Resolution (R)99-80, Providing Notice of Intent to Increase Service Fees and Charges for the Town of Oro Valley Water Utility and further moved that staff publish the Notice of Intention as required by ARS 9-511-01.A.2 so that a public hearing on the matter may be held on September 1, 1999. I further move that staff make Exhibit "A"—Oro Valley Water Utility 1999 Service Fees and Charges Report available to the public as required by ARS 9-511.01.A.1. Motion SECONDED by Council Member Bryant. Motion carried, 4-0. 8. APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS ORDINANCE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND TOWN COUNCIL LIAISON In answer to a question from Council Member Bryant, Mr. Nodine explained that sector 5,6 and 7 are outside the town boundaries and that is why they have been excluded. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to recommend the approval of the proposed Technical Advisory Committee and the Public Advisory Committee (striking the Homeowners Association because he did not believe it was a category that fits), who will guide the development of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance, and I move to appoint Council Member LaSala as the Town Council representative on the Committee. Motion SECONDED by Mayor Loomis. DISCUSSION: Council Member Parisi disagreed and stated that the Homeowner Association should be included and to pass this item with the original language. July 21, 1999 Minutes, Regular Town Council Meeting 12 Motion failed, 2-2, Council Member Parisi and Council Member Bryant opposed. MOTION: Council Member Parisi MOVED to approve the composition of the Technical Advisory Committee and Public Advisory Committee members, who will guide the development of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance, and I move to appoint Council Member LaSala as the Town Council representative on the PAC. Motion SECONDED by Council Member LaSala. DISCUSSION: Council Member Bryant requested that sectors 5,6 and 7 added to the motion. He stated that he would like to see all sectors that participate in the General Plan. Mayor Loomis suggested to pass this item now and to invite the representatives from those sectors to be added to the list at a later time. Motion carried, 4-0. TOWN MANAGER'S/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S No report. ENGINEER'S REPORT—Mr. Bill Jansen stated median open bid for Rancho Vistoso came in at about 40% over the estimate and will have a re-bid opening in about 40 days. FINANCE DIRECTORS'S REPORT—No report. POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT—Chief Wolff informed the Council that the Oro Valley Police Department had been selected as one of the 25 semi-finalist for the WEBER- SEAVEY Award for excellence in police work. WATER UTILITY DIRECTOR'S REPORT—No report. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council Member Parisi informed the Council of the following: • The F.O.P. informed him that they are pleased in regards to working with Town Manager Chuck Sweet and the Human Resources Director Jeff Grant and are pleased that the Council passed the budget. • He stated regarding the Fire Advisory Committee and Focus Group that he was please with the community input. He added that he was not personally pleased with the statistic and the help that was received from the consultant. He stated if the Council will continue to work with the Fire Advisory Committee and Focus Groups that the town will eventually have a very good Strategic Plan for fire emergency services. July 21, 1999 Minutes, Regular Town Council Meeting 13 Council Member Bryant informed the Council of the following: • Parks and Recreation is moving right along and working on some new and creative ideas and hopefully will get some additional funding. • Water Utility Commission is working on sub-committees and have been meeting 4 times a month. He added that the Committee is focused on short and long term goals for water usage. Council Member LaSala thanked staff and citizens who participated in taking a very pro- active step in committing to work with Amphi to put the school site Oro Valley, where the population is. He stated he is encouraged that the next meeting will be held on July 26th and he hopes some resolution will come on this issue. Mayor Loomis thanked Council and Staff for their support in getting the proposal together for the school site on such short notice. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE Phyllis McClure, 12332 North Mesquite Crest Way was wondering if anyone had spoken with the citizens and voters in the Rancho Vistoso community regarding the new proposed high school and asked what was the Council's consensus. Mayor Loomis explained that Council can not answer questions in the Call to The Audience and recommended that she speak with Council Member LaSala after the meeting. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A MOTION was made by Council Member LaSala to adjourn at 9:35 p.m. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. Respe lly submitted, .. 7 dir in:a Hersha, Administrative Secretary I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 21st day of July, 1999. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated the day of , 1999. Kathryn E. Cuvelier, CMC • i:‘ tt 0 7 11000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 ERNER S.WOLFF, Chief of Police Y Phone (520) 742-5474 FAX(520) 797-2616 4 A\ /46, AV/ A'-‘311 NDE0 ORO VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT "INTEGRITY, PRIDE, EXCELLENCE" MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Loomis and Town Council FROM: Chief Werner S. Wolff DATE: July 14, 1999 RE: Monthly Breakdown of Citations by Violation and Police Activity Summary Attached please find the updates for the month of June, 1999. WSW:nlr M t- M 4--' O - kr) O N r M t- t- N Q\ -1' 00 O WI t' v> -1- r-+ N Nr- .c)rt r-+ N E-4 O E-+ 0 W Q O Z 4 ,_____ _ , O 0-0 NU o *4 1.1111M.1 aO 4 P. w � w g4 � k i , ,w 00 A0 W fi 0 r--: 0-0 < C. —1 _,....,_ _ 0 0-0• w. M N O . M 00 N O �N N C N ,--„,MNO , [� O oc, , r-. (Ni ON Ai 4 ,....._. ,..1 , ›"` 01 0..4 N O 'I' M kr) tom- O M O (7\ C7N 4f) M M M H 00 \p r-, M - d' M 64 O ,-, N 0,4 5 -4- , O '--' kr) kr) kr) N O M O t'-- O O - O Q, r [� r--+ „--. - pQ -4 r-r M �, N 64 © gg _ _ , g = , N O rt t- N O O O 00 00 -4 N 00 r--+ et O cv 04 � al ‹p •-� •-. kr) O -4 v> O M v:) r- 01 ce) N O C-' to kr) to N 4 r4w ,_,O ___, ____ i M O — r- O ' N O `O ‹O -1' 00 M M N kr) Z 00 00 -+ -4 N -4 M D O H C. o •-•4W O ZW I E-4 U F5 L.) U Q O E. ..-4 E__, H O a O '4 •e3,-. Z O 0 , WW CoO w Z w1-4 H H Q Q 6) w H E-4 6 ;.4,2 tr.: ;.4 v, c.. u ,_,— L) c„.., ,—, Z , . O U HwL„z.., -t cil O C: Q = 0 a 00 00 U 44 a.. d. M N Cr e Vo CT ,-• C •--- .o r-, — C O ,--4 'n r-+ d' C C� M 00 kr) d- C 'C O N .O C t� 0 ---- N d' kr) - ' - d' N N 00 C H O H W Q 0 z H 0 I Eill 4 p. WT� W Vt g4 Emo Att c... C4 "Itt -. , , , , i Am 4.1 A CA W4 '—' - N N r' C N M k" 00 O O N M - \O N CT N M C C M C N C) Em4 eN1 Q\ N vD ‹) O en d' d' OC n 0•14 O O C C C\ en \C 00 en N00 N N 00 N kr ' en — In .--4 N. N C\ N en \C N C en e AO Co) O d- D \O ON d- d- N C d• tt , , , 4 , WIIIIO d• O N .O O 00 en N O — t--- v> kr) C N W a4 04 N N V, N CT N N N N 00 00 00 N V) VC 00 en d' — cr 114 CI) c,- il°tM� .14 i , , , , • 0 to d- en ON ' N en O d' d- en N d- •M-- - N CT en kr) en kr) O �O C0 40 C Q1 N �C V) 00 N '1 M C4 C .-. V1 r-- r--- r-. � V1 CT d' CT r--. N el" M N N r--- d- N 00 .-� N N O" VZ C N en C` acl 00 — d- en t� N d' N w O H <p V1 V1 N N ,i--. C N O en 00 d• C` P. +-+ � - 't .....4M N N t--- N kr) 00 -, d- 00 0C P4 ON - -- N V> N N kr) d' O ri- ti W cinW W H c C c�j 0 ON Nom',, +-� x C\ i-; O cn v O O U' C' t!1 _ ., T. 17, 'F:i ',f1 cet, 0 < 0 ig c.T-1 bQ c= = ti) cd c,4 N cA +r .– . ct r-. 0 . r.-+ s-, 0 0 ,g '15E 4 W EH EH—H Q - E-i ,...i 4, - U p4 Q., p C .-.. 00 N \O O N t� t- `O N N00 00 O N CT �O 00 O rt' CT CT • N ..... M CT `p CT C N C7^ • C• 4 c Nri 69 t- N C 00 .71- CT 0000 p W u 600 69 F 4 O 69 b+4 69 69 ^~ Q CLQ 69 • V) N 00 --� N ON t� N -.1- CT 2 = N CT -7t- CTVI CT Che, CT C) a VI d' ct O M N O C t— CT N 00 en Lt N t— 69 64 ,n \.O a) 00LT • \O O C CT t 00 ^� O N N _ ' M 69 69 CT •_.• 00 69 [''• c4 C 69 69 69 • VD t` 'd' N 00 O O C 00 O Q \O 00 .1- '7f' .71- N N t� U ._.• 1L t--- .r) -- LO ^ Q) a O a M CA kr) o 609 609 6C9 `r ‘7!. r- Z Q t-- ^. 00 69 69 00 Z O 69 69 69 `. W ✓= >" cn M O VD O 0h O C C \O \O > 2 W 00 .o -- — — _. < z E .- kr) t- C M C 0o .7r r- C U ' CT M N ---. `Zr M C r-• t- 00 C N �t N 00 CT t— CT V: C. V)C,, C O V 69 N --� CT 64 '.7t• CT -6,..1O, t� 69 -- CT 69 N 69 6rn N v ,.,• G, O = C 64 69 69 69 64 z �, L � z E•- z O > ,�/ ON CT N N en N O ... - C.. N � r L a) f. � — M ..-., O N `O t— CT en O CT .� U en --� t� M ,1' '0 kr) C N qzt' CT < = ti 1 .1 ‘7r O M V t� 1- .J '7r C� 69 69 69 69 69 69 -'-. 69 ,ho C4 r.n e C i Z ,71' a to 00 --� r- r- en 00 N N '�' CT 00 0000 en 1- N . 00 t-- C `O -tr O t` oN0 CT N N M ONO CT ON M69 0 00 Z 69 69 69 en 69 > N 69 699 64 61969 Ce U N \O .— ct en N en N 00 -'~ CI) 00 CT N O 1...1 N N a) a. O U 'a: 'U ^O r � 4) .� L .. < LG = 2 U a) 'O N a. x Z C. CO r:4 CO W U CA U ". l"' O O .� n; o Q c Z U > Q '� �, o '� �, L L o H �, a, r o a. 0 0 o wc� a. ^ ^ a HO U iGsO ; ...,_U v _ . a) ) � <7.0 (ce, ,.), -.. --a ,,Q E-- , ,... 'd � Z cv Q U E--. <iLiQ �crp c ? - Z .4 E-- TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 4, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: Shirley Gay, Assurance Clerk SUBJECT: SUBSTITUTE ASSURANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN C & C CONSTRUCTION CO. AND FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE AGENCY AS TRUSTEE OF OV12-96-14 TANGERINE HEIGHTS LOTS 1-80 SUMMARY: C & C Constructions Co. has purchased lots 1-50 of Tangerine Heights for development. Therefore, they request approval of a Substitute Assurance Agreement. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has no objections to this request. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Town Council may wish to consider the following motion: I move to approve OV 12-96-14 Tangerine Heights Lots 1-50 Substitute Assurance Agreement. ATTACHMENTS: Substitute Assurance Agreement Plane's d Zoning Administrator - /7,-,Y;a1,2„ Community Development Director Town Mani r F:\INDIVID\SAG\TCCREL.DOC • TOWN OF ORO VALLEY SUBSTITUTE ASSURANCE AGREEMENT FOR COMPLETION OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS • BY TSS AGREEMENT made and entered into the day of , 19 ., between C & C CONSTRU ION COMPANY, INC.* corporation, as Beneficiary under Trust No. 10,998 (referred to in this Agreement as "Subdivider"); T D L TY NAT DNAT,, T T TT E: ASF NCY= INC. , an Arizona corporation, as Trustee under Trust No. 10,998 (referred to in this Agreement as • zP "Trustee"); and the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, a municipal corporation, (referred to in this Agreement as "Town"), hereby confirm and agree as follows: • * an Arizona • 1.01 Trustee, pursuant to the land trust agreement described in Exhibit "B" is the owner of a certain parcel of land described in Exhibit "A", which is located in the Town of Oro Valley, Pima County, Arizona. amm 1.02 The parties to this Agreement wish to establish specific terms, conditions and guidelines for compliance with the provisions of ARS Section 9-463.01(C)(8) . and Chapter 4, Article 4-9 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. I AGREEMENT 1.03. In consideration of the Town approving a final plat for the property described in Exhibit "A", commonly referred to as Subdivision NameTANGFRTNF, HETC;HTS, Lots • through io, and Common Areas "Pin , Oro Valley Case No.1 — , the Trustee and Subdivider specifically agree to all those conditions and requirements set forth herein.. • 2.01. Property Description: The property which is the subject matter of the Agreement is all that property described in Exhibit "A", which is annexed to and made a part of this Agreement. 2.02. Assurances. Pursuant to the requirements of ARS Section 9-463.01(C)(8), this Agreement is submitted as an assurance for the completion of subdivision improvements . including streets, sewer, water, telephone, gas and electric utilities, drainage and flood control improvements and monuments and property corners as more fully described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and as required pursuant to applicable Federal, State, County and Town ordinances and regulations. These subdivision improvements are required by the Town of Oro Valley, the improvement standards of the Director of Water, Pima County Wastewater Management Department, the gas and electric utilities and State Statutes and regulations, which requirements are in effect on the date of execution of this Agreement. 2.03. Limitation on Trapsfer of Title. The Trustee shall not convey title to any of the property described in Exhibit "A" without obtaining prior written approval from the Town in the form of a Release of Assurance signed by the Town Engineer. The Trustee may act in full faith and reliance upon the Release of Assurance. A Release of Assurance shall only be provided the Trustee by the Town upon satisfactory completion and formal acceptance by the Town of the required improvements. The Trustee's only duty under this Agreement is not to convey without first obtaining a Release of Assurances. 2.04. Contracts for Sale. The limitation on the conveyance of title contained in paragraph 2.03 notwithstanding, the Trustee may enter into contracts for sale of the property described in Exhibit "A", provided such contracts clearly state that the conveyance of title to the property is subject to the limitations contained in this - Agreement. The Trustee shall. prior to entering into such contracts for sale, provide the Town with a copy of the form of contract containing the disclosure of limitation on the power to convey. 2.05. BuLk Sates. The limitation on the conveyance of title contained in paragraph 2.03 notwithstanding, the Trustee may sell and conVey all of the property described in Exhibit "A" in one transaction to a single purchaser, provided that the purchaser shall, prior to conveyance, have submitted to the Town satisfactory assurances for the completion of the required improvements. 2.06. Conveyance Out of Trust for the Purpose of Encumbrance. The limitation on the conveyance of title contained in paragraph 2.03 notwithstanding, the Trustee may convey all or part of the property described in Exhibit "A" to the Subdivider or Beneficiary of the Trust solely for the purpose of encumbering the property by the recording of mortgages or deeds of trust, provided the property is thereafter immediately reconveyed into the Trust. 2.07. Completion of Improvements. The required improvements shall be completed within two (2) years of the date that the Town Council approved the final plat. This period for completion of improvements may be extended subject to Town Council approval and applicable Town ordinances where Subdivider is prevented from completing the improvements by act of God, strike or similar event or circumstances beyond its control or when such extension is determined to be reasonable and prudent by the Town Council. Any such extension granted shallnot exceed one (1) year. 2 2.08. Substitution of Auurances. At any time during the period described above in paragraph 2.07 for the completion of improvements (or, if such time for completion of the required improvements has been extended by subsequent agreement of the parties, at any time on or before such extended date for the completion of improvements), Subdivider or Trustee may offer substitute assurances. Such assurances shall be in a form and amount acceptable to the Town and shall be subject to review and approval by the Oro Valley Town Council. 2.09. . •- ion and Acc- .Lance of ,•rovements. The Town may provide for the inspection of the required improvements to insure satisfactory completion. The Town will not accept dedication of the required improvements, nor release, in whole or in part, any property subject to the Agreement until the improvements have been satisfactorily completed and accepted by the Town Engineer. 2.10. Partial Release of Assurances. The Town may provide the Trustee with a Release of Assurance for a portion of the lots created by the subdivision plat attached as Exhibit ''A", provided that all of the improvements required in connection with such lots have been satisfactorily completed and accepted by the Town and provided further that such improvements can be used and maintained separately of the improvements required for the entire subdivision plat. For example, temporary cul-de-sacs should be provided for incomplete streets; water, sewer, gas, telephone and electric facilities should be capable of independent operation; and adequate access for public safety vehicles should be provided. 2.11. Failure t(LComplete Iovement . In the event that Subdivider fails to complete the required improvements within the period provided in paragraph 2.07 above, the parties agree that the Town may initiate a process to re-plat that portion or portions of the property described in Exhibit "A" for which the improvements have not been satisfactorily completed. The purpose of such plat initiated by the Town will be to return the property to approximately the same boundary configurations of record existing before recording of the subdivision plat described in Exhibit "A". Prior to initiating any action to re-plat the portion of property for which improvements have not been completed, the Town shall provide the Trustee and Subdivider with thirty (30) days written notice of the Town's intent to re-plat. The notification shall be sent by first class mail, shall be deemed received upon mailing and shall be sent to the following addresses: 6700 N. Oracle Rd. #234 7764 E. Broadway B222 Tucson, Az 85704 _._ Tucson, Az. 85710 • Trustee Subdivider 3 The Trustee and Subdivider, as record owner and subdivider, respectively, a ee gr that t they will execute such plat returning relevant portions of the propertyto approximately . the same boundary configuration of record existing before recording of the plat described in Exhibit "A". The parties hereto have executed this Agreement this day of 19 • TOWN OF ORO VALLEY a municipal corporation MAYOR COUNTERSIGNED: As Town Clerk and not personally APPROVED AS TO FORM this day of , 19_. Tobin C. Sidles, Town Attorney DEVELOP ' S D wiP '': C & CONSTRUCTION CO rill IN , PrIZO : ' poration 13.:, AS: /eat STATE OF ARIZONA) ) ss COUNTY OF PIMA ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this 13th day of July , 1929_, by _Charles D. Cardinal as President of C & C Construction Company, Inc. Or,„ ARY PUBLIC • -k66"-Qi°1 OFF/CML SEAL My conami. �ssion -_ . ►�: expires �,�. JUDITH A. RANDELS r:574% NOTARY PUBLIC--ARIZONA PIMA COUNTY,,, • By Comm. Expires �� « 4 TRUSTEE: FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE ACENCY, INC. , ARI ZONA CORPORATION, AS TRUSTEE UNDER T'+ ST 10,998 ONLY AND NOT IN ITS CORDO'&' CAPACITY BY: 4/4 X-7&- AS 1-X,-; L STATE OF ARI ZONA ) SS. COUNTY OF P IMA ) On this the h/-- day of -t.7�C'L _.__ , 19 919, before rre, the undersigned officer, personally appeared 7)174-,-7/,-/ ,1. ///r‘, , who _- acknowl edged him/herself to be the � �`, , -�' of FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE AGENCY, INC. , an Arizona corporation, and that she/he as such cff icer being authorized so to do, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained by signing the name of the corporation by him/herself as such officer. • IN WITNESS W?IPEOF, I hay re=n to set my hand and official seal. 4, �r OFFICIAL SEAL • MARIJO SANTORO A. .O _ My Cc rri ss i on Expi r--: 7r, NOTARY PUBLIC•ARIZ•KA , , PIMA COUNTY Notary Public ' My Comm. Expires May 23,2003 EXHIBIT "A" Lots 1 thru 50 and Common Areas "A" of TANGERINE HEIGHTS, a subdivision of Pima County, Arizona as recorded in Book 52 of Maps and Plats at page 28 • EXHIBT "B" WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO : FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE AGENCY 7750 E. BROADWAY, SUITE B222 TUCSON, AZ 85710 ATTN: TRUST DEPT. DECLARATION OF TRUST AND AFFIDAVIT AGENCY, INC. ,FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE an Arizona corporation, was under its Trust No. 10 , 998 employed to act in a trustee capacity various parcels of p eb declares that it has acquired title to and hereby property in the name of Trust No. 10, 998 . P Y The Beneficiary (Beneficiaries) of said Trust No. 10 , 998 is (are) : NAME ADDRESS COMPANY 6700 N. ORACLE RD. #234 C & C CONSTRUCTION INC . , AN ARIZONA CORPORATION TUCSON, ARIZONA 85710 Lots 1 thru 50 and Common Areas "A" of TANGERINE HEIGHTS, a subdividion of Pima County, Arizona as recorded in Book 52 at page 28. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE AGENCY, INC. , Dated this 14TH day of ' corporation, as Trustee JULY 1999 . an Arona under T ust 10 , 998 , and not in its corpor to capacity BY: 'Martha L. Hill, Trust Officer STATE OF ARIZONA) ) ss . COUNTY OF PIMA ) e me this 14TH day of JULY 1999 , Subscribed and sworn to before by Martha to be the Officer L. Hill, who acknowledged herself Trust O of Fidelity National Title Agency, Inc . , and that she as s being h authorized to do so, executed the foregoing officer, therein contained by lignin• - nan`��° f instrument for the purpose the corporation as Trustee by herself as such officer My 4 MARIJO SANTORO Notar P lis NOTARY PUBLIC-ARIZONA ♦ `,� PIMA COUNTY My CamExpir.s May 23,2003 EXHIBIT "C" Subdivision Name : TANGERINE HEIGHTS OV Case No. 1296-14 Trust No. • 10,998 The following irrrovernents and conditions are made a part of the attached Assurance Agreement: 1. Paving of Streets included in ApprnvPci T mprnvPmpnt- plan s 2. A public water system satisfactory to the ORO VALLEY UTILITY X xx 3. A sanitary sewer system satisfactory to Pima: County Wastewater Management. 4. A telephone distribution system satisfactory to US west ConRuni cations. 5. An electric distribution system satisfactory to Tucson Electric Power Ccupany.. 6. Fire r �- and other fire�� amt enances satisfactory to ,-e �crantJ the GOLDER RANCH Fire Department. 7. A natural gas distribution system satisfactory to Southwest Gas Corporation (if gas is being utilized in the subdivision) 8. Utility trenches and civil apsurtenarces satisfactory to the using utilities. 9. Perimeter landscaping in accordance with ap roved landscaping plans. 10. Installation of all street signs and street striping. 11. The Professional Engineer of Record shall certify, in writing that all improvements whether private or public, have been constructed, placed, installed, etc. in substantial conformance with the accepted plans for this development. Certifications, in writing, are to be received the Town Engineer of the Town of Oro Valley prior to any request for building permits and/or final inspection for release of . • assurances. • 12. The Soils Engineer of record or other Registered Professional Civil Engineer with expertise in the areas of soils engineering shall certify, in writing, that all materials utilized on this deve l opent are in conformance with the accepted plans for this development. Certifications, in writing, are to be received by the Town Engineer of the Town of Oro Valley prior to the request for final inspection and the release of assurances. 13. The Soils Engineer of Record or other Registered Professional Civil Engineer with expertise in the area of Soils Engineering shall certify, in writing, that all soils operations for this development were performed in accordance with the recommendations as set forth in the GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION and any amendments thereto, by WESTERN THECH. , Job No. 2926JM434 dated 9/27 , 1996 . Certification in writing, is tobe received by the Town Engineer of the Town of Oro Valley prior to the request for any building penni is and/or final inspection and the release of assurances. • • • • TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 4, 1999 To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: William A. Jansen, P.E. Town Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution (R) 99- 76 Authorizing the Town to contract with Curtis Lueck& Associates to study the Town's development impact fee ordinance and re-evaluate the fee structure. BACKGROUND: The Town adopted a$1,035 per EDU (equivalent dwelling unit) development impact fee for La Canada Drive in 1994, which was repealed and replaced by a $1,494 Town-Wide Roadway Development Fee in early 1997. This contract will be for re-evaluation of the fee structure and to consider the feasibility of adding an indexing clause in the ordinance. This study will also investigate the feasibility of establishing a drainage infrastructure fee. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution(R) 99- 76 Consultant's Proposal dated June 15, 1999 FISCAL IMPACT: The contract cost is estimated to be $26,650.00. Funds are available in the Town Wide Roadway Development Impact Fees Fund and the Town's Highway Fund. RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF: The staff of the Department of Public Works recommends the approval of the contract. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Town Council may wish to consider the following motion: I move to approve Resolution (R) 99- 76 authorizing the Town to contract with Curtis Lueck & Associates to study the Town's development impact fee ordinance and re- evaluate the fee structure. OR I move to not approve Resolution(R) 99- 76 . 'o - Engineer/N Town Manager RESOLUTION (R) 99- 76 RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY,PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE TOWN TO CONTRACT WITH CURTIS LUECK & ASSOCIATES TO STUDY THE TOWN'S DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AND RE- EVALUATE THE FEE STRUCTURE. WHEREAS, ORO VALLEY is a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, is vested with all the rights, privileges and benefits, and entitled to the immunities and exemptions granted municipalities and political subdivisions under the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona and the United States; and WHEREAS,the Town of Oro Valley desires to re-evaluate the existing Town-Wide Roadway Development Fee; and WHEREAS, the TOWN COUNCIL deems it necessary in the interest of providing for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY to authorize the Town Manager to contract with Curtis Lueck& Associates to re-evaluate the existing Town-Wide Roadway Development Fee. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE MAYOR AND THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA: 1.That the Town Manager is authorized to contract with Curtis Lueck & Associates to study the Town's development impact fee ordinance and re-evaluate the fee structure as stated in the consultant's proposal dated June 15, 1999. PASSED this 4th day of August , 1999, by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona. Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk ,tea_ _..;._=,` .i.Y, y,...�,��p_.j::: ,,�,j",s'{ .SQL� _ _....�__-! -:::�T"��JCS` ��`h�� _- :.,,.,.x ,:,t..,,„_,.,.r-_,',, _... .--. .t.- .. .� 15 June , 1999 M:;s - i-ec-, -:a s ci Re: Oro Valley Development Impact Fee �/1.�i ti��/ .r i+► ��.�1 +�� rL��1�1 K�v..J - ; vo:aicn Planning Ordinance Update -- Professional Services Proposal (CLA 99121) Mr. Bill Jansen i� ,- Town of Oro Valleyy 680 West Calle Concordia �' �`' ��''�� No ' Oro Valley, AZ 85737 \', ,i-' oRO j / r� � -ar .'i '''''-'3.iiille,r ic,.> d Dear Mr. Jansen: '1 r/ This proposal addresses the need to update the development impact fee ordinance of the Town. It consists of two parts, one dealing with the existing roadway fee, and the other dealing with a proposed drainage infrastructure fee. The work will be provided to the Town by CLA (Curtis Lueck, principal), Gust Rosenfeld (Frank Cassidy, Esq.), and Mr. John Wallace of JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc. PART 1: ROADWAY FEE REVISION Project Overview: The Town adopted a $1,035 per EDU (equivalent dwelling unit) development impact fee for La Canada Drive in 1994, which was repealed and replaced by a $1,494 Town-Wide Roadway Development Fee in early 1997. The Town is now considering re-evaluating the fee, and possibly increasing it if warranted. There is also a need to consider the feasibility of an indexing clause, which is not contained in the current ordinance. The steps involved in revising the ordinance and re-evaluating the fee are described below. The time line is similar to the statutory requirements for County ordinance preparation, which is more restrictive (slower) than City statutes. Exhibit 1 - Project Schedule Step Activity Time line Step 1 Consultant/Staff Charette July-99 Step 2 Technical Analysis August-99 Step 3 Coordination with Special Interest Groups September-99 Step 4 Public Hearing January-00 Step 5 Ordinance Changes Become Effective March-00 Project Scope: These steps are sequential, in that little overlap between the activities is recommended. Step I involves a two to four hour charette (or El Camino West Camino d1 Ce:ro Thi o Arizona 85745 520-743-8743 FAX 520-743-4%10 2n710 Mr. Bill Jansen June 15, 1999 Page 2 working session) with staff and interested elected officials to discuss and resolve the procedures and goals of the revisions. Draft language for an inflation- indexing clause can be resolved, and the technical approach discussed. The schedule for all tasks and public meetings and hearings can be established at the charette. We should also discuss the status and effectiveness of the current ordinance and the revenues it has generated to date. The consulting team will prepare background materials and an agenda for the charette. Step 2 is the technical analysis that will require considerably more effort by all parties. We will need to review the construction costs, reestablish the unit costs, and redefine the impact fee. This effort will be documented in a brief technical report, which will serve as a backup and as a discussion paper in step 3, below. Step 3 involves coordination with special interest groups, such as SAHBA, business groups, and neighborhood groups. Although a relatively minor step in terms of time and costs, we consider it to be very important in easing the approval of the revised ordinance. Step 4 is the public meeting and public hearing process, which will require advance notice and presentations by the staff or consulting team. We will follow a process consistent with State law. Step 5 is the implementation phase, which will be carried out by Town staff following any new administrative requirements of the revised ordinance. Project Costs: Estimated costs are shown in Exhibit 2. The costs shown are merely estimates and represent services provided on a time-and-materials basis. A rate sheet is attached for your reference. The direct costs include an estimate for reproduction, local travel and communications. The table includes legal services, which would be provided by Mr. Frank Cassidy. EXHIBIT 2 -- PHASE 1 PROJECT COSTS Category Principal Planner Step Principal Planner Analyst Legal* Tech/Admin Rate $135 $73 $48 $165 $45 Fee Direct Costs Step Subtotal Step 1 6 6 4 $1,980 $50 $2,030 Step 2 16 16 8 4 8 $4,732 $50 $4,782 Step 3 6 6 2 $1,890 $50 $1,940 Step 4 8 2 6 8 4 $3,014 $250 $3,264 .: .: .. ...: ......... ..r:♦ vv'. .r„ X.... :yC1M`. MH?... f.•nq �..�'�„ Y:n; }•. !' J.r iA,vp w\ �:1 ..0 '~G�r . )n���,.r v:...:n+..w !•.nX,... ..n4.•:V+.,`.v.. .a .+Y.'" :n..r. 4 Z;��.a�h}`,. r 4 ;ac».a.: .: �p. .. t.... ....i........c. �.: � l :. .c..v, Ar o,n y4 kaY\: ?�`�; xhT.. .�� ,.. � .t.. .t.. � 'XE"?r'd� Y-.: s iqQ(fi: M \ lAL',rr} - �!`! ✓4s,.y�n.. :.iAr�,�. �� 'X � w .i"+� .......✓.. .. ,. `.... .tR �n Y v. :' S� . �+uld.: �'y�x�:L\�;`dC;nii74ioc:M:' `a%�ws.A•.�e' :L x.ar..,>��.yr�G�o t "y.. •K'.�.' :. :. ?.' l■■titi Ga� ;rat <E rx::.:a <y�.:<r.c�,p rw,r�,�c+f�(y 3.<: a: '^'SF .. ..� .. . ��X:���e�� .:'t'.�..: :���[:��'.�k�'��� .7'.',.C`Yw "`•'3 •!f..,r.-E•.x.:`e:• .. ��:�'i�`vc'.��v>'Kw»v.A� ..x 3':::�Y�'::�ti;!C�iS(:'.�,H:l:> ..:t .., � �if�ff .v>�.u»>`w'» ,x s'J'A£��� -.N/�'r,�": �i�e���� a,�..,.., ,...._>, •+w`p•,,.. <.:.. .. �...... ..»..ui .. ....�». xwn..a. ..".�>;•g`;?`:,!�y>r».� w. .._ ri� �� Totals 36 18 14 24 18 $11,616 $400 $12,016 *Legal services provided by Mr.Cassidy directly to Town or as a subconsultant to CLA. Mr. Bill Jansen June 15, 1999 Page 3 PART 2: DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE FEE FEASIBILITY STUDY Project Overview: The Town is interested in adding major drainage infrastructure as a new component of the Development impact Fee Ordinance. This requires a two phased process, where the first phase is a feasibility analysis and the second phase is ordinance preparation, if warranted. This proposal addresses the feasibility study only. The project team includes CLA, Gust Rosenfeld, and JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology. Mr. John Wallace, Vice President and Manager of the Tucson office, will participate in the project. He has worked with Mr. Cassidy and Dr. Lueck on numerous projects in the last 10 years. His resume is attached. Project Scope: The scope includes the following steps. Step 1: Determine the technical and engineering issues associated with the Town's drainage infrastructure. This involves a cursory analysis of the current and future problems, needed facilities, the costs of construction, and estimating the drainage impact fee. It also includes legal research on the validity of imposing a drainage impact fee and the use of drainage fees by other jurisdictions. Step 2: Prepare a draft technical memorandum on the feasibility of imposing a drainage impact fee, how it might be implemented, and technical studies needed to support the fee. This effort would be similar to the preliminary work conducted for the original roadway development fee. The draft report will be presented to Town staff and elected officials. Step 3: Finalize the feasibility report with a recommended on whether to proceed with ordinance adoption. If the recommendation is to proceed, we will outline the actions needed by the Town to comply with State law and provide a schedule and cost estimate for implementation. Project Costs: An estimate of project costs is shown below in Exhibit 3. The work will be performed on a time and materials basis. The work my be performed with CLA as a prime consultant and the remaining firms as subconsultants, or the Town can contract with each of the firms individually. Mr. Bill Jansen June 15, 1999 Page 4 Exhibit 3: Drainage Fee Feasibility Project Costs _ Category Principal Planner Step Principal Planner Analyst Legal* Tech/Admin Hydrology�`�` Rate $135 $73 $48 _ $165 $45 $90 Fee Direct Costs S Subtotal Step 1 8 _ 8 4 40 $6,180 $500 $6,680, _ � Step 2 8 12 8 16 $4,860 $150 $5,010 y Step 3 4 8 4 8 , $2,760 $150 $2,910 Totals 20 0 0 28 16 $13,800 $800 $14,600 Legal services provided by Mr.Cassidy directly to Town or as a subconsultant to CLA. **Hydrology services provided by Mr.Wallace directly to Town or as a subconsultant to CLA. Siir ereiy, V 1 _, 7. , - - H--- - Curtis . Lteck Ph.D. , P.E. i \\,, i icncp Mr. Bill Jansen June 15, 1999 Page 5 Curds Lueck&Associates Professional Services Fee Schedule Effective Date: 611199 Service Units Principal Planner/Analyst Principal Planner Field Technician Routine Professional Services Public Agency Client Per Hour $125 $48 $73 $35 Private Client Per Hour $145 $68 $90 $45 Routine Professional Services, Out of Town Public Agency Client Per Day $1,250 $480 $730 $350 Private Client Per Day $1,450 $680 $900 $450 Expert OpinionfTestimony Public and Private Clients Per Hour $200 $68 $90 $45 Travel Time Public Agency Client Per Hour $88 $34 $51 $25 Private Client Per Hour $102 $48 $63 $32 Vehicle Mileage Per Mile $0.32 Traffic Counts(Mechanical) 2-Station Tube Counts Per Day $150 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 4, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: John Zukas, Transit Services Administrator SUBJ: Resolution No. (R)99- 77 Approval of the application for additional funding for transit/transportation via House Bill 2565. SUMMARY: Currently, the Town of Oro Valley utilizes their share of the Local Transportation Assistance Funds (LTAF) to provide transit services to their residents. Funds for LTAF are collected through revenue generated from multi-state, on-line and Scratchers games, as well as Powerball revenues. Both the City of Tucson subsidy for SunTran and funding for Oro Valley's Transit Service for Elderly and Disabled Residents - Coyote Run are supported by this funding source. During fiscal year 1998/1999 funding was approved via HB 2565. This bill provided additional funding for transit via the Arizona Department of Transportation's (ADOT)vehicle license tax. During fiscal year 1998/1999 the Town of Oro Valley utilized HB 2565 to develop the Town's first C ever"Transit Plan" and subsidize the purchase of an ADOT funded vehicle (1999 Dodge Caravan, for use in Coyote Run). Funding from HB 2565 will also be utilized to provide more "user friendly" bus signs along Oracle Rd. (replacing existing signs) for the SunTran Rt. 16 Express and will be used to make the Bicycle Oasis at Oracle and 1St Ave. more"ADA compliant". Via this grant, the Town of Oro Valley is expected to receive $67,323.95 for fiscal year 1999/2000. This is a matching grant and the Town will be responsible for certifying annually that the match has been or is being expended on the proposed project(s). The matching ratio for the Town/ADOT is 20/80. Thererfore, the Town must have appropriate funds available that has been or is being expended on the proposed projects in the amount of 25%of$67,323.95 =$16,830.99 This year's grant also allows for municipalities to apply for Federal funds (STP — Surface Transportation Funds) flexed from ADOT/FTA. The funds can be used for capital projects only. To compete for STP flexible funding, 100% of HB 2565 funding requested must be for transit projects and the STP project funding must be for an FTA eligible project. The STP funds currently are planned to be flexed to the FTA's Section 5307 (Urbanized Area Formula Funds) funded projects. Since the Town of Oro Valley is not the "designated recipient" of Section 5307 funds, the Town of Oro Valley must coordinated their application with the City of Tucson. The State Transportation Board has designated $5 million in Transportation Equity Act(TEA-21) funds throughout urban and rural areas in Arizona. If the City of Tucson and the Town of Oro Valley coordinate applications, the Town of Oro Valley t- could purchase a vehicle at a 6% local match. This means a $55,000 vehicle would cost the Town of Oro Valley approximately $3,300.00. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY L'OLTNCIL COMMiTNICATION Page 2 of 2 The Town is under no obligation to apply for the Federal (STP) funds. If the Town decides to apply for the additional STP flexible funding project request, it would be the first time the Town has applied for Federal funds pursuant to transit services within the Town of Oro Valley. FISCAL IMPACT: No General Fund money is anticipated to be utilized for transit programs at this time. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Oro Valley Town Council approve the submittal of the application of the HB 2565 grant, with the understanding that the Town will be responsible for certifying annually that the match has been or is being expended on the proposed project(s). Staff also recommends approval of the application of Federal STP funds through the HB 2565 grant application. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move that we approve Resolution (R)99- 7 thus approving the submittal of the application of the HB 2565 grant, with the understanding that the Town will be responsible for certifying annually that the match has been or is being expended on the proposed project(s) and apply for Federal STP funds through the HB 2565 grant process. OR I move that we deny Resolution(R)99- 7 7 thus denying the approval of the submittal of the application of the HB 2565 grant. OR I move that we approve Resolution(R)99-77 thus approving the submittal of the application of the HB 2565 grant, with the understanding that the Town will be responsible for certifying annually that the match has been or is being expended on proposed projects(s)but do not apply for the Federal funds (STP funds) at this time. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. (R)99- 77 Approval of the application for additional funding for transit/transportation via House Bill 2565. 2. HB 2565 Application(Applying for Federal STP Funds) 3. HB 2565 Application(without applying for Federal STP Funds) Transit'Serfs Administrator Community Development Director C.S. Town M. # er RESOLUTION NO. (R)99o_ A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, DECLAIRING THE APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR TRANSIT/TRANSPORTATION VIA HOUSE BILL 2565 WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley is eligible for additional funding via House Bill 2565 for transit and/or transportation purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Oro Valley hereby: 1) Approves the filing of an application for additional funding for transit and/or transportation purposes; 2) Certifies that the Town comply with all appropriate state and federal regulations, policies, guidelines, and requirements as they relate to the application; 3) Certifies that the Town has matching funds necessary in the amount of 25% of the total grant monies; 4) Certifies that the Town agrees that it is subject to a timely annual independent audit performed by a certified public accountant, and shall have such independent certified public accountant certify that expenditures are made as prescribed by ARS 28-8103 by August 1, 2000. PASSED AND ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 4th day of August , 1999. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan Dudley, Town Attorney SFY 2000 HB 2565 (Local Transportation Fund) AND STP FLEXIBLE FUNDING GRANT APPLICATION REQUEST FORM SECTION I: APPLICANT INFORMATION City/County: Town of Oro Valley/Pima Contact Name: John Zukas, Transit Services Administrator Address: 11,000 N. La Canada Drive Phone: (520) 825-7355 Oro Valley, Arizona Fax: (520) 825-4621 SECTION II: HB 2565 PROJECT REQUEST(S) 1. Transit Project(To apply for STP funding, 100% of HB 2565 must be transit projects.) a. Project Title Coyote Run Transit Service for Elderly& Disabled Residents b. Project Location Town of Oro Valley, AZ c. Project Description:* Operatingcosts for Coyote Run (Oro Valley's_Transit Service for Elderly& Disabled Residents). Fundingwill be used or driver's salariesyand ' drivers training. This is an ADOT Section 5310 funded program *Additional information may be attached. d. HB 2565 funding requested (also insert on line 3a below) $67,323.95 e. Type of Project: ✓ Operations Ei Capital ❑Planning [1]Other f. Is this an ADOT/FTA Section 5311 project Yes No ✓ g. If project is multi jurisdictional, identify grant recipient: N/A "�. Project previously funded through HB 2565 program? Yes: ✓ *No: *If yes,please provide a copy of previous application and funding status. 2. Other Transportation Project a. Project Title N/A b. Project Location N/A c. Project Description:* N/A *Additional information may be attached. d. HB 2565 funding requested (also insert on line 3b below) $ N/A e. If project is multi jurisdictional, identify grant recipient: N/A f. Project previously funded through HB 2565 program? Yes No ✓ *If yes,provide a copy of previous application and funding status. 3. Funding a. HB 2565 Funds requested for transit purposes (line 1d) $67,323.95 b. HB 2565 Funds requested for other transportation purposes (line 2d) $ N/A c. Local Match $16,830.99 1. Total $84,154.94 Ir 1 SECTION III: STP FLEXIBLE FUNDING PROJECT REQUEST(S) 1. STP Project*: a. Project Title Coyote Run replacement vehicle b. Project Location Town of Oro Valley—Coyote Run Project Description Vehicle to be urchased via dual-bid process with the City of Tucson. Vehicle will be •urchased in concert with the Cit of Tucson's •aratransit service -VanTran *Additional information may be attached. d. STP funding requested (also insert on line 2a below) $51,700.00 e. Type of Project: 00perations ✓ Capital El Planning El Other f. Is this an ADOT/FTA Section 5311 project: Yes: No: ✓ g. If project is multi jurisdictional, identify grant recipient: City of Tucson for Town of Oro Valley, AZ *To compete for STP flexible funding, 100% of HB 2565 funding requested must be for transit projects and the STP project fundingmust be for an FTA eligible project (i.e. ADOT/FTA Section 5311 capital ro project) J 9 p 1 ) 2. Funding a. STP Funds Requested for transit purposes (Section III, line 1d) $51,700.00 b. Local Match $3,300.00 c. Total $55,000.00 This form maybe copied for additional projects. SECTION IV: TOTAL FUNDING Total amount of HB 2565 requested for all projects: $67,323.95 2. Total amount of STP flexible funding requested for all projects: $51,700.00 3. Local funds committed: $20,130.99 3. TOTAL$139,154.94 Authorized Signature: * Date: Signing Agency agrees to local match requirements and compliance with ARS 28-5808 et seq. SECTION V: SFY 1999 HB 2565 STATUS 1. SFY 99 HB 2565 project description: Transit Plan, ADOT-Section 5310 Match, ADA Improvements, Signage 2. FY 99 HB 2565 authorized amount: $33,680 3. Amount expended thru June 30, 1999: $27,930.90 4. Amount to be expended in SFY 2000: $5,749.10 5. Total project cost to be expended by FY 2000? Yes: ✓ No: 5a. If no, how much do you anticipate returning? $ 0 FOR COG OR MPO OFFICE USE ONLY HB 2565 Funds Available: $ STP Funds Available: $ HB 2565 Funds provided: $ STP Funds provided: $ Long Range Transportation Plan Compliance Yes: No: 3y: Title: 11 Agency: 2 SFY 2000 HB 2565 (Local Transportation Fund) AND STP FLEXIBLE FUNDING GRANT APPLICATION REQUEST FORM .... ..... .............. ... . . . SECTION I: APPLICANT INFORMATION City/County: Town of Oro Valley/Pima Contact Name: John Zukas, Transit Services Administrator Address: 11,000 N. La Canada Drive Phone: (520) 825-7355 Oro Valley, Arizona Fax: (520) 825-4621 . .. . ..... . ............ .. .......... ....... SECTION II: HB 2565 PROJECT REQUEST(S) 1. Transit Project(To apply for STP funding, 100% of HB 2565 must be transit projects.) a. Project Title Coyote Run Transit Service for Elderly & Disabled Residents b. Project Location Town of Oro Valley, AZ c. Project Description:* Operatingcosts for Coote Run (Oro Valley's_Transit Service for Elderly & Disabled Residents). Fundingwill be used or driver's salariesyand driver's training. ) 9 This is an ADOT Section 5310 funded program *Additional information may be attached. d. HB 2565 funding requested (also insert on line 3a below) $67,323.95 e. Type of Project: ✓ Operations ❑Capital fl Planning El Other f. Is this an ADOT/FTA Section 5311 project Yes No ✓ g. If project is multi jurisdictional, identify grant recipient: N/A 'i. Project previously funded through HB 2565 program? Yes: ✓ *No: *If yes,please provide a copy of previous application and funding status. 2. Other Transportation Project a. Project Title N/A b. Project Location N/A c. Project Description:* N/A *Additional information may be attached. d. HB 2565 funding requested (also insert on line 3b below) $ N/A e. If project is multi jurisdictional, identify grant recipient: N/A f. Project previously funded through HB 2565 program? Yes No ✓ *If yes,provide a copy of previous application and funding status. 3. Funding a. HB 2565 Funds requested for transit purposes (line 1d) $67,323.95 b. HB 2565 Funds requested for other transportation purposes (line 2d) $ N/A c. Local Match $16,830.99 Total $84,154.94 11 1 SECTION III: STP FLEXIBLE FUNDING PROJECT REQUEST(S)T. STP Project*: a. Project Title N/A b. Project Location N/A Project Description N/A *Additional information may be attached. d. STP funding requested (also insert on line 2a below) $ N/A e. Type of Project: ❑Operations [I]Capital ❑ Planning 111 Other f. Is this an ADOT/FTA Section 5311 project: Yes: No: ✓ g. If project is multi-jurisdictional, identify grant recipient: N/A *To compete for STP flexible funding, 100% of HB 2565 funding requested must be for transit projects and the STP project fundingmust be for an FTA eligible project(i.e. ADOT/FTA Section 5311 capital project) J 9 p p ! ) 2. Funding a. STP Funds Requested for transit purposes (Section III, line 1d) $ N/A b. Local Match $ N/A c. Total $ N/A This form may be copied for additional projects. SECTION IV: TOTAL FUNDING 1. Total amount of HB 2565 requested for all projects: $67,323.95 Total amount of STP flexible funding requested for all projects: $N/A 3. Local funds committed: $16,830.99 3. TOTAL $84,154.94 Authorized Signature: * Date: Signing Agency agrees to local match requirements and compliance with ARS 28-5808 et seq. SECTION V: SFY 1999 HB 2565 STATUS 1. SFY 99 HB 2565 project description: Transit Plan, ADOT-Section 5310 Match, ADA Improvements, Signage 2. FY 99 HB 2565 authorized amount: $33,360.00 3. Amount expended thru June 30, 1999: $27,930.90 4. Amount to be expended in SFY 2000: $5,749.10 5. Total project cost to be expended by FY 2000? Yes: ✓ No: 5a. If no, how much do you anticipate returning? $ 0 FOR COG OR MPO OFFICE USE ONLY HB 2565 Funds Available: $ STP Funds Available: $ HB 2565 Funds provided: $ STP Funds provided: $ Long Range Transportation Plan Compliance Yes: No: By: Title: 'agency: II 2 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 4, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: John Zukas, Transit Services Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R)99- 78 Approval of a Cooperative Purchase Agreement with the City of Tucson for the Possible Purchase of Replacement Vehicle(s) for Coyote Run. SUMMARY: The Town of Oro Valley owns and operates Coyote Run, the Town's transit service for elderly and disabled residents. Due to the age and mileage of two of the current Coyote Run vehicles, there is a need to replace them. Both vehicles have over 85,000 miles on them and by the time new vehicles are procured, it is anticipated that both vehicles will have over 100,000 miles on them. During State Fiscal Year 2000 the Town of Oro Valley will be receiving 67,323.95 via HB 2565 for transit services and will possibly be applying for a Federal grant utilizing Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds pursuant to the same application. The City of Tucson owns and operates VanTran, the City's paratransit service. Due to the age and mileage of current VanTran vehicles, a large number(approximately 25) will be replaced during Fiscal Year 1999/2000. Due to the quantity of vehicles purchased by the City of Tucson the approximate purchase price per vehicle is $55,000. The Town of Oro Valley has the opportunity to purchase replacement vehicles at the City of Tucson's purchase price pursuant to a Cooperative Purchase Agreement with the City of Tucson (ARS 41-2632, see attachment). If the Town of Oro Valley decided to purchase the vehicles without utilizing the Cooperative Purchase Agreement, the price would be approximately $59,000. Entering into the Cooperative Purchase Agreement would be contingent upon the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley approving the application for additional funding for transit, via HB 2565. FISCAL IMPACT: No General Fund money is anticipated to be utilized for transit programs at this time. If the application for HB 2565 is approved by the Mayor and Council, $67,323.95 will be appropriated to the Transit Division. If the Mayor and Council decide to apply for the Federal grant utilizing Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds, the local match will be derived from the current Transit Services Division's budget. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Oro Valley Town Council approve the Cooperative Purchase Agreement with the City of Tucson for the possible purchase of replacement vehicle(s) for Coyote Run. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 2 SUGGESTED MOTION: I move that we approve Resolution No. (R)99- 78 thus approving the Cooperative Purchase Agreement with the City of Tucson for the possible purchase of replacement vehicle(s) for Coyote Run. OR I move that we deny Resolution No. (R)99-78 thus denying approving the Cooperative Purchase Agreement with the City of Tucson for the possible purchase of replacement vehicle(s) for Coyote Run. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. (R)99- 78 Approval of the Cooperative Purchase Agreement with the City of Tucson for the Possible Purchase of Replacement Vehicle(s) for Coyote Run. 2. Copy of the Cooperative Purchase Agreement with the City of Tucson. 3. Copy of Arizona Revised Statute 41-2632 (Cooperative purchasing authorized). ransit Servi - A44 nistrator -fjuiT if Community Development Director Town Man4ter RESOLUTION NO. (R)99- 78 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, DECLAIRING THE APPROVAL OF A COOPERATIVE PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF TUCSON FOR THE POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT VEHICLE(S) FOR COYOTE RUN. WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley is in need of replacement of two vehicles for the Town's transit service for elderly and disabled residents — Coyote Run; and WHEREAS, the Town is a "public procurement unit" pursuant to ARS 41-2632; and WHEREAS, the City of Tucson's City Code allows the City of Tucson's Procurement Department to enter into Cooperative Purchasing Agreements with other "public procurement units" pursuant to ARS 41-2632. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Oro Valley hereby: 1) Approves the Cooperative Purchase Agreement with the City of Tucson; 2) Certifies that the Town comply with all appropriate local, state and federal regulations, policies, guidelines, and requirements as they relate to the agreement; 3) Certifies that the Town agrees that up to two vehicles be purchased for use in Coyote Run, contingent upon approval of House Bill 2565 grant funding. PASSED AND ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 4th day of August , 1999. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan Dudley, Town Attorney c*:Slk de:P OF TVA O 4. 4,1ZON' 4611 CITY OF TUCSON COOPERATIVE PURCHASE AGREEMENT This Agreement entered into this day of , 19 between the City of Tucson hereinafter called the"City" and a public procurement unit, hereinafter called"eligible procurement unit,"to permit the eligible procurement unit to purchase materials and services from vendors at the prices and terms contained in contracts between the City of Tucson and those vendors. The governing body of any eligible procurement unit may enter into an Agreement with the City Tucson Purchasing Department for the purpose of utilization of contracts and the purchase or sale of surplus property by such eligible procurement units (Arizona Revised Statutes Section 41-2632). In consideration of the mutual promises contained in the Agreement, and of the mutual benefits to result therefrom, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City shall make available certain requirements contracts to the eligible procurement units. 2. Specifications for the materials and services will be determined by the City of Tucson Purchasing Department. 3. The procurement shall be conducted in accordance with the City's Charter (Chapter 27), Code and the Purchasing Department's administrative policies.The eligible procurement unit will insure that its own legal requirements are met and be responsible for any additional measures which may be necessary to meet those requirements. 4. The City of Tucson will identify the eligible procurement unit as a participant in any solicitation intended for general use by the eligible procurement unit.In addition,the City may invite the eligible procurement unit to participate in certain specific bids.Only eligible procurement units indicating an interest in participating in these specific bids will be able to participate in the resulting contracts. 5. The eligible procurement unit shall: a. Insure that purchase orders issued against eligible City contracts are in accordance with the terms and prices established in the City contract. b. Make timely payments to the vendor for all materials and services received in accordance with the terms and conditions of the City contract.Payment for materials or services and inspection and acceptance of materials or services ordered by the eligible procurement unit shall be the exclusive obligation of such unit. c. Not use a City contract as a method for obtaining additional concessions or reduced prices for similar material or services.That is,the eligible procurement unit shall not advertise or market City contracts. d. Be responsible for the ordering of materials or services under this Agreement. The City shall not be liable in any fashion for any violation by eligible procurement unit of this Agreement, and the eligible procurement unit shall hold the City harmless from any liability which may arise from action or inaction of the eligible procurement unit relating to this Agreement or its subject matter. 6. The exercise of any rights or remedies by the eligible procurement unit shall be the exclusive obligation of such unit;however,the City,as the contract administrator and without subjecting itself to any liability,may join in the resolution of any controversy should it so desire. 7. The City may terminate without notice this Agreement if the eligible procurement unit fails to comply with the terms of a City contract. 8. This Agreement shall take effect upon execution by the parties and shall continue until it is terminated in accordance with its terms. This Agreement supersedes any and all previous cooperative purchase 4:1") agreements. 41-2632 - Cooperative purchasing authorized Page 1 of 1 • y"fEve ALIS O 41-2632 . Cooperative purchasing authorized A. Any public procurement unit may either participate in, sponsor, conduct or administer a cooperative purchasing agreement for the procurement of any materials, services or construction with one or more public procurement units in accordance with an agreement entered into between the participants. A nonprofit educational or public health institution may enter into an agreement pursuant to this section if one or more of the parties involved is a public procurement unit. An agreement entered into as provided in this article is exempt from section 11-952, subsections D and F. Parties under a cooperative purchasing agreement may: 1. Sponsor, conduct or administer a cooperative agreement for the procurement or disposal of any materials, services or construction. 2. Cooperatively use materials or services. 3. Commonly use or share warehousing facilities, capital equipment and other facilities. 4. Provide personnel, except that the requesting public procurement unit shall pay the public procurement unit providing the personnel the direct and indirect cost of providing the personnel, in accordance with the agreement. 5. On request, make available to other public procurement units informational, technical or other services that may assist in improving the efficiency or economy of procurement. The public procurement unit furnishing the informational or technical services has the right to request reimbursement for the reasonable and necessary costs of providing such services. B. The activities described in this section do not limit what parties may do under a cooperative purchasing agreement. Bills I Members I FloorCalendars I CommitteeAgendas I Session Lawsl Statutes Arizona Constitution ' -4'tit x 7 Click here to return to the A.L.I.S. Home Page. http://www.azleg.state.a.../waisgate?WAISaction=retrieve&WAISdocID=0759516426+92+0+ 7/26/99 Town of Oro Valley COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 4, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM Werner Wolff, Chief of Police SUBJECT: 1999 El Tour de Tucson Bicycle Ride SUMMARY: The Town has received a letter of request from Mr. Richard DeBernardis, Executive Director of the El Tour de Tucson Bicycle Ride. Again, Oro Valley is being asked to host the 75-mile leg of this event. It is tentatively scheduled to start in front of Town Hall at 8:00 A.M. on Saturday,November 20, 1999. The route is scheduled to go north from Town Hall on La Canada Drive to Tangerine Road, east to Rancho Vistoso Boulevard, north and east on Rancho Vistoso Boulevard to Oracle Road, and south on Oracle Road past Magee. Consistent with previous El Tour events, the El Tour de Tucson is willing to provide all the necessary event personnel and equipment, a certificate of insurance, as well as provide the Town with substantial publicity as indicated in their attached letter. What is being requested of the Town this year is to provide street sweeping, police protection, and traffic control at no charge as well as waiving any applicable permit fees that normally would be required. In corresponding with the various Town departments, the following arrangements would need to be made: 1. Obtain Special Use Permit through Planning and Zoning Department 2. Execution of an agreement similar to the one used in 1998 that would address all pertinent terms and conditions. 3. A Certificate of Insurance needs to be provided by the El Tour de Tucson naming the Town as additionally insured. 4. The Town Clerk's office has agreed to display the event T-shirts with the Towns logo in the lobby of the administration building and any other information relating to the event. 5. A Right of Way usage permit would need to be obtained by El Tour de Tucson through the Engineering Department, with the condition that they also provide a traffic control plan in their application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Town participated in the event in 1998, which was quite successful in providing the community with substantial publicity as a major contributor and sponsor. Staff would recommend that the Town again consider participation, should the suggested terms and conditions of the proposed agreement meet Council's approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from Richard DeBernardis, Executive Director of El Tour de Tucson 2. Proposed 1999 race map 3. Proposed 1999 Agreement FISCAL IMPACT: General Fund; $3800.00 1. Required Police Department Personnel (21 Officers) and related vehicle fuel costs is estimated at $3600.00 and does not include any administrative staff, volunteer, or Explorer time involved. 2. Required Public Works Personnel (1 Street sweeper operator) and equipment costs is estimated at $200.00 for two hours of work to complete one full sweep of race route. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to accept the agreement with El Tour de Tucson for the 1999 El Tour de Tucson Bicycle Ride and to waive all related fees. Or I move to deny the agreement with El Tour de Tucson of the 1999 El Tour de Tucson Bicycle Ride /1,-)e4/Werner S. Wolff, Chief of Police eff. Charles weet, Town Manager AGREEMENT This Agreement entered into this day of , 1999 by and between the Town of Oro valley, Pima County, Arizona, a body politic of the State of Arizona, hereinafter referred to as "Town" and , hereinafter referred to as "El Tour"for mutual services. El Tour duties: 1. The Town of Oro Valley will be the official name to be incorporated into the 75 mile starting activities. 2. 75 mile Start Line shall be located in front of the Oro Valley Town Hall at 11,000 North La Canada. 3. "El Tour" shall provide all necessary set—up and event equipment, including, but not limited to: barricades, cones, scaffolding, port-o-pots, camera equipment, starting equipment, etc., and shall be responsible for and assume all other duties necessary to fulfill not other wise specifically assumed by the Town of Oro Valley as set out herein. 4. Provide the Town with a "certificate of insurance" in the amount of the underlying purpose of this agreement, naming the Town as an additional insured(See attached Exhibit A). 5. Agree to abide by the following indemnification clause and compliance with all laws clause. A. INDEMNIFICATION Each party to this Agreement shall indemnify, defend and hold the other parties and their respective officers, employees and agents harmless against any and all suits, actions, legal or administrative proceedings, claims, demands, liens, losses, fines or damages, including consequential damages, liability, interest, attorney's and accountant's fees or costs and expenses of whatsoever kind and nature, which are in any manner directly or indirectly caused, occasioned or contributed to, by reason of any act, omission, fault, negligence, violation or alleged violation of any law, whether active or passive, of the indemnifying party, its agents, employees or anyone acting under its direction, control or on its behalf, in connection with or incident to the performance of the Agreement. This indemnification shall not apply to a cause of action brought by any party to this Agreement, which constitutes a challenge to the validity of the Agreement itself. B. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS The parties to this agreement shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, standards and Executive Orders, without limitation to those designated within this Agreement. The laws and regulations of the State of Arizona shall govern the rights of the parties, the performance of this Agreement and any disputes thereunder. Any action relating to this Agreement shall be brought in an Arizona court. 6. Produce a 75 mile start banner which prominently promotes the Town as the official 75 mile Start line. 7. Display the Town's logo on the 5,000 event T-Shirts. Town's Duties: 1. Provide street sweeping,police protection and traffic control at no charge. 2. Waive any permit fees and traffic control fees within the Town on Saturday, November 20, 1999. 3. Designate, Officer Michael Stevenson, Oro Valley Police Department Special Events Coordinator, as the official Town contact to coordinate all event activities. 4. Grant a waiver for any sign code violations for this event. This is the entire Agreement between the parties and may not be altered or modified without the prior written consent of the parties. ENTERED INTO this day of , 1999 Paul H. Loomis, Mayor For 1) El Tour de Tucson XVII 2) Perimiter Bicycling Association of America 3) Bicycle Ride Directors Associatin of America ATTEST: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney AlphaGraphics® El Tour de Tucson 63o N.Craycroft Rd.,Suite 141 Tucson,Arizona 85711 (520) 745-2033 June 23, 1999 "bicycling Chuck Sweet in pursuit Town Manager of hospice care for Town of Oro Valley children" 11000 North La Canada for Oro Valley AZ 85737 Tu Nudito Children's Dear Town Manager Sweet: Hospice "o cial On behalf of Perimeter Bicycling Association of America (PBAA), Inc. and El Tour de Team in Tucson, thank you for supporting the 1996, 1997 and1998 75 mile El Tour de Tucson. Training " Program For the 4th consecutiveyear, PBAA is requesting for the Town of Oro Valleyto become Leukemia q g Society the "host" of the 1999 75 mile event and start line. of America As the official host of the 1999 El Tour de Tucson 75 mile event and Start line, PBAA/E1 "official Tour will commit to following: newspaper of PBAA events" Tail Winds (1) Name the 75-mile event and start line after the Town of Oro Valley supporting Lance For example: Armstrong Foundation for Town of Oro Valley • lar 75-Mile El Tour Event Testicular Cancer (2) Hold the 75-mile start line in the Town of Oro sanctioned by Valley in front of Town Hall at 11000 North La Perimeter Canada(where the event has started for the past Bicycling Association of three years) or at another convenient location in Oro America,Inc. Valley. (PBAA) (3) Provide the Town with a"certificate of insurance" El Tour" naming the Town as an"additional insured". El supported by Town of (4) Produce a 75-mile start banner which prominently Oro Valley promotes the Town as the "Official 75-mile Start line". "50-mile El Tour" (5) Display the Towns logo on 5,000 event T-shirts. supported by CDS (6) Town of Oro Valley's name will appear on El Software,Inc. Tour's official stationery (see this page). E-mail:pbaa@dakotacom.net• Fax: (52o) 745-1992 •Website:www.pbaa.com (7) Provide all necessary set-up and event equipment, such as: Barricades, cones, p -o- scafoldine, ort ots. etc. P As the "official Host of the 75-mile El Tour and Start line", El Tour request for Town of Oro Valley to provide the following: (1) Street sweeping, police protection and traffic control at no charge. These services specifically include any permiting fees and all traffic control related fees within Town of Oro Valley on El Tour Day, Saturday, November 20, 1999. (2) A contact person within the Town in order for El Tour Officials to coordinate all event activities. In the 1999 March issue of Bicycling Magazine Tucson was selected as the #3 bicycling city in North America (see article attached). This distinction is a direct result of our related cities, such as as Town of Oro Valley, supporting bicycling through such events as El Tour de Tucson. Through your continual support Tucson and Town of Oro Valley can together become not only leaders in the development in cycling on a national level, but also be cities in providing a healthy community for our citizens. The 1998 June issue of"Bicycling Magazine", El Tour de Tucson was selected as " The Great Ride of the State of Arizona. Only one ride from each state was given this distinction (copy of article attached). Enclosed is a copy of the letter and agreement received from Town of Oro Valley for the 1998 "75-mile El Tour". As you can see, we are requesting exactly the same as '98. If you need any other information, please contact me or Andy Guerrero at the PB AA office at: 520- 745-2033. Z\ -74,11. eB ernar•is Exec,• - I ector & Founder El Tour de Tucson Attachments: Bicycling Magazine Article 1998 Letter of Agreement Town of Oro Valley Letter Certificate of Insurance Route Map •. � W IAP :�'�a ¢''y-Q ;.' ••••••••1.•;;q.•:J }t• • t.,„••3;-;p� 1�LY/. / • • •fir e + .., r .. • •l:• •. ALPHAGRAPmCS' - • ST'AE 'LINES"'• -t '' . - ` / 111-MILE START: 7:00am Downtown Tucson at Granada south of Congress. - ` N - _ KIDS FUN RIDE 1����t, STARTS: 8:00am Downtown Tucson at Granada • ��'I>> A , south of Congress. KIDS FUN RIDE- 114-Mile __ ihi_. _ ; . STARTS: 8:45am Downtown Tucson at Granada south of Congress. 1 x ; 75-MILE START: 9:00am Oro Valley Town Hall on La ' \ Canada. Go north to 11,000 La Canada(north of Lambert). Avoid using Ina and Oracle. ', • AIIIIIII1 lik /, • 041P6 'tit. 50-MILE START: 11:00am Morris K.Udall Center on /: Tanque Verde Road east of TUCSON Sabino Canyon Road. ELTOUR DE TUCSON TINE 25-MILE START: 12:30pm McCulloch Corporation-Kolb& Valencia. Enter on Southpoint Qq• Road,just west of Kolb. W • CI Cc. 7 T.I..IE TOWtdiF OR" ORO VALLEY SABIN0 CANYON SNYDER RO. 'A� �7SILE START N /L \ d SEAR l` M ETHM-T'N CANY� PALISADES I 3. CHEYENNE TRA1L- bBAUXITE WAY i 5 TOUR,.RUNE / �AAGEE ROCKCLIFF RD. T'� PROPERTY CI INA RD. CANYON 'tcc-i, SUNRISE DRIVE SET49 SNYDER RD. • _ • < 3 (---- • .CAMINO DEL CERRRORIVER CROSSING iK7O Bim) • • ETANCUE VELE o� 2 u, ,dhki,, TANQUEVEROE SPEEDWAY CDS SOFTWARE LOOP , 44/4Z44, - MS ST.AAARYS 5044I1.E START I g CONGRESS et' NBROAD1N/►Y cko i Jlit CUSHING T 22rd STR Cf ESCALANTE AJO HWY. RNr IC VGTON CONGRESS 25-MILE START DREXEL 111-MILE START I IOI,tOJ1Y INN RIVER CROSSING • ALL EVENT FINISH III® (Carry UM) 2. KIDS FUN RIDE i . \ 1 0:MENTION g ' ---._C:g ca4TER I LOS ter,i.....,. JE i cC a to CUSHING STREET HUGHES ACCESS .6) • aIpI1011POphIO6 c4;•. , Prfritshops Of The Future rii 'BIKE ROUTE - :, ..- -. ••t•-�'w r-- -w.'. r5"l�.,� ..,•'77;�!+w"•::%-; ••; 777.1-.•:,. ..-- •.-. -I'. c`,7_77.i. .A•.;,.�1`}fir Mi•► Ml S t•t -I....,� .. •�,• M _..,,,--.---,---...,•,•-..-.-. �;I .. - ....,••- r,t,• -y,' •.i.:1f�t 7a� . 4 -4.:, , •.. :• -N,„,:':,l -;,'s's-... it ".t* •--.1,...f I"�'0 .l . .`.t .- -•s:•'s 4�ti.. •,,-•,••••-e-„, •• ••t.' • .-• • 0 • { w -S r • h t•"i �-.t ( .�• 1 --s. •..-Jd-+s..+r.r�'ifv:- �.•---.;...,L,...:-.t...,;:.. _�.+_`- i 't -ir�' t......-••.a.s� ••' �-r.....s..r mit.-..- a...2-...,....k.- .�. • MI►r. . _17_ TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 4, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL FROM: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager S U BJ: Invitation to State Legislators SUMMARY: On June 21, 1999 Mayor Loomis sent a letter to Senator Ann Day and Representatives Huffman and Schottel respectfully requesting their attendance at tonight's meeting. As is stated in the attached letters, the purpose of their attendance is to provide the legislators with an opportunity to discuss the action of the 1999 State legislature and what we might expect during the 2000 legislative session. Senator Ann Day and Representatives Huffman and Schottel were kind enough to respond and accept the invitation to attend tonight's meeting and below is a list of the issues which they will be prepared to discuss: • State Shared Revenues • Incorporation/Annexation Legislation • Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Funding Process and Staffing Levels • Resolution Relating to Save-a-Plant Program and Department of Agriculture Issue ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letters of Confirmation to Representative Steve Huffman & Senator Ann Day and Representative Dan Schottel. SUGGESTED MOTION: None ' .6A2,0 Chuck Swe-t Town Manager N LEY q�/ Oq- ,4 ,- .2 fs), . TOWN OF ORO VALLEY i- 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE •e . ' �._ ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA 85737 Administrative Offices(520)297-2591 Fax(520)297-0428 - -4-11015.115=0 . www.ci.oro-valley.az.us NDEo July 23, 1999 Representative Dan Schottel House of Representatives c/o Tucson Legislative Office 400 W. Congress, Suite 201 Tucson, Arizona 85701 Dear Representative Schottel: Thank you for accepting Oro Valley's invitation to attend our Town Council meeting on August 4th, 1999. The Town Council meeting will begin at 7pm at the Oro Valley Town Hall Council Chambers, 11000 N. La Canada Drive. The following is a list of municipal issues that we are interested in hearing what your position is: • State Shared Revenues • Incorporation/Annexation Legislation • Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Funding Process and Staffing Levels • Resolution Relating to Save-A-Plant Program and Department of Agriculture Issue Thank you and I look forward to seeing you on August 4th! Sincerely, ,,,Z7.„ ..----7,:,:,..________- Paul H. oomis Mayor TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 4, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Valerie Feuer, Senior Planner SUBJECT: OV12-99-2 WOODBURNE AVENUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LANDSCAPE PLAN BACKGROUND: The Amphitheater Public School District is planning to build a new elementary school in Rancho Vistoso, on Woodburne Avenue between Moore Road and Arrowsmith Drive. Although the school district is not subject to municipal zoning ordinances, the development plan has been submitted to the Town for a courtesy review. The size of the property is about 13 acres, including a park site on the north side that is to be dedicated by town to the school district. SUMMARY: A. 25 to 40 foot wide bufferyard D is shown on the south side of the school property, including one tree preserved .i place and numerous salvaged trees, as well as shrubs, cacti, accents and groundcover. The existing property wall for the residences will be the only wall associated with the southern bufferyard. A 50 foot wide minimum undisturbed natural desert bufferyard D is provided east of the school, adjacent to the wash. A 6 foot ornamental iron fence separates the school yard from the natural desert area. On the north side of the site, a 20 foot wide bufferyard D with a 6 foot ornamental iron fence is shown. A 20 foot wide Bufferyard A is provided along Woodburne Ave. Parking lot landscaping varies from OVZCR requirements, with large landscape islands at each of the parking bays, and numerous small islands spaced between the parking lanes at regular intervals. Additional landscaped areas are shown between the two parking lots and around the school buildings. Vegetation on the site prior to development included a large number of prickly pear, barrel and cholla cacti, mesquite and palo verde, most of which will be salvaged and reused on site. Many of the cacti have already been salvaged for re-use by a neighborhood association through the Town's Save A Plant Program. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD ACTION: The Development Review Board recommended approval on July 13, 1999 by a 7-0 vote. GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE: taff has evaluated the development plan against the General Plan Land Use Policies and finds that it conforms to Policy 9.1H, landscape improvements are to mitigate negative visual impacts of buildings and parking lots. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: Planning Staff finds the Woodburne Avenue Elementary School Landscape Plan to be in substantial conformance with OVZCR, and we recommend approval. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve OV 12-99-2, the Woodburne Avenue Elementary School Landscape Plan, as recommended by the Development Review Board. OR I move to approve OV 12-99-2, the Woodburne Avenue Elementary School Landscape Plan, as recommended by the Development Review Board and the following additional conditions: OR I move to deny OV 12-99-2, the Woodburne Avenue Elementary School Landscape Plan, finding that: ATTACHMENT: 1. Reduction of landscape plan Pl. d Zoning Administrator ,, f AL Community Development Director Town Manager F:\ov\ov12\1999\0V12-99-2\DPTC.rpt.doc S:\99031\99031-01.dwg Tue Jul 20 09:01:39 1999 . 0..— ;e11 'qgc2 ; /1g1 $glAi r, 8 10g,1 8 khilIMIai 7,:1;drr,,,,A 11 ....... . .grn8E-4 .-1-, Ali: opil-1 b --__ ,, --------- I)go . ---- ________ __..: .)::::: .. ...:,...tg: 1 iii WOODEttin ....................... \,. _ NE AV rl Pi R 7 ";--- alir. ----....M --- :4 .4111/..:-• ..111...,,77............._,„...;,. .. 'Ai% id 02 +%rah• _ca,t,›Anrii.;:slgaik,-4,---',!..,,-,-,....--..,,---,-,-.-.„., )+ rig,ii,:.. *I, ---1,..Alidiwirip„,;44,,.141kPrike: ,,,,........!!!••••,, .....ii................. ----- ------"--- , ilk get ir"--a ilisig.F :IF •7" 1 IMF.% dr 21q/ 4' Ag• • . §g. I is +•" ,- • 'up:e u ra-vo,:ago ' 4' g-.2:,tN --. 1.441147 60 Ns cy, INV_ ClgOOPRVt s, '.4 0 \fie " 61,1 .—------ - i ' ‘I.1. . Vir le--,---,---P W. .4 * . . . mutt , ,sitAiralI IMP -iiri 110E-57.1,11110-vinaiNi -1...f-t-- 0"' mr 4..14 -1.....1_,...._ ...ilk . % , ___, /1.1 --Valearaftlass4074:4-- IF Iik• ' ' '''s ---- . .1 al , 000. -_.. , -.. . . 8 ,111, 1 '` ".4. ---44::.:.': .47 ••`• .. ' :1**111,1200PiM. ›, ' i ,- 1117,• ..-,1-. -. - •44- , .,, ••,••• •••00 :. \, . ,i . • f 1 lo ._ ,, .illt- .....2.,., Jo ' -,.- .,t.,:, q rcil 6 il Ali r r- ,T, -f-nig '--.--.-.,;- ! ii ---,---t.---,---,--i-- lit 17. . ....t._, , , fr. --- •----:-.1.----- i"-,-,•-•,•i ;-, , : m 0 g ii; ...if. .111 4 -- , ,, II (,), \ u g,1111111 ,. 7:--->5r1 rn-T1 _iiii--'"---: * °:ram" :.. .._::::,..',....!„....--.0,.."---::„::...--_-;,„: .„,__._ .i ft (40,0,. aT%•,.&, it.i.::.,i... ,,T.±._Li..._...f_....L_i___i_j..._i j__I_h____ • • .-1 ; 'tiallirgi+ N I 8 .. . ._ . . _. __a. .,_......":,4,4--9 1_....ri ; - .Ask. .. <6 +' .„...... .__.,7 ;40 Atil 1;P = § .- . __ filterq.0• •reg., 11%), -+ + i .*-- • • •-. .t',1 i .,_ • ...4 .-* ,, .:-...: _4,. . '• , g,i 0 0, . .•.,,: ... at 'I.- . 1 m; • a 1 `,%0 , . , 9 - --,, . (---N, '-'- , ,i: (9_. _, + .. . co— 8-i. '• '.1 sq.'---- 0 - 0 I'LL: !a T g ;,,,5 i IL -,-, III 1,cp :4S4111 - it , • ms4.--,, -0# g: ,, •kk;',/,,,,, . g E t . + „ " -:.-t-----r------1---1.-44- L...-.... ..,__iv,4,t___. r•,,,,,, , : . ..,'•,',/,,( tj-+--- -4 -41-- -;-1-1-4--•-•LIT.";11. • ' 'N .'4:- . , MO 0 4Nim-4) liti " foi i 1 8 tag + ÷ . i , ,z ,< , 4V,,.. 0 ,..• 1.4,,,,,..._ --.......... -'--..... .'1 P F, g 0 ' ' s"'\ 4". ••• • 4'' --- ,t. 8 2 i g §,t 119 . .'• ,.... '.' ski' 4_4+44+1' -41., ---.....a.... , . ''''''' *146 it * ' )'Y Y•,, - '--1 *,..),...,,,,,') a .... 4 • ,_ sx,), ,, ,,t- ,-..•:..4."'„)6e .,:' ‹A ',_x"\X ., , ,''PM y\x, -<)c;,,x,N 4, \ -'SA .:X> ‘ ''')<': ".•./ WM/ ...•./r f','"1*.,\,, •-,e'/, , • N .''''•.../C •N'. ••',./\ • X,?c i,!. --'...-••.,-, 1 '.'''''',/;?C,, /' A`A'Y X X: .'_'>z',./„Ki)c,\-yA _ Il -------'I,0.;-.s...-•,,,,Z.7.,,::::,, .•.... -g2E-,518. _ a a •. , .. ••..:-,..',•:,-...-..',..s. - • • ' y- . ...•.: • . • , . . • • s.. .. , .s . ••.... . ... , . ig 1 ' — I kkal,,-*,,,,v1iN, ,....•. pow? . ___....., 011''''121A w ' M ....„ .....s., M 0 (44 .. i '2Fiii53d4 w r- -- $ 14,•01f1".•_;;,',4!i:....„911 g....:4-=*-' .1 , -,1 1 IL-_-%1 iglgr E 73(5 M ---,\ -8 !gi OF-1;n• 4 4it.iitt.?,tik V.---- GTx5,E.9 >K . , i \ •- .,..... . . ...-- cg g R.,_ iV7.•I '.k.14.. \ ---. g M i.,- C.--, 11 4 111K1 L_. \ .1 .N•. , N, $ - - - ' ' +C 0 0‘,1,)) + ) g;Pa 1 =2 d g [1 1 ° 1 cA 0 6$ 1 rg 0 g rt i q 1110 ig 16vg 1 R h gNg - i fligpo ip*I :, i ; 1 !_ § 6, • R . §-,13 4 ! 1 i 20, 1! 1° li i; 1- i z 1 ' • 6 R ;11 FP3i i -! § i g • °I ; g ; 3 1 =:' c' - Rg . a im . 9 11 6 N V H I 1 ,z ,,, ...i 0z k• 2 2 = 2 2 1 i 4 ...A 9:\99031\99031-02.dwg Tue Jul 20 09:41:49 1999 z 4 o 8 A $ 1 WOODBURNE AVE. V MWEIVY03113170ta.Q,AiliAlr.--,N.Ind. .1.1-.[-- .�.. MO .� Irki se,. N 2 NI „, of'l I MMC ,110' NV VP ,/ NIP Will..., 4.• CY. Mg C1A 1 MNC C , ,iii-.Em — � g C See f g 1,,,I.-:-... t lyi 1 ' • . ME, 8 -TIT----! '1; xi r 1 i; ,.+„ rI N , 1 gLi ! 1 m ,,,./1 p li) ii l J I `\�-' 1.....1 . C i mo Z rD! 1 . ----_, -1 1�1' 61 4k r ,1�'1 -, 6 "IP' 1 0,, Ll /11. f ;I , e I: ig, g 1 ,..,, g ,ps . 4r: 1 L's.----.1 i g i ig g ... ZMN(7.L. 1 01.. ,4.....i,. ,/2,,x.:„....‘,,.„ .,...,2,,,,;.,.,.. lic....,..._,,,,-- 1 o �,CO ♦ ��I 14♦��� +� 4 r?� ``r . ILfir7:,\<;<" *4,. .►. _ i /***40 ?, 4t `stly" Aii>V4e. it . --- ..,_. ,- .. _,..‘ -,?-,- 1.5 c. h...1,,. ,,i, lood 4 iLiw xl,,,,,',. *Ls,.. P. ... .......„,,iivb,,,.....a.,..,.:„,tt., -_,,,,,,,-,Et 3 g Iii-_,_,„eiketezzttkv CL g, %11 .'W. 2 +Vit. .g g. S 'II i I-:i ,1111 ;i: ilirtNfirci t 4 , r•igigr;t: ," ;Ilig-5! j a -44:11h,:::::;;;Ii It:. ,,!\ \. \A„ Z IIIM 2 C 81' YNNNN' .,IP 200iii NNm. 14P '4 AIM 1 .-. 0 2 i•: I : Nih, , ri1;13„, Oli.M6g 0REE --,,,Ri ''' . , E mi.z3 18; 13-.- 1 qpiMil,, 6111M --' 'Ll_L.1±11,V-1 \ ; -< 8A•P i 0 4 R im mw . < 1 I-0 1 )-'g ` + + o o o o o o O Q O e O O srl . , ' illi ii 0§ :ig lb 0 glii i il 11111 P i CI II .0 limg 1 i. . , il li!,.0. !rill ;. 0 2 gg -. IN 'i - v) is3 § ' g8 E 1 g.' 1 `'oli -6' 1 cn gEi CO. g Fig § k$ . m ;.. g RI ri- 3 ' ' 1,- ;e = 1 0g 1 ' ' .11 .„ gagHl ..4 .0 ,0 ,-„ m im l'. g. 1.1 im-< ig?..> F>zi tZCOA 10 iiiiIiil iii (i U UI U U1 tJ1 U UNA• ,,,,,, 1.. P. -i 2 MR WX4 N - •� ›. =m® 3 3 I _z z I z z z z z z z r i i Z � � � C C � � C C 2 C C C E E E EC l G r- till ci, ®m - 9 9 r\DI 4 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 3 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 4, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Valerie Feuer, Senior Planner SUBJECT: OV12-99-2 WOODBURNE AVENUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT PLAN BACKGROUND: The Amphitheater Public School District is planning to build a new elementary school in Rancho Vistoso, on Woodburne Avenue between Moore Road and Arrowsmith Drive. Although the school district is not subject to municipal zoning ordinances, the development plan has been submitted to the Town for a courtesy review. The size of the property is about 13 acres, including a park site on the north side that is to be dedicated by town to the school district. SUMMARY: The school site was dedicated to Amphitheater Public Schools for an elementary school when the PAD was ,pproved in 1987. In 1994, the Town Council approved a rezoning for a 13 acre site north of the school site. Approximately seven acres of this site was zoned as Medium Density Residential, and the remainder of the property was to remain open space. About five acres was designated as park site and dedicated to the Town for subsequent conveyance to the school district. Three conditions of the rezoning placed restrictions on the park site: 1) the site is limited to public uses; 2) the park site and school site were to be developed simultaneously; 3) the Town must dedicate the site to the Amphitheater Public Schools for school and neighborhood serving recreation purposes. The school, planned to serve 800 students from kindergarten to fifth grade, is situated entirely on the school site property, with staff parking, bus drop-off and play fields located on the park site. A parent drop-off and visitor parking area are located in front of the school, separated from the bus drop-off by more than 100 feet. The north parking lot includes 107 spaces and the south lot has 53 spaces. Parking lot islands shown differ from those required by OVZCR. Staff recognizes the need to maximize the number of parking spaces and has accepted the design. The school is comprised of 7 individual buildings, including administration, media/multi-purpose, central plant, and five classroom buildings. The school district has made a good attempt to meet the OVZCR requirements for landscaping, setbacks, and parking. Neighborhood Issues Development of the site is constrained by the requirements of the school district for separation of parent parking .nd drop-off areas from staff parking and bus drop-off, as well as the single street frontage. While the initial plan on the original school site required the bus drop-off to be perpendicular to Woodburne and next to backyards, the additional park site property allowed the current configuration. The distance between the school TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 7OUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 4 and its play yards from the neighbors to the south is also in response to neighbor's noise concerns, since all of the patio walls are partially wrought iron. A forty foot wide vegetative bufferyard on the south will provide some sound and visual buffering for the neighbors to the south in Las Colinas. A fire access lane offers additional separation, and the buildings and play yards are eighty feet from the property line. A wash and natural bufferyard separates the school from Sonoran Vistas to the east, and a bufferyard on the north separates two lots, as well as Saddle Tree Drive from the bus drop-off and play fields. A nature walk is also shown on the park site. Ball courts with ramadas are provided east of the classroom buildings, and additional ramadas are shown for children waiting for busses. None of the fields nor play areas will be lighted. Traffic around the site will be both a neighborhood and community concern. Although the majority of students will arrive and depart on school buses, the number of cars entering the area during brief periods in the morning and afternoon will be high. We have added a condition for traffic management. Some examples are right turn only from parking areas and no stopping on the west side of Woodburne during peak hours. Traffic/Roads This project will be accessed from Woodburne Ave. which is a four-lane street. Four access points are proposed off Woodburne Ave. Drainage The site drains from west to east. This project is affected by off site runoff from Rancho Vistoso Parcel K subdivision. Since this project is commercial, 5-year threshold retention is required. No drainage report has been submitted. Grading Rancho Vistoso PAD grading ordinance applies to this project. Eight feet of fill can be expected on the southeast corner of the project. Rancho Vistoso PAD does not have a limitation on cut or fill height. The grading limits could not be deduced from the development plan submitted. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD ACTION: The Development Review Board recommended approval on July 13, 1999 by a 7-0 vote, subject to staff conditions. GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE: Staff has evaluated the development plan against the General Plan Land Use Policies and finds that it conforms to Goal 1.3,to promote joint land use planning and shared use of facilities. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 7OUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 4 RECOMMENDATIONS: Planning Staff finds the Woodburne Avenue Elementary School Development Plan to be in substantial conformance with OVZCR. We recommend approval, subject to the suggested conditions set forth in Exhibit"A" attached. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve OV 12-99-2, the Woodburne Avenue Elementary School Development Plan, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit"A" as recommended by the Development Review Board. OR I move to approve OV 12-99-2, the Woodburne Avenue Elementary School Development Plan, subject to the conditions (Exhibit "A") as recommended by the Development Review Board and the following additional conditions: OR move to deny OV 12-99-2, the Woodburne Avenue Elementary School Development Plan, finding that: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit"A" 2. Reduction of development plan PlannMIPZonin Administrator (7-11112)-/ / • (16---. Community Development Director / / C Town Manager F:\ov\ov12\1999\0V12-99-2\DPTC.rpt.doc TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OV12-99-2 WOODBURNED AVENUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. A drainage report shall be submitted for review by the Town Engineers office. The report shall include an encroachment analysis for any encroachment into the wash east of this project. 2. A traffic report shall be submitted for review by Town Engineer's office. The report shall include the effect of this project to the existing roadway system, striping on Woodburne Ave and traffic circulation and conflicts. 3. Lot boundary calculations are required. 4. Development plan showing existing/proposed spot elevations shall be submitted for review and approval. 5. Provide a typical parking space cross-section for both regular and handicap accessible. 6. Delineate sight visibility triangles on the development plan. 7. Clearly label and dimension all points of access. 8. Call out dumpster location on the development plan. 9. Amphitheater Public Schools should work with the neighborhood and Oro Valley on both on and off site traffic management. A B C D E i• F G H J K .r L M N P 0 R 446.2 '_`2t� ==------- I gpNpf�,H VISTAS \ I 4t-----J ItAHlA1O V151t)50 IJEI6I�OR1000 1 1 141;1,11 Hi x .8 2860.9 � . i �A� r-- �.- 1 �,M._i: .�� _ -�•-855f�iix�. Is;Ii:-=-= e�� 84 ) \ '� � _I1iVM\ 28'1.5 s 1■ _- ------ - ---- - --- I2-x---__ i Il t�ii F 2.4, , r�i ~ ,�� iill s! i /i 6 f I C I Op•.4 I ,il� \ ir in 285X.7 _I /i I `4�.. 2843.5 x� / �+ • a, 1 ------.._ x I ♦ I • 11 ii I 4 2853.6 t_-----14.0- . f��♦ 2844.1 ft/ >. ,.._,\ r 1r- >� 4 _�r�Kl 8II\''�� �� x I s ��+ ♦♦♦ 48. x 1 J< Ri �� `�' 2852 6 n + M 12843.5 --.,i -C`----1 .. . .. .. /,. , t 1 , 1 \ Fii .."4.b.- ili I ' ___/ •,,,, r: ,• --- i� ' 11‘.1, ......211\\\ r C / t N Jr1:\)\ I Z ■ • $at8.›.7, - ii , - \ . ' ifol-6. - :.1,1: 1\ -------,,.„, ,7‘50.8 .e,,,,,,‘,..., \:::\\.s., .. ' NEt, ,_,I ,... , ,e,,, 2 'MIL a ss ` - 8 ''Ir: i i „, 4 O 1 -II .1 11 41.-,:' ' r 1_.::: - - I v♦ _-I_ J 28 ?1ii i to � r --- -� - -- � ili 8.9 + &\ �yc ; , -' ilrilargokijnarii.„, fit.. i \ ,,tial Ad . .p_- ® :i., 9"i I`I -%i = .=..ruu�-..'uy�� ♦Is ,� \A \ 2B3f ,, 4 -""allimor'a=-144114t4 ;4:,;,1 . (:::."„az.,a..1 1, wii- ----, _ wit iittaiwit --- 4SRIM=2853.6 .�'i�l�-'- ttt iJ ! 1è51i rl• �1■ .1411:::11tio gigS'Skp\, �i , i+✓l�rw>'#1 i x I 1 128 = �_. '13 x :•r,.4 2 5• 2. .1 1 2839.7 ` II .��: m f i �(���i,�T� x 2844.' •�� 1. 111111 q s',ill / ' / 'L--) . Ill ' 11 - nag iii,,,,_.„--)i±-14*-431-1ronimagsfil / -‘‘ dIAStlat n UP ."2111P. diripz,gesuoilio‘-'41111111161116411 1111 . ‘41. 1°1 ,,i pa_ ,rummtnintimail Ittes.artkaikt-- -......lor riii. , i i ji , .1 • .........„ . I i 41,47,,v ,seres-mosiojeartital 16 JEL4p. t....-'''' imilro- _ . 'IRMO / i''' I )1;.: II: ' I i IIIIIIiilial:\'4:jig! la,, li-7,0411,,I,K,,iivosik„,,,,i istiiikilivlisloonii ,/ 7 1 1 Iv 1 . . 1 iboaliwomon, •0.213.1 ,. , ., .. pi. I ,iiit.-. ill t. ' ''' ml * tattilirill Wilk- . i nali di , \Y Ill � MI ■ '����' /11111 . 265 y vi gilifiPLIIJUligi1�y+ - # aiwi tili A' / �.- s . ,,, # , 4' A. "Iiiiirdiiik"Or 411101 14 Ill * 11111111=w1111 ' ,if 5'10.1.4 ■ MIM) / �s II 11411, ik ti ■ /fir- , ili�� �i ''.8 ` if E,i abily 4:(ilt.' ___1110._„,,,d0 ' ' 7 1111114/11111411451111prilli 'n 4;4q '►-.►f4i 4' ■ $' RIZIIIIIIIIRINF � 4.i.,..ii I1JL1f ,ixani ■1c.e1%, ii! ■ - _ 2833.7 1 f :,:iii.::1 .4. , ,... ...... .pimuinuireihX0 x 29.5 .�/ _ '���_7t�:i�.�iR;:Irigianivilmlaw.A* 1 ,4 'Jr� _ 1 //`/1 likirr- 2840.2 x ..4:, .i e 2837 8 tit �/�81,7 --Air----p...---------.4.- ` -L. - r-�.�� � 2832.7 r gpg, ` \ ` _ i 284,1." 28-1 9 O /• i 4 ` PT.3 = if /V 2'x'•7 i 2842.8 j , `I lir �! ^, 2834.23/0. �`�(•2832.7 :+. I:.-g-; / Z 228229 I 230 �232 '� 283.9 {, (--------\ x �)n .� (•r 231 \� ::- . . 0 \ \ II I� 233 / / , i �� U5 cat INA5 \\ -`I I i WOO Y151050 tE16FE4 K I4 47 f // �. , 'k . DOCK t INP PANCB 5 L i K(4640 15010) / / IC N _--- .. �-b 07-107 / / - -1 4 t.i, 75101 a-iM ( .,,gs 7 i 6 ,,_, „„„ I -41 1 ,n ,a II -----' 1..4 ° t 11 i :_,,,,,,%*ig § g 04 I ;; 0 IC] i i g,.42-ag t tE. 1 ral°`' 3-31-47 .e , 1 15:1 i r i 1 1 Xra I 4 1 i5!Mt_g 2 8 "4: 41 k • Pil . 1 E- i. .,oA W il 8.... tz t ,,._ I n . - -; 7 ; X Xi ffi I , - a: , g putt 0).1 ii i ., ti;0 x g 1 FIRST AVE R 13 E i i 1 In '1 1 :Eli iCO 4 a ..... ' :1 -!1 Oz i I B C 0 E F G I H JIK IL IPA I N P 1 Q R FROM : WLB ANNEX PHONE NO. : 520 3186170 Aug. 03 1999 01:46PM P2 rizta -rt Ti2 �...�(TA (Iii E X�<Xro�+�+� /4444:4 .0: 0,iitMr: gg-,,1*; CgazZi L. axe-Y4(ck, ty_ August 3, 1999 Mayor Paul Loomis c/o Chuck Sweet, Town Manager Town of Oro Valley 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley,Arizona 85737 Subject; Beztak La Canada/Lambert Commercial Center Grading Waiver and Development Plan(0V12-99-07) Dear Mayor Loomis: We respectfully request a two week continuance of the grading waiver and development plan for the La Canada/Lambert Commercial Center. We would ask to be heard at the August 18th, 1999 Town Council meeting. This request is based on the need to continue to resolve development issues relating to the conditions contained in the Staff report. Sincerely, THE BEZTAK COMPANIES 3b1"-"-- - Lt14-47v-, James H. Nelson c: Bryant Nodine,Zoning Administrator David Williams, The VV''LB Group, Inc. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 4, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Paul K.Nzomo, P.E., Civil Engineer: CIP & Development Bryant Nodine,AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING OV12-99-07, GRADING EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR LA CANADA/LAMBERT COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUMMARY: The applicant, the WLB Group Inc., is representing the owner's request to exceed the cut/fillp rovision of the Grading Ordinance. On June 29, 1999 the Development Review Board (DRB) voted 4-3 to deny the grading exception for this project because the applicant did not meet all six standard conditions aser the Grading g Ordinance. As per the Grading Ordinance, the applicant may apply anydecision of the DRB within 20 days . . y of the decision to the Mayor and Council. REPORT: The property is located on the southeast corner of Lambert Lane and La Canada Drive. It is abutted on the .;ast by a golf course and soil cement channel, to the south by La Canada Villages Block A, to the west by g La Canada Drive and to the north by Lambert Lane. This property is currently undeveloped with topography that slopes uniformly to the southeast with a range of 3-5% slopes, with the exception of the two hills on the p property. The tallest hill is near Lambert Lane, at the northeast corner of thero ert , and is about 25 feet p p y high. The other hill is near La Canada Drive, at the southwest corner of thero ert and is about 20 feet p p Y� high. Cuts of up to 31 feet and 14 feet, respectively, are proposed in the development plan for these hills. p The plan also proposes 5-12 feet of fill for the perimeter buildings on the lower elevations of the site to the south and east. The cuts and fills are best illustrated by the cross-sections included with the attached development plan. Impact of Future Lambert Lane Improvements The applicant has stated that when Lambert Lane is widened to its ultimate section it will have a significant impact on the northeast hill. Lambert Lane is a 150' right-of-way. This street is notro rammed to be improved to its full widthp g• rovements p in the Town's next 5 year Capital Improvement Projects. The only improvements planned for this street are safety improvements, which will include a multi-useathwa . Hence, it is difficult to speculate the - p y p future cross-section. Regardless, if Lambert Lane was to be improved roved and did encroach into the hill in question, there are various engineering methodologies to increase the slope of the cut and minimize impacts on the hill. Developability Without a Grading Exception ccording to the subdivision standards, the maximum slope allowed for a driveway is 8% and the ADA _,orizontal maximum slope is 5.0% continuously with no more than a 2% cross slope. With the exception of the two hills, the %. p existing topography of the site falls between 3-5 Thus the site has a adequate fall for drainage and sewerage and should be able to meet Code and ADA requirements--the site can be developed and q p meet all the above standards without a grading exception. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 3 7riteria for a Grading Exception The Grading Code states that DRB may grant a grading exception if it finds that all of the following six standards have been met: 1. The property is buildable; and Staff: The site is buildable. 2. Granting the exception constitutes the minimum to allow the proposed improvement; and Staff: The site has 3-5 % fall with the exception of the two hills on site. Hence, the site can be developed without a grading exception. 3. The conditions on the property are unique and effectively deny improvement; and Staff: The conditions on the property (the hill remnants) are unique, but the site can be developed without a grading exception. 4. The exception does not constitute a granting of special privilege, and does not substitute for creative design; and Staff: It could be argued that any exception grants a special privilege. Though "creative design" is a very subjective term, the applicant has responded to the site by: (1) stepping the floor elevations of the buildings to follow the contours of the site; (2) removing the southeast most building to create a grade break; (3) lowering the rear circulation and parking elements; and placing a detention basin at the southeast corner of the property. All of these design changes help to minimize the required fills and their impact on surrounding properties. 5. The exception is necessary to adapt the improvement to the land; and Staff: The applicant's position is that the exception is necessary to fit the typical commercial center on the site. This is correct, however, fitting a typical improvement on the site is just the opposite of adapting an improvement to the site. The applicant does not meet this standard, because they propose to use the grading exception to adapt the site to the proposed improvement. 6. That the exception will not negatively impact the community, the neighborhood or the public welfare. Staff: Staff has received numerous calls from citizens in the immediate areas expressing a variety of concerns regarding this project. Those concerns that relate to this exception are: the removal of the hill at the northeast corner of the site; the visual impact of the fill from south of the site on La Canada Drive (see the proposed south property line cross-section graphic); and the visual impact of the fill from the golf course and homes east of the site. DRB CONSIDERATION AND ACTION The Development Review Board (DRB) reviewed this grading exception request on 6/29/99 at a public hearing and denied it by a 4-3 (Underwood/Vogelsberg/Lewis) vote. As noted in the attached minutes, the reasons for denying the exception were that the site could be build without the exception and the application did not meet all six standard conditions listed above. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 3 'ECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the grading exception request for this development and must recommend denial because the project does not meet all the six criteria listed above. If the Council chooses to approve this grading exception, Staff recommends the following conditions, which would allow the hills to be cut but would ensure that the fill on the perimeter of the site meets the Grading Code: 1. Fills on the perimeter of the site will be limited to 6', or 8' if terracing is utilized. 2. Constructed slopes shall not exceed 12' high measured vertically from the existing grade to the proposed grade. 3. Any excess material shall be hauled into an approved offsite location. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Council may wish to consider one of the following motions: I move to deny applicant's appeal of the grading exception, OV 12-99-07, finding that OR I move to approve the applicant's appeal of the grading exception, OV 12-99-07, [with the conditions included in the staff recommendation]. Attachments: 1. Grading Exception Application 2. Excerpt of June 29, 1999 DRB Minutes 3. Appeal of DRB Decision 4. Reduction of Development Plan 5. Supplemental Graphics Planni Zoning Administrator ' ")),Lit-A-iiiCommunity Development Director Town Manager :\OV\OV 12\1999\OV 12-99-7\TCROV 129907GRADINGWAIVERFORLACANADALAMBERT.doc 5 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 4, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Paul K.Nzomo, P.E., Civil Engineer: CIP & Development Bryant Nodine,AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING OV12-99-07, GRADING EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR LA CANADA/LAMBERT COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUMMARY: The applicant, the WLB Group Inc., is representing the owner's request to exceed the cut/fillp rovision of the Grading Ordinance. On June 29, 1999 the Development Review Board (DRB) voted 4-3 to the radin. deny grading exception for this project because the applicant did not meet all six standard conditions aser the Grading g Ordinance. As per the Grading Ordinance, the applicant may apply anydecision of the DRB within 20 days y of the decision to the Mayor and Council. REPORT: The property is located on the southeast corner of Lambert Lane and La Canada Drive. It is abutted on the east by a golf course and soil cement channel, to the south by La Cafiada Villages Block A, to the west byLa g Cafiada Drive and to the north by Lambert Lane. This property is currently undeveloped with topography that slopes uniformly to the southeast with a range of 3-5% slopes, with the exception of the two hills on the p property. The tallest hill is near Lambert Lane, at the northeast corner of thero ert , and is about 25 feet p p y high. The other hill is near La Canada Drive, at the southwest corner of thero ert and is about 20 feet p p y� high. Cuts of up to 31 feet and 14 feet, respectively, are proposed in the development plan for these hills. p The plan also proposes 5-12 feet of fill for the perimeter buildings on the lower elevations of the site to the south and east. The cuts and fills are best illustrated by the cross-sections included with the attached development plan. Impact of Future Lambert Lane Improvements The applicant has stated that when Lambert Lane is widened to its ultimate section it will have a significant impact on the northeast hill. Lambert Lane is a 150' right-of-way. This street is notro rammed to be improved to its full p g p width in the Town's next 5 year Capital Improvement Prod ects. The only improvements p planned for this street are safety improvements, which will include a multi-usewa ath . Hence, it is difficult p Y to speculate the future cross-section. Regardless, if Lambert Lane was to be improved and did encroach into the hill in question, there are various engineering methodologies to increase the slope of the cut and minimize impacts on the hill. Developability Without a Grading Exception { 'ccording to the subdivision standards, the maximum slope allowed for a driveway is 8% and the ADA _orizontal maximum slope is 5.0% continuously with no more than a 2% cross slope. With the exception of the two hills, %. p the existing topography of the site falls between 3-5 Thus the site has a adequate fall for drainage and sewerage and should be able to meet Code and ADA requirements--the site can be developed and q p meet all the above standards without a grading exception. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 3 :'riteria for a Grading Exception The Grading Code states that DRB may grant a grading exception if it finds that all of the following six standards have been met: 1. The property is buildable; and Staff: The site is buildable. 2. Granting the exception constitutes the minimum to allow the proposed improvement; and Staff: The site has 3-5 % fall with the exception of the two hills on site. Hence, the site can be developed without a grading exception. 3. The conditions on the property are unique and effectively deny improvement; and Staff: The conditions on the property (the hill remnants) are unique, but the site can be developed without a grading exception. 4. The exception does not constitute a granting of special privilege, and does not substitute for creative design; and Staff: It could be argued that any exception grants a special privilege. Though "creative design" is a very subjective term, the applicant has responded to the site by: (1) stepping the floor elevations of the buildings to follow the contours of the site; (2) removing the southeast most building to create a grade break; (3) lowering the rear circulation and parking elements; and placing a detention basin at the southeast corner of the property. All of these design changes help to minimize the required fills and their impact on surrounding properties. 5. The exception is necessary to adapt the improvement to the land; and Staff: The applicant's position is that the exception is necessary to fit the typical commercial center on the site. This is correct, however, fitting a typical improvement on the site is just the opposite of adapting an improvement to the site. The applicant does not meet this standard, because they propose to use the grading exception to adapt the site to the proposed improvement. 6. That the exception will not negatively impact the community, the neighborhood or the public welfare. Staff: Staff has received numerous calls from citizens in the immediate areas expressing a variety of concerns regarding this project. Those concerns that relate to this exception are: the removal of the hill at the northeast corner of the site; the visual impact of the fill from south of the site on La Canada Drive (see the proposed south property line cross-section graphic); and the visual impact of the fill from the golf course and homes east of the site. DRB CONSIDERATION AND ACTION The Development Review Board (DRB) reviewed this grading exception request on 6/29/99 at a public hearing and denied it by a 4-3 (Underwood/Vogelsberg/Lewis) vote. As noted in the attached minutes, the reasons for denying the exception were that the site could be build without the exception and the application did not meet all six standard conditions listed above. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 3 -'.ECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the grading exception request for this development and must recommend denial because the project does not meet all the six criteria listed above. If the Council chooses to approve this grading exception, Staff recommends the following conditions, which would allow the hills to be cut but would ensure that the fill on the perimeter of the site meets the Grading Code: 1. Fills on the perimeter of the site will be limited to 6', or 8' if terracing is utilized. 2. Constructed slopes shall not exceed 12' high measured vertically from the existing grade to the proposed grade. 3. Any excess material shall be hauled into an approved offsite location. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Council may wish to consider one of the following motions: I move to deny applicant's appeal of the grading exception, OV 12-99-07, finding that OR I move to approve the applicant's appeal of the grading exception, OV 12-99-07, [with the conditions included in the staff recommendation]. _attachments: 1. Grading Exception Application 2. Excerpt of June 29, 1999 DRB Minutes 3. Appeal of DRB Decision 4. Reduction of Development Plan 5. Supplemental Graphics Planni Zoning Administrator 7"))1-gitAl r Community Development Director Town Manager \OV\OV 12\1999\OV 12-99-7\TCROV 129907GRADINGWAIVERFORLACANADALAMBERT.doc TOWN OF ORO VALLEY APPLICATION FOR GRADLNG VARIANCE DA"1'E: 7/99 Rev s ed-6/15/99 OV CASE NO.: (Office use only) PROJECT NAME: La Canada Lambert Commercial Center PROPOSED USE Commercial/Retail NO. OF UNITS: N/A ACRES: 14.9 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Southeast corner La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane NATURE OF REQUEST/MODIFICATION TO GRADING ORDINANCE REQUESTED: Please see attached. . APPLICANT: The WLB Group,Inc. ADDRESS: 4444 E.Broadway Blvd.,Tucson.AZ 85711 PHONE NO.: 831-7480 PROPERTY OWNER: Arcade Development Company ADDRESS: 800 Atrium I Bldg,839 5th Ave.SW.Calgary Alberta T2-3C8.Canada PHONE NO.: PROJECT ENGNEER: The WLB Group.Inc. ADDRESS: 4444 E.Broadway Blvd..Tucson,AZ 85711 SIGNATURE: DATE: 5117/99 You must submit 12 copies of the proposed grading plan,a S 150.00 fee and a list of all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed site at least 21 calendar days prior to the desired hearing.date. Additional written supporting.material may also be required to further describe your plans. LA CANADA/LAMBERT CON 1 ERCIAL CENTER NATURE OF REQUEST/MODIIICATION TO GRADING ORDINANCE REQUESTED.- ADDENDUM (Revised June 15, 1999) A grading waiver is requested with respect to the amount of cut and fill that is permitted on the site. The property contains two isolated hills that remain as remnants of larger ridges that existed prior to roadway development adjacent to the site and are the source of the request for additional cut. Additional fill is required in order to establish developed grades that do not exceed Town standards and safe engineering practice. FILLS Design effort has been emphasized in order to lower the grades (fills) on this site while respecting the Town of Oro Valley's design standards and following general engineering safety guidelines. Entry drives have been revised to have the maximum slope allowable by Town standards as they"drop"into the site from La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane,thereby reducing the amount of fill for building pads. Overall,fills have been reduced throughout the project by 5' to 7' at the main buildings. All proposed retaining walls have been eliminated with the exception of a short length of retainin g wall required at the southwest corner of the project. All other perimeter locations shall "daylight"using landscape enhanced slopes. CUTS The isolated hill along Lambert Lane consists primarily of an exposed cut slope that was created by grading existing Lambert Lane. The owner and developer of the site request that a significant cuts and fills be permitted to support the development of a retail center on the site. The cut will include removal of both small hills on the property. While the majority of the cuts will be within current standards,the peak of the hill along Lambert Lane will require an approximately 28 foot cut. It should be noted that the eventual widening of Lambert Lane will cause a significant impact to this hill, with the possibility of an 18-20 foot cut and the removal of about one-half of the hill along Lambert Lane. The roadway cut condition found on the subject property is somewhat unique to the immediate vicinity where road building has left significaint exposed cuts which are unsightly and do not leave enough original land form intact to be considered a visual, aesthetic or functional asset to either the neighborhood or development of the subject property. The retail center has been planned and designed in coordination with the development of the property abutting to the south;Villages of La Canada,Block A. Specifically, grading design for the two properties has been integrated to accommodate planned and suitable uses of the property while reducing the amount of import/export of material. . . - La CanadalLambert Commercial Center Grading Waiver Application a- Supplement Grading Waiver Criteria Revised 611199 • The following is submitted in support of our application for a grading waiver on property located at the southeast corner of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane. This narrative addresses the six criteria established by the Oro Valley Zoning Code in relation to grading waivers. 1. The project site for the proposed commercial center is a buildable site. 2. The exception to cut and flh requirements is intended to be the minimum cuts and fills necessary in order to develop the site for commercial uses as planned and zoned, under sound and accepted engineering practice. Accepted standards as to driveway grades, sidewalk and walkway slopes and ADA requirements act to limit the amount of grade change that can be established on a developed site. In order to reduce fills any further, maximum slopes and grades would likely be exceeded. 3. The isolated hill remnants found on the subject property are unique in that many of the existing contours, particularly those most visible to the public, are man made. At the time of area roadway construction and golf course construction, considerable cuts and fills were created through ridges and hillsides. The remnants of grading activities for Lambert Lane,La Canada Drive, and the drainageway to the east, are the primary subject of this grading waiver application. It is these hillside 1emnants that are, 1) unique to the immediate vicinity of Lambert Lane and La Canada Drive,and, 2)the cause of other grading waiver approvals. 4. No special privilege is sought through this gracling waiver application. Development of the subject property for planned, accepted and zoned land uses is intended. Design of commercial centers are often dictated by access locations and site constraints. In order to respond to the unique conditions of the site, the design has been revised in several ways: a) finished floor elevations for the buildings have been stepped to respond to the existing topographic conditions, b) a section of building has been removed to accommodate a"grade break"through the middle of the commercial center, c) an outdoor courtyard has been added to the design to provide a transition in grade change and an outdoor pedestrian space between the retail buildings, d) rear circulation and parking areas have been lowered in elevation to reduce fill amounts 5. The grading exception is necessary to allow for the development of the site as a commercial center. The design of the improvements have been altered to respond to the center. The design of the improvements have been altered to respond to the to o ga hic v features of the site. Typical commercial centers are developed on relatively flat sites (1%-2% slope). This site typically slopes 4%-5%, and the site design has been adapted to more closely build to the land, as intended by the grading ordinance. 6. The additional cut and fill requested will not be materially detrimental to the rights is of property owners and residents. There are no existing residences adjacent to the development site, and particularly the isolated bill along Lambert Lane. Further,there are no adjacent properties that rely on the existing contours to provide screening or buffering. The adjacent properties include the Canada Hills golf course,the Smith's shopping center,Waigreen's, Canada Crossroads, and the Villages of La Canada Block A. It should be noted that the bill located along Lambert Lane will be severely impacted by the eventual redevelopment of the Lambert Lane roadway. Based on anticipated widening and the addition of pedestrian and bike facilities,the new facility will cut severely into the existing hillside,just as the existing Lambert Lane's construction did. In summary,development of this site or any site creates impacts to the community; the additional cuts and fills requested do not act to increase the impact of the development of this property. W:IHEIDI11990131beztakgrading T h e Engineering • Planning KILB Surveying • Urban Design Landscape Architecture Inc.uroup July 19, 1999 Honorable Mayor and Town Council Town of Oro Valley 11,000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Subject: La Canada/Lambert Commercial Center Grading Waiver Denial WLB #199013A001 Dear Council members, The Development Review Board recently denied our application for a grading waiver for the above referenced project. We still believe strongly that the best way to develop the subject property includes the removal of the small hill remnant along Lambert Lane - necessitating a grading ordinance waiver. Therefore, under the provisions of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, we are appealing the decision of the DRB to the Oro Valley Town Council. We feel the grading waiver has strong merits and should be considered closely based on those merits as outlined in our grading waiver application. We believe the application meets the established criteria for grading waivers, and, we believe the project is an important part of the planned and developing land use pattern in Oro Valley. The planned development of this property is tied to the development of the Villages of La Canada Block A, and it is hoped these two sites can be developed simultaneously. Such cooperative development allows the earth moving activities to occur between these two sites, alleviating the need for heavy truck traffic on public streets importing or exporting dirt during the development stage. Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture Offices located in Tucson, Phoenix, Las Vegas • E-mail: wlbtuc@ix. netcom .com 4444 East Broadway • Tucson, Arizona 85711 • (520) 881-7480 • FAX (520) 881-7492 The IVLB groupOro Valley Council July 19, 1999 Page 2 We appreciate the Council's consideration of this appeal and would be happy to supply any additional information you may desire. Sincerely, THE WLB GROUP, INC. David A. Williams, AICP Planning and Landscape Architecture c: Hank Nelson, Beztak Companies W:\HEIDI\199013\grading-a ppeal.ltr S VD E,;•,-.2§-T Li4;?-7/17 . -- ‘ 44, g g i !iii_11 __ _,,,..,,,,,,,,,d,'„qiir:. -•-:._-, --,,_-,,__ '''''------- -N-7-,--7-7x'sill"' - x. ---ji --- ,• ibi ., -_.•_ , .....' ,. Nolipw_mifik ., 11111111111111.11111111.1111111.4111L-" IMMI11111111411: • AFI•DA DRIVE !I: i 11 itki,‘111511111.14 ' IVI,W.... ... .. rir"..41:1Zw.-'611114111,.., .II .071.111 --. - '1 I ' ai, . •Al •,, ..0,/,..1..1.00 .-11.11111iii ra....r. _ , -....00.Illin.l.""L% ; MEE smnienomm,,,,, mimai .=.46W.1..!:!_."_tr.4, .Irl.a.ori==„ 1,,iioi... ....m....,„...,,,,., _ 0, ,.._„ ..,. ,,is, ,___, Ki kt7--,filigo'ht..!fir 1.t.__,A, will_ 31A1111%or, 1015EiliP0411610quarairiaqUIFFIBULIIIIII17+ . ; Alkt V '' ncHw,PI ' ,24 •. .4---<---!--%-' - gei 4-www..--4.- z. .. -irih 11. ,. -. . ', .4..,. ..,.■r.,' -?),Liif...<A,14. i'!"---tr.:.. .ze ... 4.rmrdfir6, v r.i' ii . ' 4-4.1-!-\44c:m17:7";r4"" irsg--2-g-711*.-. 4111F a 110P-1 di. ,4 C. IMEMIL,111. ik : ..:: ,, 0. Aor • ! 0 liMee NO 1% i 1 iiNoit 44,7r, 1 .- w nig ' % I , . M- 101i aft, 1 . r .,,off,Amy-Fri' .:titri„, •t.,..s.,1„ ...„. ....artil . - 1 , ,l- A .., J ,, 7" • __ __ . - .. I.: ion : . ..1 .14,4, , . 3 0.106.* id ii. . 1 j ir p 1:" :- L ,,Niii I i hail 1.1,14 i IP ' As—r-7-1-1-t , , __,,i_ __I ,. I , ... . , . , No 'N lb 1%4 lit.,.: 11),,, .• ',1101k 4 1 , 1 0,-. " 1 11 1 j aftwi. . ",. F 1:* ' °I.7.. 1 AL 41 IN Imilt BIL0111111 1.1111191111 All ' lilltilMN- ,041° ;.)._• 1 .4_, ,,,. ..se Iii= LA . INT_i Et 1, _ , , 734 fiu, ,, i, 1 ,,,, 1 w4o4.• :.../ ._ . .,. _., r 1,r' A' ,t,e' •!'VI:---'' ''' it. ' no= " ' I. .•- Alk MI ! ' • Fr . A 7 1 . ' 7',. 1111*.• ' VON. %. l'. ..t.1 41% 1 Virfti .. .;.- e 0\0 2 i k —,A, .ittkv,e. N NI ' L- urittklit'V:itili 1 1 6.,. s /)I AtWa. -.. IIICS* ________ ____-.. , fillitig(r..74.?„,"--4,,..5•,iill ;.' .,, 0 ___.-rict* A*04`4, A *11/4, • '."IIIIMPI"1111\111 4.ft:7 11411 Wilmili - --- '''''' i Nill %-iiki,..., '\4%. % -, --.NNILd..40Millirol Vtri.....—s . N-- .10,VP744 : I • • ... imimaiii 1. .... ...0 •\ ,i . , . I 11 II IlLe . 41,- \PiAin, 'ZMIntkir- 7‘64a.m..m.REMAILILAWSPATAgarfelitil;lik .'„, .3--,..._,• ' 6.16, 1 I i i • o -p_1111,7401 P--4A---- ----._____________'--------- - -._...__ "L'±. ..___ L*311-11"-„,ik I k i 1.1 x mliklar. ____ I::------.r if,---r---------- ., .._ '...._ a,. 1 x1 / 0 i 1 : 610_ _ ,-x__ __ •. wo I 1 g _ ILMI N:\199013\DEYBASE-4 D. 1111111111111[1111 111111111111 i "- � IIII IlnI ImmII II11 I-- -94°1 a� 11111111111111111111911111111111111111111111 "li !!!!!!!!!!!!!! .momI ' t 1'e III , '.,;,� :: i:, 1 1 1 4 a IIIMMM yi •sHIIIIIINHIIHIHHIIUIIIIIIIIIIIINHIIIIIIIIIIIHIHAIIIIHIIIIIIiUIIIIIIH ] ..:: ' [ 11 .::::::::� ' - • ':'• ------ - - . ---- ::.....:-. ..H,:-....,:,i:,,:„.;.:„ .,, !!;1:;H' ':”.;HI !!!!'''....... . - ..• ••-.....:::::::::H:2. . .':::: ::::::::.''''..' ' --"' ''''- ':"''' ''':::. . ... 14 1. •••:::: . .....-A..!..... ',::::,.,..-.1 3: '... --- H.,." rumMMMEMMMM I : 71:.H':::: . n ,nrwaan..: " .::!: H*4 �+n�s�r e i n ',..," ...:::,,'';'',:.::.'V:::::::::: !)11'.iiiigi 'M'ilk.' i':::1:::''''''::).1: � � � eiun IIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIMgMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMMfr41111111111111111 � � � 1111111mE„M1M111111111111_-mmmk„li .MMMMMM� � iinill,�� '�IIA �: 111111111111111g* 'I'd ''.::: :::::::::::.::::.,:,:::::.: p, i �a� �a�wo � ��nAtinIMIUMffilliiiii142° 11 ' dimmoEo�o� s_upa � o���� � r_ na� e� a�� a�er�� RRO12'R1111 11:1:1Iit::::!1:::::: P:Ti '''',i'':::.:L. :':i't,i.i4i:ii.:,!':41n1114Lu.::111inliiITIPZI2:::.! ::::: iii i',',H... .:.:H..!..HH:H::::" I';:Thil*.:.:.:::::: ..::::.41MHH!1:111FrkZ:iiiIiiP.'..!%:Zd'qffl'/IIRE4 ::::ii'4" .:..!'::: :.,:ii ,.H!1:11:,* I : :...:::::::.: • :• . ..: —...-:--:':----::",- --::,---:::::.::.::...::.,..:..,. ...:..:..:.. ...:..:..:... .!.::"„,",!!!!!!:',!:::;Iiillti;ji,111 11!!!!!:!!:. '.'.-............. . r I.H . ::::: I. !:! illi.: ::::. E '::':..::.:: ::.i'''-:::•.,,'::::::::.::,,,,,,::.::::::,,„, ::::::,,,,,,,.::.,,:,:,,... ..:",,,, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!.! L.::r:..,.;:i::;: .;:.,.:.,:,..::::::......:::::.:......::::::: 1 ---.. ----'''''''--... .....1::"-'.:::::::::L.:::::: 'I -. .. _• ... .. .. •.......... ........._.._.. ..,,......„:„,...._... ..,,,,„.„,-,,,-..:::-.. ......„..,,i„,„,,,,.... ...„...,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,::„.... - ...-,,,!'J.!',',;:,:i iiJ',!!!!!'„'„ --:.. .::..:::. '...:.,....:::...'....:...::-....!.,l'::::i..!;.::. :::.....H .,.. ..•• , , , ...„„::,,i„,,,,,,Hi„,,,--. i r;I. : : ':!.' 1::: :..:::.:H::...: :; ,.:! !:..,i. :H::'!::::iiH!!!!::iiiiii!.,!!!!:;iiiii,,:!!! ;:i.:iE,,f.!!!!!!:;:iii,„,!!!!!,:,--ii,„„i„!„;,ii,:„,:,,„iii„,,,,.„,,:,.,„„,,,„:,,„,„„,:::::„,„:„... , ' ' ...... ,,,,,,,,,„,.„. I ...:'"''''''''' ••-:i::'''''":•''' ...,",,,,,,,!:::,:„,„,,„::. .••:_•• • r ilc"''l 1 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111 imi iiiII , �iHIIIIUIIIIUUIIIIHIHHIHIUIHHIUHHHIIUIUIIHI Ill (1 ,,? 1111111111111111111i1111111111111111111111111111111 ° = I 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 �!1111II. I { ls 1il1II.• • —-------;:,!,,--,::,.....:IP. 111111111111111111111111111111 1:!',! 1! !1!:!! DDF. IV ':: :1!::•!1 DE.:-..:: :.: .,'..r.:Tj'i.. ::.,. i!:... ::. il: .':•:i.!:.-t .. ','''..! :.!!::.. !, ::. :.. ::::. ':.::.:::!:...!:. ..:. ::..,. .,.! ..•... :,:1,.,., ,::: ::.1. i.l.- ::. ,,.:.:11 :::.,;. ,: :1111ii,ii.J„E;,;,„,„„,:„:„,„„„„„:,„,„,„::,,„::. :: .::: .:::::•::.: :.:.i.... , : ..::,:„ :,.:,..:,,:::,.„::::.:,..H :::: H i i iii i:, E:,,„,:,„i,„: :„ „:,„,„„,,.::,,::..:,:.:.. ...... :::: :::••— ::: : • ::::•::: — •-• •- ::::::::::::.::::::::::::,,,:•: ::,„„:1 ,,,,:: ::. „:,:,„,„,„,-----:::::::::::„:::::::::::: .,::,::,:., ..,:::::,..:... ...... ...... 1 -:::::.:H.! .. L.:: -.:— .-,..,:'! :::::!:::::::- ::::::::.:::::E;::;.::::;::::::;:::H,:: :;!:!::::::' -- - ::::::-:::,,,::.:::—:::::::::::-,„„:::,.:„:„,• :,•::::„::: :::-:::- .::: — ....:::..: ...: . .. . . . ..: :. . . .. ...." ... ":.::":—':'"'":'::':"'''':::''"::.::::--: ::::*:... i':::::::::' ':':::....H: . ::::.:,:..:... u• : : . .:,..:.: ..:.:i,.,E:::::::::,:..:: ...H:: . .:,H:.:.: 4, :. : !!::::,,:::::::::::.::,,:„.::::::..............:.:...............,:i::..,:..:::,:,.....:::....,,.:„ - ----- " - .—,;- ;:::. -,:',:,:: : .. . ::. ::::.. ..:: ...: ... :::,,::.il-:•itf, ;.; ;:: .::''';' '::!j i;::,:;:.!!i:;;! i;:::::! ::.i.E.i.!i;;ei hl:i!!::!ii:;, ii.:;::!::::; !!! :! ::::.:: .::: :: !! !::!''' :: ::•1'•••::: '.' !..:ii Y L rIIIHIIIKhUU1!G1IIIHHIIIIHIHIIIIIII!P1UIHHHHHIIHhiIiHflI!II1II!.fil',..: ., : ,.._...— —— — —.—.—..::::—— .:...—l'. "Hi 1�1 ! 1II�II11RIII�E !�I m11iiii�liiil■ii�11�i1l�llil�ilii ..' w�eii iiIiIIIMIVIlliliiiiii Ali - mi� � n, 1 ��IlIi �i�I��I1j1�1ii�si1IIIf i�IIIIIIIIIII1I!EEIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIhiIIIIIIIIII 13. i111I , N� �II�jI � IIININWI ' I I Il�iilNi�Aililll II111IIIIIII I 1. _...,.,. 11 1 IN 1111111i11111 111111111111111111111i111111111111111111111111 i 1111111111111 ta, . ..t ,: IIA�III I�NIIII�IIIAINI 14r IIIIIIIIIMMIIP i \No. Q Q Z Q U Q J 0 d W J 0 ��� .J . 3 S z W W cc U c0 ..., � 1 t Q » i *, 111 . 111 Z o Z W • dr Z aci . ..,11,k • • 0 w ILI ID %' -Ne"-‘4* N (111) 0 I; •;71.:I.,. -....111.1'11. 1+• - M 0 • • .0 •'...'"; N r ...• IIIIII Cg I ALfila ,:i• . _.:,, QW 1 . CI mil gie 3 • 105,4•44 v W . . . r--, Cl- Q. 0 0 CDC') 0 K rd rg Why- 1 < Cr)Fp) -�.;, to to • •• �� • o W m 0. m rn • Z W QN • ..-i&.2.--.%.. a. .��i� J V m Z .., cn 2 E • • ..." ....„Lir 0 z pk • --) ,.....,,, . ,,,,,,, < ._. ..., 41 CI)Nw urief 0OO 1 laurg Cn W •• III = Z � ' J 0 0 , 5 = Q V p , (2 w � =II LIC M elm :I: (") 312 wNcn a CO z mEE--, Q Z0 \,_E 14 - W < crW 11.1 .C2 JW 0 t) Zj I TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 6 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 4th, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: David Marsh, Planner I SUBJECT: OV12-99-7 LA CANADA / LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE BACKGROUND: The WLB Group, representing the Beztak Companies, request approval for a project Development Plan. The 14.90-acre property is located at the southeast corner of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane, and is designated for commercial use under the El Conquistador PAD. The property is abutted on the north by Lambert Lane and the Fry's commercial center, to the east by a drainage channel and a golf course, to the south by the Villages of La Canada, and to the west by La Canada Drive and the approved Canada Crossroads commercial development. The site is still in its natural state, with a small wash, two small hills, and large amounts of vegetation. This development plan is dependent on appeal of a grading exception application, which the DRB denied at its June 29th, 1999 meeting. The applicant has appealed the denial of the grading exception to Town Council, which is qlso scheduled for this evening's meeting. This project is also dependent on approval of a conditional use permit replace an existing utility pole, which was continued by the Planning & Zoning Commission at its July 6th, 1999 meeting, at the request of the applicant. SUMMARY: The Beztak Companies proposes to develop a commercial center on-site, with a total of 132,422 square feet(SF) of commercial floor space. The proposed development will consist of a specialty grocery store, a drug store with drive-through, a bank, restaurants, and approximately 33,000 SF for retail shops. The development will also feature a large number of sidewalks, links to the planned Lambert Lane Multi-Use Path, a pedestrian plaza with outdoor seating areas for restaurants, and several water features. The development will have vehicular access off of Lambert Lane and La Canada Drive, and will possess 549 parking spaces and 56 bicycle spaces. The development plan is discussed in detail below. El Conquistador PAD The proposed development plan meets all requirements of the El Conquistador PAD. All buildings proposed by the development plan are within the required setbacks, and the parking provided is in conformance with the 1 space per 250 SF requirement of the PAD. OVZCR e development plan proposed is in general conformance with the requirements of the OVZCR, although several issues remain. Loading bays have been adequately provided for the planned commercial development on- site; however, the OVZCR requires that PAD B have its own loading bay, due to square footage and distance requirements. Sec. 11-203.H of the OVZCR does permit a reduction the number and location of required loading TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 7OUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 5 spaces, and Staff recommends that the Council eliminate the loading bay for PAD B, given the type of development proposed, and the current methods of delivery to retail businesses. As required by the Code, Staff has placed a condition that all loading bays be screened by a 6' high opaque wall. In addition, Staff has also placed a condition of approval that the trash dumpster behind Building 2 be screened by a 6' masonry wall and landscaping, as per the requirements of the OVZCR. Design Issues The proposed development plan features a variety of amenities, such as water features, a pedestrian plaza with a fountain and an outdoor eating area, and staff commends the applicant for the provision of additional landscaping and sidewalks throughout the plan. The applicant has made several modifications in the development plan since the last DRB meeting, including the provision of a small pedestrian"patio" in the southeast corner of the buildings, and have combined Buildings 1 & 2 to allow for a larger pedestrian plaza area and increased views of the Santa Catalina Mountains. The applicant has also proposed to construct a sidewalk along La Canada Drive to connect the development with the Villages of La Canada to the south. Staff has requested that several raised pedestrian crossings, consisting of coloured paving materials, such as interlocking brick, be placed within the parking area as a traffic calming measure, which the applicant has incorporated into the plan. In a similar manner to the Target and Home Depot Centers, the applicant has provided a trailhead area to link the 'roposed development to the planned Lambert Lane Multi-Use Path, which will run adjacent to the south side of imbert Lane. Staff has requested that the trailhead area be linked to Building 1, and the Multi-Use Path, with a minimum 8' wide path, constructed to AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) standards. Forty-four bicycle parking spaces are required for this development, and the applicant has more than met this requirement, providing 56 spaces, 28 Class I and 28 Class II. While these spaces are provided, Staff has requested that several of the spaces be moved or re-allocated to allow for a more equitable distribution across the site. In addition, Staff has placed a condition that the lighting plan for the development be the same as the commercial centers to the north and west and, at the request of the Building Codes Division, be submitted for staff review prior to issuance of building permits. Access/Traffic A retail center has already been constructed on the northeast and northwest corners of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane. A proposed retail center has been approved for the southwest corner. There is a proposed and approved 80 unit residential community adjacent to the site on the south and a golf course to the east. The adjacent topography is rolling plains. La Canada Drive goes downhill south of the site Lambert Lane is relatively level adjacent and east of the site. Both La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane are 150 feet wide right-of- way. The intersection of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane is signalized with the following approaches: Northbound: one left turn lane, two through lanes, a bike lane and a right turn lane. Southbound: one left turn lane, two through lanes and a bike lane. Eastbound: one left turn lane, one through lane and one right turn lane. Westbound: one left turn lane, one through lane, one right turn lane and a bike lane. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY f1OUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 5 La Canada Drive, south of the intersection transitions into one lane in each direction. There is a small median island on the south side of the intersection, which will eventually be a full median. Lambert Lane east of La Canada transitions into a cross section consisting of one through lane in each direction and a center two-way left turn lane. The speed limit on La Canada is 40 MPH and on Lambert Lane is 45 MPH. La Canada Drive is programmed to be widened to 4 lanes with a median and multi-use lanes. Lambert Lane is not programmed for widening in our 5-year CIP and no cross-section has been developed yet. It is scheduled for safety improvements in the FY 1999-2000. This project will include a multi-use lane only. A traffic analysis was prepared for this project. At full "build-out",the project is expected to generate 12,174 daily trips if each parcel attracts individually. However, when the retail uses are combined into a" shopping center" a calculated total of 8,602 trips are generated. The difference between the two values is the number of trips between different retail establishments on the site. Since the study is concerned with access points and the nearby roadway system, and not internal issues, the overall trip generation will be used. Pass-by trips (are vehicles that are already on the road and are attracted to the site because of convenience): Weekday: 1,592 trips per day AM peak Hour in: 38 AM peak hour out: 38 PM peak hour in: 157 PM peak hour out: 157 The following is the existing and projected vehicles per day data for the following years 1998, 2010, 2015 and 2020. 1998 2010 2015 2020 Lambert Lane—West of La Canada Drive 4,200 15,500 16,225 17,200 Lambert Lane—East of La Canada Drive 6,100 16,700 16,225 22,200 La Canada Drive- South of Lambert Lane 10,500 16,300 24,340 30,200 La Canada Drive-North of Lambert Lane 3,500 15,100 24,300 30,100 The proposed site will consist of a drive-in bank on the corner and two small office buildings on the south side of Lambert Lane. A 50,000 square foot food store, a drug store and associated shops are located on the rest of the site. The drug store is anticipated to have drive-up windows. It is anticipated that some establishments will serve food. Driveways to the north align with existing driveways to the retail center on the northeast corner of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane. The driveway at the back of buildings 1-5 will be primarily used by delivery and service trucks to the rear of the center. The two driveways near the intersection of Lambert and La Canada, and the last driveway south of the intersection along La Canada Drive, will be right-in, right-out only. Drainage ''his site is affected by offsite drainage from the intersection of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane. Under existing condition, all the flows drain northwest to southeast through the proposed Villages of La Canada subdivision into the soil cement channel. Should the site be developed the way it is shown, onsite and offsite TOWN OF ORO VALLEY �'OUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 4 of 5 runoff will be directed into a retention basin and finally into the existing soil cement channel through a spillway into the east property line. Although this project is not in a critical basin, detention is required as per the Floodplain Ordinance Section1307, because of flooding potential downstream. Hence, the post-developed flows from this development shall be restricted to pre-developed condition. Grading The current development plan shows a maximum cut of 31 feet of cut for the hill along Lambert Lane and 14 feet of cut for the hill along La Canada Drive. The plan proposes 5-12 feet of fill for the perimeter buildings on the south and east. Both of these elements exceed the cuts and fills allowed by the Grading Code and accordingly the applicant applied to DRB for a grading exception. The DRB denied the exception because the applicant did not demonstrate full compliance with the six standard conditions in the Grading Ordinance. (See the grading exception report for more details on the exception and site grading.) Citizen Concerns Staff has received numerous letters and calls from concerned citizens in the immediate area, and has met with several of the neighbors to discuss their concerns. This item has also received extensive coverage in the local ess. Citizens have expressed concerns on a variety of issues regarding this project, including concerns over removing the hill at the northeast corner of the site, the overall layout of the development plan, the large amount of parking in the front of the building, the impact of traffic on Lambert Lane, lighting, and odor from potential restaurants. Removal of the hill relates more to the grading exception application, and will not be discussed here. In terms of the overall layout of the development plan and the large amount of parking in the front of the building, these elements do meet the requirements of the OVZCR; however, the overall design of the site itself is dependent on the approval or denial of the grading exception and may change. In regards to increased traffic on Lambert Lane, the Town Engineer will require any additional road improvements as identified in the project's traffic impact analysis (TIA) report. Staff has added conditions which will require that the lighting for this project be consistent with the Fry's center and Canada Crossroads, and will require "scrubbers" and filters to be installed on venting outlets for all businesses who prepare food as a means of mitigating smoke, vapours, and odours. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD ACTION: At its June 29th, 1999 meeting, the DRB voted 6-0 to recommend denial of this item, due to denial of the grading exception. GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE: The La Canada / Lambert Lane Commercial Center Development Plan is in compliance with the Town of )ro Valley General Plan, as the commercial / retail use proposed is consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial designation for the site. The development plan is also in compliance with Policy 1.2F, "locate higher density land uses and transportation-dependent uses near major transportation corridors". The TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 5 of 5 development plan does not comply with Policy 9.1I, "all new development proposals should show design strategies used to minimize changes to existing topography..." RECOMMENDATIONS: Should the Town Council uphold the DRB's denial of the grading exception, Staff recommends denial of the proposed Development Plan for the La Canada / Lambert Lane Commercial Center. Without the exception the development plan will need significant revisions that can not be handled by conditions. Should Council chose to overturn the DRB's decision and approve the grading exception, Staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit"A"herein and in the Grading Exception. SUGGESTED MOTION: Council may wish to consider one of the following motions: I move to approve OV 12-99-7, La Cafiada Lambert Lane Commercial Center Development Plan, subject to the conditions in Exhibit"A"herein and in the Grading Exception. OR move to approve OV 12-99-7, La Cafiada Lambert Lane Commercial Center Development Plan, subject to the conditions in Exhibit"A"herein and in the Grading Exception, and the following additional conditions: OR I move to deny OV 12-99-7, La Cafiada Lambert Lane Commercial Center Development Plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit"A" 2. Reduced Copy of Development Plan 3. Letters of Protest from Citizens r 4)1,-, Planninn:Zoning Administrator IZA/A-1 Community Development Director Town Mana:er F:\ov\ov12\1999\0V12-99-7\DPTC.rpt.doc EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OV 12-99-7 LA CANADA/ LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Development Conditions 1. The loading bay/area for Pad B shall be eliminated. 2. One of the loading areas behind Building 1 shall be located behind Building 4 to service the businesses in that structure. 3. The trailhead area located at the northwest corner of the project site shall be connected to Building 1 and to the Lambert Lane Multi-Use Path by an 8' minimum width asphalt path, built in accordance with AASHTO standards. 4. Correct the"8/3"numbering to "3/3"for the raised pedestrian crossing detail on Sheet#3. 5. The pedestrian patio at the southeast corner of the buildings shall be connected by a stairway to the parking in the rear of the structures. 6. The following changes shall be made to the bicycle parking location and distribution: • The 6 Class I and 6 Class I parking spaces located to the east of the Building 1 shall be relocated to the front of Buildings 4 & 5 • The 4 Class I and 4 Class II parking spaces to the north of Building 1 shall be increased to 6 Class I and 6 Class II spaces. • The 6 Class I and 6 Class II parking spaces to the south of PAD A shall be decreased to 4 Class I and 4 Class II spaces. • All bicycle parking spaces shall have a minimum of 6' clearance on all sides. 7. Indicate and label the access route to the well site at the southeast corner of the development plan. 8. The lighting for this development shall conform to the lighting in the commercial centers to the north and west of the site. 9. A lighting plan for this development shall be submitted for Staff review prior to issuance of building permits. 10. As per the requirements of the OVZCR, all trash dumpsters shall be screened with a 6' masonry wall and landscaping. 11. Where not screened by proposed landscaping, all loading areas shall be screened by a 6' high opaque screen. 12. "Scrubbers" and filters shall be installed on the venting outlets of all businesses preparing food to mitigate smoke, vapours, and odours. 13. Improvements along La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane shall require Town Engineer's office review and approval. 14. Dimension the dumpster pad 10'x 10' and delineate 50' min. turning radius for the dumpster trucks. 15. The three loading zones located north of building number 2 shall be relocated because there is lack of maneuvering area. 16. The following pads or buildings require dumpsters. Pad"B",buildings " 1, 3 and 5". 17. Label 40' concrete header return radius for all driveways. 18. Call out stop signs for the driveways. 19. Cross-section 5/3 shall be revised to reflect the correct cross-section with property line, landscape and bottom grade,top elevation of the retaining wall and top elevation of screen wall. Engineering Conditions- Traffic 20. On page 3, paragraph 6, line 2 of the traffic report,the last sentence shall read"both La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane are 150 feet wide right-of ways." 21. On page 3,paragraph 8, line one of the traffic report shall read, "Northbound: One left Turn,two through lanes, one right turn lane and a bike lane". 22. On page 6,paragraph 2, of the traffic report the last sentence shall read, "This local project will construct multi-use lane only". 23. The applicant shall provide additional and appropriate striping for 12-foot wide right turn lanes on East side of La Canada Drive and south side of Lambert Lane for the entire lot frontages. 24. Correct driveway numbers 3 and 6 to show right in,right-out only on all figures in the traffic report. 25. The traffic report shall address the effect of this development to the level of service at the intersection of La Canada and Lambert. 26. Near Sight distances for driveways number 5& 6 shall be delineated on the development plan. 27. The developer shall install 12' wide pavement and striping on East Side of La Canada drive for the entire site frontage. 28. All recommendations listed by the Traffic Engineer in the traffic report shall be addressed and reflected on the development plan prior to forwarding it to Town Council. Engineering Conditions-Drainage 29. The offsite runoff from the intersection of La Canada and Lambert Lane shall be documented in the drainage report and accepted by this development. 30. A new drainage report addressing detention basin shall be submitted and approved prior to the development plan scheduled for Town Council meeting. 31. The drainage report for this project shall be able to stand by itself without cross-reference of other reports. Hence the following analysis is required. Hydraulic capacity of existing 5 cells RCBC at Congressional Way is required. This analysis shall include any possibility of flow overtopping, backwater analysis, outlet velocity and increase headwater for the inlet. 32. Written permission from the HOA of the Villages of La Canada for the construction of the spillway into the existing soil cement channel is required prior to forwarding the development plan to Town Council 33. The flows from CP. 6 and 5 shall be directed by storm drainpipes into the soil cement channel. 34. The fair share cost of the maintenance of the existing channel shall be addressed with the Villages of La Canada HOA prior to the development plan going to Town Council. 35. The proposed CMP in the R/W along La Canada Road shall require a license agreement from Public Works. Call out head walls and wing walls for all inlets and outlets for these CMP's. 36. A percolation test is required for the retention basin. 37. The detention/retention basin shall be landscaped in order to provide a multi-use purpose. Engineering Conditions- Grading 38. Since this site is more than 10 acres a phased grading plan is required,but because of the nature of the site,it is hard to achieve this requirement. Therefore,the portion of the pads that will not be built within six(6)months shall be hydroseeded and irrigated to ensure vegetative growth. 1 V 01 N f., N N O !0 07 V 01 N A G N p !� 0. V Oi 5-" > G N -8m 1= �.N ZZD -� > .-.> rr' DA• LN A A O i•.i -- O d > r'V >Ap % Dp >W m W m C W X gy .aim DDA OAr� NA >D` fnmZ DD�...Z ppm ym s-'-'"" )�t l•tOAWD12+1 V)<m DA Zr•A QjA pm �y C ZZ�Z NO mi, ZZA A NA ; I � T1Z �7I r•1 ODD > �cN � (](�� �S-1� �WO1mWWAAb� mmWWmAA"" Z�o ACA ic-' >P 2ylNIA s-'-'"....i Vl Mj`"A �+1p- P 4 m O r O Nmt� > 3; �m mA xD0 � A )O mD`" �.-.� � D'.'D �".' �1 Cr Z2" jCDOrv2mAt7� mOm A2 A A A RAN > 1: �NZ �Z r 8N AN » -1Z-O -�6v5252 6 ,.1N Zrpv rQmm ,5r (ZjrSf �y� Zmv)i m�A�r� m zA Z$ mmr�$ 4 a m> � m r N � ypx At747G�0 zy665A66go". A:mO$�11!!!! N �> $ wA pApAD Amm •.+A $ p >p �_�h FvraZy q4 t- 51) CZi ;CIA,-W r+1ADAmm-. C;AmpOOz,�rAmy�•-•pNm O p ; A> ZZAA� s� fem $ $ Nm>I- m ,V D2mZ0 �m.oy m; ZO�C m�D N �I`i<'`7> A g�� ApAA Z �O (� WQ>- m �'� vA � �f+�1� c.v-�(( xSn�>W05mA> pN �.OE Nf p "Ai' . A A 1 n A .AN� r� NO �i "� 3:FZ,,,, v" >2 � mx AC VIAZOG �ODU �A �m AONDF � P �! A g (("oAr mi4 zmN ON '•' .N-.O nZ Zo(m pA p f•1 .SW g ' " -iN •<� NN Ipsi --�p G Nm.m.. O �'� m Zm � � O 3:pAY m --IW m ZC•.. (>�(D�� (A� CCN00�+ G N OogU�11 fm+1 �A r EX -i''I. A� (AgM N> N ZW N g 'Am Al OY`�c�It(nAAAAy c•A•. 61 ZD p� mm f.5 f+1 A 'D AA to > O ,�r•I �A �> Z, F.F.4Z >D AT mZy �A ,g mN -1 >z. III N OpA ZN >�yC� 0r r"-', X:' p2 NN A A pp ,, D .1 ., >m C p p".. A m M� ; mN". m z >A SX12 tp�>7.-. 1- > m r0 11". m mAAAI n m uJ1 A ; 2 mA DlA Op 2i pm4 rp O �1rAX (e > mm r,, n` eA mO ••••rrr (A NNu1Jbl'-(�, N; ){{AA Z Z� m2 IA mm ... -1�•-'AN �iS Dp �m + j>� WNNN N n �bN' <> r <' ma f2 -. 10 <m CV1tofAof V14 ; mD AA r0 ;:, �C Z(>A Z AAA Ayy InA -• C �'-' >N ZD A > NC^i mS �SZ> r1 p �mAC �ms ON O N N O� y� >f'1 1 AAA An>c�(��An A A Z(mjl r•;j ,1 , Z A mNo W A Nr pm � mf Om $ A42 <A,O Or .N.O ,,,F � O W >, > f.t„. I^r•1NNmm m Z O v Z D A'h N� A A: S A -.�Q >m � Dm p (AA (ANN NN NN yp T -� A'O'o $ W A 2' i$ i N ON I' =Nf L O �>;AA --I P FAZNr.LN z$ 4° Gm mN Q vel �.� AW M r.NiN Zp o A !A �A nr , g > $Z i 8Nci o� v TI:g F. W mm q v>r�'c$o4 �(O� �6 �$ 50 $ z zc -`� W I m �Aa:°. pAp > Ab -N �c vczi (>A x mN S ; p1' t r��>�QQ°j1" mL Qin om �W �$ aA m A o RI�o>.0 2 A O �� ';),-ca m C () ^A.DZ-. '1AOpnN >' � r-.i��.!8 �� -. 9p $ O x P In) Q >7 �a pes N1O _2 PG F.' +�i �.>.� o�<$�jj 2fa 1Aj ""A��2O ZZp>>> 1x+1'-' A-. rAI Ap N. y N[.� •O 8A ll m A � ]n�ro n A Z5 Z> n0� $-- z m A f !TIP A C TZ \r mN >� �Z C D A> 58 �u Y O mi1 Q!5 T ( o A- >$ D mrs� L; 4� A� Cz t A > >j $ ' ,-.A v1c 0 � M °°, r iitriA ,>;, D_<,n R > gA p > Cj F 9 r po� m8' �` o� 'ad Aod '3i 8 p�v7i ;8 i rt' p • A QoA \ W m 2N I:A2$A '4 '� 5$ Z� > � C0z F) yy X7 $E C S m CO F^' m O ON Z§•-1 (1, XI ZA F3 >� , C m Dy q'♦aa"♦ ••Ym N m �Z my m pm zr� zo>� A� A 'Qg � N �A dr � 4ri', A O`C x�]C "N' 8 (�AA N >m g C Font �1ZpA A_ ->�m £O£Z Z �'�j +O � m R m z f z c; rAi (�A 'T P;2 >I,AA A. 0, m c ooY c) >> N M An a 7C� D t2 T o y, A 2 X o7, N r 2tg52 AT ro A zog M o p 4 5i N�Nm G A m n�7 Z A 2 �rm;i ORI� IA '*1Z m y� O'O D b ; 8 (N� s A A 8 m <O r +� Ur A $ m O ox AWZ$ m � N m N i. m AO IeNN r+• > x $ v --PG,92-----111-7-= il 227------17i q II . $ im fP: QiQzo�R :----tr------ --4ImN I , .1 . li lll !P! h _c____.,„ m o-_— �� i _47!. f" I ' i' i V10 Mi rrl",APh .% $ Ar'R N ,s7,,H,_ilb V ' 1;7 ITOOP I A ,._.L. it_. , . r . NMI ,W .141 , N .. mOA-mo` I �' rR , r• ------ / I! IILi MM y4 XArn1myR 14 ZI 114161!AINI06 4 80 ,.,,-% N A 1 I t-----I AWY89 Hghag 712...1 'i .. .! i k , / L• !;` ' fi . ! � � ' fimO O ' _- / g /uk,, ....-\I\�\\� \\.�,\ �/ Amm 1 .,,,,,,,,k -,rvivo ti- lir "--pr a ligeoR i rJal N Xi I /..'-- I '_,.. ,I__ 1- m m m m A 0 - e,-g; xg: . , __11: _ k_id__TI !I --r ... L . in 6 p .IL : t- N ?r! Z� Zm /+f2 riht)��. �.� ��I �-� �.-,. , mv v ismpOoAz<1 11 ' 1 �r s¢ I m c�0°.2 Z Y c>>' -r 1' PO N p.141r. p i T .s,.. ‘ im, P ri $1,4: illirN 1. ' 1 \. • Ill.'' 1115"41.A.41. eq I 1 g ,-,L - r 111j 1!1 ''''' 1 \II: - * ,---4..i,;',"&i,00,0 . -- ...- rukitl \N --,, ,'‘ZZ4urif no a.. • co - , liiro. . 402.- `.t.. ()t `. / u -111 SIC ' i . ,., : 4i0 OE 1, r-IgE q Ir.C�in 10.0 i pm O,, <A gp _ AW> > Z • '. , ♦ ,�Le' 0 ±M41 -will ` i >40 C AZ 1�'1 „FLN�.,>� N wl•� NII ib`' /L '�n .±�r `�I/ I �$ N'�Z$ � mr Ym FiA mr�Almi'm D N ��, � >,\�� .�\\\\`L� ���•� `�� '�t�.1,=_•,' �/ � � � ��A > A�z >m A� A:,P: m�1 0. ______wimm_wiiiiaTtsc 1 '--- -----' --A°,' �� +r����r `z m r r+� A l>A m VI AAO��_ .�----_'---- /iii • -- ! -- 2{MA pAWoCzzm7z OA elm O .11 I A/sr^ /,r 1 n f.n AIA n A �9 .ZAI m 41NA Q1 ,,, PG. W mA: S m r �� '04 N z O fDTi p A p 2> . - p � A > OA AA lQ� A A8p O Z m $N z '';',i-;‘,7:• ';', • • • ' > % A v 4p1 r i Np p spy p o Of N A A W N� _ Z A p p � C 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I G) � rNN O�ff+>+t1 Z2 OC• m . O E Z n yn P. Qn . F C _ R r1N r!,' WO Z A Aj X _ Ao c'' vJ14ZnA o ! N 1,',40ging ! $� ON rn° N A?y ,a � ? NN > $ N `^ mAy/• : G z Op mZp -i Z D Z• D O Zo-N ' ''E!- AJT Vx�W�Nn O Q xi^ �Wm m JoorPI O on N ZD 0 A O mr� 153'2;u1826 ooANi IpAmrQ II i I ,� 9,(13 NzN � II mm . — — 7 —`r N • ( &O WO Irit* tO ®0 .-:, I ' NN OZ G //8NOKOt I/ IS ® t H . 0-4 $ E Eg � Zrto ,o'oDOr7o rn r-In� Oi m v -m o m m Z �m -. N,_t�iN, Dr C Tvl rnn o m m m m m m m ,4 2 Z 0 '—' N — rn n _f v ,. (_ zzDnNN1tNNn , -_,276' QIA CAADA D RIVE i 0 O r D�� i>>Nv D N I. 0 nO fZ 0Z D *rn iv, * • rp On MZ Z _ �`_:7a, J DOZ s88W1 ZCN QN � � 0 c .s r �� SA Q r � .� �°� -- ,._ !��E�W n� �� �f� . 3 W > N c � � � Z Dg 08 O- D �= "_ ...- 1E* PIO xO D Z E o m O v M mm m 2r -1 z rn O _ �♦c,qt'%D5:7CZ�� rO mrn N Nmr _v71711 D : mm ; ; rm O �O .M 2 1$404,11 ZAD �TZyyoz M - m i r*7 o Z -1 r , < Dm n AD % ut�- gli ' mono; aiS41VN73-I Z °4N --D1 z '>NZ C C rO r Z 0I ::,:W \ . rDDN(; n O r %1 - Z v pp mR ,,,O m 2 oD Z I \ ",,,'\''.",1 : D r Z m N:\199013\DEV-1.DWG 06/15/99 BE/ r- g-) -s-i- Scam :2 8 6 4 Fni -------- - - - ,;•,/,1,4--,-L-- -LN_ .....,, '--------.--j___, ......... ..,:- --..... • •' '.- .N ) ---'--- ,-,--___ i '.4,.._ ,_,_____:_-_--,...,,,„_,--_-__,,,____-__ _.).F___._ ,f,r• • A____________.. .., ; ....1• _s__ ____ __„: -----" --4.7.1iWide,_0. • 03 7 ,.,_.--r J--',, _.__..,--- ----2- L---'''-'--- !IJ CA ,it,„, 9- VE _ •14:1i, savvi,_., i ......,....., ............ __ ........... 1111111FM11.... 85-01 :,t, f wi , iNL ',maw•--,,,,"oit, 1 s!,.) OPtigiV'VW= AVI .6. 1111111161611 itq-, . : ._..l.te '0'- ii-%...7k.,_ .-: _.- 049,1131.1!.z...-vaff- MillriMOW:iiirmipstotri.emgitiffirajoritiM" A 41, 41 I ...• A ---'------:---.'--- --.4.-"*.ii...t 1114, Ti----- ---;-7.:: ,,L. 4410--- 1,0i=glrilL '1...411:11111 .... 1-•1.11 a ilAllireZ,Olr (1 7$ ) '''' ..1: 7 r I IIII III I'.. ti,gi 1111.7111104" IL ...) ; Salt Or.2/ j c i !Off- ,-;...e.,-',./1077,-,4 1. 0 =Lit vr. , 1 A iv;; ;I 4 f i • .F4 ) ? 1 i ... ill Ili' %)\k- in.- of, li ,,„,,,r;._... --17.ip „,,,,,,...:. , ., .,. • , , .= . ,,.) 4. 0121M1 *Pik j Amor EN'i-,*, ' AnrWID At 1 111 14010-.4ri ' " Otfai-a, ' I h taACkhg 111-94141_,', -4 c2, 1 i t, a f. — N:..tip.wr.p.....E.,..,,,...ta: 111,----iii-ii., :74 ellittiaimiLmmufil . . -54,itiii lariirs3r-- -- - . , r- °74! r r. ' 1 '•;mil i'. [17111 ------=-71111+114,11116111 --).- Ami i ,.:. II% • r- • 4 i crilitrI4 rii , -"I , '• :::rir 1 illit -- .itip 1 e, I I Is LIMIIP" ao- , ., ..,- .:f.,- A--. . :-..: . ...____At 1•,..; ....._,:i. .".. .I 1 lifr.,,f„...loril • , L'' ..., -.8.-)c) , - ; ,, ' i. a r - - • - sh.,,v:..- ,-,.. 1,.-, i - 0 .4 ' n. ,.,..4071-1-'"., t, ,. ishri '4.1 m,',,3 IF M.-_ 1 • 1,1,1 utiotaitiro,-,• ' ,:b ,„, ar-,;:-- - .11111 17 ti liP.Ii-- ---I .0.471.04 k.,01.1.11m,.5,,, Ira eb , Teri& 4 rail! , •,..,..., i Or I • 4'4 q:. 'r -'7(alliiiiiMil-VVIIIIiltleili7P154. .1**4P• -'' 4',''1.. 1i-l.k 1.11.4•..'."''.igaritl--.. .11.2N.:1ib& a:. ...(k110,N.0.,i.-1/1..,0:.,A i.t•.t...„...P/4. 7_kip1i..,s,„4:i :‘‘,,.3 , 0 Awt . - 4 , ,,,,‘-.. ,,, .... •„A. . . , ir . 11/4:, • ; ; g , -,,,..„..:g. Ili• ,.. t-: L- .0.., -rfir0Skid lel 9 jr-- Mii 11111,li. IIIIIIii(.,7';'.14.11, 1 ht . I- .„,„,...,,,, v, (,.,„N.,.,-_‘1 ,,,...g• ,;" ... .i. - ," 7 h!4.1rA,37t43 3.50,?, 1%1 i 1 plin amini6limoil‘k...11/4, . . -. ,, -\ \\\,, ii, :. , ht,,, , i.„,._ ,...1.,:_ ,., tik it -1 116, ,:aa........;- 1.1 I,)\....._,..,_'\__-',..„,;'ZZ,,,,.!''' 04( N •-*\ Millis , .("IIIII .111!!!''70, libtiriire..:,....,..... ,0-,;-1,..4111a. 411111121111T*13,,..; \"..MIIIIIWAnskrAti.. , s'i iiiikAsit-%.;..,-,....- Z,.....-. 7,41r.i 11 _3 &.11 ‘.) 1. tribk 9 .... '1111:=MICIIMPf* MO. Milliariaa\.1.47 - ,,, 1 • g it / %al" L. —,,,„ L k .i&. A.,.--marumsmaivapisfamilwirmirEsi., Arkis.o, ill H., ,.-_- -..-‘,..., .......„.„:„_,,,,, .J...r.......--„""--...,71. ". "..... 114j- 0...v._-.......,_..„-:---- lit.M.R2.. ---- ......... ....:1 -1.1 -"- ''''........ .,--V- ' lo, 'N H 11111111111111A .-117.: :, '1 1-4.-trifirtir41prtrikol:AiWri.i.sviri ,,,._.,mniammiwn w,Z2_77..... woo :s.u. Iry -....... . wi .1-.........- , 4• • i,•.2 ------' ---611--- --- :if- •- .0.7.3t.k;,7 ----_1-F-:,---__ --,-_,- -. _•-- - - 1110: .'---. --- 5;;.----- -c--N..011-- --MiCi.,--- Ese '•`\ c---- f _ z.,, . 7, irt -0,., x .: _ 40. g ,,,...a..._.. r(A __) „ A di IPV Az, , A ( ' '. '----------------1 r vii,,d_AcEs OF LA CANADA c: 40, &P, ,i1-. 0 e@i.g 9.04KX400 0 ;-- T . b V'mMoM ,-*3 > co r-Z cg*. )0• • ''' .z1 rrirm A > 1,' ZCO • 1 !D:€1, Ac-9,',',7 M 0 g-9:,,:,• (- 4 r-;11ximR ii t.. •N :< i., Ci . _ I',\19907 3\DEV-VAG Oti/15/40 RF7 O rS C co- m, .kg ili4'4. ig git, , i , _______,0, 1 I A � 2 !�, � D .a ��` Z rte- 'D N �_ E, xis `, ��� N vn 4%%Willi= 2 d V! D o ,9 y >ak.JwAi 'nw .N I,Lum Np1 ,, > v, A O 'LI Risi 1 a N,,,, IR " Z .Z+ x) " r / 0 3� gni z 1- 11 Zf*+ i`,, �•,.3 Z ;co'. 11 n p \i gms0�d11 SQp 0 0.. N N 11 )r a r0,-:I4 �' ;o U 00 oc z D 20.0• gn",�� r.n r N � . v s 4 V!D N U' WQ! OBP .111 D �A I • N O N z p I `4 O 1 C f*1 �n 10'-d• 8• (igw 1 IIN §p,. 1 , i. I, L III 1= s'-o•OR r-o• vi 2 v T \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\. ew / r III= 1•CLR.Of PROPERTY SEE A-1 il D x � �-"'^" .�r ` A N N r- L,E NkiERE'OC� ,\ 1- _D •I••' r�' ',•'-'1•' #D t~ Ix Z o - ..•, ..::.: E,�� E;\-\ it� �� o �• ii K ,1 z /' , _ CONT 12 •.L, ..•..••.._•,•.::.• _` J.,a.:.- ./i r D _ ,N m c 2 O ',9,!' i I §n. °2 ,. ci O f•1 Oq UN 'i'," pr♦ °E';' m1N �f7{n ' �y� L ').0V` ). ` ri �1 p 1 I 't1 m �D>,,,...I.,, O O O ff»11 i > c;r, O'�' QVC D'Dnr� D ri up -9 FO O> DD ODr I1f7•zij, mp nm nof�•I2 > Z .� '� >-� "�'� ASD (7 In D 1p7 Z> O> T VI O D y .. A �q O.0 1+1ZA OAC7(7 2 Fi-1 .TE 53 !Q.� U vl m O 22 wm &Ift P O§ : N 'Z' ro cn>. Cj e7 m mmci N �, .D N,, m x I O I� >� rr- N OO N F ® 88 NO1103S 4B � j ® 1 O ci - 4 , W Lg. mN D D I.:.,-..; •1 4 ) --*-i, M z r D v.ti,u. b vr.tiA.� m P 5. v i m N DF 4B o J D EA c�1 u , oD gn > ) rri 't Ili rr, ;I ZmI 2tn rn x z; rESSSS• E• : . E N n,0 32 I Z oo C O zp — ().Z. \\ (T z.A ..Z n Z 4 5 /. ezl mOz6 o �v Z ➢ i I. ;-,R0• 0 rri y^yi `'� 8-- ;ow0 < I-"•1 i,''' n %/� m ZO Ovl f''''!;-,(8' FDr*t zz ��m 0 \/ N 1 �j y rDz x, 0 /`, D? O .,',1<N 00-v .;� o �" . Az DDS o � �a zr r . . . UAiySOC r� (-:-,g„...118� -OODP ` --1 4/ 4, 15 �; szwn I'1K ' a'T c- rc L !:1,1:(-)7,• �m� O ,� m Z !. m zmy ri Qi -33. \i Z N D r m Z O G1 .➢i R t 7 ! Or' c«O b!g4 As iv 3 -T1^151° N OQ�OC p ] „ _\__ ___,_/_;;„____ -I"- ---- ---_-__- __ ,\ 0 . 7 ml/ . ., 1-g-ii ii, I __ __ _ _ I I I ___......._., c____....._ r. i ,....____ •,_____ ,---- _ ..... fff>•uff>• ,// i ri . . i 1 v I I I 0 Imil iiii I ' .L. ,_., -, _... .1:1 , - i - 1 I 1r Ala. 1 IIIMIIIIIIIIIND ora i IC ......1 ) i—.....1 ,s, ! \ I I I I I - Irl —. — 111110101.1111M D ciz,J. L 1111111•10/011i up lip'31 re 111 111 1.1111 • I 03 I -- - r---- W . : e•\\ 18 `.N.Iil\ob. 111 o r-_-___-_,_,6..- -- N G' • ---1 . .k. \ 1 7 Nib`11. \ 1 ) �_ i M I m z � r Ogg c/1 _O Zi. 0z6 s8 ,Mo 0n r>m m m_73,1,5� 0..--13 � DDS z Wr_Os �m D �. Z E. NP, < $- (-)r-7.-`1' n�� N �_iii D Z�� ii�, Erb \ 8 IA 73-1 zwom � YDN�7 N � m� r.r z ov q N•\I00/1I Z\�1CV_1f1W^ I1S//�/nn oc� , t :: : (N 0 ' 4*''j . ‘ 'l . ,L • 0 — /14/ ';' (;) '5 ,4 V s• . .. \ii 3 C\' ' c. \ NI .- •i • Q) &,. •i cA ..; .(2) , I . -- (\ ') \ -cl‘' '. --' 44:i . i & • '.e ,..L r' t • �J i----- ,\.; , ! : t ! , . = _,„ ,e, s '. .r � `.) ,-4 \ •. . . . . Nom .•-. 11 a7) (e \ .2...&.. . C.) . - 2J1 IN, ' ' 4 i\, N , •.• • < , ,,,, .- r___ -, —4 C__,4 ,3 - \ C\\\ v\IN IJ ` ; v - '' '-' ,_i3 ‘‘,P) \__ ' (\a 4 '' 't ' ,x c'%% .,. • ,Q -N .'. • 't•--, \A ,:t - ,. LE ,..,,.-,,, -C — `2, -, ,- .,, ; ... Q' -; ' -.) , , !..fit 0 � J v � � �� \ , ,1 .,..,;) .i .Q ,.., . . 1 , , \ --)Z ....., --.. -,$, r\A , v c,,\ , .......? a) 1%! \ F c''-_, ,t (., -2.:: gt. \\< C%' \ i -' ‘ \ ,, -, .) •,:c. (..--\,\ , ,.. , : .__ .. 1 k. 3 ,t- 0 (,) ‘ ) \,.;- .'21 f\ '''' • ‘\\_r .\.......N. ,..N1. \ J [I \ • - •.a __. .. .,e ..., , . R .v ,) I\ ---f-.),) , ,ii „,• -. — :_ i g .,k N , ) c. _ f A 431) N \J Z 0 \ \3) ';i:;- ..-I ‘J Pk ) 7'N - 1)-i' 1 '.-N i .J — r i'I 4 SIJ T 1` !eiI fN ': v r \ �\ I ri\ i ' i • %.) ; sis ,, .. , ei _, ,) , ,,,; ,-I. ,;-,' , --,,,- 0 -) &) ,, - f -,/ 3 Q WO (- j ,i•• 1 i j ar .\- 'C .* ' 0) . :.- 3,' .Nt 'q' 7), •I\ ' ''.)‘4 -i. ' G "" q 1, __,_'' ,-_,A' 1, ,04 i c,,\ • ;/\\) 2 -'l'• _‘ C1--" v ., .\.), \" ,),\N. cl Q\ - -.--1, -4, 6 .)-. t ‘ , • 4 ,,, , (\ , . . V Page 1of2 From: Date: Thursday, June 24, 1999 6:14 AM Subject: Development Review Board Dear David, We have just become aware of the proposal by David Williams and the Beztak Company to tear down the shielding hill to put in yet another grocery store and pharmacy on that sight. We believe that business growth in Oro Valley is necessary and should be encouraged and that there is legal room for all. Acquired lands both commercial and residential, many times have certain legally unalterable physical characteristics guaranteeing the retention of natural beauty and consequent preservation of wild life. This is the case in this instance. Safe guards built into the Oro Valley master plan were based upon such ideals and must be protected for our community to continue to thrive and maintain a respectable reputation. We bought our home in Tucson, more specifically Oro Valley, because we liked the way the community respected the desert and the landscaping in the neighborhoods reflected this. In our opinion, one supporting a proposal of this nature would demonstrate a lack of responsibility for the prudent management of Oro Valley. By accordance of existing zoning regulations that does not allow for this type of cutting, grading without special permission, and only when being of positive impact to all those affected. This proposal clearly is not. We are respectfully requesting denial of this community damaging application. We find it interesting that this action is taking place while so many people in Oro Valley are part time residents. It is almost like they are trying to sneak this in while everyone is away. We have tried to locate several of our neighbors but to no avail as so many are gone for the summer. We also feel that by the Beztak Company retaining David Williams to represent them they are putting undue pressure on the existing Development and Review Board to pass his proposal. As I have already stated that we are not opposed to thoughtful growth. I know St. Phillips plaza has already been mentioned as an example of community sensitive commercial development. I have also heard that STUDENTS from U of A presented a design concept that was far superior to the one that the Beztack Company's architect submitted. Perhaps it is time for the Beztack Company and David Williams to go back to the drawing board. We strongly urge you to deny their request to level the hill and more importantly to direct them to come back with a more visually pleasing as well as a more nature conscious plan. We ask you to share our opinion with the 6/24/99 Page 2 of 2 board. Respectfully, Jane Corbett-Floyd David G. Floyd Oro Valley Resident 6/24/99 do/4:J/1999 11:35 3203932192 HELLAND PAGE 01 June 28, 1999 ATTN: CHUCK SWEET Dear Chuck, PlQase pass this info: along to the board members. Regarding the La Canada / Lambert corner, we are in favor of an "upscale" plaza development rather than another grocery store and another pharmacy. It would seem preferrable for an upscale town like oro Valley to have a specialty shopping district. We plan to come to Arizona for a short stayin August. Hope� to see you at Rotary. Sincerely, Bob and Lois Helland Bartels, Rachael From: Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 8:34 AM To: Subject: Attention: Mr Sweet I am opposed to granting any variance to the developers of the prospective shopping center on Lamber Lane...please note this at your meeting tonight. Richard Case 1530 West Carmel Pointe Drive Oro Valley AZ 85737 Page 1 of2 From: Date: Thursday, June 24, 1999 6:32 PM Subject: RE: Proposed business center and variances on SE corner La Canadaand Lambert Dear Mr. Sweet, Both my wife and I shall be out of town on June 29 and thus unable to attend the hearing at which there will be discussion of the proposed business center on the Southeast corner of La Canada and Lambert Lane. We are concerned with the size of this proposed center in that, as proposed, it will destroy and/or alter the topography of the area. I am specifically concerned with the levelling of hills in the area and the size of the development which will abut the golf course along the tenth hole. This area is known as Canada Hills; thus why should we continue to level hills which are so integral to the nature of the community. I have additional concerns as to the nature of the commercial development on this corner. I fully recognize that some commercial development is beneficial to the community, but is it necessary to develop this area considering the massive development now taking place at First Avenue and Oracle to the extent that this area becomes so commercialized as to lower the property values of the homes and the ambiance of the community. To date the town as been successful in working with the homeowners to try to maintain a close working atmosphere, to wit the architectural and other changes made in developing the Walgreen-Childrens World Center and the Southeast corner of this same intersection. (As an officer of our homeowners association I was delegated to sit in on one such discussion regarding the Children's World project). I fully believe that the developer in this present instance should be cognizant of the concerns of the neighbors. I am particularly concerned with the proposed leveling of the hills along Lambert Lane. I am also concerned with the proximity of the back of this shopping center to the tenth hole of the golf course. It is already a distraction not only from noise, but also from dirt etc. to have the current Frys' so close to the 16th Tee Boxes. We cannot repair that problem, but it is possible to prevent further such incursions. Most of us invested in homes and property in this area because of the rural atmosphere. To over develop the commercial properties will detract from that which attracted us here in the first place. I personally enjoy being able to walk in the community and see the various wildlife including the owls which inhabit the hills along Lambert Lane. 6/25/99 Page Z of 2 If my memory does not fail me, some eight years ago this area was proposed to be developed as multi-family housing. I attended a Council meeting at which the developer presented plans in an attempt to assuage the feelings of the community. This project never came to fruition. In the current instance, should hope that the Board can prevail on the developer to heed the concerns of those of us who comprise the community and who are potentially those who will utilize the businesses in this development. It should be in keeping with the nature of this area and not so commericalize the area as to reduce our property values and the serenity and beauty of the area. I do not believe that the developer should be permitted to desecrate the natural topography of the area by allowing it to be leveled including the hill in question. Yours sincerely, Donald W. Stein, M.D. 6/25/99 Page 1 of 1 From: Date: Friday, June 25, 1999 8:57 AM Subject: June 29 Oro Valley Town Hall -- Lambert Lane Mr. Sweet, Please add my name to others who object to the grading variance being considered for development of the shopping center on Lambert Lane. Not only does the proposed grading and cutting of the hillside grossly intrude into the desert landscape, but the sheer size of the proposed development exceeds the limit of what is necessary for this neighborhood. Increasing the size of the commercial development along Lambert Lane will not only deface the natural beauty of the neighborhood, but will, in the end, devalue our properties as well as the social context of our daily lives. Thank you for your consideration. Loretta Sowers 6/25/99 Bartels, Rachael From: Marjorie J Bender[ Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 2:55 PM To: Subject: Grading Variance—NO! Hello Chuck Sweet, We are writing with concern over the development of the SE corner of LaCanada and Lambert Lane. We moved here from Colorado and enjoy the semi rural lifestyle of Canada Hills and Autumn Hill. We chose Oro Valley because it had this certain "feel" —in town, yet out of town. We join with our neighbors and community in urging you and the towns people not to allow the hill to be leveled, nor a shopping center of this magnitude to be developed. We certainly want the convenience of smaller shops and specialized restaurants, maybe a smaller"health food" store. Yet, another grocery store??? Let's keep Oro Valley"exclusive" and quaint. It can be done!! We also agree with the sentiments of Dr. Donald Stein and Loretta Sowers. Thank you for considering this preventative measure. Sincerely, Dr. and Mrs. Barry D. Bender Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynogetltagl. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 7 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 4th , 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: David Marsh, Planner I SUBJECT: OV12-99-7 LA CANADA / LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE BACKGROUND: The WLB Group, representing the Beztak Companies, request approval of a project Landscape Plan. The 14.90 acre property is located at the southeast corner of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane, and is designated for commercial use under the El Conquistador PAD. The proposed development will consist of a grocery store, a drug store with drive-thru, a bank, restaurants, and approximately 33,000 SF for retail shops. The development will also feature a large number of sidewalks, links to the planned Lambert Lane Multi-Use Path, a pedestrian plaza with outdoor seating areas for restaurants, and several water features. The property is abutted on the north by Lambert Lane and the Fry's commercial center, to the east by a drainage channel and a golf course, to the south by the Villages of La Canada, and to the west by La Canada Drive and the soon to be constructed Canada Crossroads commercial development. The site is still in its natural state, with a small wash, two small hills, and large amounts of vegetation. This landscape plan is dependent on appeal of a grading waiver application, which the DRB denied at its June 29th, 1999 meeting. This project is also dependent on approval of a conditional use hermit to replace an existing utility pole, which was continued by the Planning & Zoning Commission at its July h, 1999 meeting. SUMMARY: OVZCR Buffer Yard standards require a Buffer Yard D along the north, west, and southern edges of the development. The landscape plan satisfies these requirements, as well as those of the El Conquistador PAD. The applicant has elected to utilize a 20' Buffer Yard D along La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane, and a 17' Buffer Yard D along the south edge of the property, which will satisfy the requirements of the PAD and the OVZCR. The La Canada and Lambert Lane buffer yards will consist of sections of a low decorative wall, with variety of understory vegetation and trees, which will include palo verdes, mesquites, redrock oak, gold trailing lantana, and yellow yucca. The buffer yard along the south side of the property has been designed at 17' in width, as to match the 17' landscape buffer provided along the northern half of the Villages of La Canada. The buffer yard will consist of chilean mesquites, sweet acacia, transplanted mesquites and palo verdes, and understory vegetation, all utilized as a screening element for several retaining walls. While a landscape buffer yard is not required on the eastern edge of the site, the developer has proposed a 25' wide buffer with transplanted mesquites and palo verdes, acacia, and understory vegetation. The applicant has also proposed to utilize the Wooly Butterfly Bush in the landscape plan, which is not on the Oro Valley approved plant list. Staff has reviewed the pollen and drought-resistant characteristics of the plant, and recommends approval of its use. In a similar manner to the Target Center and the Home Depot Center, the applicant has been required to provide a trailhead area, in this case to link the project to the planned Lambert Lane Multi-Use Path, which will run nmediately to the south of Lambert Lane. The applicant has also provided water feature and turf area at the _orthwest corner of the site, as well as a pedestrian plaza and fountain area. The pedestrian plaza area will feature a `stream element', which does promote an oasis-like feel; however, this element is in direct conflict TOWN OF ORO VALLEY II-COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 2 with General Plan Policy 8.1R, "encourage water conservation." Staff recommends that the water be used in the `stream element' by recycled as a means of promoting water conservation. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD ACTION: At its June 20, 1999 meeting, the DRB voted 5-1 to recommend approval of this item. GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE: The landscape plan submitted by the applicant is in general compliance with the Town of Oro Valley General Plan. The landscape improvements proposed "mitigate negative visual impacts of buildings and parking lots" as required by Policy 9.1H of the General Plan; however, as stated above, the `stream element' of the landscape plan is not in conformance with Policy 8.1R, "encourage water conservation". RECOMMENDATIONS: Should Council uphold the DRB's denial of the grading waiver, Staff recommends denial of the proposed Landscape Plan for the La Canada / Lambert Lane Commercial Center. Should Council chose to overturn the DRB's decision and approve the grading waiver, Staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit"A". SUGGESTED MOTION: move to approve OV 12-99-7, La Canada Lambert Lane Commercial Center Landscape Plan, subject to the conditions in Exhibit"A". OR I move to approve OV 12-99-7, La Canada Lambert Lane Commercial Center Landscape Plan, subject to the conditions in Exhibit"A", and the following additional conditions: . OR I move to deny OV 12-99-7, La Canada Lambert Lane Commercial Center Landscape Plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit"A" 2. Reduced Copy of Landscape Plan F:\ov\ov12\1999\0V12-99-7\LPTC.rpt.doc ‘ ; ilt_. PlanninF d Zo ing Administrator 47jvj iia Community Development Director 0 L._ C ,. S . Town Manage EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OV 12-99-7 LA CANADA/ LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN 1. The `stream' element of the pedestrian plaza area shall recycle all water. 2. The landscape plan shall be amended to show the 8' wide asphalt path connecting the trailhead area to the Lambert Lane Multi-Use Path and to Building #1. P41 O 4 fit•' TOWN OF ORO VALLEY '._.'•` .> -:` t 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE ' i ,; ' ,.f ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA 85737 �.:: Administrative Offices(520)297-2591 Fax(520)297-0428 -,-.7www.ci.oro-valley.az.us LADED July 16, 1999 Representative Steve Huffman House of Representatives c/o Tucson Legislative Office 4001. Congress, Suite 201 Tucson, Arizona 85701 Dear Representative Huffman: Thank you for accepting Oro Valley's invitation to attend our Town Council meeting on August 4th, 1999. The Town Council meeting will begin at 7pm at the Oro Valley Town Hall Council Chambers, 11000 N. La Canada Drive. The following is a list of municipal issues that we are interested in hearing what your position is: • State Shared Revenues • Incorporation/Annexation Legislation • Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Funding Process and Staffing Levels • Resolution Relating to Save-A-Plant Program and Department of Agriculture Issue Thank you and I look forward to seeing you on August 4th! Sincerely, Paul H. Loomis Mayor i y !! <;*?'—::4'A. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY - • - . 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE _w;y ORO VALLEY ARIZONA 85737 •..... .:rAdministrative Offices(520)297-2591 Fax(520)297-0428 r J = . www.ci.oro-vailey.az.us Dov o 1g�� NDE July 16, 1999 Senator Ann Day c/o Tucson Legislative Office 400 W. Congress, Suite 201 Tucson, Arizona 85701 Dear Senator Day: Thank you for accepting Oro Valley's invitation to attend our Town Council meeting on August 4th, 1999. The Town Council meeting will begin at 7pm at the Oro Valley Town Hall Council Chambers, 11000 N. La Canada Drive. The following is a list of municipal issues that we are interested in hearing what your position is: • State Shared Revenues • Incorporation/Annexation Legislation • Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Funding Process and Staffing Levels • Resolution Relating to Save-A-Plant Program and Department of Agriculture Issue Thank you and I look forward to seeing you on August 4th! Sincerely, mad- Paul H. Loomis Mayor c o o v m U , u ra Q 'i ,ii i;lA ';,; 1 E !g All 11 9 9 ' ' 4 1 2/ ip 1! E It ..g2 il Igg181:XIA 1 le As sCli P q 4 g" J 1'd 1 11 /i i ;gi'l .' i X1 ! P i ilpi a 0! 8v ; i. - g g iAA,/ i 1%0 4t_. 1 R I 11 41 : A .;(''' A fin i 1! ' orj A 11,11 li I i 0( -' 1 it ; l'io 1 P 'F1 1 a i 1;;I qi i 11' g A° 'Fg / ii .1. Ili ij . 2 ° ! i<it : > 11 'j j1 ;t ti; ! i 1 ., _ .. IS S s:,3 t 3 q.,, i g EA g 0] i A3 1 ' 1 1 ,2.A19. .',4 r t A2 3 A ig k / 8 ' 4- - A _2 A w q i Pg 2 i t. 8 1 2 a 4?. , 1 lig A q ER 6 i. P r 1 11 3 g1g it 0 sZ it - - - - - -,� N - - --- g (----(----g . If 00 :,.— _._,--,. ,..,,,.11111 r-ra 1 i .: ) ,:..• if n, ,- l 1 i 0.4 ., ill - - 1 . r_ El"-- ---HL h----.--- '1 " 7::: d I -' .-‘-' -- r , . C.-....,:j....L„:::_:.,:,._::„_j.,,,.1--- ---4 '— i _____ „1, 1 , i „. ___ F i [-. , gz ig - 17::L 1 L —I • -__ 0 j. i70 _ . r :Li . - i 1, :, . 1 , , , . .„ ,ik -) 1 jI G E ., I 4.:. --'? x• ‘::•\t x Y (i,8 �� Zo1= .I' � _ I .:.,,,, I !ar,,,,, ,.____,: liiii ''.., 1 _ Lk ` 7 . 1 ° )1 UU , a qpii-';'!! F o u owa Viiiil IMP 111 P 1 > s 1 ;� Ilii ,4 r r:21 ip fil RiZ ° (� 11 ,/� i n � +N710111V,,,,. a 'i.,R11$ t li '‘''.',471:30 ' _ _V A '4 Zai W. l i ��4._ • L i u u w ' t I1,)I! ;V X a. rmc LA CANADA Df g i 1 i DIM b _ 0 0 11: .: "- 0). I O 0 c 'ti_°le ° ° .o ..o _o o 7",...�.,,•.!*'fv �i `.' !i �L. ' T tie, -it '�'.`-. .'-��►..-� -..~-...� .._.�_~.ra�D>. .+L���t., I♦;,.. ..r il�i�L:/:..�. i`'�I'1 i7',. + S . �� ,;. L.=�Dn'tl'Q ^'4.-+i �' /' w �/ ...-'41.1t . I- ',° ° _ ; 1 -4'' _..�_ ^_) 1 1 hi 1_) _.ih;I . -11'14 : ,._a In '�� -(mom ,' 'r \ J .�•y) x a _. w� ►� Air .� I' .. [a i 1 I t) a ct illii.,.,ii,1 1.0. ..P,).1! ,_1111,11/ Mr ),:., ' 1 4 ,.,,,,..7,-4\ . s,I - : Or ---4 4 I 4---- -41- --- 1 1 CP r lori 1 .. I 1 a - I II 'v14 ' ' ti . 0 74 i A.r- —1 — — __4-1 rr t sY of C"3-= -:! 1. j1.1 le 11.41 ill COW f '4 1 ii i 1� . 1 94 1, il 111/ �``++ r II 4' ' plip ritI wi C.i __d, - ;; ,, - � .o A _ el ,,,. ofm .' . 1 ?� 'mil /'i uE. �'�� ..„( PP • J ! _ -- t jJ --ji °I . n: A ,\i 1 ' : 1i ,� . - - - k .i ., . % ,,l t.0--- ii: -• i ,,, .01 pi.,-,. -litt.. , 7 i ., r---1 . .0444.,',,\ `-'04v — - `i$3 a. m * 1 At i>a _ "' of 04 ON * P\I\''' 1 P '„ •A*.i.- Vifilik\<\ O � /♦ �I ,,,.., N 19J�� •.‘e,_ -41414,\ `L. ;/ SSS J "Ng'tl!i1� .r• J � •,. � r i�• , .,:, , , Jt3Y" L 10 1 Otto 11 + �� '�� 00. A i t jar"' ' 0 c--' 11.,41!'.0 ge.t.f.R.VA 010 0 0 < .4 utif a •i C h A n :i :i c.d.\ :i; -. lell'il © ;- , c a 0-c0. 000.0:= g eee 000 e x: me c_ c�ooc�oa�ooc c . , ®« Z Ili � ill' (icy (� ' 1;111111t; a � �� ��°-11-1§1§:p �� � � ���� �� �11- � � ��.'gi > > >> EQm z : FAl^� S gig i gg t4iihildlo ' 1 rkl R. lithiligli illiii P ! III , gfr) qs{ op Z Iib O a g ; ;;U 11, ii*► 1 1 i ; , 8 O i U , 1 ' k:P. 2 2 ,11. !10°11 i !i; ii`i c 4 •I il 11 i I i g 1ig 4 8; i_1( g " I 1 ° 0 I 1 illi ! I II El. mk )1� g YYfff f>> .��. Y (yam yQ Iii 6- -6e9:80.=;;.; /J1 8 O ?i i 4 O•^ w a M M M w P U U U U U U U U P P P T. T T. t i�J -'i->i'�'+~''+ r j> >j j �� PPPP P PPP Pay PPPP,F, u i� A u a u u u .�. -�-a Em Pc.Pf+"PP PPP P PP P PP � 'i Fhj u 1u P N V r ,J�� t If Fig i ,iti • _ LA CANADA ORM LA CAr7AOA DRIVE___ • I:; -~....t_ à — F1[HLI / _�� ter•'_ .� t� _--- ----;------.,.-::..;..,-.,..,-*--/-----..,...--, ... ___-_'.4._,.._/ 1 , ti - i" ': '! if � - ' -fir,, , ,' T ;.; i. fi4 ,-1/1- • III II )1' 1 1 91 ivi �� t___ , t Ilv'I 1 1 _' SII— 1 — "---- --J. I I I,' - I 1-1[ 1 I 1 I ,- I+ t— II 1I— lk II'__„, , --t 1 I I' I II1 # I -- -- 1-- --+ I '1 , ,,,. f i ., II , i • i i -- 1 �J _ - Ian J ,. ._ _p 1 Ir-----; „,, 1 ........i,zz.,,,, I i •.., v -11.:1 _ III •- - . I(IIIILII I . > � 1 'I' ill-------- 11; . .li .;,—;11"=--- 17,i—- __-' I, .1. .... ILI.1 It sill1.1 I:1.1_1 1, :I il — .---- i•— r, 11 i li I I I. 1 , i _. -- ---, .--1,—, • —. I I — fri I . I • 4 11 1 i 11 g t I I1 I . 1 .1 I I I i 11 I 1 l .1 I I 1 ^I 1 :__.= ' I I ..„___ ,iti —;; '1 I I` ” i l iti __ !,• i__ 1.,:tp.f_,''' 11., :. II; id hi . ;_-., ,•. :, ii. 1. : I . 1 .:„: •, i 1 • E— :V I4— I I _ . . ._ „., . ... :: 1 I t I i i I � � -1:1, �I I y I 1 .1 , .� -_tel. I I ,I '/—.'\ 1:NV _ sil__,T, 0.:7: -..'.- .: .t-, ''' 11 :1 ., ,' ,..,, ——7——- 7 11 i 1 i tet''. .\ I :' 1r _/_.1 )'-'1 I i r' • I 1 i i , ,o,. ir • ..._....,, . '07 /Z .;21.'\.L. ''. 1'6 : - --\' ' 11, • ' I 8 i— "•. .' ..r.s.,N..-----_ _I,s_.,.,. , .RI, m 1 �i c: ;Er 11 Il o I m ---• - 1 1 ,r-,d - I Ig i 1 T. 11 f .IY �.� 1 Ili I 111 111h Q `` , ` , \,/ --7----- .:A aim -L3'T.:-.1 '-'-' il _,== ,.,,':./-tA 1 1 I I . : . .•/N. ',... ., ''...I ':.. I '''' ' /j ' `\ 1\ � I \ �/ ` _+ate - ►+els ii'a✓ ``�� --• \ / 1 H 4 N O e0 P J OI N 4. 4 N 1 gm sit gi tH511 ,1 HI g,i i s ill i I I I ( I I I I �► " I og il 1 i F Z 1E g i 8111E1 §.§1 ii ; 1--1 1 �w 1 li 5t- ;F. ,,A_%i11 iA pl II 1. t2 ig v 1,7! a. si �� : ..F lc'Ai 1 1 ,1 • > Qiv -4 i e2 � Ir 01 2 >! yV1N3 ii.21 gi 11 I. g g Is; A �TA'. 1''/R (Q) 8iyQ0 = Pi � m N i ,1', V f11 Pi PI NI V • ;S .0:)._ 6 14 Iii ! 1 : Q L Q 77y.. C ��� LAN §Ag igi y T% ;I 2• a +� 41 O > 25 Al s.. d§§I. gk. 9g, •S (1 / 8 'i A 11 II : 41 !ii i: ! i',:q 1 g i i it 8 �`� m 4 x ' � .< Z A NC1 gq 8 R !ii s 1 gll gi U No �i ! i 1 '1'1 5.- i 1 I r � I� 41s ' i lil 6 9 0 i I � 4f y i m3 N m w R VT cap 1: HI AI 1 Hi i "11 "ii 1 :II W f tE 1 ri g il 14 Pli 1 0 a 1 ms ' i'siti MI. I i 1 !1,11 a-I 5 ...fell X > Pit ; 111 IIII 17 X 1 / 4 ; ,I 2. 0 .. .1 & i. X 0 cm Ilk .4 cm Ci m E Mr— -------- 1 If 1 . s t A 13 1 , 1 00 1. / 7 7 , --. cni Ca M i , g --/ A L' 4‘ ,A) i , Z E , -,, ,., nr i (I 1 \ 4i ': a g 7-4:::).?:•.<1,-' . it• ' , , I •,\.., ..,: z § __.:4 ( 0 i xi. gif I. r. 1 011 X . ...•: g .1 .. ; ) 1 I 1 lei;g r (. !ii• ',' I, i ''' :T7 S" • Z Z n i V q 1 ir 1.4. I I\t'... r' • )..11h. , . 1:4 A .,,,..;,.., ..4 h trt.; ,:.V!,-1• :1 ., i 1 0 O 1• .\.(1( ,',,,, 4,1,,J.- pi-.....4.i a x ,41.11 . ..ifli 1 :I , ,,•• ; Fi. .t:4 Z ,:',..,. y v I 111 •., §, ,-. 73 0 ,, 4 ,,p ,.7,..is q . t:. . ,. v q 74 I r 4 m ,L, .., .,., ,.. : . ... ..1 , 1 .,A . •• , i;, ..,1 . 1 1...._ i \,--- '1: 4 ) ' 4. 1V,(4 I 2 in' .,.„_ l'A' I ME F - ---- — l 1 i 8 co s cx. z 1 mz . mx. hi ce, 00 0 t 5 if 7:, 1;7, i Ti -in' m , elit, . vi„....,,,,... a. .. 8 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 08/04/99 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Jeffrey H. Weir, Economic Development Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R) 99 - 79 , Consideration and Possible Approval of Business Incentive Policy/Guidelines—Lodging Industry. BACKGROUND: On Wednesday, May 26, 1999 during a Budget Study Session the Town Council discussed the merits of enacting a Lodging Industry Incentive Policy. The Council directed that a formal proposal with suggested changes and clarifications be brought forward at a future Town Council meeting. A Sunset Clause for each separate Development Agreement has been included in the Guidelines; a clearer definition of the distribution of increased bed tax rates has been provided; a spreadsheet that identifies the additional sales tax revenues generated to the Town of Oro Valley has been included; and a definition of which lodging facilities qualify (or not) has been incorporated into the guidelines. The current Town of Oro Valley Community Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) was adopted in the fall )f 1997 by the Town Council. One of the five stated purposes of the CEDS is to provide guidelines in decision- making to the Town's political and administrative leadership to achieve unity of purpose in the pursuit of economic development goals. There are twenty one (21) action steps identified in the CEDS that relate to the achievement of the Strategic Plan. Action Step number twelve (12)Develop and adopt a Business Incentive Policy, states that the Town may from time to time wish to use some form of incentives to attract or retain desirable businesses. Guidelines and review criteria will be established to assist the Town in deciding when to grant such incentives. The following request proposes the establishment of incentive(s) and guidelines to be applied to both existing and new businesses within the lodging industry. SUMMARY: The Town of Oro Valley will become more reliant on the generation of Sales Taxes as the primary source of operating revenues. A major focus on increasing new sales taxes is the encouragement of construction of both new resort/lodging facilities and the expansion of existing facilities. Major resorts require large investment sums. In today's cautious investment marketplace the opportunity for capital intensive projects is highly scrutinized. The current General Plan and the existing CEDS have identified attracting and expanding resort/lodging facilities as a dual source of potential revenue growth. Lodging facilities provide sales tax revenues for rooms and food/beverage if available and bed tax revenues. Given the high desire by the Town of Oro Valley for increased lodging facilities AND the increased difficulty in raising large amounts of investment capital it is proposed that an Incentive Policy/Guideline be developed and approved for the lodging industry. It is the intent of this policy to apply ONLY to motels/hotels/resorts and other facilities qualifying as providing TRANSIENT lodging. Transient lodging as defined in the Town of Oro Valley Tax Code means lodging provided for not more than thirty (30) consecutive days. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PAGE 2 OF 3 _iUMMARY: (CON'T) The proposed Lodging Industry Incentive Policy/Guideline focuses separately on two incentives. The first is the Bed Tax and the second is Sales Tax on Construction Materials. The following criteria were used in the development of this incentive approach: 1. The Policy/Guidelines must be fair, performance based and equitable to both existing and new lodging businesses; 2. The Policy/Guidelines should address various facility sizes and potential revenue generation; and 3. The lodging facility(s) requesting consideration must clearly identify the benefits to Oro Valley as a result of their facility being located in the Town. The current Bed Tax applied to the gross price of each room is 1%. At this time the contract between the Town of Oro Valley and the Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau (MTCVB) specifies that 75% of the 1%Bed Tax be forwarded to the MTCVB. The remaining 25% of the 1% Bed Tax flows into the town's General Fund and traditionally is used for Economic Development related expenses. A Development Agreement will be written clearly defining the incentive(s) provided from the Town of Oro Valley to the lodging operator/owner. Included will be the length of time the agreement is in effect indicating beginning and ending dates as clearly defined as possible. The Radisson Grand Resort development team has asked the Town of Oro Valley for consideration of .ssistance which will facilitate acquisition of investment capital. The need for expediency will allow for a timely response to the Radisson Resort development team. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit A, Town of Oro Valley Lodging Industry Incentive Guidelines, and 2. Arizona Community's Bed Tax Data chart, and 3. Three (3) data sheets supporting the Arizona Community's Bed Tax Data chart data, and 4. Bed Tax Rate Distributions spreadsheet and 5. Construction Materials Tax spreadsheet. FISCAL IMPACT: Determined on a project specific basis. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the Lodging Industry Incentive Guidelines, as defined in Exhibit A. It is further recommended that the Town Council authorize a Bed Tax Rate of at least 2.5% if not 3 %. The distribution of the Bed Tax revenues will be as determined by the Town Council. Furthermore, it is recommended that the Sales Tax on Construction Materials portion of the Lodging Industry Incentive be initiated and applied from this date forward. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PAGE 3 OF 3 SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. (R) 99 - 7 9 approving the Lodging Industry Incentive Guidelines that includes a rebate of up to .75 % of the second one percent of the Bed Tax to Lodging Operators and approval of a Sales Tax on Construction Materials rebate of up to 2 % for approved construction projects. I further direct staff to initiate a code amendment increasing the Bed Tax rate to (Insert Tax Rate) ( ) %. 0 ft liti Ai —di gf A / Jeffrey ri. Weir, CED Economic Development Administrator 1) ' -) :-.,,,, if,t,ru if e,". A.4„,,,,..- David L. Andrews Finance Director ba.- fr43-(_ e. ---,- , Chuck Sweet Town Manager RESOLUTION NO. (R) 99 - 79 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, ADOPTING A LODGING INDUSTRY INCENTIVES POLICY/GUIDELINE. WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley has identified expansion of the lodging industry as highly desirable and well supported by the community, and; WHEREAS, the existing Community Economic Development Strategy states that one major action step desired is the development and adoption of a Business Incentive Policy, and; WHEREAS, the existing Community Economic Development Strategy further states that the Town may from time to time wish to use some form of incentives to attract or retain desirable businesses, and; WHEREAS,the Town of Oro Valley recognizes the importance of developing guidelines that include similar considerations for existing businesses as those that apply to the attraction of new desired businesses; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA: The adoption of Exhibit A, Town of Oro Valley Lodging Industry Incentive Guidelines, attached herewith, incorporates the provisions, considerations and applications for a lodging operator/ owner to qualify and receive the sales tax and bed tax rebates. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 4th day of Augus t 19 99 . TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney Exhibit A TOWN OF ORO VALLEY LODGING INDUSTRY INCENTIVE GUIDELINES Qualifying Facilities. The following type of facilities may qualify for the incentive(s) identified in these guidelines: hotels/motels/resorts and other businesses that derive more than 50%of their revenues from providing lodging rentals to transient visitors. The Town Tax Code defines transient lodging as lodging provided for not more than thirty(30) consecutive days. The lodging operator/owner must initiate consideration for the incentive(s)through a written request to the Town Manager. Bed Tax. Increase the Bed Tax from 1%to 2%, 3%or 4%. Continue the MTCVB revenues at the current .75% of the first one percent. Retain the existing .25%General Fund revenue at .25%. Provide up to .75%of the second one percent as a potential incentive for lodging operations that qualify. Allocate the remaining Bed Tax funds as determined by the Town Council. The enclosed Bed Tax Rate Distribution spreadsheet indicates the distribution of the higher Bed Tax rates. 1.0 % 2.0 % 2.5 % 3.0 % 3.5 % 4.0 % General Fund .25 % .25 % .25 % .25 % .25 % .25 MTCVB .75% .75 % .75 % .75 % .75 % .75 % Incentive .75 % .75 % .75 % .75 % .75 % Designated Programs .25 % .75 % 1.25 % 1.75 % 2.25 % Total 1.00% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00% Sales Tax on Construction Materials. Currently the Town of Oro Valley charges a 2% Sales Tax on all construction materials. As previously indicated major resort/lodging facilities are investment intensive given that in many cases average room construction costs can reach from $ 100,000 to $ 167,000. This high per room construction cost is a significant factor in identifying investment capital, the total investment commitment for a resort can easily be from 35,000,000 to much larger amounts. Given the importance to Oro Valley in attracting and encouraging expansion of resort/high end lodging facilities any inducement that results in investors looking at this community more favorable should assist in fulfillment of a major economic strategy. To encourage high investment intensive resort/high end lodging facility construction in Oro Valley the following incentive is proposed. A rebate of the Sales Tax on Construction Materials for lodging and related facility construction be made available for qualifying projects: Sales Tax Oro Valley Investment Amount Rebate Retains % >$ 5,000,000<$ 10,000,000 0.50% 1.50% >$ 10,000,000<$ 17,500,000 0.75% 1.25% >$ 17,500,000<$25,000,000 1.00% 1.00% >$25,000,000<$32,500,000 1.25% 0.75% >$32,500,000<$ 40,000,000 1.50% 0.50% >$ 40,000,000< $ 47,500,000 1.75% 0.25% >$47,500,000 2.00% 0.00% Development Agreement. A written document, a Development Agreement,will be created wherein any/all incentive(s)provided from the Town of Oro Valley to the lodging operator/owner will be separately identified. Included in the Development Agreement will be the length of time that agreement will be in effect between all parties. Sunset Clause. The Development Agreement created and entered into by all parties will be the governing document as to rms, considerations, and all other specifics. The revenue sharing for the lodging operator contained within the Bed Tax incentive shall be in force for a period of from five(5)to no more than ten(10)years. The revenue sharing period may be extended or re-authorized as new qualifying investments are made. Each separate action must be preceded by a formal request from the lodging operator. L = E V xi a1 O cp N Z a N X IIII•1 go o sem O ..sl CD m o 1111 X 113 ® .....m.......••..•••••••••• ■Ust.ss■t■ssU■..t..r...■..■■1 ■.....t..tt■■t...■...■......1 O ■t..t.t..■..t■......r....r..1 10 M 111111111111111.11111111111M11•••••••••.•••••1W •..........■....■■..........1 ■asaimmsisimamass..a.asaa.ssa. M M 5 . "11 x O S. Q ■t.its./s■tom.■st■..t■t■t1.tit.it....%■1...'s../..�...................� R a LT ` ■.....U......a.Ut...t.t■■t. ...f......./..i.f.t.iisti..ft.Ut...f..t....ti■■t■tt■■fi.tt..■.tUt.r.UfUtst.ttt...■.........f f..t V LT Q ...■s..■t.....f......■.......■.........■..■...■....■.t...■.t..t■.U■Uf■/.....t....Us■■r■..■s...■I to ■...t..s.■t..ttt...tt...t..t.i...........t..............................."ft.f........■U...r....1 1 Li ...........t...titt.......■U.■t.....t.■t■.■t...■..t.■t/..t■......■.t.■.ttii...t.tt■....••••••.UI ..■�i.. ii.sm■/ma■ 12.1tmmt.m. stt . ■as./■..■sasaaa/..fs /.■../■■a.a..■...r..a.l H iihi co MI N 5 ul L '''I.fts.. r N ttlCL II V Z ■/■s■s■.s■sU/■.■ss.0/■siii■■..■.■t.i�..■.� �.�t■.■■■ssll./U../U■.0■....■IIIBMIIISOt11i i>t iii/..tt.■■...■...■Illi .. —_ O �' ~ V ■..U.U.s■.sii.s■■■■tats■..st■s.t..s..U�■■Us.t.t■■Us.tt.Ut.■■■■tUt■Utt.■.U.■•isUUSUssafU.s.stt.■............■ O ■■■.s.■i..s■s.s■t■ss.Us■UtUstUs■t■.s■t■■■it..■s..■■s■■tU...tf■s.U■s.■U■ttUss■■.ss■s..t.■s..ss./■..■.......■. .13 O ■UUU.U.t.ssss...U. ass...0UU ... . . U/■■s.// U■■s.s.■i■U■.t/■/.......t.Utss.. s ..it/ .■..■■.rrt... CO ■.tis■■Us■ s ■■.t7■■Us . tU■f.■■Us■ .■■ t .. . .■■t■s■.s. s■ s.. ■t.■s.tU.t .. .s.lU■.t../.■........•■ M ...s.smsa.■.■ . ti.■t.. ...s.U■■■s..UU■U.■■■./U.■.■../■U..Us..■/s.■/t■■.■.../■■■f/■..■/.Usti./.s.....■..■... C isisssasssssassmsass■asmssssasaaaasmsasssmamssmassssamsssssasmamasmsssassamasmssasam.asa.a.maa■ 0 m N .......*.................**............... o ' VL N N , .......................********************** N N Q X ...■/■.r . .. ....t■ .. ■ 15 O t. C) ■.ftt/. .■■..■....s ■.:U:U .■ ■......■r... O ■i■Utt■■■.■■.■■..■.•CO 13■■■■■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■. 3 CD 444*. o O immummommusumansmsommum■ ■ U ■ U . / ■ ■ ■ ■■...../........■/■........../.. 113 o R■sst..UU.s...■..tt./sU..■............... ■■.■ssss■■/■ s.U.U■ ■ .ss.s■■...s/./ttU111.■ssass.s. . ■ ■hss ■■.ssMIIIII.■/Us .s..■...■ ■/sU■■.t..st■■t.U■■i/Us.sUtss■i..sUf.s.■st..t■■■.■.■s..■../.......■s...•.■.r■.••••••••• al ...N ...............■■i / it.t .■■...■..■.t..■■fi.■■...■../■/./Us.■■ f■f.■t■i./.■■■...■■i■.■■...t...../.ss■s•••••...s.■... ......t.tt......t.i...t..■......t...t.......■.....■.■.■.■.........■......■....■..■U.■/.t......■■.■...... I•mmmmimmaaamaimmimmmaassmamassasaasaa.as■saasaa..saris...asisms■masmssas■sa.a.aas.ssasasaaasasasasom. CO N O 0 In 0 in O In 0 in 0 M M N N wil 41-1 Arizona Community's Comparison of Bed Tax Rates Comparison of Sales & Bed Tax Rates Property Sales Tax Bed Tax Bed Tax Town/City Tax Rate Rate Collections 1 Apache Junction No 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A 2 Avondale Yes(P&S) 1.50 % 2.00 % N/A 3 Benson Yes (P) 2.50 % 2.00 % N/A 4 Bisbee Yes(P) 2.00 % 2.50 % $ 36,778 5 Buckeye Yes(P&S) 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A 6 Bullhead City No 2.00 % 3.00 % $ 104,048 7 Camp Verde No 1.00 % 3.00 % N/A 8 Carefree No 2.00 % 3.00 % N/A 9 Casa Grande Yes(P&S) 1.80 % 2.00 % $ 128,773 10 Cave Creek No 2.00 % 4.00 % N/A 11 Chandler Yes(P&S) 1.50 O/o 2.90 % $ 871,000 12 Chino Valley No 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A 13 Clarkdale Yes(P&S) 2.25 % 2.00 % N/A 14 Clifton No 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A 15 Colorado City Yes(S) 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A 16 Coolidge Yes(P) 2.00 % 3.00 % N/A 17 Cottonwood No 2.20 % 2.00 % $ 56,684 18 Douglas Yes(P) 2.50 % 2.00 % $ 31,985 19 Duncan Yes(P) 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A 20 Eagar Yes(S) 3.00 % 3.00 % $ 10,899 21 El Mirage No 3.00 % 0.00 % N/A 22 Eloy Yes(P&S) 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A 23 Flagstaff No 1.00 % 2.00 % $ 3,335,957 24 Florence Yes(P) 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A 25 Fountain Hills Yes(S) 1.20 % 3.00 % N/A 26 Fredonia No 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A 27 Gila Bend Yes(P) 2.50 % 2.00 % $ 23,875 28 Gilbert Yes(S) 1.00 % 3.00 % N/A 29 Glendale Yes(P&S) 1.30 % 3.00 % N/A 30 Globe Yes(P) 1.50 % 5.00 % $ 158,804 31 Goodyear Yes(P&S) 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A 32 Guadalupe No 2.00 % 4.00 % N/A 33 Hayden Yes(P&S) 2.00 % 1.00 % N/A 34 Holbrook Yes(P&S) 3.00 % 2.00 % N/A 35 Huachuca City Yes(P) 1.00 % 0.00 % N/A 36 Jerome Yes(P&S) 3.00 % 0.00 % N/A 37 Kearny Yes(P) 2.00 % 3.00 % N/A 38 Kingman Yes(S) 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A 39 Lake Havasu City Yes(P) 2.00 % 3.00 % $ 416,963 40 Litchfield Park No 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A 41 Mammoth Yes(P) 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A 42 Marana No 2.00 % 3.00 % N/A 43 Mesa No 1.50 % 2.50 % $ 1,432,186 44 Miami Yes(P) 1.50 % 0.00 % N/A Arizona Community's Comparison of Bed Tax Rates Comparison of Sales & Bed Tax Rates Property Sales Tax Bed Tax Bed Tax Town/City Tax Rate Rate Collections 45 Nogales No 1.25 0./0 4.00 % $ 151,558 46 Oro Valley No 2.00 % 1.00 % $ 164,827 47 Page No 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A 48 Paradise Valley No 1.20 % 3.00 % N/A 49 Parker No 2.00 % 3.00 % N/A 50 Patagonia No 3.00 % 3.00 % N/A 51 Payson Yes(P&S) 2.00 % 0.00 % $ 1 $ 67,829 52 Peoria Yes(P&S) 1.50 % 3.50 % $ 92,520 53 Phoenix Yes(P&S) 1.30 % 3.00 % $ 18,888,000 54 Pima Yes(P) 1.00 % 0.00 % N/A 55 Pinetop-Lakeside No 2.50 % 0.00 % N/A 56 Prescott Yes(P&S) 2.00 % 2.00 % $ 208,329 57 Prescott Valley No 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A 58 Quartzsite No 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A 59 Queen Creek No 1.00 % 1.00 % N/A 60 Safford Yes(P) 2.00 % 3.00 % $ 86,754 61 Sahuarita No 1.00 % 2.00 % N/A 62 St. Johns No 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A 63 San Luis No 2.50 % 0.00 % N/A 64 Scottsdale Yes(P&S) 1.40 % 3.00 % $ 6,877,314 65 Sedona No 3.00 % 3.00 % N/A 66 Show Low No 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A 67 Sierra Vista Yes(P) 1.50 % 4.00 % $ 284,480 68 Snowflake No 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A 69 Somerton No 2.50 % 0.00 % N/A 70 South Tucson Yes(P) 2.50 % 2.00 % $ 7,437 71 Springerville No 3.00 % 1.00 % $ 8,354 72 Superior Yes(P) 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A 73 Surprise Yes(P&S) 2.00 % 1.00 % N/A 74 Taylor No 2.00 % 0.00 % N/A 75 Tempe Yes(P&S) 1.70 % 2.00 % $ 1,524,679 76 Thatcher Yes(P) 2.00 % 3.00 % N/A 77 Tolleson Yes(P&S) 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A 78 Tombstone Yes(P&S) 2.50 % 3.00 % N/A 79 Tucson Yes(P&S) 2.00 % 4.00 % $ 1 $ 6,409,172 80 Wellton No 2.50 % 0.00 % N/A 81 Wickenburg Yes(P) 1.00 % 0.00 % N/A 82 Willcox No 2.00 % 4.00 % $ 130,523 83 Williams Yes(P&S) 3.00 % 1.25 % $ 278,556 84 Winkelman Yes(P) 2.50 % 0.00 % N/A 85 Winslow Yes(P) 3.00 % 2.00 % $ 71,790 86 Youngtown No 2.00 % 2.00 % N/A 87 Yuma Yes(P) 1.70 % 2.00 % $ 2,190,493 Yes/Property Tax 50 57,00 No/Property Tax 37 43.00 Arizona Community's Comparison of Sales & Bed Tax Rates Distribution of Data I. Distribution of Bed Tax Rates. Total of 87 Community's. Number of Community's Using 0.00 % Bed Tax 25 29% Number of Community's Using Up To 1.00 % Bed Tax 5 6% Number of Community's Using > 1.00% - 2.00 % Bed Tax 26 30% Number of Community's Using > 2.00 % - 3.00 % Bed Tax 23 26% Number of Community's Using > 3.00% - 4.00 % Bed Tax 7 80/0 Number of Community's Using 5.00 % Bed Tax 1 1% 87 100% II. Nearby Community's (within 70 miles). Local Property Tax Benson 2.00 % Yes - Primary Casa Grande 2.00 % Yes - Primary&Secondary Eloy 2.00 % Yes - Primary&Secondary Marana 3.00 % None Nogales 4.00 % None Sahuarita 2.00 % None Sierra Vista 4.00 % Yes - Primary South Tucson 2.00 % Yes - Primary Tucson 4.00 % Yes - Primary& Secondary Willcox 4.00 % None AZ Community Comparison Incl Property Tax 7/27/99 a' a, n N n 0000 O CO 01 00 M ^ N 10 01 N 1\ a1 OO N 1\ N N OO M N 1\ 1\ N M N N 1\ 1\ r1 1\ N N N 1\ t0 N t0 N r. 1\ O tO i 0 0 0 r4 ri C1 et01 N et N 0 11.4011 1 01 ri M M r!C1 N .-40101113N rl M M t0 tt N .-IM M 00 1\ 01 rI M M ri 01 RI 0 0 r-00 01 00 et 00 r4 M LA N et ri M C 00 rl M M rl OO r4 ri M M M r1 M rl M M IA M to rl M M N IA N rl M M O e% O r1 0 N C1 N rO1 LA .11 et 1\ 0 M LA r4 et UO1 .4 ri et '-I et +i *O0 V-1 er !r * N r4 i ^ !. 0 I-I N. ! 0151%. LCIO O M CO C M M L. r4 N M N 01 r♦ in.r♦41 r4 N N 40V ilV 40V rl ilV 40V 40V ilV rl .4.40V ilV il!~40V ri ri 401E iA.40V ri N 40V 40V 40V.-I N N ill•40V 46.4'N = N0.r4 N IA 40V illy illi illy 4/V 40V iA+ in, IA' in,. IA, in. in, Lf- in- in-ill-in. 0000 0 .-1 t3r101NetN 10C11\ tD r♦ C1N1'. C1ri 01011\ 1\ N01 f\ C1N r 1\ et' 011\ ANet NC11\ 1. 0N IA OOIAO LA n M1\ 000Net MONM NONNON 000NNNOO OONNet0 NONN4ON etONNOOet 0 0 0 N M LA CO et 00 O M LA N et rl M et 00 ri M M r4 00 O .-i M M M O M rl M M IA M LA r1 M M N IA N rI M M O1 1\ N O M 10 M N t0 N .4'()Z f\ LA t0 C1 14tD N co;1\ f\ co;N 01 1\ N N rl 01 D1 N 1\ LA 0 1 N 1 1\ 0 f\ M I\ ii co;1: 1\ ri IA N0Or1 et M r4MC1e- OtO r1N0Or1 MNOOOONM C1N000O (ICI 01 etN0000etet ON000000 tON000Ot010 et r♦ 0 M N tO 0 LA O N LA 00 0 IA r4 M IA O r1 M M r1 O N ri M M M N LA ri M M 10 IA CO r1 M M 01 CO 0 r1 M M rl 0 O .4 N O CO 4 .-1 40V.4.4 .4 .- N 40V 40V 401.iAV ri 40V HV 40V iAV r1 ri il!~40V 46 40V ri r♦ illy iA.40V 14ri 4AV 10V 4/1~4AV rl Nil!~40V 40V ri N N N 0.rl.-1 LA ilV iA.M►40V 40V ilk 40V 46' iA IA-, 40V 40V 40V 46- 40V 40V 4AV iM 40V 40V fA- 0 0 0 0 0 10 M 10 CO 01 .-1 N M ri N M tD ri N N r1 t0 CO ri N N N CO 01 ri N Net 01 r♦ 1-1 N N Lf1 r1 N r1 N N f\ N O 0 0 0 M M C1 etC1N *10001 crr1MCP 01rlMMrlC1 N ..IMMMN v .4MM10 * %OOr4MM0031O0 01 .4MM001 00 e' O LA 01 CO Co 00 ri M N1 N et et r1 M' OD .4 M vii.4. co ri r♦ M M M .-1 M . M M LA M LA .4 M M f\ IA 1\ .4 M M O 1\ ` N 010 IA !r t0 DO 10 .-1 M 01 M CO N 10 CO 10 N t0 t0 N 10 ri N LC/ D 1-iLA 1O ti N 10 LO 0 LA 01 N 10 10 et 01 M N t0 t0 C1 M rl 0 N 0 Q' C1 e! 01 N et 10 01 et ri M !t 01 rl M M rl C1 N rl M M M N Cr ri M M 10 it t0 ri M M 00 tD 01 11.1 M M O 01 O r1 N 01 t0 odi 40Vtt � ilV il!}rl r♦ •-1 r1 46.40V 4A. 40V 411h 40V 40V 40V rl 40V 40V 40V 40V r1 ri 40V 4A-i/l-40V.-1 rl i/}40V ilV 40V 11.4rl 40V 40V ilV.-i IrlN iA'iA•N 46,40V 40V 40V ilV 40V 46. 40V 40V 401. 4AV 40V 0000 0 00 ell 000Net10 etrlM � 00rlMMr1DO O .-1MMMO N .-1MMLAN et ,-immr et Or♦ MM01t0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r1 r1 r1 .-I O LA 0 O O LA M LA LA O r1 IA M IA LA F. .-1 M LA IA LA rl r1 LA 0 LA IA r1 rI IA LA IA M r1 1), O O O 0 et tt N 10 N IA 00 ri et 10 r1 et t0 N r( et et ri N IA ri et et et LA: CO r♦ et et h CO r4 ri et et 0 ri et r4 CP et Met ci) ig No Ti:'O OO 00 O M tD M ri c1 00 .6 mi;'C1 I\ UD M 01 1\ N C1 M .4'0 f\ f\ ^ ri C1 01 1\ 1\ It;01 00 co;r n Ti:00 t0 01 1:^ N t0 N 0 M C1 10 LA IS LA C1 N O 0 I% r1 IA1\ LA .-1 IA IA r1 IA 01 r1 LA IA LA 01 N ri 111 LA C1 N t0 rl LA LA M LO 0 r1 IA IA n 0 g N .■1 O t0 CO 10 et 01 01 rl et 10 01 Cret r1 et 01 .-o M M .4 01 rt r1 M M M r4 et rt M M in et t0 .4 M M co 1D O1 r1 M M O 01 O .-1 N 00 iti.N 40V 40V 40V'4ri ri r♦ ill iA 46. 40V ilV 40V 40V r♦iM 40V 40V 40V ri rl 40V 40V 40•40V.-i 14 40V 40V 401E iA,r1 r♦400E 40V ilV, r1 C N ilk ilk 40.40V 4/1.40V iM in. 40V 40V 40V 40V 40V .- 40V 4AV 40V A' A - ---- 000 -000 0 0 O O 0 O IA O N 0 0 0 0 N .-1 N N M M e} rOi MM0A rO O LM A 0A0 rill O NA M M0 0A 0AIN O LM DfO A M O MLM A 00 0O LAM O M 0A0 0n0 M O M 00 0 0 0 0 et N d' IA t0 I 00 N LA 10 N et 0 10 t0 IA et LA LA 10 10 10 M 10 LA t0 1D P.10 N IA LD CI IS CO IA 0 t0 C1 00 0+ N etONQ . co Ti:00 LAN 01 t0 400LAet 0000 os;is;0000 in cO u;iti LA LA 400Lt Lr;NN C100LAtri"0101 10mi.LAMtDt0 ', NO01 N et net CONL1101 1� 400N tt10OO /Det CO 10 0 0 0 00 N10OOetN M10OO1NLA 0110OOr4C1 ,� ..40Nzet IA NLA100001O N0.NN My0,NN M 'D NNN10 0O0.NNM03 C1 .NNet01 00.NN100 1 O r1 Net N in. illy iA•in,i/1~Hl~ri 40V 40V 40V 10V 40V 10V 40V 40V 40V 40V 40V 46 40V il!~40V 40V ri il!~40V 40V.4 N N id!~ilk N 40V 40V iM iM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 .-1 0 0 0 00 et 00 O N et 10 S ri Met 00 rl M M 1,1 CO 0 ri M M M 0 N r1 M M IAN et r I M M P. et 10 ri M M C1 LO 0 0 0 0 et N et ri P. M 01 N 00 et N et 00 et et 00 et .-4 00 et et e' ri P. 00 et et O r M 00 d' V 10 M 01 CO et et N 01 No et0< < et N .-iN00lMC.� .-i►1\rr 1. NnmMNN 00NMrrfM00. M1\MM01M C1 NMM�C1 t?►NIMfm6T NO ,,N 10 M 1O N C1 O N M 0 1\ \ N 0 N M t0 LA 1Lf1 tLA f\ P. 1i. ^ 01 0 I\ 1\ CO 01 O LA n P. O O N IA 1% 1\ N N 0 rt O z z r1 it N N illy ri N et in...I1.4 0 et LA 0 11-I r.1 rl IA, 10 0 1•1 ri N 4) CO ill~IA ri et CO 01 m ri ri IA 0 O .4 N M 40V ilV 40V Win-40V ilV 40V illV ill^ 40V il! 40V ilV 40V iAV iM 4A- 40V ilV 40V 40V ilV NV 40V 40V NV ilV 46 N N 0 N ilV 4AV - - I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 000000 000000' 000000 000000 O O O O O 0P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O IA LA O O M IA IA LA O O LA LA IA IA 0 O M LA IA LA O 0 IA LA IA IA O O IA IA IA IA O N 0 0 O O O O Lri'46 LA O O N N O O N r o LA N h 1\ 1\ IA: O N N f\ N A N s O L ^ f\ LA O N 1\ n r 0 O 0 0 N ri N N M M et 1`1 LA IArl N IA LA 0 LA N N 1f1 U1 IA IAN M IA IA LA 10 M M LA LA 10 M et IA LA M N et C LA In z z O et N d' IA 10 I\ CO Nils~ri N et ire r4 r4 et LA0 ri rl ri IA: 10 ire r.1 rl N 10 P.0.ri rl M N. CO 46.r.I r1 et 00 0 1 O Nil} N ilV 40V ilV Ni ilV 40V ilV 46 4A• iAV 40V ilV 40V 46 40V 40V iAt 40V 40V ilV 40V40V401-40V 40V iA i V!. in-in.4105,in, i 1 40V 40V _ A - - -- . . VI V) E E to iii la Oo A L L L . g' ? Ir. 1,-. a. a) o c c c c c c 13 ut F- Vs 7 3 3 .0 3 a) IL CU to VVl +"'a • LL. LL > - > 23 40 c > c TiC .� .� 11.3. m 4:+ O1 f0 m + Oi ta. �to � In O i m i >CO �+ C � CO �+ C i CO �•+ 01 .� L > .� a vl a) > O O U cu O O U c O O U c.N O V C vl a) U 1 L = a) a) C C V 1vl c U'{/I C U a) C 8 a) c I.) 4, iA ,O OC a CG a a) a) a) F. a) I- 0 a) F- C 0 a F- 0 c = L u. O no O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 > O \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ LA \ \ \ 0 \ \ \ LA ca +r p� O Zi LA LA LA LA LA LA IA iA IA IA LA LA LA N LA LA LA 1S IA IA LA N 1% r. LA fa N c7f C m N f\ N N N N N 1\ f\ f\ N N N r♦ N 1\ ri N N 1\ fV G '� X O VI O H O- �- W 2 O O O O O y- O O O O o �; C a� 0 \ \ CfCg \ \ O \ \ \ \ \ B UW OC O ^ AOAO n o o LA o in O - V V M M Ti N N ril t Aa) N m in W C C Ix @ ©@@@@ J @ a @ @ = O O C . c� .2u- C n O >.O tO XXX X XX = X X X X X X 3 c " O O *+ to 0 I"' RI RI is RI id RI to to 1Q fa c0 c0 CC 0 �, E R .0 P v► F- F- F- I. F- I T. F- I. F- I. F- I-. CI • O t O i60 ��� � 0y � ' 'fl '3 '�- ,•L OC inZGCOC a mmmmmm 0 m m m m m m 3 'u. .O.1 D .. .°1 0 0 N NILA X -�- 0 VO ca In M 4 1- > ‘c• in VI ai O ® in i in- Z ® N r1 N 0 0 in LA tu F- O4.1 0 :E. 0 0 000 N COca ' - 0 0o O N r . �, 0 VI 0 MN 0 O ,a O ra -a N "4 ill- i ., O v-i N = a) in- -O- n et a OG '5a- c ✓ O O 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 W 0 O O to C O O c 7 co O OO 4 00 o 0 0 i- \ O O N UO 4, 0 in O NN N }. ro i c O N @ in. i ai a) it Tr ToFA u) gi i _ tno V V HCA .0 .0 ,� -• O O O OOB O O O = 0 O 0 0 0 0 � a 000 0 u, � O O �ca O 0 O .-:e 7ii O N d' E.. O .> V 0 0 0 = i- o o to it v) In I o O + ,111 L a; tri M M M ca 2 O M d' �t c M i i .� O- V O in- i a W HiA- - V X c A A A O c �- N .� le >. 0 iiii 0 0 0 .� "2 (5 X F c 0 0 0 0 = ._ E to ,O 0 0 0 0 — O 0 0 o O 0 ° ~ opo n ,3 E o 0 o o 0 = O_ w = In N O N O IA 0 0 0 0 t cy O O r1 ri ~ > 00 O 0 tvl t � (J} _ in m � � O N i i II in- in- CU� � O - _ 4i 0 v 0 000 . 000 -a 12 c O000 t 5 i 0 0000 O to 1 ° toOto (A a) N O W i"- .. o N O N w N as CV C 4 N M LO to c c i in- i/V '0 a CI) ° E - RI c T_' '10 CU 4.1 4.I 4.i VI (A 2 0 Q) > t = O }+ V v) C 2 .0 .O .O � 00 Cr' L. .o a. _ 0000 0. — 4� O + t :� 000 a. 0 � p� . 0000 E v) V W _ � a 000 O 2 DC W = X 1.4 O 0 V 0000 a C C H co O c Oo �no L.iti• 0 N III t to O O 1- ig, _LT, t fa rl N O e .— L- DI u (4 (a .- "- • 0- a in- iA- i - i�- 16.: 'O O - '�O L. ca .= O o o , AAAA a. Fi cG (/) I .� 'c o a) a) N i a. aE O i L- x H C. W o4 6 RESOLUTION NO. (R) 99 - 79 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA, ADOPTING A LODGING INDUSTRY INCENTIVES POLICY/GUIDELINE. WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley has identified expansion of the lodging industry as highly desirable and well supported by the community, and; WHEREAS, the existing Community Economic Development Strategy states that one major action step desired is the development and adoption of a Business Incentive Policy, and; WHEREAS, the existing Community Economic Development Strategy further states that the Town may from time to time wish to use some form of incentives to attract or retain desirable businesses, and; WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley recognizes the importance of developing guidelines that include similar considerations for existing businesses as those that apply to the attraction of new desired businesses; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA: The adoption of Exhibit A, Town of Oro Valley Lodging Industry Incentive Guidelines, attached herewith, •- -- - - _ _ - :2:•-: - -- ••_ - : - -- -= = -- - - =- PROVIDES EXAMPLES ITEMS THAT A LODGING OPERATOR/OWNER MAY REQUEST CONSIDERATION FOR. PASSED,ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valle Arizona, this oda of Ow41/4* 19T\. y� y TOWN OF ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk • ' 'ROVED AS TO FOW ' 1 .I 1b . A ,, 1," /- Dan L. Dudley, own Attorney TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PAGE 2 OF 3 JMMARY: (CON'T) The proposed Lodging Industry Incentive Policy/Guideline focuses separately on two incentives. The first is the Bed Tax and the second is Sales Tax on Construction Materials. The following criteria were used in the development of this incentive approach: 1. The Policy/Guidelines must be fair, performance based and equitable to both existing and new lodging businesses; 2. The Policy/Guidelines should address various facility sizes and potential revenue generation; and 3. The lodging facility(s) requesting consideration must clearly identify the benefits to Oro Valley as a result of their facility being located in the Town. The current Bed Tax applied to the gross price of each room is 1%. At this time the contract between the Town of Oro Valley and the Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau(MTCVB) specifies that 75% of the 1% Bed Tax be forwarded to the MTCVB. The remaining 25% of the 1% Bed Tax flows into the town's General Fund and traditionally is used for Economic Development related expenses. A Development Agreement will be written clearly defining the incentive(s) provided from the Town of Oro Valley to the lodging operator/owner. Included will be the length of time the agreement is in effect indicating beginning and ending dates as clearly defined as possible. The Radisson Grand Resort development team has asked the Town of Oro Valley for consideration of 3istance which will facilitate acquisition of investment capital. The need for expediency will allow for a timely response to the Radisson Resort development team. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit A, Town of Oro Valley Lodging Industry Incentive Guidelines, and 2. Arizona Community's Bed Tax Data chart, and 3. Three (3) data sheets supporting the Arizona Community's Bed Tax Data chart data, and 4. Bed Tax Rate Distributions spreadsheet and 5. Construction Materials Tax spreadsheet. FISCAL IMPACT: Determined on a project specific basis. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the Lodging Industry Incentive Guidelines, as defined in Exhibit A. ' --- - - _ - -- -- _-- - - - _ • - - _' _ - - _ . TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PAGE 3 OF 3 REVISED SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to AMEND AND approve AS AMENDED Resolution No. (R) 99 - 79 approving the Lodging Industry Incentive Guidelines that '- - -- - : _ - : - • ° ) (3/0 PROVIDES EXAMPLES OF ITEMS THAT A LODGING OPERATOR/OWNER MAY REQUEST CONSIDERATIONS FOR AND AMENDS SAID RESOLUTION TO REFLECT SAME. Jeffrey H. Weir, CED Economic Development Administrator David L. Andrews Finance Director Chuck Sweet Town Manager TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 4, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Melissa Shaw, AICP, Planner II SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE NO. 99-42 , PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED, CHAPTER 14, NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 2, DEFINITIONS BACKGROUND: This item was continued from the July 7, 1999 Town Council hearing, in order to observe the 30-day public notice policy. This report responds to specific direction given to staff by the Council in regard to issues raised during the public hearing. Specifically, Council requested that staff"provide to the Council the documentation supporting the changes that have been made to the Native Plant list previously [Ad Hoc Committee changes] and also to direct staff to bring back alternate wording for possible changes that include the comments from Mr. Adler and Mr. Conde". The supporting documentation for changes that have been made regarding the Native Plant Plan approval process are the minutes and report from the September 17, 1997 Council hearing. (See Attachment 4.) The omments from Messrs. Adler and Conde, a staff response, staff recommendation and alternate wording, if applicable, are provided below. Staff would like to express appreciation for the hard work and dedication of the Technical Advisory Committee. This was a highly skilled, very active Committee whose members represented a wide variety of disciplines. The areas of expertise represented include: wildlife biology, landscape architecture, planning, the development field, botany, horticulture, and others. The Town was fortunate to gather together such a high level of expertise to participate in this review. PUBLIC COMMENT ISSUES: The following are issues raised by Mr. Bill Adler (see the attached letter dated July 8, 1999 for complete notes). 1. Comment: Review and approval of Native Plant Preservation, Salvage and Mitigation [NPPSM]plans should not be administrative, as is the current process. The DRB and Town Council should review and approve all Native Plant Preservation, Salvage, and Mitigation plans. Staff response. The current administrative review and approval process is the direct result of an Action Plan adopted by Council on September 17, 1997, as part of the Ad Hoc Committee on Development Review recommendations (excerpt of report and minutes attached). The Action Plan includes specific direction to "[t]ransfer the review and approval of NPSP from DRB to administrative review and approval by staff'. Mr. Adler asserts that the review and approval process be transferred back to the DRB and Town Council. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 9 The Ad Hoc Committee recommendations were adopted to reduce the review time for technical aspects of development. The amendments now before the Council were designed to coordinate the administrative approval of the NPPSM plan with the actual salvage operation, thereby permitting salvage operations to begin, on a limited, at-risk basis, prior to approval of the plat or development plan. The benefit and rational to this approach is that the earlier salvage can begin, giving boxed trees, in particular, more time to remain in the ground prior to removal from the site, the greater the survival rate. Additionally, staff has consulted with DRB Chair Patti Lewis regarding the current process. Chair Lewis stated that the current administrative review process is smooth and that the DRB relies on staff expertise in this area, not only for plan review but in regard to field verification as well. Chair Lewis does not recommend changing the current process, citing inefficiency due to the extra steps that would be created if the process is changed back to DRB/Council review. Staff recommendation. Staff does not recommend changing the current administrative review and approval process. If the Council supports reversal of the Ad Hoc Committee recommendations, we suggest that the issue be studied in the context of the Ad Hoc process, and not changed with amendments to the Native Plant ordinance. Alternative Code Wording (in bold and CAPS) to Sec. 14-108.A:: The Planning and Zoning Administrator,or a Designee, SHALL REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS ALL SUBMITTALS WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS OF RECEIPT. STAFF will assemble all recommendations and provide review comments WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF CERTIFICATION, ,to the applicant. THE APPLICANT SHALL RESPOND AND RESUBMIT THE PLAN. REVIEW OF THE RESUBMITTAL SHALL BE COMPLETE AFTER 10 WORKING DAYS OF THE RESUBMITTAL. If the Native Plant PRESERVATION,Salvage AND MITIGATION Plan meets THE cede requirements OF THIS ARTICLE,the Planning and Zoning Administrator, or a designee, shall FORWARD THE NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN TO THE DRB AND TOWN COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.. •• I.- ••.•• - --• •- •. - .- \ • - • • .• • . IL:. • ..•.• •• -.•.• • •-.•.• • - .. - • -. \ • - • - • - 7." •-• -• •- • • ' \I • e• . . • -• • •- • - - • • •• • ► ••• ••- - - - .• • - -- -- -•• ••• -• • • - - - - t:., : - 2... . - • "• - - .• 2t. Landscape plans must be in conformance with the approved Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plans 2. Comment: "Incentives were not supported by citizens at the public workshop, and have never been documented by staff as being truly effective. We don't need incentives to 'permit' clustering. If we want incentives to require clustering, I'd feel differently about it. Reducing lot sizes could result in increased density, which increases visual pollution. Increasing the FAR in commercial development increases building mass. These 'incentives' trade off preservation for increased visual impact, which is not consistent with maintaining or improving the Oro Valley quality of life and general welfare". Staff response: The decision whether to use incentives or to require design, such as clustering, strictly through regulation is a policy choice. The recommendation to include incentives was made by the Technical Advisory Committee, recognizing that the flexibility of incentives encourages innovation and creativity beyond what can reasonably be expected by average development, thus improving design. As written in the proposed amendments, incentives in the form of either increased FAR or reduced lot sizes are provided as a means to protect significant vegetation. The code specifically states that there is to be no increase in overall density. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 9 It is difficult to find a modern zoning or development code that does not utilize a form of incentives. Indeed, the current Oro Valley Zoning Code contains incentives in both the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor Overly District and Riparian Habitat Overlay District, where it provides for clustering to preserve riparian habitat. Regarding documentation as to the effectiveness of incentives, there are numerous examples of both effective and ineffective incentive programs. The only way to truly test the effectiveness of an incentive program is to implement it within a jurisdiction and evaluate the results of the program at the local level. Staff cannot respond to a generalization that incentives do or do not produce the desired results, as results vary greatly. Alternatively, if the Town chooses to eliminate the incentives and require clustering in order to protect significant vegetation, and there is no provision for reduced lot sizes or increase in FAR, thereby reducing the permitted density, the question of a taking issue becomes foremost. In regard to the comment that "increased density...increases visual pollution", staff notes that clustering is one tool commonly recognized as a growth management technique that serves to reduce visual pollution by preserving intact more open space than regular subdivision design. Staff recommendation: Deletion of the incentive provision would represent a major shift in the direction of thep roposed ordinance. We recommend retaining the provision of incentives and implement and evaluate the effectiveness with the six-month review period. Alternative Code Wording: Delete the entire section(Sec. 14-104.D) from the code. 3. Comment: "Fees in lieu were dropped from an earlier version as a result of comments at the P&Z public hearing. They are part of the mitigation remedy now proposed, and should be specifically withdrawn as a remedy option". Staff response: Mr. Adler's comment is correct in that reference to "fees in lieu" was changed, based on public comment, to a different provision called "mitigation remedy". Staff agrees that specifically referring to fees in lieu is not appropriate in this ordinance. Thus, the specific wording for mitigation remedy includes no reference to fees in lieu. A mitigation remedy includes a proposal, rational and justification, all of which are reviewed during a public hearing by the DRB and Town Council. By not limiting the type of "mitigation remedy" the code provides the opportunity for a wide range of proposals, to be decided by the Town's public bodies. Staff recommendation: Staff does not anticipate excessive use of this provision. Including this option in the code gives the DRB and Town Council discretion as to what alternatives will exist when a developer seeks relief, as opposed to the alternative, which would be to refer all cases seeking relief to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. A classic indication of a problematic code is excessive use of the variance process. We recommend retaining the mitigation remedy section. Alternative Code Wording: Delete the entire section (Sec. 14-104.E) from the code. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 4 of 9 4. Comment: "Punitive fines should be included in the penalty section, as it is in the grading ordinance. I don't understand the resistance to this by staff" Staff response: Staff proposes that penalties be provided in a separate, comprehensive fee and penalty schedule. The same protection will be provided whether fees and penalties are included in this section of the code or are adopted by a separate ordinance. The advantage to having a comprehensive fee and penalty schedule is that updates can be accomplished regularly and easily with one ordinance, instead of changing numerous specific code chapters. Changes to the current fee and penalty schedule will be brought to Council before the end of this year. Staff recommendation: As stated in the proposed ordinance, move the fees and penalties to the comprehensive fee and penalty schedule. The following are written comments received from Mr. Hector Conde: 5. Comment: Sec. 14-104.A. Last paragraph. Leave all deleted text that begins "all existing native plants". Staff response: The referenced deleted text states that "all existing native plants shall be preserved in their original location, except within those areas permitted to be graded. Large and/or unique native plants within areas proposed for grading shall be preserved in place, unless otherwise approved by Town Council." Staff recommendation: The large/unique plants referred to in the second sentence are now described within the significant vegetation definition. It does not need to be repeated elsewhere. It may be prudent to retain the first sentence as part of Sec. 14-105.A, as follows: Alternative Code Wording (in bold): A NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED FOR THE ENTIRE SITE. AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION FROM THE SRI, AND RELATED MITIGATION, SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED ON THE PRESERVATION AND SALVAGE PLAN. ALL EXISTING NATIVE PLANTS SHALL BE PRESERVED IN THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATION, EXCEPT WITHIN THOSE AREAS PERMITTED TO BE GRADED. ANY AREAS OF DISTURBANCE OUTSIDE OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION SHALL BE INVENTORIED AND MITIGATED ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS SET FORTH BELOW. 6. Comment: Sec. 14-105.B.1. Replace 'as provided for in Sec. 14-103.D' with `namely an arborist or biologist'. Staff response: (Note: section reference corrected by staff. Listed in letter as Sec. 14-104.B.1.) Sec. 14- 103.D establishes the qualification requirements for preparers of both the Site Resource Inventory (SRI) and NPPSM Plan. The section Mr. Conde is suggesting be amended refers to third party plant salvage specialist review of NPPSM Plans, when the Planning and Zoning Administrator determines a third party review is necessary. This section was written to be consistent with the criteria for plan preparer TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 5 of 9 requirements, which includes registered landscape architects as well as certified arborist, biologist, botanist or horticulturist (page 3 of the code). Staff recommendation: Leave Sec. 14-105.B.1 as written. Alternative Code Wording (in bold): Transplantability shall be indicated on the Native Plant Preservation, Salvage AND MITIGATION Plan submittal and may be reviewed, at the discretion of the Planning & Zoning ADMINISTRATOR, by a third party plant salvage specialist,as provided for in Sec. 11 103.D, NAMELY AN ARBORIST OR BIOLOGIST. The evaluation of protected native plants shall be based on the guidelines in THIS Section. 7. Comment: Sec. 14-104.B.4. Add: i. Specific group of plant communities that are known to be habitat for protected species. Example: ironwood, saguaro, mesquite, palo verde are known pygmy owl habitat. A community of those plants shall be preserved intact. Staff response: The section lists the set of criteria to be used in the determination of significant vegetation. This suggestion is excellent in that it adds a criterion directed toward habitat of protected species. Staff recommendation: Staff recommends deleting the last sentence of Mr. Conde's suggestion because separate processes (the Endangered Species Act, the Pima County Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and the Oro Valley Environmentally Sensitive Land project) will determine the preservation of such areas. Alternative Code Wording (new): i. Specific groups of plant communities that are known to be habitat for protected species. For example: ironwood, saguaro, mesquite, palo verde are known pygmy owl habitat. 8. Comment: Sec. 14-105.B.3.h. Any saguaro 15' or higher with more than 2 branches shall not be removed or transplanted. Any healthy ironwood tree with a trunk diameter larger than 12" shall be kept in place. Only exception is when there is no other site available for construction. Staff response: The aforementioned section establishes the transplantability criteria used in the inventory for NPPSM plans. This comment is a refinement of what is described as significant vegetation (SV) in the Site Resource Inventory requirements. Staff recommendation: Include this language as an example in Sec. 14-104.B.3, Unique Plant, as follows: • TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 6 of 9 Alternative Code Wording (in bold): UNIQUE PLANT REFERS TO ANY NATIVE TREE, SHRUB OR CACTI WITH EXTRAORDINARY CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, AGE, SIZE, SHAPE, FORM, CANOPY COVER OR AESTHETIC VALUE. AN EXAMPLE MAY BE CRESTED SAGUAROS OR ANY SAQUARO 15' OR HIGHER WITH MORE THAN 2 BRANCHES. A RARE, MASSIVE bARGE,ANCIENT TREE SUCH AS A HEAL THY IRONWOOD TREE WITH A TRUNK DIAMETER LARGER THAN 12", OR TREE WITH AN UNUSUAL SHAPE And to Sec. 14-104.A.1, as follows: THE SRI SHALL STRIVE TO MEET THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVES: • SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION, AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, SHALL BE KEPT IN PLACE UNLESS THERE IS NO OTHER SITE AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION. 9. Comment: Sec. 14-105.F.1.c. Leave "all existing native plants...to remain..." and "All existing native plants to be destroyed". Staff response: These sentences were specifically removed from the ordinance for the following reasons: (1) "All existing native plants...to remain in place" is already required in Sec. 14-105.F.1.a, and (2) at the recommendation of the TAC, inventory of "all existing native plants to be destroyed" should not be necessary because, except for significant vegetation, all salvageable plants will be salvaged. Mr. Conde's comment to "leave 'all existing native plants to be destroyed' " raises the question of whether or not to require the inventory of all exiting native plants on a site. The TAC approach, to require inventory of only the plants to be salvaged, outside of SV, relies on the dual review of the SRI field check and a second field check for the NPPSM plan to ensure that all plants are accounted for and salvaged when they meet the listed salvage criteria. This method simplifies the inventory process. Mr. Conde's method requires the inventory of all native plants on a site and increases the plan preparation time but also provides a means for the Town to accumulate documentation of existing vegetation. Regardless of the required inventory, any plant that does not meet the salvageability criteria will be replaced only if it is significant vegetation, and any discrepancy or questions will be resolved during field check. Staff recommendation: No change to current proposed language. Alternative Code Wording: Include deleted text. 10. Comment: Sec. 14-105.F.1.e. Add: all salvage plants [plans] AND PLANTS TO BE DESTROYED. Staff response: This section requires that all salvage plans be field checked by the Zoning Inspector. This includes all plants on the site, whether preserved in place, salvaged or destroyed. Staff recommendation: No change to current proposed language. • - COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 7 of 9 11. Comment: Sec. 14.105.M. Add paragraph "All graded areas in the property and any embankment at a wash or at the roadside shall be populated with native grasses". Staff response: This comment is already handled under the Town Grading Ordinance, where all graded areas not landscaped are hydroseeded with the Native Seed Mix. Staff recommendation: No change. 12. Comment: Sec. 14-105.F.1.h.iii. Leave "If the Native Plant and...projects". Staff response: The TAC recommended that this section be deleted because this situation is addressed within the "Mitigation Remedy" section. If the requirements cannot be satisfied, then either the site is not appropriate for the proposed development or a variance should be applied for. Staff recommendation: No change to current proposed language. 13. Comment: Sec. 14-105.5. Leave: "Mistletoe infestations shall be removed from all salvaged plants prior to relocation." Staff response: (This refers to old Sec. 14-105.5, page 11, deleted.) This requirement was struck at the suggestion of the Technical Advisory Committee because mistletoe provides food for native birds. A healthy tree will not decline due to the presence of mistletoe alone, and as it is systemic, mistletoe cannot be completely removed. Staff recommendation: Leave the proposed ordinance as written, with the sentence deleted. 14. Comment: Sec. 14-109.A. Leave "shall" (twice in paragraph). Staff response: The Planning and Zoning Administrator carefully reviewed this section. The word "shall" was replaced by "may" because circumstances in every case vary and revocation of all permits may not always occur. For example, revocation of a grading permit may be applicable while revocation of electrical permits may not. Staff recommendation: No change to current language. 15. Comment: Sec. 14-109.C. Replace "3 years" with"5 years for trees" and"8 years for saguaros". Staff response: Three years is the current time frame for Town retention of landscape bonds. Implementation of this suggestion would require the Town to hold 25% of landscape bonds for 8 years. The 3-year time frame is a reasonable length of time to ensure survival of transplanted plants. Additionally, approved landscape is required to be maintained in perpetuity by the Code and the approved landscape plan. Any plant that doesn't survive must be replaced. Staff recommendation: Leave the current ordinance, as written. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 8 of 9 Alternative Code Wording: Change "...replacement plant materials for a period of;8 years". 16. Comment: Sec. 14-110.A.3. Replace "solar orientation" with East, North, or whatever the Dept. of Agriculture uses. Staff response: It is not necessary to specify which direction to mark. The purpose of this section is to maintain a consistent solar orientation from when the plant is removed to when it is transplanted. Staff recommendation: Retain the current language. LEGAL REVIEW: An initial review and legal approval of the draft ordinance was given by the Town Attorney prior to the first Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. After the Council study session, the Town Attorney requested the opportunity for additional review. At the time of report preparation, legal review was not final but should be available for the Council by the hearing date. SUMMARY: This report responds to Council's direction that staff address Mr. Adler and Mr. Conde's comments regarding le Native Plant Salvage, Preservation and Mitigation Ordinance. Their efforts are appreciated. In fact, several changes to the ordinance have already been incorporated due to their recommendations. With the exception of comments numbered 5, 7 and 8 above, staff does not recommend implementing the suggested changes for the reasons discussed therein. Staff has been contacted by one member of the Technical Advisory Committee who expressed concern that a minority opinion may overturn the detailed and technical review of the TAC, as reflected in the amendments. In addition, with the recommended six-month review, there will be ample opportunity to evaluate all recommended additional changes. RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends that the Town Council approve the amendments, including the "immediate changes" described in the July 7 report and included herewith as Attachment #3 (based on review by Arizona Game & Fish), and including the changes described above in numbers 5, 7 and 8. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Oro Valley Town Council may wish to consider one of the following motions: I move to approve the amendments, including changes listed above as numbers 5, 7 and 8 and those changes described as "immediate changes" and depicted in Attachment #3, to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Chapter 2, Section 2-101, Definitions, and Chapter 14, Article 14-1, Native Plant Preservation, Salvage and 'litigation Plan Requirements, as presented in attached Ordinance No. (0)99- 42 with direction to staff to evaluate and report on the implementation and effectiveness of this ordinance within six months of its adoption. OR TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 9 of 9 I move to approve the amendments, including changes listed above as numbers 5, 7 and 8 and those changes described as "immediate changes" and depicted in Attachment #3, to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Chapter 2, Section 2-101, Definitions, and Chapter 14, Article 14-1, , Native Plant Preservation, Salvage and Mitigation Plan Requirements, as presented in attached Ordinance No. (0)99-42 ,with direction to staff to evaluate and report on the implementation and effectiveness of this ordinance within six months of its adoption, with the following revisions and/or conditions: OR I move to deny approval of the amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Chapter 2, Section 2-101, Definitions, and Chapter 14, Article 14-1, , Native Plant Preservation, Salvage and Mitigation Plan Requirements, as presented in attached Ordinance No. (0)99- 42 finding that: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance (0)99-42,Native Plant Preservation, Salvage and Mitigation Plan Ordinance 2. Comment letters 3. Description of Arizona Game & Fish Comments 4. Excerpt Ad Hoc Committee on Development Review Report and Minutes of TC hearing /95.0).L.51_ Plann • :'nd Zoning Administrator . 71‘)„,c1"1/4.:, Community Development Director Town Mana F:\ZONECODE\ZCR\14\98AMENDSAugust4TowncouncilReport ORDINANCE NO. (0)99- 42 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, RELATING TO AMENDMENTS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED, CHAPTER 2, DEFINITIONS AND CHAPTER 14, NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION AND LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS; ESTABLISHING THESE AMENDMENTS AS PART OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED. WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley adopted a document known as the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised; and WHEREAS, it has become necessary to amend Chapter 2, Definitions, and Chapter 14, Native Plant Preservation and Landscape Plan Requirements of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised for the purpose of serving as a guideline for the DRB to make more effective decisions, which has the effect of improving the public health, safety, and welfare by providing an effective form of communication while preserving the scenic beauty of the desert environment; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, having considered the proposed amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Chapters 2 and 14, having held a public hearing on March 2, 1999, and having made its recommendations to the Town Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: SECTION 1. That certain document known as "Amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Chapter 2, )efmitions, and Chapter 14, Native Plant Preservation and Landscape Plan Requirements", is hereby referred to, adopted and made part hereof as if fully set out in this ordinance, any provisions thereof to become effective thirty days after the adoption of this ordinance by the Town Council. SECTION 2. All ordinances and part of ordinances in conflict with provisions of this ordinance or any part of the amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised adopted herein by reference are hereby repealed on the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 3. Repeal of all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions set forth herein or any part of the amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised adopted herein by reference does not affect rights and duties that have matured or penalties that were incurred and proceedings that were begun before the effective date of the repeal. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,phrase or portion of the ordinance or any part of the code adopted herein by reference 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. ORDINANCE NO. (0)99- 42 (Continued) 'ASSED AND ADOPTED by Mayor Ma or and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 4TH day of August, 1999. Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney F:\ZONECODE\ZCR\14\NPPSMORDINANCE.doc EXHIBIT A AMENDED CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 2-1. DEFINITIONS Sec.2-101 General Site Resource Inventory: a primary evaluative design tool upon which site design and salvage plans are based. the information contained in the sri shall be utilized for purposes of site planning and design, and shall describe and identify natural characteristics of the site, including areas of significant vegetation. preservation of protected natural areas and significant vegetation shall be a primary consideration. Significant Vegetation (SV): is characterized as specific plant communities, and/or unique plant occurances and/or unique individual specimens that demonstrate, through the presence of certain criteria areas of special value to the Sonoran desert ecosystem: 1. Plant Community is an area of vegetation dominated by one or more species. climate, elevation, soil types and other factors ultimately determine the limits and boundaries of particular plant communities. examples of a plant community dominated by one species are desert grassland and creosote bush association, or a grove of trees, for example mesquite bosque. these communities can form almost pure stands of single species. examples of codominate plant communities are cottonwood-willow and paloverde-saguaro association. plant communities create an environment that is beneficial, unique and/or valuable to the desert ecosystem. 2. Unique Plant Occurances are areas of vegetation that exist in contrast to the majority of the surrounding vegetative community due to either microclimates or availability of water sources. examples are stands of ironwood trees or riparian areas. 3. Unique Plant refers to any native tree, shrub or cacti with extraordinary characteristics such as, but not limited to, age, size, shape, form, canopy cover or aesthetic value. an example may be crested saguaros, a rare, massive ancient tree or tree with an unusual shape. F:\...zcR\14\98amends\CHP2.ADD 2-1 Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (Rev.2/97) CHAPTER 14 NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION AND LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS ARTICLE 14-1. NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLANS Sec. 14-101 Purpose Sec. 14-102 Applicability Sec. 14-103 General Provisions and Application Requirements Sec. 14-104 Site Resource Inventory Standards and Requirements Sec. 14-105 Native Plant Preservation, Salvage and Mitigation Plan Requirements Sec. 14-106 Plant Salvage Protocol Sec. 14-107 Review Procedures and Certification Sec. 14-108 Approval Procedures Sec. 14-109 Compliance Sec. 14-110 Tagging, Limits of Grading, Planting Orientation and Inspections SEC. 14-111 ORO VALLEY PROTECTED NATIVE PLANT LIST SEC. 14-112 ORO VALLEY SUPPLEMENTAL NATIVE PLANT LIST(UNDERSTORY) /zonecode/zcr/14/98amnds/chapterl 4tablecontents EXHIBIT A CHAPTER 14 NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION AND LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS Article 14-1 NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS Sec. 14-101 Purpose ORO VALLEY'S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IS THE UNIQUE SONORAN DESERT, AN UPLAND DESERT COMMUNITY FOUND ONLY IN SOUTHERN ARIZONA AND PARTS OF NORTHERN MEXICO. SEVERAL RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES INHABIT THE AREA, THE MOST NOTABLY CHARACTERISTIC OF WHICH IS THE SAGUARO CACTUS, A WELL KNOWN SYMBOL OF THE SOUTHWEST. This Article is designed to provide standards for the protection of native plants, WHICH PROVIDE HABITAT FOR ANIMALS, site stabilization and revegetation for all development projects within Oro Valley so as to ENHANCE AND PROMOTE THE NATIVE LANDSCAPE CHARACTER OF THE TOWN These standards provide for the in-place preservation and protection of SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION AND THE SALVAGE OF PROTECTED SPECIES - • -- • - e -• - •- -'-e -• = •••• These regulations serve to protect the public health, safety and general welfare by: A. Preserving and protecting the existing Sonoran desert landscape, including RIPARIAN AREAS, organic and inorganic materials, rock outcroppings AND ASSOCIATED VEGETATION; B. Preserving native vegetation which stabilizES desert soils AND IS AN IMPORTANT HABITAT COMPONENT BY PROVIDING COVER, FOOD AND NESTING SITES FOR NUMEROUS DESERT WILDLIFE SPECIES - - - •= = - - •• • • -- - •- -- • = • -. - - - - - - - - - •- - - • - - - C. PRESERVING UNDERSTORY VEGETATION SPECIES THAT ENHANCE THE VALUE OF PRESERVED AND SALVAGED PLANTS D. MITIGATING THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON "' _ '' ••- a SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION DISTURBED BY DEVELOPMENT. E. PROMOTING THE DESIGN OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO INCORPORATE THE EXISTING NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE, ENHANCE THE EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION F. Requiring salvage and use of native vegetation, which is drought tolerant, requires less maintenance and uses less water =•- - ---_ _- _--- -_- - -- •---_ _- _ Sec. 14-102 Applicability A. The provisions of this article shall apply to all new development, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. B. All existing developments proposing expansion and/or a change in use shall comply with the provisions of this Article. C. Development of INDIVIDUAL single family lots in •- , ' _, ' _- . I districts WITH Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 LOT SIZE R1-20 AND GREATER SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FOLLOWING: SEC. 14-106, SEC. 14-109A. B. C., SEC. 14-110 (APPROPRIATE STANDARDS APPLY), SEC. 14-111 AND 14-112. information in acAocciance-with Sec. 14 105, !NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND Sec. 14-103 General Provisions AND APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS A. BOTH A SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY AND Native Plant Preservation, aR4 Salvage AND MITIGATION Plan, in conformance with this Article, must be submitted in conjunction with a preliminary plat or development plan submittal. ,, - • - ' -- - -- - =• -= -=- ' -•- -•- = B. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. BOTH A SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY AND NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED AS BELOW AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SECS. 14-104 & 14-105. 1. At the time of THE PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE (OR, IF NO PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE, ONE MONTH IN ADVANCE OF THE submittal of a preliminary plat or development plan for review), the applicant shall file with the Planning and Zoning ADMINISTRATOR A SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY, AS DESCRIBED IN SEC. 14-104. 2. AT THE TIME OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL, A NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED, AS DESCRIBED IN SEC. 14-105. Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plans shall specify the proposed treatment of ALL protected native plants LISTED IN SEC. 14-111 which are being disturbed due to development (SEE SEC. 14-105.B FOR SIZE REQUIREMENTS). Protected native plants shall not be destroyed, mutilated, removed from the premises or relocated on the premises except in accordance with an approved Native Plant Preservation, Salvage and MITIGATION Plan and all Arizona Department of Agriculture and Horticulture requirements. 3. Copies Required: 1 FULL SIZED COPY OF THE SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY and 3 full-sized copies of the Native Plant Preservation, Salvage AND MITIGATION Plans, folded to 8-1/2"X 11" (approved County fold) must be submitted for review. 4. FEES. The fee for submission of the SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY and Native Plant Preservation, Salvage AND MITIGATION Plan shall be according to the fee schedule adopted by the Town Council. If the Planning and Zoning ADMINISTRATOR deems an independent review necessary, the applicant shall be responsible for such review fees. The ADMINISTRATOR shall select a third party reviewer from a pool of qualified individuals. Said pool shall be established and maintained by the ADMINISTRATOR. 5. For all resubmittals, previous review sheets and a copy of a response letter(if other than the first submittal) SHALL BE SUBMITTED. In addition to resolving review comments on plan sheets, revisions shall be summarized in letterform. C. Preservation of SIGNIFICANT native, on-site vegetation, AS CHARACTERIZED IN SEC. 14-104.B, Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 2 shall be a primary objective of site planning for development. Mature, native trees shall be given particular consideration for retention in place. All Saguaro cacti shall be preserved in place or relocated on site, unless otherwise approved by the PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR •1/ •e- B • _-e ♦ e._ ... ....... . a. - --- —e-•_. _ .• •• • _ D. QUALIFICATIONS. THE SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY AND NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED AND STAMPED, SEALED OR CERTIFIED BY A QUALIFIED PRACTITIONER, WITH EXPERIENCE AND/OR FAMILIARITY WITH THE SONORAN DESERT ECOSYSTEM, AND ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING QUALIFICATIONS: 1. A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REGISTERED WITH THE ARIZONA STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION; 2. AN ARBORIST WITH INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE CERTIFICATION; 3. A BIOLOGIST, HORTICULTURIST OR BOTANIST WITH A MINIMUM B.A. OR B.S. IN A PLANT ORIENTED NATURAL RESOURCE FIELD Sec. 14 104 Application Requirements and Contents 1. Copies Required a -Pecs: a. 3 full sized copies of the Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plans, folded to 8 1/2" fee schedule adopted by the Town Council. If the Planning and Zoning Director deems an Sec. 14-104. SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS A. SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY 1. THE SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY (SRI) SHALL BE A PRIMARY EVALUATIVE DESIGN TOOL UPON WHICH THE SITE DESIGN AND SALVAGE PLANS ARE BASED. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE SRI SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR PURPOSES OF SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN, AND SHALL DESCRIBE AND IDENTIFY NATURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE, AS LISTED BELOW, INCLUDING AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION. PRESERVATION OF PROTECTED NATURAL AREAS AND SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION SHALL BE A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION. THE SRI SHALL STRIVE TO MEET THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVES: Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 3 • THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROPOSED REQUIRES THE MINIMAL NATIVE PLANT DISTURBANCE, DESTRUCTION OR REMOVAL. • DESTRUCTION OR REMOVAL OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION DOES NOT SUBSTITUTE FOR CREATIVE PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGN. • MITIGATION PROPOSED MAINTAINS AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANT NATIVE PLANT VEGETATION AND ANIMAL HABITAT WHILE PRESERVING SITE STABILIZATION. • MITIGATION PROPOSED INCORPORATES NATIVE VEGETATION OF A SIZE, QUALITY AND TYPE CONSISTENT WITH THE SRI AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE, CONTRIBUTES TO THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE REMAINING NATIVE VEGETATION, AND THE DEVELOPMENT. TO PROMOTE THESE OBJECTIVES, STAFF WILL REVIEW THE SRI SUBMITTED WITH THE PREAPPLICATION OR ONE MONTH IN ADVANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL. AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION DISTURBED BY DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE MITIGATED (DISTURBED PLANTS SHALL BE REPLACED) AS DESCRIBED IN SEC. 14-104.0 BELOW. THE NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN, DEVELOPED FROM THE SRI, SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN. a - '- •= • - - -- -• =- = ---- -e .- -. = "e•-- =-- •= bo . 2. THE SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY SHALL BE BASED ON AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SITE (SCALE OF 1"=40') THAT IS NO OLDER THAN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SUBMITTAL. A SCALE SMALLER THAN 1"-40' OR OLDER DATE MAY BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR BUT IN NO CASE MAY THE SCALE BE SMALLER THAN 1"=100'. THE SRI SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING, CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AND DISTINGUISHED: a. AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION, AS DEFINED HEREIN; NATURAL AREAS DEFINED AND PROTECTED BY THIS CODE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE, RIPARIAN HABITAT, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LAND; 100-YEAR FLOOD LIMITS, ROCK OUTCROPS, THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND A LOCATION MAP. b. DIFFERENTIATE THE AREAS ON THE SRI AS FOLLOWS: SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION WITH HEAVY SOLID LINES; HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREAS WITH HATCHING INDICATING 15 AND 25 PERCENT AND GREATER SLOPES; RIPARIAN AREAS WITH DASHED LINES; 100-YEAR FLOOD LIMITS WITH ALTERNATING DASHED AND DOTTED LINES; ROCK OUTCROPS WITH LIGHT SHADING. 3. STAFF REVIEW OF THE SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY WILL BE COMPLETE WITHIN 10 DAYS OF EITHER THE PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE OR SRI SUBMITTAL. ANY PROJECT SUBMITTED WITHOUT PRIOR STAFF REVIEW AND RESPONSE TO AN SRI SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCOMPLETE. B. SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION (SV) IS CHARACTERIZED AS BY SPECIFIC PLANT COMMUNITIES, AND/OR UNIQUE PLANT OCCURANCES AND/OR UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL SPECIMENS THAT DEMONSTRATE, THROUGH THE PRESENCE OF CERTAIN CRITERIA, AS Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 4 LISTED BELOW, AREAS OF SPECIAL VALUE TO THE SONORAN DESERT ECOSYSTEM. 1. PLANT COMMUNITY IS AN AREA OF VEGETATION DOMINATED BY ONE OR MORE SPECIES. CLIMATE, ELEVATION, SOIL TYPES AND OTHER FACTORS ULTIMATELY DETERMINE THE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES OF PARTICULAR PLANT COMMUNITIES. EXAMPLES OF A PLANT COMMUNITY DOMINATED BY ONE SPECIES ARE DESERT GRASSLAND AND CREOSOTE BUSH ASSOCIATION, OR A GROVE OF TREES, FOR EXAMPLE MESQUITE BOSQUE. THESE COMMUNITIES CAN FORM ALMOST PURE STANDS OF SINGLE SPECIES. EXAMPLES OF CODOMINATE PLANT COMMUNITIES ARE COTTONWOOD-WILLOW AND PALOVERDE-SAGUARO ASSOCIATION. PLANT COMMUNITIES CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS BENEFICIAL, UNIQUE AND/OR VALUABLE TO THE DESERT ECOSYSTEM. 2. UNIQUE PLANT OCCURANCES ARE AREAS OF VEGETATION THAT EXIST IN CONTRAST TO THE MAJORITY OF THE SURROUNDING VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY DUE TO EITHER MICROCLIMATES OR AVAILABILITY OF WATER SOURCES. EXAMPLES ARE STANDS OF IRONWOOD TREES OR RIPARIAN AREAS. 3. UNIQUE PLANT REFERS TO ANY NATIVE TREE, SHRUB OR CACTI WITH EXTRAORDINARY CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, AGE, SIZE, SHAPE, FORM, CANOPY COVER OR AESTHETIC VALUE. AN EXAMPLE MAY BE CRESTED SAGUAROS, A RARE, MASSIVE LARGE, ANCIENT TREE OR TREE WITH AN UNUSUAL SHAPE. 4. CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION INCLUDE THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING, IN ADDITION TO BEING CHARACTERIZED AS A PLANT COMMUNITY, UNIQUE PLANT AND/OR UNIQUE PLANT OCCURANCE: a. PLANT SPECIES THAT ARE NATIVE TO THE AREA b. PLANT SPECIES COMPOSITION IS TYPICAL FOR THE AREA c. PLANTS ARE GENERALLY HEALTHY AND WILL SURVIVE FOR 5 OR MORE YEARS. d. PLANT DENSITY IS NORMAL FOR THE SITE CONDITIONS (SOIL, SLOPE, ORIENTATION, WATER AVAILABILITY). e. MATURE SPECIMENS OF INDIVIDUAL TREES AND/OR COLUMNAR CACTUS SPECIES ARE PRESENT. f. NOXIOUS/INVASIVE SPECIES ARE FEW AND NOT VISUALLY PROMINENT, SUCH AS DESERT BROOM, TAMARISK, MEXICAN PALO VERDE, AND TREE OF HEAVEN. g. GRADING OR CLEARING HAS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED THE LANDSCAPE IN THE AREA. h. CONSTRUCTED NON-NATIVE LANDSCAPES DO NOT QUALIFY AS SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION. 5. PRESERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION SHOULD EMPHASIZE CONTIGUOUS GROUPS OF NATURAL AREAS AND SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION. AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, OTHER NATURAL AREAS PROTECTED BY THIS CODE, SUCH AS RIPARIAN HABITAT. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 5 C. APPLICABILITY AND MITIGATION. 1. IF ALL PROTECTED NATURAL AREAS AND AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION ARE PRESERVED IN PLACE, OR IF NO STANDS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION EXIST, A NATIVE PLANT SALVAGE PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THE ENTIRE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA, AND MITIGATION STANDARDS OF SEC. 14-105 SHALL APPLY. WHEN AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION ARE PRESENT BUT ARE NOT PRESERVED IN PLACE DUE TO DEVELOPMENT, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION SHALL BE REQUIRED. FOR EXAMPLE, FOR 100 PLANTS IDENTIFIED AS SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION THAT ARE NOT PRESERVED IN PLACE, THOSE THAT MEET THE SALVAGE CRITERIA IN SEC. 14-105.B.3 WILL BE SALVAGED. IF 10 ARE SALVAGED, THE 90 REMAINING SHALL BE MITIGATED AS SET FORTH IN TABLE 14-1. AND CREDIT WILL BE GIVEN ON A PROPORTIONAL BASIS FOR SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION PRESERVED IN PLACE. 2. MITIGATION OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION, UNDERSTORY REQUIREMENTS AND AREA MEASUREMENT. a. MITIGATION OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION SHALL BE ACCORDING TO THE RATIOS IN TABLE 14-1. TABLE 14-1 AMOUNT OF SV TREE PERCENT TREES PERCENT TREES UNDERSTORY** CACTI & OTHER DISTURBED MITIGATION REPLACED REPLACED VEGETATION PROTECTED RATIO AT 48" BOX AT 36" BOX REQUIRED PLANTS 0-29% STANDARD MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 5 UNDERSTORY SAME SIZE AND 14-105 SHALL APPLY. PLANTS SPECIES AS 30-49% 1:1 NONE 100% FOR EACH THAT 50-69% 2:1 50% 50% MITIGATED REMOVED OR 70-100% 3:1 30% 70% TREE DESTROYED. **UNDERSTORY PLANTS SELECTED FROM THE SUPPLEMENTAL NATIVE PLANT LIST, SEC. 14-112, AND EITHER TRANSPLANTED FROM ONSITE OR NURSERY PLANTS. b. THE PERCENTAGE OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION SHALL BE MEASURED AS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE GROUND COVER AREA. 3. IF THE MITIGATED PLANT DOES NOT SURVIVE THE FIRST 4-2 18 MONTHS OF TRANSPLANTING AFTER LANDSCAPING IS COMPLETE, MITIGATION STANDARDS, AS LISTED ABOVE, SHALL APPLY. D. PRESERVATION INCENTIVES. IN ORDER TO PROMOTE PRESERVATION IN PLACE, DEVELOPMENT STANDARD INCENTIVES ARE OFFERED TO PERMIT CLUSTERING OF DEVELOPMENT, AS SET FORTH IN TABLE 14-2. . TABLE 14-2 AMOUNT OF SV PRESERVED REDUCTION IN LOT SIZE INCREASE IN FAR IN PLACE PERMITTED PERMITTED 71-100% UP TO 20% OF APPROPRIATE UP TO 20%. INTERIOR LOTS*. 51-70% UP TO 15% OF APPROPRIATE UP TO 15% INTERIOR LOTS 50% OR LESS NONE NONE Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 6 *APPROPRIATE INTERIOR LOTS ARE THOSE LOTS NOT ON THE PERIMETER OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND NOT ADJACENT TO A NATURAL RESOURCE AREA. E. MITIGATION REMEDY. WHEN A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND MEETS OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE CODE, BUT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST IN REGARD TO SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION, SUCH AS WHEN A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF A SITE IS COVERED WITH SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION AND MITIGATION RESULTS IN PLANTS TOO NUMEROUS TO FIT ON THE SITE, THE DEVELOPER MAY REQUEST APPROVAL FOR A MITIGATION REMEDY. THE DEVELOPER MUST MAKE HIS/HER REQUEST TO THE TOWN FOR A MITIGATION REMEDY BEFORE OR CONCURRENT WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL. THE REQUEST SHALL INCLUDE A MITIGATION PROPOSAL, AND RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSAL. THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD (DRB) SHALL CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AND MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN COUNCIL FOR ITS DECISION AT A PUBLIC HEARING. SEC. 14-105.' Native Plant Preservation, Salvage AND MITIGATION Plans REQUIREMENTS - - . - - - • - ..-.-.. - .. - - •. - •. - .. . •- .. A. A NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED FOR THE ENTIRE SITE. AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION FROM THE SRI, AND RELATED MITIGATION, SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED ON THE PRESERVATION AND SALVAGE PLAN. ANY AREAS OF DISTURBANCE OUTSIDE OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION SHALL BE INVENTORIED AND MITIGATED ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS SET FORTH BELOW. B. Determination of transplantability. THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS SHALL APPLY TO ANY PROTECTED NATIVE PLANT SALVAGED, REMOVED FROM SITE OR DESTROYED. Sec. 14 106 Determination of Transplantability A- 1. Transplantability shall be indicated on the Native Plant Preservation, Salvage AND MITIGATION Plan submittal and may be reviewed, at the discretion of the Planning & Zoning ADMINISTRATOR, by a third party plant salvage specialist, as provided for in Sec. 14-103.D. The evaluation of protected native plants shall be based on the guidelines in THIS Section. 2. ALL PROTECTED TREES WITH A MINIMUM CALIPER OF 3", OR PROTECTED MULTIPLE TRUNK PLANTS WITH A 3" COMBINED CALIPER MEASUREMENT OF THE THREE LARGEST TRUNKS, AND ALL PROTECTED CACTI, SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE NATIVE PLANT INVENTORY. ALL CALIPER MEASUREMENTS ARE TO BE TAKEN ONE FOOT FROM GROUND LEVEL. 3. All plants THAT MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA SHALL BE EITHER PRESERVED IN PLACE OR SALVAGED. a = - "-.e-" - ' - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --- •° - - - -- -- ea - -- - • - . 1. High:A"high"rating will be assigned to plants meeting the following criteria-: a. Plant health is good to excellent with no major infestations or apparent diseases. PLANT HEALTH IS DEFINED AS A PLANT IN A SOUND STATE, FREE FROM DISEASE AND IS EXPECTED TO SURVIVE FOR 5 OR MORE YEARS. b. THE plant IS OF A SIZE AND age ' to suggest a likely chance of Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 transplant survival c. Plant is undamaged and is conducive to box or spade transplanting (upright branching). d. Soils can be excavated, are cohesive and seem APPEAR capable of supporting a boxed or spaded rootball. e. Surrounding topography permits access with the appropriate equipment needed to box or spade and remove the plant. f. Adjacent plants do not pose a likely interference with root systems or interfere with plant removal. g. THE OVERALL FORM AND CHARACTER IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SPECIES AND IS A VALUABLE SPECIMEN FOR LANDSCAPE OR HABITAT PURPOSES. 2. Medium: A "medium" rating will be given to plants that meet four of the criteria for a "high" rating- 3. Low:A"low"rating will be given to plants meeting any one or more of the following: a. Plant health is poor. Generatic results of severe mistletoe infestations, other b. Plant character and form is unattractive or not conducive to transplantation. This steep-banks), e. Adjacent plants interfere with removal or present likely conflicts with the rootball system. C. MITIGATION OF PROTECTED NATIVE PLANTS NOT IN AN AREA OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION. ANY TREE, SHRUB OR CACTUS THAT MEETS THE SALVAGE CRITERIA SHALL BE SALVAGED, AND EITHER RELOCATED ON-SITE OR UTILIZED ON ANOTHER SITE WITHIN THE TOWN. ANY TREE, SHRUB OR CACTUS THAT MEETS THE SALVAGE CRITERIA AS SALVAGEABLE BUT IS DESTROYED SHALL BE REPLACED ON A ONE TO ONE RATIO OF THE SAME SPECIES AND SIZE AS THAT DESTROYED. FIVE UNDERSTORY PLANTS FROM THE SUPPLEMENTAL NATIVE PLANT LIST(SEC. 14-112)WILL BE PLANTED FOR EVERY MITIGATED TREE. D. ALL NATIVE PLANTS SALVAGED FROM A SITE (OR A PLANT COMPARABLE IN SIZE AND SPECIES SALVAGED FROM ANOTHER SITE) SHALL BE UTILIZED IN THE CORRESPONDING PROJECT LANDSCAPE PLAN. E. Said plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning ADMINISTRATOR DiFestor or his/her designee F. NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN STANDARDS. THIS PLAN SHALL BE PROVIDED ON an aerial photograph (SCALE 1: =40', AND NO OLDER THAN TWO YEARS FROM SUBMITTAL DATE) showing the location of all protected native plants within the AREAS OF THE SITE TO BE DISTURBED. All existing native plants shall be preserved in their original location except within those areas permitted to be graded. Large and/or unique native plants within areas proposed for grading shall be preserved in place, unless otherwise approved by Town Council. - ::: -: : - .: . . -•• et' - -- -e-- - •-- •-- A preliminary plat/development plan BLUELINE acetate overlay at the same 134444144144 scale AS THE AERIAL PHOTO of 1" - 10' SHALL ALSO BE PROVIDED. THE STANDARD PLAN FORMAT DESCRIBED BELOW SHALL BE FOLLOWED: # 1. ON THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, IDENTIFY THE PROPOSED GRADING LIMITS AND AMOUNT Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 8 OF TOTAL AREA TO BE GRADED. WITHIN THE GRADING LIMITS IDENTIFY THE FOLLOWING ON THE SALVAGE PLAN: a. AREAS OF PRESERVED SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION, AND OTHER VEGETATION PRESERVED IN PLACE CLEARLY LABELED AND IDENTIFIED WITH SOLID LINES. b. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS, IN SQUARE FEET, FOR TOTAL AREA DISTURBED, AREA PRESERVED AND THE TOTAL SITE AREA. c. THE LOCATION AND DISPOSITION OF ALL 3" CALIPER (INDIVIDUAL OR CUMULATIVE MEASUREMENTS AS DEPICTED IN Sec. 14-405.b.2) OR GREATER NATIVE TREES, AND ALL CACTI, AS LISTED ON THE PROTECTED NATIVE PLANT LIST. SEPARATELY IDENTIFY EACH OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES: • All existing native plants to be SALVAGED AND relocated to other locations on the premises. • All existing native plants to be SALVAGED AND removed from the premises and replanted elsewhere. d. Provide a detailed analysis of the documented inventory. Describe the criteria used to determine which PROTECTED plants and groups of plants will be preserved in place, transplanted or destroyed. -.....-.-- - - --- -- : - :__-._- --_ _- _-- • - • - --- . THE FOLLOWING INVENTORY FORMAT SHALL BE USED: i. PLANT NUMBER, CORRESPONDING WITH THE IDENTIFYING NUMBER ON AERIAL PHOTO. ii. SIZE AND SPECIES iii. DISPOSITION OF ALL TREES AND CACTI WITHIN THE LIMITS OF GRADING (I.E., PRESERVE, SALVAGE, DESTROY, RELOCATE ON S' iv. IF DESTROYED, REASON FOR SUCH DISPOSAL e. ALL SALVAGE PLANS SHALL BE FIELD CHECKED BY THE ZONING INSPECTOR, PRIOR TO APPROVAL. IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES TO THE SALVAGE PLAN BASED ON THE FIELD CHECK, THE SALVAGE PLAN SHALL BE REVISED. f. Location of temporary holding nursery IF RELOCATED PLANTS ARE to be used ON SITE . g. PROVIDE A TITLE BLOCK AND SIGNATURE LINE AND DATE FOR PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S SIGNATURE, AS FOLLOWS: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN APPROVED BY: PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATE h. GENERAL NOTES. INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS: "ADDITIONAL PLANTS MAY BE DEEMED SALVAGEABLE BY THE ZONING INSPECTOR, AND SHALL BE SALVAGED". ii. "ANY BOXING PRIOR TO THAT TIME WHEN THE APPLICANT MAY APPLY FOR A GRADING PERMIT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND WILL BE PERFORMED AT THE APPLICANT'S OWN RISK". Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 9 iii. ON ALL SUBDIVISON PLATS WITH ZONING R1-20 AND LARGER LOTS: "ALL HEALTHY PALO VERDE, MESQUITE, IRONWOOD, SAGUARO, AND BARREL CACTI SHALL BE SALVAGED AND USED FOR ON-SITE LANDSCAPING". if the Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plans and the design of the preliminafy 9 ■ - . e .•.. --. • - - - -. -- .• - --. 1. Limits of grading. '.• _ •- : _ - - - • - -- - - - - - 3. The amount of area to be graded and the total lot size. 5. Dispocition of ail trees and saguaro within the limits of grading. G. All significant vegetation mitigation and NATIVE plant MITIGATION requirements, AS DOCUMENTED ON THE NATIVE PLANT SALVAGE PLAN, shall be INCLUDED WITH THE PLANT SCHEDULE OF the landscape plan, AS REQUIRED IN SEC. 14-205.B. H. In no case may native UNDERSTORY PLANTS be removed, destroyed or relocated from an existing stand of native plants which is to be preserved in place. THE PERIMETER OF THE AREA PRESERVED IN PLACE SHALL BE DESIGNATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SECTION 14-110. I. Protected native plants (see Addendum H for a complete list) determined to be transplantable shall be salvaged when they are located within areas designated to be graded. ANY SALVAGED PLANT UTILIZED ON SITE SHALL EITHER BE SPADED DIRECTLY INTO THE NEW LOCATION OR STORED IN A TEMPORARY HOLDING NURSERY. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND/OR TECHNICAL BULLETINS AS MAY BE ADOPTED BY THE TOWN. -- -=-= = -^ - •-- =- -' -= '- - ----- - - -- --.-•.- - - •-- - e-"-- • - -- -- - .. --.- - All temporary nurseries shall: a. Provide fertilizer to promote plant health. b. Provide automatic drip irrigation systems. c. PROVIDE ROUTINE WATER AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PLANTS IF AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION IS NOT POSSIBLE. d. NURSERY PLANTS THAT DIE DUE TO NEGLECT SHALL BE REPLACED WITH THE SAME SIZE AND SPECIES OF THE SALVAGED PLANT J. Native plants afe to be transplanted on-site af4 shall be used within those areas designated as"common area" or landscaped area SUCH AS BUFFER AREAS, STREETSCAPES, AND PARKING LOTS that - ---- - --: _ - - •- _= - -- -.-- - - and within the front yards of residential lots, OR - - - -- - - - - - - - - OTHER AREAS AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL. K. ANY SPADED OR BOXED TREE TRANSPLANTED ON SITE THAT DIES DUE TO NEGLECT OR LACK OF MAINTENANCE SHALL BE REPLACED WITH THE SAME SIZE AND SPECIES OF THE ORIGINAL SALVAGED TREE, AS REQUIRED BY THE SALVAGE PLAN. L. The limits of grading shall be staked in the field, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 14-110. Disturbance outside the approved grading limits shall not be permitted. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 10 SEC. 14-106 PLANT SALVAGE PROTOCOL A. NO PLANT SALVAGE SHALL BEGIN UNTIL APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. AFTER APPROVAL OF THE NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN, THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY APPROVE LIMITED BOXING OF TREES. SUCH BOXING SHALL BE AT THE APPLICANTS RISK. NO PLANT MATERIALS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE APPLICANT MAY APPLY FOR A GRADING PERMIT. WHEN THE FINAL GRADING LIMITS ARE ESTABLISHED, ANY BOXED TREE OUTSIDE THE LIMITS WILL BE REESTABLISHED IN PLACE AND ANY AREAS DISTURBED BY EQUIPMENT WILL BE RE-VEGETATED. ALL AREAS TO BE PRESERVED IN PLACE SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM GRADING WITH THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SEC. 14-110. B. THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH AND MODIFY TECHNICAL BULLETINS ESTABLISHING RECOMMENDED PROTOCOL FOR BOXING, SPADING AND SALVAGE TECHNIQUES. Sec. 14 105 Standards 5. Mistletoe infestations shall be removed from all salvaged plants prior to relocation. Sec. 14-107 Review Procedures and Certification A. The Planning and Zoning ADMINISTRATOR Director, upon receipt of the Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plans, will immediately record receipt and date of filing and check it for completeness. If incomplete, the submittal shall be rejected and the APPLICANT subdivider notified within 10 working days of the date the Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plans were received. If complete, the Planning and Zoning ADMINISTRATOR Director will review the Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plans and refer copies of the submittal to all appropriate persons/agencies, who shall make known their recommendation, in writing, to the Planning and Zoning ADMINISTRATOR Director. Sec. 14-108 Approval Procedures A. The Planning and Zoning Administrator, or a Designee, SHALL REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS ALL SUBMITTALS WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS OF RECEIPT. STAFF will assemble all recommendations and provide review comments WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF CERTIFICATION, if-any, to the applicant. THE APPLICANT SHALL RESPOND AND RESUBMIT THE PLAN. REVIEW OF THE RESUBMITTAL SHALL BE COMPLETE AFTER 10 WORKING DAYS OF THE RESUBMITTAL. If the Native Plant PRESERVATION, Salvage AND MITIGATION Plan meets THE cede requirements OF THIS ARTICLE, the Planning and Zoning Administrator, or a designee, shall affix his/her signature upon the approved Native Plant Salvage Plan. The Planning and Zoning Administrator approval of the Native Plant Preservation and Salvage AND MITIGATION Plans shall constitute authorization for the APPLICANT subdivider to proceed with Landscape, Irrigation and Buffer Yard Plans, to be prepared in accordance with Article 14-2 of this Code. Landscape plans must be in conformance with the approved Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plans. B. The applicant AND/OR AFFECTED PARTIES MAY APPEAL THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION --- -==-- - =--•- = -- -=-2' .=-- to the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DevaltapiRwat within 20 days from the POSTMARK date of the decision letter. Such appeal shall be in writing in care of the Planning and Zoning Administrator, and shall SPECIFY WHAT RECONSIDERATION IS REQUESTED TOGETHER WITH JUSTIFICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION - •••'!" - - , - - -__ - - - . The Planning Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 11 and Zoning Administrator shall schedule the appeal for a D-RBBOA meeting, and the DRB BOA, at its meeting, shall uphold, modify or over-rule the decision of staff. The decision of theD.RB BOA shall be final. C. The Planning and Zoning Administrator may require assurances to guarantee the completion of and compliance with the approved Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plan. If required, the APPLICANT Developer shall deposit with the Town Clerk one or more of the approved forms of monetary assurances in the amount equal to 120% of the costs estimated by the APPLICANTS Qavalopers registered Landscape Architect OR QUALIFIED PERSONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 14-103.E, and approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Administration of this assurance shall be in accordance with Sec. 4-904. Sec. 14-109 Compliance A. Failure to comply with the requirements of the approved Native Plant Preservation aed Salvage AND MITIGATION Plan shad MAY cause immediate revocation of all permits. New permits shad MAY not be issued until the required fines are paid to the Town for the purposes of replacing and maintaining protected native plant materials as required in the approved Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plan. B. The Planning and Zoning ADMINISTRATOR DireGtGr shall determine ASSESS fines based on the followingdile: THE APPROVED FEE AND PENALTY SCHEDULE. (EDITOR NOTE: ITEMS l — 4 BELOW WILL BE UPDATED WITH AND MOVED TO THE FEE AND PENALTY SCHEDULE A TIERED APPROACH TO FEES BASED ON AMOUNT OF AREA DISTURBED WILL BE USED.) 1. Protected Native Trees AND SHRUBS - $300.00 Per caliper inch, measured 1 foot above ground level FOR TREES AND 6"ABOVE GROUND LEVEL FOR SHRUBS. 2. Saguaro cacti-$200.00 per foot OF MAIN TRUNK AND$200.00 PER FOOT OF EACH ARM 3. CRESTED SAGUARO - $400.00 PER FOOT OF MAIN TRUNK AND PER FOOT OF EACH ARM. 4. Other Protected Native Cacti - $300.00 per specimen UP TO 12" CALIPER AND $50.00 PER EACH CALIPER INCH OVER. Determination of fines, pursuant to this section, shall be based upon the type, size, density, distribution and condition of plant materials that existed on the property prior to the violation, or upon inspection of the remains of destroyed plant materials or other physical evidence as may be available. •:- - :- --"e _ THE DEVELOPER SHALL replace removed or damaged plant materials WITH LIKE SIZE AND SPECIES, by-t4is-erdiRaRee and is SHALL maintain AND GUARANTEE (IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 14- 108.C)THE replacement plant materials for a period of 3 years. •=• •e•- , -0. - -- - - ------- payable shall be kept by the Town as payment for the enforcement of these regulations and D. Prior to issuance of any permits for development of the property on which the violation occurred, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with a landscape installation and maintenance service and the Town to ensure replacement and 3 years maintenance of the replacement plant materials. Any fines in excess of the amounts specified in the agreement to replace and maintain plants shall be refunded. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 12 Sec. 14-110 TAGGING, LIMITS OF GRADING, PLANTING ORIENTATION,AND Inspections All protected native plants scheduled to remain in place or authorized for destruction, removal or relocation by the approved Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plan G4R. must be tagged and numbered IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN, prior to an on-site inspection by the Town staff --= -- - ' =='-' '- - ==- =. Salvage operations shall not commence until the Zoning Inspector has performed an inspection and given approval to begin salvage. A. Tagging AND FENCING shall be completed as outlined below: 1. Tags shall be AFFIXED TO ALL PLANTS SCHEDULED FOR TRANSPLANT, AND NUMBERED ACCORDING TO THE SALVAGE SCHEDULE. 2. LIMITS OF GRADING. PLANTS TO REMAIN IN PLACE AND ALL AREAS TO BE LEFT UNDISTURBED SHALL BE STAKED AND ROPED WITH POSTS AND TWINE AND RIBBONS WIRE. METAL FENCE POSTS SHALL BE USED AT ALL CORNERS. AN AREA THREE FEET BEYOND THE DRIP LINE OF ALL PLANTS AND GROUPS OF PLANTS SHALL BE STAKED AND ROPED. 3. THE SOLAR ORIENTATION OF ALL CACTI TO BE TRANSPLANTED SHALL BE MARKED WITH WASHABLE PAINT AND REPLANTED WITH THE SAME ORIENTATION. 4. Tags required by this section shall BE EITHER WIRE OR PLASTIC CONNECTORS WITH PLASTIC TAGS, NUMBERED WITH PERMANENT MARKER AND affixed in a visible location on the plant. The initial inspection will be performed once tagging is completed and the Zoning Inspector has received an inspection request. TREES TO BE SPADED SHALL BE NUMBERED WITH AN "S" PRECEEDING THE NUMBER AND TREES TO BE BOXED SHALL BE NUMBERED WITH A "B"PRECEEDING THE NUMBER. 5. Once affixed, the tags shall not be removed until the approved Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plan is implemented and Town staff, in accordance with Sec. 14-210 has performed a final inspection. 6. All areas designated to remain as natural open space shall be fenced or taped off for protection during the grubbing and/or grading operation. The APPLICANT cialdielowic SHALL BE is responsible for maintaining this "no disturbance" boundary line and no plants shall be salvaged from this protected area. B. INSPECTIONS. 1. No permit for grubbing or grading of a site may be issued prior to the completion of THE initial on site inspection. 2. For single family lot development, the Zoning Inspector shall verify limits of grading and the relocation of any salvaged plants in accordance with the approved site plan. 3. A follow-up inspection shall be performed which verifies the required on-site relocation of salvaged plants to their new locations or the holding nursery, and the required in place preservation of native plants. SEC. 14-111 ORO VALLEY PROTECTED NATIVE PLANT LIST A. ALL SITES PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE INVENTORIED FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF NATIVE PLANTS: Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 13 LATIN NAME COMMON NAME LEGAL PROTECTION ACACIA GREGGII CATCLAW ACACIA ACACIA CONSTRICTA WHITETHORN ACACIA Carnegiea giqantea Saguaro NPL-SR Carnegiea giqantea Saguaro, CRESTED FORM NPL-HS Castela emoryi Crucifixion Thorn NPL-SR CELTIS PALLIDA DESERT HACKBERRY CELTIS RETICULATA NETLEAF HACKBERRY Cercidium floridum Blue Palo Verde NPL-SA Cercidium microphyllum Foothills Palo Verde NPL-SA Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. nicholii Blue Barrel Cactus NPUESA-NPUHS Ferocactus wislezenii Fishhook Barrel NPL-SR Fourquieria splendens Ocotillo NPL-SR Mammillaria thornberi Thornber Clustered Pincusion NPL-SR Opuntia fulgida var. fulgida Chain-fruit Cholla* NPL-SR Opuntia phaeacantha var. discata* Desert or Engelmann Prickly-Pear* NPL-SR Olneya Tesota Ironwood NPL-SA/HR Peniocereus greggii Desert Night-blooming Cereus NPL-SR Prosopis pubescens Screwbean Mesquite NPL-HR/SA Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite NPL-HR/SA Tumamoca macdougalii Tumamoc Globeberry NPL-SR Yucca elata Soaptree Yucca NPL-SR Ziyphus obtusifolia var. canescens Greythorn KEY: NPL= Plants regulated by the Arizona Native Plant Law HR= HARVEST RESTRICTED SR= SALVAGE RESTRICTED SA=SALVAGE ASSESSED ESA= Plants protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act HS= HIGHLY SAFEGUARDED *=SEE"B" BELOW. B. *THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PRICKLY PEAR AND CHOLLA MAY BE ESTIMATED BASED ON A SAMPLE INVENTORY, SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. IF AN ABUNDANCE OF CHOLLA OR PRICKLY-PEAR EXISTS, THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY DETERMINE THE PERCENTAGE OF SALVAGE REQUIRED FOR THESE PLANTS. C. NO SALVAGE OF PLANTS REGULATED BY THE ARIZONA NATIVE PLANT LAW MAY OCCUR WITHOUT THE ISSUANCE OF THE APPROPRIATE PERMIT BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. SEC. 14-112 ORO VALLEY SUPPLEMENTAL NATIVE PLANT LIST(UNDERSTORY) A. FIVE PLANTS SELECTED FROM THIS LIST (EITHER TRANSPLANTED FROM THE SITE OR NURSERY PLANTS) SHALL BE PLANTED WITH EACH NURSERY OR TRANSPLANTED TREE REQUIRED FOR THE SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY AND NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 14 LATIN NAME, COMMON NAME OCCURANCE/LEGALPROTECTION ABUTILON INCANUM, INDIAN MALLOW C ABUTILON PARISHII, TUCSON INDIAN MALLOW UC SR ACACIA ANGUSTISSIMA VAR. HIRTA, FERN ACACIA UC ACACIA CONSTRICTA, WHITE THORN ACACIA CW ACACIA GREGG1I, CATCLAW ACACIA C AGAVE CHRYSANTRA, GOLDEN-FLOWERED AGAVE UC SR AGAVE PALMERI, PALMER AGAVE UC SR AMBROSIA AMBROSIOIDES, CANYON RAGWEED C AMBROSIA DELTOIDEA, TRIANGLELEAF BURSAGE CW ANEMONE TUBEROSA, DESERT WINDFLOWER UC ANISACANTHUS THURBER!, THURBER DESERT HONEYSUCKEL UC ASTROLEPIS COCHISENSIS, COCHISE SCALEY ASTROLEPIS UC ASTROLEPIS X INTEGERRIMA, HYBRID CLOAK FERN UC ASTROLEPIS SINUATA, WAVY ASTROLEPIS UC ASTROLEPIS STANDLEYI, STANDLEY ASTROLEPIS UC BACCHARIS SALICIFOLIA, SEEP WILLOW C BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA, DESERT MARIGOLD C CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYLLA, FAIRY DUSTER C CELTIS PALLIDA. DESERT HACKBERRY C CLEMATIS DRUMMONDII, TEXAS VIRGIN BOWER UC CLEMATIS LIGUSTICIFOLIA, WHITE VIRGIN'S BOWER UC CONDALIA WARNOCKII VAR. KEARNEYANA. KEARNEY CONDALIA C COURSETIA MICROPHYLLA. BABY BONNETS UC CROSSOSOMA BIGELOVII, BIGELOW RAGGED ROCK FLOWER UC DASYLIRION WHEELERI, WHEELER DASYLIRION UC SR DICHELOSTEMMA PULCHELLUM VAR. PAUCIFLORUM, SMALL- FLOWERED COVENA C SR DODONAEA VISCOSA VAR. ANGUSTIFOLIA, HOP TREE UC ECHINOCEREUS FASICULATUS VAR. FASICULATUS, BUNDLE HEDGEHOG CACTUS C SR ENCELIA FARINOBA, BRITTLE BUSH C EPHEDRA TRIFURCA, LONG-LEAVED JOINT-FIR C ERAGROSTIS INTERMEDIA, PLAINS LOVEGRASS UC ERICAMERIA LARICIFOLIA, TURPENTINE BUSH C ERIOGONUM WRIGHTII. WRIGHT BUCKWHEAT UC GLANDULARIA GOODDINGII, GOODDING VERBENA C GOSSYPIUM THURBER!, DESERT COTTON UC HIBISCUS COULTERI, DESERT ROSE MALLOW C HYMENOCLEA MONOGYRA, BURRO BRUSH C HYMENOCLEA SALSOLA, BURRO BRUSH C HYPTIS EMORYI, DESERT LAVENDER UC JATROPHA CARDIOPHYLLA, LIMBERBUSH UC JUSTICIA CALIFORNICA, CALIFORNIA CHUPAROSA UC KRAMERIA PARVIFOLIA, RANGE RATANY C LARREA DIVARICATA VAR. TRIDENTATA, CREOSOTE BUSH C LYCIUM BERLANDIERI VAR. PARVIFLORUM, BERLANDIER WOLFBERRY C LYCIUM FREMONTLI, FREMONT DESERT THORN C MARAH GILENSIS, BIG ROOT UC MENODORA SCABRA, YELLOW MENODORA C Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 15 MIMOSA BIUNCIFERA, WAIT-A-MINUTE MIMOSA UC MIMULUS GUTTATUS, SEEP-SPRING MONKEY FLOWER UC MUHLENBERGIA PORTERI, BUSH MUHLY C MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS, DEER GRASS UC OPUNTIA ARBUSCULA, PENCIL CHOLLA C SR OPUNTIA FULGIDA VAR. MAMMILLATA, SMOOTH CHAIN-FRUITED CHOLLA C SR OPUNTIA KLEINIAE VAR. TETRACANTHA, FOUR-SPINED PENCIL CHOLLA UC SR OPUNTIA LEPTOCAULIS, DESERT CHRIST14AS CHOLLA C SR OPUNTIA SPINOSIOR, CANE CHOLLA C SR OPUNTIA VERSICOLOR, STAGHORN CHOLLA C SR PELLAEA TRUNCATA, SPINY CLIFF BRAKE UC PENSTEMON PARRYI, PARRY PENSTEMON C PSILOSTROPHE COOPERI, COOPER PAPER FLOWER CW SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS, JOJOBA UC SPOROBOLUS CONTRACTUS, SPIKE DROPSEED UC SPOROBOLUS CRYPTANDRUS, SAND DROPSEED UC SPOROBOLUS WRIGHTII, SACATON UC TIOUILIA CANESCENS, SHRUBBY TIQUILIA UC TRIXIS CALIFORNICA, TRIXIS C ZINNIA ACEROSA, DESERT ZINNIA C (ORO VALLEY OCCURRENCE: CW=COMMON WIDESPREAD/C= COMMON/ UC=UNCOMMON) Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev.5/99 16 ATTACHMENT 2 Lt.CEOILL JUL 1 2 1999 - 1 /1f��7 A�} r VII!:" VOICE1RAK July 8, 1999 Mr. Paul Loomis Mayor Town of Oro Valley 10551 N. Lambert Place Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Dear Paul, Last night you asked if I had my comments in writing on the Native Plant revisions. I didn't want to remind you of the letters / fax's I've sent you on this subject. Attached is a copy of my first letter, along with ag pa e from the infamous September 1997 Council Communication, and Melissa Shaw's letter, which references staff's understanding of council's direction ( point #3. ). • In summary, as a citizen, I am offended by appointed and elected officals who would decide that reviewing any part of an application for development ( Native Plant Salvage Plans ) is not worthy of their time. Frankly, I don't care what deliberations went into that decision in 1998. All I know is that, A) our elected and appointed representatives should not dismiss and off-load this responsibility, and B) the ad-hoc committee was dominated by the homebuilders association, so I'm not surprised by their recommendation. • Incentives were not supported by citizens at the public workshop, and have never been documented by staff as being truly effective. We don't need incentives to " permit " clustering. If we want incentives to require clustering, I'd feel differently about it. Reducing lot sizes could result in increased density, which increases visual polution. Increasing the FAR in commercial development increases building mass. These " incentives " trade off preservation for increased visual impact, which is not consistent with maintaining or improving the Oro Valley quality of life and general welfare. • Fees in lieu were dropped from an earlier revision as a result of comments at the P & Z public hearing. They are part of the mitigation remedy now proposed, and should be specifically withdrawn as a remedy option. • Punative fines should be included in the penalty section, as it is in the grading ordinance. I don't understand the resistance to this by staff. Sinter / ' ,11C.iO11. .iZ.`5-32Lzt, f 7 i_'ujf i,•. (,-�►,,, Bill Adler VOICETRAK • March 3, 1999 Mr. Paul Loomis Mayor Town of Oro Valley 10551 N. Lambert Place Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Dear Paul, Following last night's P & Z meeting, we met briefly outside, and I told you I would challenge staff's understanding that the approval process must be administrative, at Council direction. I have attached the letter from Melissa Shaw, which I referenced during last night's meeting and refer, in this connection, to her point 3. I have looked through my files, and found a Council Communication dated September 17, 1997. This Communication summarized the Ad Hoc Committee recommendations having to do with application review. I protested, every step of the way, most of the recommendations, which account for the messy notes over most of the twelve pages. I strongly recommend that you read this entire memo. I attach page 4 of 12, which includes a reference, which MAY be the basis for staff's understanding - or misunderstanding. Paragraph C. begins with a sentence stipulating that review and approval of the Native Plant Salvage Plan be transferred from the DRB to staff. However, changing the review and approval of the Plan is not what I was proposing last night. I was proposing the determination of mitigation - one section of the Plan and a requirement of the Town Code - be judged by citizens ( DRB vs. staff ) utilizing a set of findings. See my letter to Mr. Nodine, also attached. I see no inconsistency with what I was proposing last night with the Ad Hoc Committee recommendation. Staff review and approval of the plan is unchanged. A provision of the ordinance needs to be altered to allow citizens to judge if mitigation is necessary; to what degree and the ratio to be applied. We must not keep citizens out of this process. The look of the Town is too important. I will hope for your early reply. Sincerely, c. Melissa Shaw; Bryant Nodine . r.�.. _ .r.w,y r..r r.r-..♦ .►r. ly.V►.". ^"s."r..wvl...♦• '�.%.w :}.t ..._.... ......v. _... _ .' • C TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 7 - COUNCIL COM1I NICATION Par 4 7. Meeting Preparation. The Chairs of Boards and Commissions are encouraged to remind v their members of the importance of reading their packets before the meeting and being prepared to discuss details. There is an expectation by the public and Town Council that members be as familiar with each case as possible before the meeting. If a board member has questions or requires additional information than what was provided in the , .7,;: packet. staff is "-- Or C available to assist.( .c.1 r''f--LI..,v:, vi v--\\u \;4//,, 1 Oft,yis t Members ,.., 1'711' r. t.1 • AA ii of the Ad Hoc Committee recommend that the Town Councilendorse the following �' ' S v c t r policies and amendments related to the De clopm n Review Board: 151�I�? ;/f fg-Ai? A. The Council should clarify its expectations that the DRB is to make recommendations based d adopted standards of the OVZCR. PAD. or appropriate overlay district. regarding: 4, ` on pp to N. • 1' rl fi v r''i ;.\• F, L a`'v '' L rlL 7/3/♦v ( ;'N ) ( 7 ( ✓ — n' • height 34 1. r Ol.ii • bulk , o4 • \ L ,.-,v 1' �-, 0,.. - \-� lir • density c.&4 .'' �.. C v C14' • setback . , _ _ ��c,---.' "i--$) t� T„� r v 1: `. L LJ '(`J , ;�-,r!.C --------- c i `� `t /l ,� /v L c 4I The Town Council should establish a policy that recommendations from the DRB should not - . • �d the regulatory requirements of the Oro Zoning Code Revised. -- ;` A-�h; rL f/ exceed q Valley �. 7 � members raised concerns that certain protections should/ .fit an Ad Hoc Committee . leetii��, DRB o be added during developr.-.cnt review that are not necessarily covered by the zoning code. Staff acknowledges this concern and suggests that the zoning code be revised to provide additional t ols . to address compatibility and design issues. Staff suggests more precise and specific aui elines. ‘---, including architecture and landscaninLI to ,n'•:- , ! I - • • = _ •• n , -s hese A j/ expectations. we can provide a more understandable process to the building community. ' = ---.. .-_--�. ......__.__..._ - — 7o.✓ara.iV•".!a.rxic+CnRt:"+v°c^'aiv`',w• v^""'r.wo.s=r-r�..�........ O,Ic:.,\..t.5.,Y . A/:?/�O oC'- , :qTOWN OF ORO VALLEY *� _ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .-` - • Building Safety • Parks and Recreation . 4/,;+,i'.- ' • • Planning and Zoning • Transit Services .._,. 10;,-- - -w A °vN D Eo 1g March 2, 1999 - • ., Mr. Bill Adler 10720 N. Eagle Eve PI. r. Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Subject: Response to comments regarding the Native Plant Preservation, Salvage and Mitigation Ordinance v Dear Bill: Thank you for meeting with us yesterday and for taking the time to provide comments on the proposed ordinance. In response to our discussion yesterday, we propose the following changes to the draft ordinance: 1. Findings. The findings that you suggested be used for mitigation approval fit well into Sec. 14-104.A.1, Site Resource Inventory Standards and Requirements. We suggest that the first paragraph be amended as follows: The SRI shall strive to meet the following objectives: �, r�v • The preliminary plat or development plan proposed required the minimum of native plant disturbance. destruction or removal •,' • Destruction or removal of significant vegetation does not substitute for creative plat or development plan design. P • Mitigation proposed as nearly as possible maintains significant native _ plant vegetation and animal habitat while preserving site stabilization. • Mitigation proposed incorporated native vegetation of a size. quality V and type consistent with the SRI and. where appropriate, contributes to the enhancement of the remaining native vegetation, and the development. 2. Change Sec.14-104.C.3. as follows: In-lieu fee. Change reference to 'In-lieu fee" to "mitigation remedy", as determined by the Town Council. Delete last sentence of paragraph referring to basis of in-lieu fee be an estimate of the value of significant vegetation. 3. Regarding your recommendation to change the approval process from i , administrative to DRB/Town Council approval, as we stated in our meeting, staff K._ y -i was directed by the Town Council, based on recommendations from the Ad Hoc Committee on Development Review that this approval process specifically be administrative. 4. In regard to your questions on the effectiveness of incentive zoning, thistyP e of zoning is used in San Francisco and New York City, as well as other cities, and "seems successful in encouraging the desired results when used in metropolitan areas". Although we do not have specific example of the effectiveness in a small town, it has been stated that incentive zoning "has great potential in nonmetropolitan jurisdictions as a tool that allows flexibility in land use decisions". The desired result of this incentive, encouraging the preservation of g g significant vegetation in exchange for smaller lot size or increased FAR, is a tool the Town may use in the public interest of preserving open space. Thank you for your interest and attention to this ordinance, and we appreciate the comments you provided. Sincerely, Melissa Shaw, AICP Planner II cc: Planning and Zoning Commission _- . .......),1„ .....,_ . . COMMENTS, O.V. NATIVE PLANT ORDINANCE Sec. 14-104 A last paragraph. Leave all the deleted text that begins: "All existing native plants...." Sec. 14-104 B 1 Replace "as provided for in Sec. 14-103 D" with "namely an arborist or biologist" Sec. 14-104 B 4 Add: i. Specific group of plant communities ther are known to be habitat for protected species. Example: ironwood, saguaro, mesquite, palo verde are known pygmy owl habitat. A community of those plants shall be preserved intact. Sec. 14-105 B 3.h Any saguaro 15 ft. of higher with more than two branches shall not be removed or transplanted. Any healthy ironwood tree with a trunk diameter larger than 12" shall be kept in place. Only exception is when there is no other site available for construction. Sec. 14-105 F 1 c. leave: "all existing native plants ....to remain..." and "All existing native plants to be destroyed" Sec. 14-105 F 1 e. Add: All salvage plants AND PLANTS TO BE DESTROYED..." Sec. 14.105 M Add paragraph: "All graded areas in the property and any embankment at a wash or at the roadside shall be populated with native grasses." Sec. 14-105 h iii Leave "If the Native Plant and projects". Sec. 14-105.5 Leave: "Mistletoe...." Sec. 14-109 A Leave "shall" (twice in the paragraph.) Sec. 14-109 C Replace "3 years" with "5 years for trees" and "8 years for saguaros". Sec. 14-110 A 3 Replace "solar orientation" with East, North, or whatever the Dept. of Agriculture uses. Attachment#3: Native Plant Salvage Ordinance On 6/28/99, staff met with Ms. Sherry Ruther, who is a habitat specialist for the Arizona Game & Fish Department. She had several recommendations to improve the ordinance. The following is a list of immediate changes needed and a list of issues to monitor during the new ordinance trial period: Immediate Changes: Pg.1, Sec. 14-101 Purpose Existing: .... SEVERAL RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES INHABIT THE AREA, THE MOST NOTABLY CHARACTERISTIC OF WHICH IS THE SAGUARO CACTUS, A WELL KNOWN SYMBOL OF THE SOUTHWEST...This Article is designed to provide standards for the protection of native plants, WHICH PROVIDE HABITAT FOR ANIMALS... Comment: Within the two aforementioned sentences, it is implied that the Saguaro cactus is rare and endangered. Ms. Ruther described the plant as neither. We may wish to switch the focus of habitat conservation from "animals" in general (dogs, cats, etc.) to "native wildlife". Change: .... SEVERAL RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES INHABIT THE AREA. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE SPECIES OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE, MOST NOTABLY CHARACTERISTIC OF WHICH IS THE SAGUARO CACTUS, A WELL KNOWN SYMBOL OF THE SOUTHWEST. ...This Article is designed to provide standards for the protection of native plants, WHICH PROVIDE HABITAT FOR NATIVE WILDLIFE... Pg. 1, Sec. 14-101C Existing: PRESERVING UNDERSTORY VEGETATION SPECIES THAT ENHANCE THE VALUE OF PRESERVED AND SALVAGED PLANTS Comment: Understory vegetation does not simply enhance preserved plants and salvaged plants. It is vital component of the plant community. Change: PRESERVING UNDERSTORY VEGETATION THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF THE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY. Pg. 4, Sec. 14-104A1: THE SRI SHALL STRIVE TO MEET THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVES: Existing: DESTRUCTION OR REMOVAL OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION DOES NOT SUBSTITUTE FOR CREATIVE PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT DESIGN. Comment: Objectives should be clear and concise. "What does it mean?". Change: CREATIVE PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT DESIGN SHOULD BE PROMOTED TO MAXIMIZE THE PRESERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION. Pg. 5, Sec. 14-10463 xisting: UNIQUE PLANT REFERS TO ANY NATIVE TREE, SHRUB OR CACTI WITH EXTRAORDINARY CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, AGE, SIZE, SHAPE, FORM, CANOPY COVER OR AESTHETIC VALUE. AN EXAMPLE MAY BE CRESTED SAGUAROS, A RARE, MASSIVE LARGE, ANCIENT TREE OR TREE WITH AN UNUSUAL SHAPE. NPSO AZ Fish & Game Comments Page 2 Comment: There are two distinct types of unique plant: 1. Those with extraordinary characteristics 2 Plants that are rare, which certainly includes those listed for Federal ESA protection. Break the definition into the two separate categories. Change: UNIQUE PLANT REFERS TO ANY NATIVE TREE, SHRUB OR CACTI THAT MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: a. EXTRAORDINARY CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, AGE, SIZE, SHAPE, FORM, CANOPY COVER OR AESTHETIC VALUE. EXAMPLES MAY INCLUDE A CRESTED SAGUARO, MASSIVE LARGE AND/OR ANCIENT TREE, OR A TREE WITH AN UNUSUAL SHAPE. b. A SPECIES THAT IS RARE — PARTICULARLY IF IT HAS BEEN LISTED FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PROTECTION Pg. 5, B5 Existing: PRESERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION SHOULD EMPHASIZE CONTIGUOUS GROUPS OF NATURAL AREAS AND SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION. AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, OTHER NATURAL AREAS PROTECTED BY THIS CODE, SUCH AS RIPARIAN HABITAT. Comment: The focus on contiguous groups should be expanded. Also, change"code"to"zoning code". Change: Preservation of significant vegetation should emphasize maintenance or creation of connections between natural areas and significant vegetation. Areas of significant vegetation include, but are not limited to, other natural areas protected by this zoning code, such as riparian habitat. Pg. 14, C Existing: NO SALVAGE OF PLANTS REGULATED BY THE ARIZONA NATIVE PLANT LAW MAY OCCUR WITHOUT THE ISSUANCE OF THE APPROPRIATE PERMIT BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Comment: It may be prudent to mention federal ESA laws. Change: NO SALVAGE OF PLANTS REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND/OR THE ARIZONA NATIVE PLANT LAW MAY OCCUR WITHOUT THE ISSUANCE OF THE APPROPRIATE PERMIT BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Issues to Monitor and Readdress: 1. Within future technical bulletins, emphasize that one must choose replacement understory plants on the basis of compatibility with larger plants to help insure survival. Furthermore, insure that new plants are protected from herbivores such as squirrels and rabbits. 2. With replanting mitigation ratios, the Town should closely monitor whether the required levels of transplanting will negatively impact the site by exceeding the carry capacity. 3. The protection of rock outcrops is mentioned in the Purpose section and must be depicted on the SRI. There are; however, no definitions or specific requirements regarding rock outcrops. It is apparent that this item is not germane to this ordinance. It should be removed and addressed within the ESLO. NPSO AZ Fish& Game Comments Page 3 4. The definition of "Plant Community" may be overly broad. We may wish to specifically define and list relevant community types (example: Palo Verde— Saguaro). 5. The use of a 5 year survivability benchmark to assist in determining plant health may be to specific. It may be appropriate to judge plant health simply on a case by case basis. 6. Ms. Ruther was concerned that we may be overemphasizing, via the mitigation ratios, the maintenance of large plants. We may wish to further study the transplant survivability of large plants vs. small plants. Summary & Recommendation Staff recommends implementing all of the aforementioned immediate changes. All other items should be addressed comprehensively after a formal test/review period. ATTACHMENT 4 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 4 of 12 7. Meeting Preparation. The Chairs of Boards and Commissions are encouraged to remind their members of the importance of reading their packets before the meeting and being prepared to discuss details. There is an expectation by the public and Town Council that members be as familiar with each case as possible before the meeting. If a board member has questions or requires additional information than what was provided in the packet, staff is available to assist. Members of the Ad Hoc Committee recommend that the Town Council endorse the following policies and amendments related to the Development Review Board: A. The Council should clarify its expectations that the DRB is to make recommendations based on adopted standards of the OVZCR. PAD. or appropriate overlay district, regarding: • height • bulk • density • setbacks The Town Council should establish a policy that recommendations from the DRB should not exceed the regulatory requirements of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. At an Ad Hoc Committee Meeting, DRB members raised concerns that certain protections should be added during developr:rent review that are not necessarily covered by the zoning code. Staff acknowledges this concern and suggests that the zoning code be revised to provide additional tools to address compatibility and design issues. Staff suggests more precise and specific guidelines, including architecture and landscaping to guide DRB recommendations. By quantifying these expectations. we can provide a more understandable process to the building community. B. The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the Council enable the development of DRB- approved architectural guidelines for custom construction in zones R1-10 and more intense. C. Change the Landscape Plan Approval Process - The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the Council transfer the review and approval of the Native Plant Salvage Plan from the Development Review Board to administrative review and approval by staff. An additional staff recommendation is to amend the Zoning Code to eliminate required bufferyards between like districts and compatible land uses. These landscape plans (for compatible land uses) should receive administrative review and approval. The Committee and staff agree that all landscape plans for projects with compatibility issues should receive DRB review. D. The Council Should Establish Standards for Common Sense Revisions of Architecture and Landscape - These parameters would enable staff approval of insignificant revisions to landscape, and architecture. ..r.,f.•..v-a.,..�..._v....1.::n�'-►n.r:i^..:1.:"r Ye.r.-•..�y..i•rrt+t aai.r.�f.^.,...I, _ ..w...... • 1g.) -= -_ ' O > A n -,O O _ •0 C �/ fV L i v V V –c?- > . ; Ci n > #.1) ,,i) I •yC L o J C.' () _ C/Y ( cz (, to v I 4) c >> I -0 _ I O . I cc % - C O t~ 1 = .:» O I O ,; I Fi V I o •= v vi 0 0 1 --. 1) : U v >, A ICZ 0 O L ! r-. v)•I c CCS I U > •0 – • Cl) I ' > U ( ! cn— I =; o � v y ^ v r t C – 1 :I RU i v 1 r-. CZ E..r n C A � L- ' A CC ; O C I .= ,I . c� , y ; J , 4) vn t,)Z ; c,.. I v C � p +--+ ! O• Q O W I co i - -a' • .= 2.'> c.. _ i ;� O N I C co-II I z - 0 i v = i - •'= I p >, cni '> . – �I - y O �j > _. C .- V I :� y „� C C I v n ._' CU �. cn I u > I o _ c� cc ,- I v O L r- C t = CA L. I C O I . _ C; O • .v y •I 1 0 jj = C vi :�I ' I .» u cnI > . V) I •-- - , cz I ' _� ' L .^.. r ,1• • = I >> 1 - a) 'v I v .'. ! > °n _ , C o a� (-,.., — L j u ,a) ; O V, ry -v C + O , • «-.I _ •_ p.. O O E C .►r `-' Q.1 C I > . L O C. .0 t L" •U I Q U •_i ri CS.. ^ v a� O I J M �. J I +.. V = V `n I C. 2 �1 y ' ' 1 U cZ ' v C Mt 1 G n=I .� o. O N f.- ,... M L _ c3 = I -I > .� I y ! .- I C N • 1 L 1 cn Cn = ..+CU a) P- O O 'J >, I O CC -O O _ u I u L cs 1 O >, LL 't? N = "O ^-)j G. n C -- L L C,. L U Cz _ 1 = C '... a) > C I ea -- 1 I r• a) v O 1 C. •- ,J ,,- ; U O .— > :� _.' cr. >, , cn u 1 O ! C >,V ; u I � I a) L. 1 ) C I ..O 1 <* v 1 C 1 i'.)6 ('''.- rd.', I — i Coy1 10 v I M ._. _. cn L . I > � o Iv cn 1 O r I > '. �,,. ...+ AJ L C r O r 2 �� CQ 1 y C. I C- L .C 0 I = L 'U ( ,...'-• I V t:n ~ •.-.� i cn -J �" ; 2 v ! ^ ? '= O I p �° = i cc = n ..r CZ C v .= • u _ --O 1 ._ C O i 4 L' cz r , I '', > ,� J '!' Ct 1 ? I CA,.._.. N i V r _ cn I — j — ... . .. ... . 1 I I I I 1 �.4 ,.. , L... I I I I • J `, Q Q Q Q Q o i < I < , < I < 1 Q • 7,...i r, z Z z i z • (.,, I Z I Z ; Z I Z I Z �.i ; v s ,� 1 I f I I `) It 1 Imo, .- ; I ; I I I I \s / v1 I VI I VI I :n+ ," i J I a) ^J ! C) i N •.• /1/. •�t �O 1 :4 r'I :A :A • • I pp C , , Q I J; �i .^i 1 c• O I , v; C .^.J I -; c-, v O I C I Q I O M �� • I.I. I �� ! 1 I , Md., .�. .�.r, I I I L �' >. I co F. 1 cn • cn �n I cn :n ! t C + I..r •I I .� • 2 C - C C - V ..n Q O O o ' I c. ;c. I. I U i U 'U I U � . , Z C = I = = I = I = = ' I C 0 u 12 I v I I i > I a, Cr IL.. ; ii I i LL.. ,O I 0 ;rO O i. 'IMO (Erni U � U 1U 1 U U I U 1 I I I ! i j I I I I I , , j I I w I I I I c I . :>,-_ d -O 1 L- �. .'. •1' I I O C) I I CZ I I 0 I ! • 1 ci) I L. , O C i _ I I I I v I 1 _ ,2 r «r 1 I N , Cn U I 1 �... 1 L pu -- I L C Ca J — �'` L O N cA I _ ._ I — cts — 0 [- I I _ �. 1 '' i U = - O -- .) y O 1 r- 1 :n I I �.. ^ `- ,.l 1 N I I jEIi J> ; p1 ti I O .r v O I U ;) ( Ca I L I CZ /�Y ' C i •- 1 L •CI, I 0 C � 1 C•3 1 U O -v I G I j I a' n 4) i I y I - jC cQ I C > I 1 n N > I C C I L- I j cd ,� I C ccs _.. CZ- i,... I C OL I .� c1) I I d C� O .c. L 0 I C cn _ v v .a C �. I I) I C'3 G` D D •a I D v ea In L ci'� C y M In ?I C C I) C I U o CZ I v 1 ,✓ I u � u � a) y a) ,..9 _.. ' -� ; u I = I .� ..In f 4-- 1 !II) an -n- CO > I 71':' cn I C "" of < u 1 I U 1 U cc I t c.1 ca I L' I U I V -a c..I U E I U -0 09/17/97 Minutes, Council Regular Session 4 No action taken. 3. ANNEXATION PUBLIC HEARING - LAMBERT/LA CHOLLA MAP #4 PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF EXISTING TOWN LIMITS (NORTH & SOUTH OF LAMBERT LANE); THE NORTHEAST, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF LAMBERT LANE & LA CHOLLA; AND, PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS CHAPARREL HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION TO THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY - 857 ACRES Mr. Chatfield stated that this annexation has gone through the required noticing for tonight's public hearing. The Planning & Zoning Commission met on September 8, 1997 to consider this annexation and voted 7 - 0 to recommend that the Town proceed with the annexation. They also recommended that the Town negotiate a development agreement with the commercial property owner (40 acre parcel on the northeast corner of Lambert & La Cholla). The purpose of that agreement would be to provide adequate buffering to existing Oro Valley residents. Mayor Skalsky opened the public hearing. R. C. Stubbs, 340 N. Main, Tucson, AZ. Mr. Stubbs stated that he realizes this is a technical hearing and his position as a property owner is that the Town should do this to keep the annexation open. Then at sometime in the future if it ever becomes appropriate, the Town could proceed and not have to go to the additional expense of starting the process over. Mayor Skalsky closed the public hearing. No action taken. AGENDA ITEM #4 - OV12-97-6 RANCHO VISTOSO ACCESS ROAD FINAL PLAT - MOVED TO FOLLOW AGENDA ITEM # 5 5. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE ADHOC COMMITTEE FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Don Chatfield, Planning & Zoning Director stated that the Town Council considered the Ad Hoc Committee recommendations on Development Review at a Study Session on Monday, July 28, 1997. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to hold an additional meeting with the Ad Hoc Committee to address issues discussed at the Study Session. Mr. Chatfield stated that the Ad Hoc Committee met on Thursday, August 21, 1997 and discussed those points brought forward by the Town Council. The Committee agreed to add a Statement of Purpose and Philosophy to clearly state the direction the Committee intends the recommendations to take. The Statement is included in the Council report for their consideration. 09/17/97 Minutes, Council Regular Session 5 Mr. Chatfield explained that this report offers recommendations regarding changes to the Oro Valley Development Review Process. Members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Development Review have endorsed the recommendations in this report. The Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by the Town Council earlier this year to consider enhancements to the development review process in the Town of Oro Valley. The Ad Hoc Committee focused its work on three primary areas: Statement of Purpose and Philosophy, Roles and responsibilities of Board and Commission members, The Mechanics of the Review Process and Submittal Requirements. Mr. Chatfield stated that if the Council accepts the recommendations, the action tonight would direct staff to make procedural changes immediately (non-Code changes) and would require the initiation of a number of Code amendments. He referred to the proposed action plan attached to the report. An additional cost of$90,000 for consultant assistance would be needed to get this project completed during this fiscal year. In response to a question by Mayor Skalsky, the Ad Hoc Committee has met during 9 meetings. Meetings were convened at 6:00 p.m. and typically lasted until 9:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. In response to a question by Councilmember Kautenburger,the financing for the consultant would come out of the Town's contingency fund for this fiscal year. Chuck Sweet, Town Manager stated that the motion could be modified to endorse the recommendation of the Committee initiating that part of the work to be done by staff, with direction for staff to return with a more specific recommendation for a consultant. Councilmember Butrico complimented the committee for the time and effort they put into creating this document. He made a strong recommendation that the Town move ahead with the funding for a consultant due to the limited amount of staff time available. He recommended getting these amendments done as quickly as possible. Councilmember Johnson stated that the bottom line is for the process of development review to run as smoothly and efficiently as possible. In response to a question by Councilmember Johnson, this is a matter of balance. These recommendations will give staff more flexibility in the area of landscape/irrigation plans. Councilmember Kautenburger stated that he does not have a problem with hiring a consultant as long as it is needed. He asked if this would go out to bid for Council approval or are they asking for approval now? Mr. Chatfield replied no, a request for proposals would be put together, a member of Council would serve on the Selection Committee and then a request for proposals would be sent out. 09/17/97 Minutes, Council Regular Session 6 They would like to know that they have approval for up to a certain amount of money before they start this process. Vice Mayor Parisi stated that this proposal allows for more citizen involvement. He is for this 100%. He also thanked the committee for their outstanding work in preparing this proposal. Mr. Chatfield stated that the Ad Hoc Committee felt strongly to do additional posting and advertising for developments under consideration for development plan or final plat approval, although the Town Attorney is concerned with the amount of liability to the Town if this posting not required by law is done. He stated that as the Code amendment is put together, they can attempt to answer the liability concern at that time. Mayor Skalsky stated that it is not the intent to add more and more burden and additional hoops to jump through. The intent was to give "common sense" and adequate notice. She expressed concern with this additional recommendation. She asked to study this issue a little further. She stated that the entire burden should not be placed on the government or on someone that owns property. She would like to see some responsibility put on the citizens that live in the area. They have an obligation as well. Mr. Chatfield referred to page 11 regarding this issue and outlined the citizen involvement recommendations. Councilmember Johnson expressed concern with giving the citizens enough time to notify them of upcoming DRB and P & Z meetings so they have time to respond. He suggested possibly getting the Agenda set 10 days before a meeting and publishing it in a newspaper. He thought this might reduce the amount of incorrect information that citizens often have about an issue. Mayor Skalsky discussed some of her concerns with the recommendations for notification on page 11, Item F. She pointed out that if the residents want to be informed they should tell us. They need to have an obligation to find out what is going on in the Town as well. The Town Clerk explained that Agendas are sent to all Homeowner's Associations that have registered with the Clerk's Office at no charge. Mayor Skalsky stated that when we send a notice to Homeowner's Associations that if they don't keep the Town updated with current name of President and address, they will be dropped from the mailing list. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place. Mr. Adler stated that he is opposed to most of the language in the recommendations. He feels they are full of ambiguity and he is opposed to the concept. He feels these restrictions will restrict the thought needed for creative problem solving. Mayor Skalsky stated that with these recommendations we are looking for quality, structure and clarification. She asked Mr. Adler to call her so they can review his concerns with the 09/17/97 Minutes, Council Regular Session 7 recommendations. MOTION: A MOTION was made by Councilmember Butrico to endorse the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee for Development Review initiating amendments to the Zoning Code as shown in the attached action plan. Directing staff to prepare a revised Planning & Zoning Workplan for Council consideration, and allocating up to $90,000 in additional consultant fees to accomplish these tasks during the 1997/98 fiscal year. The motion was SECONDED by Vice Mayor Parisi. MOTION carried 5 - 0. 4. 0V12-97-6 RANCHO VISTOSO ACCESS ROAD FINAL PLAT Planning and Zoning Director Don Chatfield reported that ITC Corporation has requested approval of the Final Plat of Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 13, Parcel C, Lots 1, 2 and 3. He stated that since Council reviewed the preliminary plat, the designation has changed from two to three lots because the street itself has been labeled Lot 3. Mr. Chatfield stated that the primary purpose of the plat is to provide access from Rancho Vistoso Boulevard through Neighborhood 13 into Neighborhood 12, which is currently a parcel that lies outside the Town. He further explained that the preliminary plat issues focused on road design and location and that he has received word from the Town's Special Land Use Council that an agreement is in place that satisfies the Zoning Code requirement for the pro-rata share. Mr. Chatfield reported that there has been a modification to the roadway section that was approved with the preliminary plat in that a median has been incorporated into the design. Planning Staff has no objection to the median, however they are awaiting approval from Golder Ranch Fire District regarding this change. Final approval from the Fire District is included as a condition in Exhibit "A". Mr.Chatfield stated that staff finds the proposed Final Plat at Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 13, Parcel C as subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A" and "B", does meet the Final Plat and PAD zoning requirements. Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat. MOTION: Councilmember Johnson MOVED to approve OV12-97-06, Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 13, Parcel C, and Lots 1, 2, and 3 final Plat, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibits "A" and "B". A) 1. The hatching symbol designating the Hillside Conservation Area shall be added to the legend and labeled as "Hillside Conservation Area (natural open space)". 2. The buildable limits boundary line shall be staked by a surveyor for verification by the Zoning Inspector. 3. The buildable limits boundary shall be fully protected from disturbance and spill during construction. Grading permits shall not be issued until assurance of this condition has been demonstrated to planning staff via the grading plant. VOICEIRAK :;,..,,L 3;3'990. :::i 7--ii FACSIMILE - - - . . . . ■ . i-timilly lc . .i,:‘, Mf`,1*. !.i- • •671 TIM"'i '•'`,-dad, t, Ai • tV eilUMM, ti.i!,'01i;.',?'' -:.‘,.401 TAT CM 1 To Town Clerk - Roxana Date 7/2.9/99 Town of Oro Valley Fax No. (520) 297-0428 No. Pages 1 (including cover) From Bill Adler Our Fax No. (520) 886-4997 RE: Staff Report of 8/4/99, ' em 9 Native Plant ordinance amendments Comments In thesummrsectio .f this staff re ort it is referenced that concern has p been expressed that " minority opinion " may overturn ... the review of the TAC. This Committee was/is dominated by industry representatives, and would have had no minority opinion had m self and Mr. Conde not thrust ourselves, uninvited, into the committee. I have e ressed, and written, that the Town must divorce itself from the pattern of see ' g predominantly industry input on ordinance revisions. Public Comment Issues: 1. Delegating review of sal age plans to staff - however it may try to be explained - is an abdication of responsi ility. The first staff report referred to the review as automatic and routine - ow it's "technical", and involves "extra steps". Which is it? Frompersonal ex eri .nce the review is nc�t automatic or routine and I P � -� maintain goes with the jib of being a DRB & Council member. Since we're testing this revised ordinance fol six months - I'd suggest returning the responsibilty back to where It began before ; other industry - dominated TAC made their 1996 - 1997 recommendations. That :ntire 1997 document needs thorough review. 2. Key Phrase ... " ... ther: is to be no increase in Qverall density ". There could be an increase in density with' the project. Existing incentives " providing for clustering" have obviously not worked -- witness the recent Stone Canyon submittal,. No reason to .uil d incentives into an ordinance when they are ignored. X support clustering - it jus i isn't mandated by staff; by the DRB or Council. 3. Al I'm asking is for fee, in lieu to be removed as a mitigation remedy. Other viable options remain. I' not proposing an abandonment of the mitigation remedy section - in fact, I feel partially responsible for it. 4. The ordinance must sta e that fines in excess of $100, 000 may be applied. Details are specified in the separ to fee and penalty schedule. The ordinance must establish that punitive fines are a orized. P.O: Box 13464•Tucson,AZ 85732•Tel. (520) 86-4545 T 0/T 0'd LSL# £Z:O T 0E-L0`666 T L66t7-988-0ZS >'1ded180 I O(1: WO:id VonTRAK _1,..__, , ...::. T ts"--,' P. _ . , riiii;:ilit i, '.In A r9A14. 4` *, '.,',.*Icy' 1 ,,,,11,,i,.,.,a1;,,, iii( re. ri ,:4-41 MA si.o.,' '0,',r'y -. i ot,,,,f tn .' Ill i 4t* 4 FACSIMILE esur* ., • . 40 . • . . . .1 • i . . . • • pg /1i To Town Clerk - Roxana Date 7/29/99 Town of Oro valley / . Fax No. ( 20) 297-0428 No, Pages 1in ,uding cover) ) From Bill Adler our Fax No. (5 1) 886-4997 RE: Staff Report of 8/4/99, Item 9 Native Plant ordinance amendm:- is Comments In tlieummary section of this staff report, it is reference: that concern has been expressed that " minority opinion " may overturn ... t. - review of the TAC. This Committee was/is dominated by industry representIves, and would have had to minority opinion had nwself and Mr. Conde not 'rust ourselves, uninvited, into the committee. I have e*pressed, and written, th the Town must divorce itself from the pattern of seeing predominantly indiistly input on ordinance revisions. Public Comment Issues: 1. / /A Delegating review of salvage plans to s aff - however it may try to he explained - is an abdication of respon bility. The f' st staff report referred to the review as automatic and routine - now it's "kchnical", and involves "extra steps". Which is it? From personal exper ence, th review is not automatic or routine, and I maintain goes with the job of ing a DRB & Col4ncil member. Since we're testing this revised ordinance f m r si months -- I'd suggest\retur'nin g the res p onsibil back �Y to where it began before an ther industry - dominated TAC made their 1996 - 1997 recommendations; That _ tire 1997 document needs to thorough review. 2. Key Phrase ... " ... t,e - is to be no increase in overall density ". There could be an increase in density ithin the project. Existing incentives " providing for clustering" have obviou-1 not worked - witness the recent Stone Canyon g y . submittal. No reason to •uild incentives into an ordinance w13.e11. they are ignored. I � support clustering - it ju.t isn't mandated by staff; by the DRB or Council. 3. All I'm asking is for f_e,5in lieu to be removed as a mitigation remedy. Other viE�bleop ions remain. I M. not proposing an abandonment of the mitigation remedy ection - in fact, feel. partially responsible for it. 4. The ordinance must st.to that fines in excess of $100, 000 may be applied. etails are specified in the sepa:ate fee and penalty schedule. The ordinance mus tablish that punitive fines are a thorized. r P.O. / / 1 0. . Box 13464•Tucson, AZ 85732•Tel. (520 886-4545 T 0/T O'd 0SL# £ :9I 6Z-L0`666 T L65t7-988-0ZS >lbH190 I On: WOe d I 0 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 4, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR 8c COUNCIL FROM: Steven Faaborg, Civil Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Ordinance No. (0)99- 44 , revising the speed limit for Tangerine Road between the western Oro Valley Town Limits and First Avenue. SUMMARY: The Department of Public Works has reviewed the traffic conditions and speed limit on Tangerine Road from the west Oro Valley Town Limits to First Avenue. The speed limit is set by Chapter 11 Section 11-3-4N of the Town Code to be 45 miles per hour from La Canada Drive to First Avenue. This speed limit was apparently set when the Town annexed Tangerine Road as a part of the Peninsula Annexation in 1994 and prior to the Town's most recent annexation in 1998. Tangerine Road has experienced a significant increase in traffic volumes, largely due to the new residential developments in the Rancho Vistoso area north of Tangerine Road and First Avenue. The commercial development in the First Avenue and Oracle Road area, along with construction projects at various locations, has precipitated a similar increase in the volume of large trucks utilizing Tangerine Road. These traffic increases, along with the lack of paved shoulders, narrow width of paving and short sight distances and vertical curves, has resulted in a need to reduce the speed limit on this segment of roadway. A speed limit of 40 miles per hour would be appropriate to the existing conditions. This revision of the code would also correct the statement to reflect the extension of this segment of roadway to the west of La Canada Drive. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. (0)99- 44 An ordinance of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona amending Chapter 11 Section 11-3-4 of the code of the Town of Oro Valley pertaining to speed limits and providing penalties for violations thereof. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF: The Department of Public Works recommends approval of Ordinance (0)99- 44 , amending Chapter 11 Section 11-3-4N to read "Tangerine Road from the west Oro Valley Town Limits to First Avenue: 40 miles per hour;". TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PAGE 2 OF 2 SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance (0)99- 44 , amending Chapter 11 Section 11-3-4N to read "Tangerine Road from the west Oro Valley Town Limits to First Avenue: 40 miles per hour;". or I move to deny Ordinance (0)99- 44 , amending Chapter 11 Section 11-3-4N to read "Tangerine Road from the west Oro Valley Town Limits to First Avenue: 40 miles per hour;". Department Head a\ Chief of Police C.S. Town Ma ger ORDINANCE NO. (0)99- 44 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA AMENDING CHAPTER 11 SECTION 11-3-4 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PERTAINING TO SPEED LIMITS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF WHEREAS, Chapter 11 Section 11-3-4 of the Oro Valley Town Code allows that either the Town Engineer or Chief of Police with the Approval of Council shall place and maintain traffic control devices deemed necessary to regulate traffic under the traffic laws of the town or state; and, WHEREAS, the portion of Tangerine Road between First Avenue and the west Oro Valley Town Limits has had an increased volume of traffic, including a large number of trucks, and, WHEREAS, a review of current engineering standards has determined that the existing 45 mph speed limit is out of compliance; therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA: SECTION 1: That Chapter 11 Section 11-3-4N of the Town Code of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, is amended to read: Tangerine Road from the west Oro Valley Town Limits to First Avenue: 40 miles per hour; SECTION 2: Any person found guilty of violating any provision to this Ordinance shall be guilty and shall be punished as provided by state law for the same or similar offenses. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 4th day of August , 1999. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney Date Date , , TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 4, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Dennis Silva, Jr., Planner I SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING — OV12-94-32 SUNRIDGE II RECREATION AREA IN-LIEU FEE PROPOSAL LOCATED ONE MILE WEST OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND % MILE NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD BACKGROUND: SunRidge, originally 80 acres in size, was rezoned by Mayor and Council from R1-144 to R1-20 (104 lots with minimum lot size 20,000 square feet) in the summer of 1994. The subject property is located approximately 1244 feet south of Moore Road, west of Rancho Vistoso, Neighborhood 7, and north of the Coyote Ridge subdivision. William Dallman, the developer of SunRidge II, requests an in-lieu fee for the two recreation areas in this subdivision. SUMMARY: Most of the owners of this 65-lot subdivision have agreed to leave the recreation area in its natural state. Note, many of the lots, however, are still owned by the developers/builders. The developers of SunRidge II propose an 'n-lieu fee that will go to the parks fund which is equal to the amount that the recreation areas would cost. The _.roposed in-lieu fee is attached to this report. SunRidge II was granted a variance on May 25, 1999, which based the in-lieu fee on the cost to provide improvements to the lots versus fair market value of the lots as stated in the Zoning Code. This variance was granted because the developers had already set aside the recreation areas, but later determined that it was in their, and the homeowners' best interests not to improve the sites (see the attached letter). The proposal is insufficient because it seems to be an under estimation of fees. The fee estimate will be provided to the Town Council. Staff suggests that the in-lieu fee be increased to accurately assess these costs. GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE: The proposed in-lieu fee proposal complies with Policy 6.2E preserving and enhancing open space areas that protect the visual and natural resources of the community. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the SunRidge II in-lieu fee proposal along with the conditions attached in Exhibit «A,' SUGGESTED MOTION: he Council may wish to consider one of the following motions: I move to approve OV 12-94-32 SunRidge II In-Lieu Fee Proposal, effective on the date of satisfaction of attached conditions listed in Exhibit A, attached herewith. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ''OUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 3 OR I move to approve OV 12-94-32 SunRidge II In-Lieu Fee Proposal, effective on the date of satisfaction of attached conditions listed in Exhibit A, attached herewith and the following added conditions: OR I move to deny OV 12-94-32 SunRidge II In-Lieu Fee Proposal, finding that: • Attachments: 1. Exhibit A—Conditions for Approval 2. SunRidge II In-Lieu Fee Proposal 3. Request for Variance Letter L)31)-,— Plann IT d Zoning Administrator Community Development Director j ) . • Town ManagS F:\ov\ov12\1994\12-94-32\INLIEUFEERPT.doc EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OV12-94-32 SUNRIDGE II IN-LIEU FEE PROPOSAL 1. The in-lieu fee shall be revised to the amount of $5,000.00. This fee shall be paid prior to any further release of lots. 2. Landscaping proposed for the recreation area will be installed and irrigated per the approved plans prior to any release of lots required to assure the recreation areas. 'CHINA 1 LO I CUSTOM HOMES, INC. a;.. . "1TC:1i; July 20, 1999 Estimated cost for Sunridge recreation areas 1. 60 x 40 sand volley ball court with.2 post and net 833.00 2. 3 picnic tables Iron Mountain Forge #415-GXT 1,005.00 3. 2- 15 gal. mesquite trees (60.00) 4. 470 LF 24" decomposed granite path (6 yds granite) 120.00 5. All tractor work and miscellaneous labor to be provided by Kachina Custom Homes at no cost to Sunridge owners. Total Cost $1,958.00 Note: Trees have already been planted in small recreation area. Michael E. Arnold President Kachina Custom Homes Inc. General Contractor License#074902 • 180 West Linda Vista Drive • Tucson,AZ 85737 • Telephone: (520)797-2137 • FAX(520)797-2137 T = a (N.( *k_ R e_ p0,7 e_ e8:1/4_ .c) -\Th -t-c\ 'P Co \ ec,7 /-\ \ e ,e„ e_, T-CD CCC) `�- p c_'� c- c._„-� (NcL-* ;k_O \rD ccsJ S\ Z\1\ . ov, c.) y4-L ck,,r Com. Sc� S v''a pa_c. 1 a cA. -"ce) c) c) _ --� - - - - - (f p ck-r e�� e o v r F kr) s _ D r sznA.(_>‘. e.LA _ �'✓1 t �_ ��.�\ `tum �-�_ �V^�- "\v^U v L Cmc c v k1/4 sf=3 tc), Ti-Tcp L 0 Li VN e_, FE<=, , t, \,- c C_cz � ,� - �.co -4\-IC\ ��-\�. r � -r 6022979545 MCGANN & ASSOCIATES 975 P01 JUL 27 '99 16:27 McGann & Associates Landscape Architects and Planners 6814 North Oracle Road, Suite 210 Tucson,Arizona 85 704 (520)29 7-9540 Fax:(520)29 7-9545 Fax Memo: Date: July 27, 1999 To: Dennis Silva, Town of Oro Valley Planning Department Fax No. 742-1022 Pages: 1 From: Don McGann, McGann &Associates Inc. Re: Estimated Construction Costs The following are estimated costs per your request. Decomposed Granite Path (2"Depth) $0.30- $0.35 per Square Foot Picnic Tables (Iron Mountain Forge 415-GXT), Delivered/Assembled . . . $ 300.00 per Table 0 Sand Volleyball Court (60'x 100'): $ 4,500.00 (minor grading, 12"'sand depth, wood header at perimeter, posts and net, rope boundary marker) Please call me if you have any questions related to this order-of-magnitude estimate. 1 { 1 i Page 1 of 1 12 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 4th, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: David Marsh, Planner I SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCE NO. (0)99- 45 ,OV9-99-51 PARCEL # 224-24-0120 AND PARCEL #224-24-0130, TRANSLATING RECENTLY ANNEXED LAND KNOWN AS THE HALLAQ PROPERTIES, FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1, TR, AND CR-2 TO ORO VALLEY C-2, R-6, AND R1-10, WITH CONDITIONS, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD BACKGROUND: In August 1998, pursuant to Section 9-471B of the Arizona Revised Statutes, the Town of Oro Valley Mayor and Council annexed the area known as Map 4. The Town is required to change, or "translate" the zoning on the annexed properties from Pima County zoning designations to the closest comparable Oro Valley zoning designation. The attached maps identify the location of the parcels of land owned by the Hallaq family, the zoning designations under the County zoning, and the proposed translational zoning designations. The property is located at the lortheast corner of Lambert Lane and La Cholla Boulevard. SUMMARY: In accordance with State Statutes, the Town should translate Pima County's zoning designations for the Hallaq properties,to Oro Valley's closest equivalent designations. The translational zoning designations are: • CB-1 (Commercial)to C-2 (Commercial): 10 acres • TR(Multi-family residential/offices)to R-6 (Multi-family residential/offices): 20 acres • CR-2 (single family residential)to R1-10 (single family residential): 50 acres While the applicant and Staff have agreed to the general zoning designations for the translation, there were earlier disagreements on several significant issues. These relate to proposed time limits for the translational zoning designation, specific development conditions to be placed on the property, and certain legal questions which needed to be resolved by the Town Attorney. Staff has met with the applicant and has resolved the majority of these issues. Meetings with the neighbors by Staff and the three Planning & Zoning Commission meetings have outlined several concerns, including intensity of development immediately adjacent to Canada Hills, height issues, and the type of uses on-site. While the uses allowed on the property must be translated to the nearest Oro Valley zoning equivalent, and are essentially `fixed', Staff and the property owner's representative have agreed on a proposal that .estricts the intensity of development on portions of the site, and moves the more controversial TR to R-6 translational zoning designation away from Canada Hills. This is summarized in the attached map illustrating the proposed translational zoning designations. The CR-2 designation would be translated to R1-10, with conditions, these being a minimum lot size of 16,000 square feet, with a lot reduction option to a minimum lot size of 12,000 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 4 square feet. This minimum lot size will match that of the existing homes to the north, while allowing the property owner some flexibility in developing the site. It is important to note that the lot reduction option require a lower overall density of 2 dwelling units per acre (DU/ac), versus approximately 2.3 DU/ac under County CR-2, and will result in an increase in open space preservation through clustering. The remaining TR area along La Cholla would be translated to R-6, with a restriction in density to a maximum of 12.5 DU/ac. The TR area along Lambert Lane would also be translated to R-6, with a maximum density of 12.5 DU/ac. The CB-1 area will be translated to C-2, with no increase in land intensity. The above proposal will result in an overall decrease in density from the zoning designations in Pima County. The decrease in density for the various designations is summarized below: County Zoning Density OV Zoning Density CB-1 Commercial N/A C-2 Commercial N/A 10 acres 10 acres (no change) TR 44 DU/ac R-6 Multi-Family/Offices 12.5 DU/ac 20 acres@44DU/ac 20 acres @ 12.5 DU/ac CR-2 Residential +/-2DU/ac R1-10 Residential +/-2DU/ac 60 acres @+/-2 DU/ac 60 acres @+/-2 DU/ac OVERALL: 12.5 4.625 DU/ac DU/ac Because all the uses are permitted on the property, involve the same quantity of land, and the intensity of uses will not increase, these actions are deemed not to be a `rezoning', but a valid component of the translational zoning process. The Town Attorney has reviewed the legality of this translational zoning proposal, and has given his consent. The one outstanding issue which remains is a proposed time restriction on the CB-1 to C-2 Commercial translation. Staff has recommended that a time limit of five years be placed on this designation, which would revert to R1-144 zoning if construction did not commence on an approved development plan. The rationale behind this recommendation is that the C-2 zoning is not in conformance with the General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential (1.3 to 2.0 DU/ac) for this site. Staff would be amenable to an additional five year extension on this zoning designation if the General Plan designation has been updated to a Community Commercial designation at that time. The owner's representative disputes this condition, and this issue has not been resolved in several meetings with Staff. The rationale for this disagreement is outlined in the attached letter from the owner's representative. Several members of the public expressed concerns over the translational zoning process for this case at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on July 6th , 1999. Adjacent neighbors expressed concern over the mount of grading which could occur on site, and the potential destruction of the washes present on the property. It is important to note that there is significantly less potential for grading in Oro Valley, with the 6' maximum cut and fill regulations under the Grading Ordinance, versus the grading standards under Pima County, which has no TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 4 maximum limit for cut and fill. Moreover, the Town has more restrictive wash and riparian habitat preservation requirements than the County, which are issues reviewed during the development review process, not the translational zoning process. One member of the public expressed concern that the neighbors were not involved in meetings with the property owners regarding this translational zoning. While no members of the public were invited or present at these meetings between Staff and the property owner's representatives, Staff has endeavoured to ensure that the neighbor's concerns have been addressed within the confines of the translational zoning process. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: On April 6th, 1999, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of this item. The Comission added a density limit of 12.5 DU/ac to the eastern R-6 zoning designation, whereas Staff had originally proposed a maximum of 18 DU/ac. GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE: This property is not in conformance with the Town's General Plan land use map. The land use category for this area is Low Density Residential (1.3 to 2.0 DUA) which does not comply with the proposed translated zoning of C-2, R-6, and R1-10, with conditions; however,the current Pima County CB-1, TR, and CR-2 zoning designations existed prior to the property being annexed into the Town. ZECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the translation of zoning on Parcel # 224-24-0120 and Parcel # 224-24-0130, the Hallaq Properties, from Pima County CB-1, TR, and CR-2 to Oro Valley C-2, R-6, and R1-10, and all applicable development standards of those Oro Valley zoning districts shall apply thereto, with the conditions listed in the Ordinance. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance No. (0)99- 45, OV9-99-51, translating zoning of Parcel # 224-24-0120 and Parcel # 224-24-0130, the Hallaq Properties, from Pima County CB-1, TR, and CR-2 to Oro Valley C-2, R-6, and R1- 10, and all applicable development standards of those Oro Valley zoning districts shall apply thereto, with the conditions listed in the Ordinance. OR I move to approve Ordinance No. (0)99- 45, OV9-99-51,translating zoning of Parcel # 224-24-0120 and Parcel # 224-24-0130, the Hallaq Properties, from Pima County CB-1, TR, and CR-2 to Oro Valley C-2, R-6, and R1- 10, and all applicable development standards of those Oro Valley zoning districts shall apply thereto, with the conditions listed in the Ordinance, and the following additional conditions: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. (0)99- 45 . 2. Exhibit"A"—Oro Valley Translational Zoning Designations. 3. Location Map and County Zoning Designations. 4. Letter from Owner's Representative. F:\OV\OV9\1999\9-99-51\TZTC2.rpt.doc U\L Planni ! I onln Administrator Community Development Director 0/42,t, t Town Manager ORDINANCE NO. (0)99- 45 AN ORDINANCE TRANSLATING THE ZONING FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1,TR,AND CR-2 TO ORO VALLEY C-2, R-6, AND R1-10, WITH CONDITIONS, ON THE PROPERTIES KNOWN AS THE HALLAQ PROPERTIES, LOCATED WITHIN MAP 4; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. WHEREAS, the owners of certain real property known as the Hallaq Properties, located within Map 4, has been annexed into the Town; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, has considered said translational zoning with added conditions on these properties at a duly noticed Public Hearing, in accordance with State Statue, and having made its recommendations to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Oro Valley Town Council has duly considered the translational zoning with added conditions at a Public Hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: SECTION 1. That the Hallaq Properties contained within Map 4 be translationally zoned from Pima County CB-1, TR, and CR-2 to Oro Valley C-2, R-6, and R1-10, as shown in the attached Exhibit A, and that all applicable development standards of the C-2, R-6, and R1-10 zoning districts shall apply thereto to said property. SECTION 2. That the 20 acres of R-6 zoning designation shall not exceed a maximum density of 12.5 dwelling units per acre (DU/ac). SECTION 3. That a 16,000 square foot minimum lot size shall apply for the 50 acres translated to the R1-10 zoning designation. A 12,000 square foot minimum lot size may be permitted in the R1-10 zone under a lot reduction option, which will require additional preservation of open space and buffering of adjacent properties. The gross density in the R1-10 zoning designation shall not exceed two dwelling units per acre (DU/ac). SECTION 4. That the property owner, and their successors, shall record a final plat or begin construction upon an approved development plan for the C-2 portion on the property by July 6th, 2004 in order to retain the C — 2 conditional zoning entitlement. This date shall be amended to July 6th, 2009 if the General Plan Land Use designation for the C-2 site is amended to "Community Commercial"by July 6th, 2004. SECTION 5. That all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict; (0)99-45 p.2 SECTION 6. That this ordinance and the various parts thereof are hereby declared to be severable. If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, word or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be unconstitutional, such holdings shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 4th day of Augus t, 1999, Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Daniel L. Dudley, Town Attorney \\OV_PZD\PZ 1\OV\OV9\1999\9-99-51\ORDINANCEHALLAQ.doc MAY 2 U 1"9 MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY FROM: G. LAWRENCE SCHUBART, STUBBS & SCHUBART, P. C. t5 SUBJECT: HALLAQ PROPERTY: TRANSITIONAL ZONING i DATE: 5/28/99 On July 21, 1970, the Pima County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the rezoning request for 80 acres of land at the northeast corner of LaCholla Blvd. and Lambert Lane. The request included 10 acres of CB-1, 20 acres of TR (Transitional), and 50 acres of CR-2 uses. The conditions imposed by Pima County required the owner to: (1) Recording an acceptable plat that will provide for any drainage problems as well as the necessary rights-o f-wad; (2) A suitable arrangement with the Pima County Department of Sanitation regarding sanitary facilities; and (3) Recording a covenant holding Pima County harmless in the event of flooding. Pima County did not impose a time limitation on when the conditions for rezoning were required to be completed. The reason for this seems self- evident: In 1970 there was no established sewer system in the area, but the approved rezoning was for development that would required the owner to tie into the sewer system. We are approaching the time when this, in fact, can be done. In regard to translating the Pima County Zoning to Oro Valley Zoning, an issue has arisen regarding whether a certain portion of the land approved for '1'K zoning can be moved to another portion of the property. Specifically, by moving the north 5-acre portion to an area contiguous with the south 10-acre portion of TR development, to abut Lambert Lane, would be in the best interests of the developed property to the north, and would accommodate a more efficient use of the Hallaq property. I believe that this can be done at the time of annexation. SUBJECT: HALLAQ PROPERTY: TRANSITIONAL Z ONIN G DATE: 5/28/99 Before the statutory change adopted in 1986, Chapter 45, Section 2, effective April 10, 1986, there was no statutory prohibition in changing the zoning classification concurrent with annexation. In point of fact, often the inducement to agree to annexation involved conferring a more favorable zoning designation. In 1986 the following section was added to A.R.S. § 9-471: "L. A city or town annexing an area shall adopt zoning classifications which permit densities and uses no greater than those permitted by the county immediately before annexation. Subsequent changes in zoning of the annexed territory may be made according to existing procedures established by the city and town for the rezoning of land." Inasmuch as each parcel of land needs to be treated separately to have translation zoning adopted by the Town of Oro Valley, the word "area" in the context of this statute best describes the individual parcel under single ownership. There is nothing in this statute that prevents Oro Valley from adjusg tin the location of a zoning designation, as long as the prohibition that the overall densities or uses are no greater than those permitted by the county immediately before annexation. ThistYPe of analysis is consistent with many of the prerogatives that exist within zonm. g codes themselves. A planned area development (PAD) typically designates ates broad zoning classifications in large areas, while at the same timeg P ermittin a methodology to tailor the development to the nature features of land and aesthetic objectives. Similarly, transfer development rights have been utilized as a means to move density of development from one area to another area more compatible for development. Finally, even the use of cluster development under zoning code criteria is a method to transfer within a property densities for a given development. These are all common methods to accomplish the same goal that we now seek to achieve.' To accommodate the translation from existing Pima County zoning to Oro Valley zoning, and with input from neighboring owners, and meetings with the Oro Valley staff, the Hallaqs submit the following proposal: 1 This analysis is consistent with ordinary notice requirements,see,e.g.,Summit Property,Inc. v. Wilson,26 Ariz. 550, 550 P.2d 104 (1976) [variations from notice are allowed when the ultimate classification or zoning is no more restrictive than the noticed proposal];Sandblom v. Corbin, 125 Ariz. 178, 608 P .2d 317 (App 1980) [authorizing administrative adjustments to approved plan]. SUBJECT: HALLAQ PROPERTY: TRANSITIONAL ZONING DATE: 5/28/99 1. The CB-1 zoning be translated to Oro Valley C-2 for the 10 acres at the southwest corner; 2. That the 5 acres north of the CB-1, abutting LaCholla Blvd., be translated to R-6; 3. The 15 acres of TR zoning east of the CB-1, abutting Lambert Lane, be translated to R-6 but with the right to develop 18 residences per acre;' and, 4. The remaining acreage is to be translated from CR-2 to R1-10 under the Oro Valley Zoning Code. The Hallaqs agree that the overall number of residential units cannot exceed that which could have been constructed under the existing CR-2 designation. See Attachment A. We have included, as Attachment B, the depiction which outlines the Halla property and reflects the configuration for the translation zoning. This Hallaq also depicts the lots in the adjoining Canada Hills development to the north. Attachment C reflects the lot size for each of those adjoining parcels. This translation zoning reflects a substantial reduction in the development rights that would have been permitted under the Pima County P Zoning Code. Hopefully those that view this proposal will recognize the substantial compromise being offered, and that additional limitations, including a time limitation for this development, will not be imposed. It would be unfair to the re uproperty require to be developed within any set period of time when, in fact, the ability to develop the property is dependent upon other property owners participating in infrastructure improvements. 1 This increase from 12.44 units to 18 units per acre is an essential ingredient in this proposal. Under Pima County TR zoning,owners are entitled to develop up to 43.E units per acre,which we concede is excessive. There are, though,many luxury apartment ent developments that have density in the range of 18 RAC and I have attached one additional brochure depicting this type of development 3 is B. Minimum lot size requirements for lots in a CR- B. 1! ► 'r:'um area E4: dwelling I subdivision may be approved by the board of sand sc,uare feet. supervisors for reduction from thirty-six thousand C. Minimum lot width: Eighty feet. square feet to twenty-four thousand square feet in D. Minimum yard requirements: accordance with Section 18.09.050;provided,that in 1. Front: Thirty feet; total there are no more individual one-family lots 2. Side:Ten feet each; than one lot per gross acre of the area of the subdivi- 3. Rear: Forty feet. sion zoned CR-1. (Ord. 1985-82 (part), 1985) E. Building height limitations: 1. Maximum height:Thirty-four feet; 2. Maximum stories: Two. Chapter 18.23 F. Minimum distance between main buildings: Twenty feet except as required in Sermon C-2 STNGLE RESIDENCE ZONE 18.09.0201) (C mineral Residential and Rural Sections: 13.23.010 Permitted uses. 1&.23.020 Conditional uses. 18.23.030 Development standards- General. can • sGeneral. 1&.23.04) Development standards- Detached accessory bnik Ings. 18.23.05D Cluster development option. 18.23.060 Lot reduction option. 1.S.23.00 Lot development option. 1&23.DiO Permitted uses. A. Uses permitted: 1. Any use as permitted in Section 18.21.010(CR- 1 Single Residence Zone), but horses, cattle, sheep or goats shall not be kept on less than one commer- cial acre and not more than one such animal for each ten thousand square feet of lot area. (Ord. 1985-82 (part), 1985) 18.23.020 Conditional uses. A. Uses conditionally permitted: 1. Any use as conditionally permitted in Section 18.21.020(CR-1 Single Residence Zone),except the raising of ratites is not permitted. (Ord. 1994-146 § 7, 1994: Ord. 1985-82 (part), 1985) • 1 3.23.030 Development dards---General. A. Minimum lot area: Sixteen thousand square feet. Lmry (Puna Cc8-96) 18-52 EXB Bfl'A Zoe Provisions) for a rear weilng. (Ord. 1985- -12.23.C50 Lost re,che don o Ton 82 (pat), 19 85) . A. Refer to Section 18.09.050 (General R si e nL?i and Rural Zoning Provisions) for the general prcvi- 13 X3.040 Development a nd --De-tmchecl sions of the lot reduction ctticn. ac assory Buildings. B. Minimum lot size re cr ements for lots in a CR- A. Permitted coverage:One-third of the total area of 2 subdivision for reduction may be approved by the the rear and side yards. board of supervisors for reduction from sixteen thou- B. Maximum height:Twenty-four feet. sand square feet to twelve thousand square feet in C. Minimum distance requirements: accordance with Section 18.09.050,provided that in 1. To main buildings: Seven feet; total there are no more individual one-family lots • 2. To front lot line: Sixty feet; than two lots per gross acre of the area of the subdi- 3. To side and rear lot lines: vision zoned CR-2. (Ord. 1985-82 (part), 1585) a. Four feet if building is not used for poultry or animals, 18.230D70 Lot development option. b. Fifty feet if building is used for poultry or ani- A. Refer to Section 18.09.060 (General Residential mals, and Rural Zoning Provisions) for the provisions of c. All horses,cattle,sheep,goats,or other similar the lot development option. (Ord. 1985-82 (part), animals must be confined within a stock-tight fence 1985) (no material shall be permitted not ordinarily used for a stock-tight fence)in an area of no less than four hundred square feet per animal. Such fenced-in area C rapt r 13.25 shall be set back ten feet from the rear where it abuts an IR,RH, GR-1, SR, SH, CR-1, CR-2, or MU zone CR-3 SINGLE RESIDENCE ZONE and forty feet from the rear where it abuts a zone other than GR-1, RIS, LR, SR, SE, CR-1, CR-2, or Sections: MU, and forty feet from a side property line. A set- 18.25.010 Pew t2si uses. p F � back of ten feet shall be permitted on the side and 13.25.020 Conditional uses. y where the adjacent propertyowners have a written 18.25.030 Development standards-- recorded a��ement to this effect, but. in no event, General. shall a corral be closer than fifty feet to any residence 18.25.040 Development standards-- Accessory ndigs' or living quarters in an abuttingproperty. (Ord. 1985-187 1 (part), 1985; Ord. 1985-82 (part), 13.25.050 Cluster development opt;on. 1985) 1&.,25.©60 Lot reduction option. 18.25.070 Lot sdeveiopment option. 13.23.050 Chaster development option. A. This option shall be permitted only for subdi- 112 010 P's= 'd uess° vided residential lots as allowed in this chapter, and A. Uses pe� ltted: ted open space in accordance with Sec- 1. All uses as permitted ?n Section 18.0-9.020A their associa j . . . � (General Residential and Rugal Zon- (General Residential and R-L ral Zoning Provis�ons); tlon 18.©9 C ingProvisions). 1985-111 1 (part), 1985; 2. Tempos trailer or mobile or mann acturred § � o ,.�: fl ���� (part), 1985) home: In accordance with Section 18.17.020 .2 (SR Ord. 1985-82(p ), . Suburban Ranch Zone); 18-52.1 (Pima County and shall become a charge on said properties, and b. CR-2: Refer also to Section 18.23.060; such charge shall be paid by the homeowners of said c. CR-3:Refer also to Section 18.25.060. properties within thirty days after receipt of a state- B. Conditions: :ment. 1. That in total there are n o more individual ridu�I cn� K. Phased development. a family lots thanprovided for in the lot reduction F 1. Approval may be given for the development of option provisions of the individual zones; delineated phases of the site,after submittal of a uni- 2. That the subdivision and ailark recreation^reatz..n . . fled cluster site plan for the total project.The phased areas, and drainage areas (CR-1.only) conform portions shall be shown on the subdivision plat. this code, including area and plans,lans as b 2. Open space requirements for each phase shall be supplemented and amended; the same as stated in Section 18.09.040. Separate 3. That full and adequateprovision is made for sur- homeowners' associations with provisions . for face drainage, includingdedication of rights-of-way � of expansion or consolidation may be created. Prior to for existing and natural watercourses; and the sale of any lot, site, unit or dwelling in a phased 4. That to promote parks and recreation: portion, the open space and recreation areas in that a. An area is dedicated for drainage purposes portion shall be designated, recorded and developed (CR-1 only) or otherwisePer anently reserved for or maintained in conformance with the approved . park or recreation purposes, either by dedication to development plan. the public or by conveyance of an undivided interest L. Amendments to final plan. to each lot owner within the subdivision or by appro- 1. Unsubstantial changes in the location, siting or priate deed restrictions or by other governmental character of buildings may be authorized by the plan- acquisition processes, ning and development services director, if required b. The total extent of saidR ark,recreation area,or by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen drainage area (CR-1 only) is no less than the sum at the time of the final subdivision plat approval. total of the number of square feet by which the area 2. Substantial changes to the approved cluster site of each lot in the subdivision is less than that plan shall require a complete, new review of the required by the zone, entire project, to include additional fees, plan sub- c. In no event is the size of any single park cr rec- mittals mittals and meetings in accordance with this section. reation area any less than four acres, and (Ord. 1998-51 § 2, 1998; Ord. 1996-58 § 4 (part), d. Said park and recreation areas, whether dedi 1996;Ord. 1994-147§3 (part), 1994;Ord. 1988-116 cated to the public or not,are reasonably available to § 4, 1988; Ord. 1986-187 § 1 (part), 1986; Ord. all Iot owners within the subdivision. 1985-187 § 1 (part), 1985; Ord. 1985-111 § 1 (part), C. Approved plat recordation approval required:No q 1985; Ord. 185-82(part), 1985) on a minimum lot size reduction shall be effective until a subdivision plat complying with the commis- 18.09.050 Lot reduction option. sion's findings and certification and approved bythe FP A. Scope: commission and supervisors is recorded in the office 1. Minimum lot size requirements for lots in a sub- - of the county recorder. (Ord. 1985-82 (part), 1985) division may be approved by the board of supervi- sors for reduction where the conditions of Section 18.09.060 Lot development option. • 18.09.050B exist and the planning and zoning corn- A. Purpose. The purpose of this option is to: mission finds and certifies them to the supervisors. 1. Permit the efficient use of land; 2. The lot reduction option is permitted in the fol- lowing zones: a. CR-1: Refer also to Section 18.21.060; 18-31 (Pima County 1 G98) LOT NJBER AREA SQUA1R FEET 30 8,054 29 7,370 28 7,370 27 6,820 26 b,820 25 7,480 24 8,603 23 9,234 22 9,710 20 8,693 19 8,950 18 9,317 Open Space 21 11,394 22 11,293 23 10,736 24 14,b46 20 10,147 Open Space 24 10,928 25 12,780 27 11,565 28 12,713 29 12,54b 32 12,376 33 11,745 34 12,801 EXBmU C , N› o,...,, ,-->000\ Q\ N II roz X oo X x 08RCf) z -3Ci cam 22 v, (ii © tr. 73 `�Yri O ori 4 n w O U) O rri N tii ` ►� - :0_ H � O n' Z N CD a N •W o n o cD c U) o 1.I T ! I U IVA 11OaVTTOHJ V7 r i ,.......►.WNW Will►.illiciii 111111.1111.`1111,1 NW 11W11111►.,. Ii i ; 1 3 I i 4 3 ---, \) 4 ' . __‘ , , 1 p p 1 1 n 0 i i- ,\ 1 \1 1 } 'illii'll"'"'"a ,'.- // \- ! 1 N __-4 � vN/ --0 11 L. ,, ., . ........ 1 3i I , 0 3Cli,) i1 0 3 o VO 1 aASS 0 1 (I) / \Irt /J70 (j 1 1 . 1 0 v / k< i1 1 LI D it 0 S 11L....( • 11 0001,/(11 1111 1111 111 1 b .....:III 1111 ! MI* 1 Or ....................,...,...„....,.. I I I I I IQ II CD CI ED III ,.< i 51) `< z t_win ... ._, I , ...____,,, V f . co iV IV -0 C'i Y. a H tz ti/mow...-i�r'cwi�• �. !L..w 13 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 4, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Dennis Silva, Jr., Planner I SUBJECT: OV13-98-33 ORO VALLEY RETAIL CENTER SIGN PACKAGE AMENDMENT LOCATED ON PARCEL D OF THE ROONEY RANCH PAD,AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND NORTH FIRST AVENUE BACKGROUND: On August 5, 1998, the Town Council approved the Oro Valley Retail Center Sign Package. Target anchors the new phase of the retail center and other tenants will be developed to the southwestern section of the parcel. The entire project occupies Parcel D of the Rooney Ranch PAD, at the southwest corner of Oracle Road and North First Avenue. David K. Jones, representing the applicant, Payless ShoeSource, requests Town Council approval, appealing DRB's recommendation of denial of an amended sign package to permit the display of sign colors as shown in the federal trademark registration. Payless ShoeSource requests to display reverse pan channel halo- illuminated individual letters, with the faces in the lettering style and the yellow and orange colors displayed 'n the federal trademark No. 1,731,803 issued on November 10, 1992. The returns and retainers will be upper patina. SUMMARY: Payless ShoeSource is using the Blockbuster Videos, Inc v. City of Tempe (141 F.3d 1295 9th Cir. 1998) case to support their request. Blockbuster used the Lanham Trademark Act to argue their case. A section of this Act states: "(b) No State or other jurisdiction of the United States or any political subdivision or any agency thereof may require alteration of a registered mark, or require that additional trademarks, service marks, trade names, or corporate names that may be associated with or incorporated into the registered mark be displayed in the mark in a manner differing from the display of such additional trademarks, service marks, trade names, or corporate names contemplated by the registered mark as exhibited in the certificate of registration issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office § 39(b), as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1121(b)." The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit held that a zoning ordinance may not require a change in a registered trademark. The current sign package for the Oro Valley Retail Center does not require a change in a registered trademark. The Town allows the logo, but restricts the size of the logo, which is a 10 square foot maximum. In the Blockbuster case, the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit stated that Congress limited Section 1121(b) to prohibiting any alteration of the mark itself. Thus, a state, political subdivision or agency remains free to regulate where, whether signs may be placed, and how large they may be. Regulating the size of the registered trademark, which the sign package restricts, complies with the Lanham Trademark Act and the decision in the Blockbuster case. he Town may also enforce the following characteristics of the sign package as approved by Town Council in August 1998: 1) Size—80%of the building front foot, 2) Maximum character height—36 inches for single line, 24 inches each for two lines, TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 2 3) Illumination—Halo-Illuminated text and logos, 4) Maximum Logo Size— 10 square feet,not to exceed maximum character height, 5) Sign Construction—Pan channel text and logos, and 6) Text—Copper Patina. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD ACTION: On July 13, 1999, the DRB recommended denial of the proposed sign package amendment by a 7—0 vote. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports DRB's recommendation of denial for the proposed Oro Valley Retail Center Sign Package Amendment finding that it does not meet the intent of the approved sign package. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move to approve the Oro Valley Retail Center Sign Package Amendment for Payless ShoeSource. OR I move to approve the Oro Valley Retail Center Sign Package Amendment for Payless ShoeSource with the following changes: OR I move to deny Oro Valley Retail Center Sign Package Amendment for Payless ShoeSource, finding that: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Payless ShoeSource proposed signage I Letter from David K. Jones, dated July 14, 1999 131,. Plann'�:_ .. d Zoni Administrator Jr /f Community Development Director CA . Town Manager F:\ov\ovi3\1998\13-98-33\SIGNAMDTC.RPT a.IL.i a LI.,. r.... LAW OFFICES --�-�; DAVID K. JONES, P.G. JUL 1 6 1999 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ONE ARIZONA CENTER 4TM FLOOR DAVID K.JONES 400 EAST VAN BUREN STREET340-09 DARIN A.SENDER PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 (602) FACSIMILE ) 340-8955 t LARRY S. LAZARUS, OF COUNSEL E-MAIL dkjpc@neta.com July 14, 1999 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Attention: Town Clerk 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 RE: Appeal to Town Council; OV 13-98-33 Oro Valley Retail Center Sign Package Amendment To the Town of Oro Valley: This is to appeal the decision of the Development Review Board made July 13, 1999 in the above-referenced matter to the Town Council for public hearing. This appeal is made for the reason that Payless ShoeSource, a prospective tenant in the Rooney Ranch Center,has a right under federal law to display the colors that are listed in its federal trademark registration,and that the sign package requirement that the letters of Payless ShoeSource's sign be displayed in a copper patina color interferes with that right. The owner of the shopping center has agreed to the proposed sign package amendment, to avoid this conflict with federal law. While we respect the intentions of the Development Review Board members, controlling legal authority has established that federal trademark law preempts conflicting local regulations in this regard. It is my understanding that the Council meeting on this case would be August 4th. I would appreciate confirmation of that fact at the earliest opportunity, in order to afford my client time to make travel arrangements in advance. Thank you. Sincerely, n'S.o David K. lig CC: Valerie Feuer Tim Noir, Esq. Mike Hodge N -1t,.), D r -4 Pd DZ�� m Z O_ Z zz ti pg, G1 _ r;"n Iv - �--� t rrs' P`I--- 0.1 "'""""e i. grb: rn — - P w: O cma„O,,1 Om I - -- 1 '-1 °° na z'', -8 -- T mcn ova O E 1 �z r m Z ETC c r N O N O O m (axe A 11 ! bi.ii MMM m o Ilw rn kW ea I m m 0 , O O CD (1) I I- __ D ilk ,CDZ (0) _�� rn D-(�ZD _ 1 Nr < [V m 0 m C a o 6) p z � CD-v 1 ,. cm Or Cm n L. . CD u" O i WAVE Mhiiii { 0c 0 O ��c 00 (j) l! t wx.,� .: 1 -.c„s. to i -1711 N --01 W I' x ` 7 m - eallLOCATION:ROONEY RANCH CENTER CITY:ORO VALLEY STATE:AZ o 91 o J ttw. DESIGNED BY:MARK GEUY DATE:01/04/99 SALES REP:ART SALLEE n m ;o I � O !D m DRAWING NUMBER:1188 PROGRAM MANAGER:MARY ANN WOODS > ma ' • GAY i �i14'- .0 'S 'M 2.."TO 18".C�'SCHG 0�N'LOCAIiN T :(1-It' a o Olin VI i 8 ;MG i 02/09/99 'REMOVE BACKGROUND EYEBROW. -+ C I MG I 03/22/99 ;CNG SIZE OF 1795"PAY1055"-24""SHOESO/RCE" 16' o a REVISIONS: T REY BY DATE DESCRIPTION N 0 witw w o A Feud 9• 1 yv7 TtYs is r cagey,urKuttlsne�f• na,sutmtte�In a_nnecticn Wlih•�F{•sect we•ze Gt�nnn�t.t yu �', gii.- 1 It is nth t�•).o_,74. reFr_. 1,a Vi i,_t sR:wn t_any,_rie.'-_ •fie;, u�»,yr�lk�wtlh_ut whiten Fermsgrn•_i Fe]e,,s, N -' x D r O nr �. T OBD :O� nD D r.n <c' OZ�m OON g mO� IIINIIIIIIIIIIOI �7� m gm0 g T �z� Z 'n�� i iii.ill‘up a pip) Z to rt.2 g Ng n i m O n rr C1 --. __Li--_______,_ 1.:, . ,. K m Q D mQ� ZC 1 m O ap1. y -T-__ t — -- p i o H cc r m z m no 2 r ocraON Ox C m Z �z0 r w P 2 T i O F N O D ill N O O m a / \) g O 7 O r m R I , m 7 N O z 7,3 la" ,m S z It^ n A m O O I m CDD_—0 a , N C CDN �cI,g3 N Z m C z 6? V0 r- 5 g ci" 0 = r Oct Q 6' -.,u, - .-.'7,.'f.7-'-i 10 CQC -- I 0CD O�m I 41 -0 cin� 'DO"N CJi C') y m . 6 111 =lig LOCATION:ROONEY RANCH CENTER CITY:ORO VALLEY STATE:AZ J o DESIGNED BY:MARK GEUY DATE:01/04/99 SALES REP:ART SALLEE54 IV Eli T 00 E DRAWING NUMBER:1188 PROGRAM MANAGER:MARY ANN WOODS N ; E f ' 'S fRM?2"TO f8"CTRS CH OTHER l� I�N R P ;42 �' 911 V 1 B i MG 02/09/99 ;REMOVE BACKGROUND EYEBROW. J �r C I MG 03/22/99 ,CHG SIZE OF LTRS"PAYLESS"-24""SHOESOURCF"-f6 0 — it REVISIONS: REV.1 BY DATE ;DESCRIPTION N Z gai p W o /0 el w ©Fe•�rd 9•�1 l�,v1 TFvs is,r�tl��ny,ur�utTlshe�•f•Tvin�,surrrYlte�In a=nrx-dlcn wlih Frc�act we•ie Gt��nnn;�t«Nu � It Is n•.{1�•to o_�le•Z ie�t•=.]�x;vj,e�GVCltej ct sh'_wn t_�•Tr=rie Cutsl•]e>ti_u•.r,>]rYz•�tic�wlth_tA written Ferrriii5b_�n ca e�r•y S��n. p 7 ,,,g*"01\ \:"13 tk?!KEir' 6tWini • 4;4' eirtit.'; MEMORANDUM _ .. _ . ,r . DATE: July 28, 1999 TO: Bryant Nodine FROM: Dan Dudley, Town Attorney SUBJECT: OV 13-98-33, ORO VALLEY RETAIL CENTER SIGN PACKAGE AMENDMENT At your request, I reviewed the issue of whether Oro Valley could, by virtue of its ordinance, restrict the utilization in a retail center of a registered trademark to a specific size. As you are aware, the 9th Circuit in 'Blockbuster Videos, Inc v. City of Tempe 141F.3d 1295 (9th Circuit 1998) has held that a municipality is prohibited from enforcing a zoning ordinance which requires the alteration of a registered mark pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1121(B) 1994. The court found that a registered mark can include color as part of that mark and if color is included as part of that registered mark, a municipality cannot enforce a zoning ordinance which would alter the mark by prohibiting the use of that color within that registered mark. The court, however, also determined that a municipality could prohibit the use of a registered mark in exterior signage through its Zoning Code as that would not be an alteration of the registered mark and therefor not be a violation of the federal law. It is my understanding, based upon the information provided, that the applicant is alleging that our current sign ordinance has the impact of requiring the alteration of its trademark and or its trade name and therefor is in conflict with 15 U.S.C. Section 1121(B) and is unenforceable. 1 Of note is the fact that the 2nd Circuit in Lisa's Party City v. Town of Henrietta 2F. Supp. 2d 378 (April 26, 1998) held, unlike our own 9th Circuit, that a municipality could, through a zoning ordinance, prohibit the use of color in a trademark contained within an exterior sign. The impact of that case however is limited in our jurisdiction until the U.S. Supreme Court decides to address the issue and resolve the differences between the circuits. OV 13-98-33,ORO VALLEY RETAIL CENTER SIGN PACKAGE AMENDMENT Page 2 This particular issue was not addressed directly by the 9th Circuit but guidance can certainly be had from the Blockbuster case. I cannot find any language in either the Blockbuster case, its companion case, or any other 9th Circuit or U.S. Supreme Court case which would prohibit the Town from limiting the size of an exterior sign containing a trademark/trade name as long as we do not in that process require the alteration of the trademark. DD/cl c: Valerie Feuer Dennis Silva