Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV99951 o o1/ TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • Building Safety • Parks and Recreation = • Planning and Zoning • Transit Services • adkiPLANNING&ZONING DIVISION PO �g1 11,000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley AZ 85737 UN D EO Phone: 797-9797 Fax: 742-1022 March 9t, 1999 Subject: OV9-99-51 Hallaq Property, Translational Zoning from Pima County CB-1, CR-2 and TR to Oro Valley C-1, R1-10 and R-6 — Neighborhood Meeting Dear Oro Valley Citizen, In our continuing effort to keep the public informed and involved in the planning and development of our town,we wish to invite you to a meeting to be held between the owners of the Hallaq property , the neighboring property owners, and members of the Oro Valley Planning & Zoning Staff. This opportunity will allow you to express your views and / or concerns over the translational zoning for this property. The translational zoning for this property will be as follows: • 10 acres of County CB-1 Commercial to Oro Valley C-1 Commercial • 20 acres of County TR to Oro Valley R-6 Multifamily Residential(apartments) • 50 acres of County CR-2 to Oro Valley R1-10 Single Family Residential (10,000 square foot lots) The meeting will be held Monday, March 22nd, 1999 at 7:00 pm in the Town Council Chambers, Oro Valley Town Hall, located at 11,000 North La Canada Drive. Should you have any questions regarding this meeting,or the translational zoning of the Hallaq property in general, please contact the planner responsible for this case, David Marsh, at (520) 797-9797 ext. 311. Sincer= y, Bry. 7dine,AICP Plannin: &Zoning Administrator Attachment: Location Map(see over) \\OV PZD\PZ1\OV\OV9\1999\9-99-51\neighbormtg.ltr.doc 1/1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING&ZONING COMMISSION In accordance with ARS 9-462,9-471 and Section 3-108 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised,NOTICE OF TRANSLATIONAL ZONING PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME : at or after 6:00 p.m.on TUESDAY,APRIL 6TH,1999 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall 11,000 N.La Canada Drive Oro Valley,Arizona SUBJECT: OV9-99-51 PARCEL # 224-24-0120 AND PARCEL # 224-24-0130, TRANSLATING AND REZONING RECENTLY ANNEXED LAND KNOWN AS THE HALLAQ PROPERTIES, FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1 (COMMERCIAL), TR (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICES), AND CR-2 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO ORO VALLEY C-1 (COMMERCIAL), R-6 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICES),AND R1-10(SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) In accordance with Arizona State Statute,the zoning on the above-referenced properties must be translated and rezoned from Pima County Zoning Classifications to the nearest Oro Valley Zoning Classifications. LOCATION: The property listed is located in the area known as Map 4, and is located at the north-east corner of Lambert Lane and La Cholla Boulevard. The property extends approximately'/4 mile north of Lambert Lane,and approximately 1/2 mile east of La Cholla Boulevard. DESCRIPTION: A detailed location and description of the parcel slated to be translated can be obtained at the Oro Valley Town Hall. Members •f the public are invited to this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. An agenda for the me"g will b- made available 24 hours prior to meeting time. Should you have any questions regal" this a er, Ili:se contact David Marsh at(520)797-9797. l„t Bry7111Frodine AICP Planni . &Zoning Administrator Town of Oro Valley F:\OV\OV9\1999\9-99-51\hallagNOTICE.PZ.doc POSTED: 3/ 19/99 11:00 AM SR 4 I AFFIDAVIT PUBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA) :ss, COUNTY OF PIMA -L ACEY S T T. NSON beingfirst 1 � • - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING duly sworn, deposes and says that (he) (she) is the Legal Advertising Manager BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION In accordance with ARS 9-462, of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the 9-47' and Section 3-106 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revise°, NOTICE OF TRANSLATIONAL ZONING PUBLIC HEARING BE- County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tucson, FORE THE ORO VALLEY PLAN- NING & ZONING COMMISSION IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 6:00 p.m. or, County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached TUESDAY, APRIL 6TH, 1999 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, HAL_LA1 P PfPE R 1'I ES 11,00C N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona PUBLIC NOTICE SUBJECT: 0V9-99-51 PARCEL 4 224-24-012C AND PARCEL 4 Q _ 224-24-0130, TRANSLATING AND REZONING RECENTLY ANNEXED LAND KNOWN AS THE HALLAO PROPERTIES, FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1 (COMMERCIAL), TR (MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OF- FICES), AND CR-2 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO ORO VALLEY C-1 (COMMER- was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE CIAL), R-6 (MULTI-FAMILY RE- SIDENTIAL AND OFFICES), AND R1-10 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DAILY TERRITORIAL for issues; that the first was made In accordance with Arizona State Statute.the zoning on the above- referenced properties must be translated and rezoned from on the day of 19 Pima County Zoning Classifica- 22 ri MARCH tions tc the nearest Oro Valley Zoning Classifications. LOCATION: The property listed and the last publication thereof was made on the -t r,,j day of is located in the area known as Map 4, and is located at the north-east corner of Lambert Lane and La Cholla Boulevard. MARCH 19 ;that said publication The property extends approxi- mately 1/4 mile north of Lambert Lane,ano approximately 1/2 mile east of La Cholla Boulevard. was made on each of the following dates,to-wit: DESCRIPTION: A detailed loca- tion and description of the parcel slates to be translated can be 0• /.:::.,'.«1/V V obtained at the Oro Valley Town r Hall. • t Members of the public are invited `' to this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. An agenda for the meeting will be made available 24 hours prior to j .--.y F- 'seetinc time. Should you have any questions regarding this mat- ter, please contact David Marsh Request of � i tti! ��� ORO VAL.L...t Y at(520)797-9797. Bryant Nodine Bryant Nodine AICP Planning & Zoning Administrator Town of Oro Valley Pub: The Daily Territorial March 22, 1999 Req: Town of Oro Valley pnhallao 3/22/99 do The �Daily Territorial By Subscribed and sworn to before me this - ri day of MARCH 19 OFFICIAL SEAL DAWN LEIGH DOUGALL l NOTARY PUBLIC-ARIZONA PIMA COUNTY tPuu.scz:) ) `- My Comm. Ex;ires Sept.20,2002 Notary Public in and for the County of Pima, State of Arizona My Commission Expires: Vc4.4r1/4:'.G NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL In accordance with ARS 9-462,9-471 and Section 3-108 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised,NOTICE OF TRANSLATIONAL ZONING PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME : at or after 7:00 p.m.on WEDNESDAY,APRIL 12TH,1999 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall 11,000 N.La Canada Drive Oro Valley,Arizona SUBJECT: OV9-99-51 PARCEL # 224-24-0120 AND PARCEL # 224-24-0130, TRANSLATING AND REZONING RECENTLY ANNEXED LAND KNOWN AS THE HALLAQ PROPERTIES, FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1 (COMMERCIAL), TR(MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICES), AND CR-2 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO ORO VALLEY C-1 (COMMERCIAL), R-6 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICES),AND R1-10(SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) In accordance with Arizona State Statute, the zoning on the above-referenced properties must be translated and rezoned from Pima County Zoning Classifications to the nearest Oro Valley Zoning Classifications. LOCATION: The property listed is located in the area known as Map 4, and is located at the north-east corner of Lambert Lane and La Cholla Boulevard. The property extends approximately'/4 mile north of Lambert Lane,and approximately'/A mile east of La Cholla Boulevard. DESCRIPTION: A detailed location and description of the parcel slated to be translated can be obtained at the Oro Valley Town Hall. Members of the public are invited to this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. An agenda for the meet' g will be made available 24 hours prior to meeting time. Should you have any questions regars' this m tt , e se contact David Marsh at(520)797-9797. Bryan i ine AICP Planning&Zoning Administrator Town of Oro Valley F:\OV\OV9\1999\9-99-51\hallagNOTICE.TC.doc AFFIDAVI PUBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA) :ss. COUNTY OF PIMA 1 ST ACEY S I .I:NSON being first NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING dulysworn, deposes and says that (he) (she) is the Legal AdvertisingManager BEFORE THE ORO P Y 9 VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL In accordance with ARS 9-462, 9-471 and Section 3-108 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the NOTICE OF TRANSLATIONAL ZONING PUBLIC HEARING BE- FORE THE ORC VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL IS HEREBY County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tucson, GIVEN: TIME: at or after 7:00 p.m. on MONDAY, APRIL 12TH, 1999 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hail County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached 11,000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona Fl t.......(...r PROP E c-t r i t�r.2i SUBJECT OV9-99-51 PARCEL a 224-24-0120 AND PARCEL a PI.IBL I C: NOT I CE 224-24-0130. TRANSLATING AND REZONING RECENTLY ANNEXED LAND KNOWN AS THE HALLAQ PROPERTIES, FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1 (COMMERCIAL), TR (MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OF- FICES), AND CR-2 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO ORO VALLEY C-1 (COMMER- CIAL),SDETIAR-6 (MULTI-FAMILYOFFICES),RE- wasprinted andpublished correctlyin the regular and entire issue of said THE SIDENTIAL AND � g AND R1-10 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) In accordance with Arizona State Statute,the zoning on the above- DAILY TERRITORIAL for issues; that the first was made referenced properties must be translated and rezoned from Pima County Zoning Classifica- tions to the nearest Oro Valley on the day of 19 Zoning Classifications. h MARCH 9,;,p LOCATION: The property listed • is located in the area known as Map 4. and is iocated at the and the last publication thereof was made on the . day of north-east corner of Lambert """'�t +} Lane and La Cholla Boulevard. • The property extends approxi- mately 1/4 mile north of Lambert MARCH 19 ;that said publication Lane,and approximately 1/2 mile east of La Cholla Boulevard. DESCRIPTION: A detailed loca- tion and description of the parcel was made on each of the following dates,to-wit: slated to be translated can be obtained at the Oro Valley Town w. Hall. 0. /2 /99 Members of the public are invited to this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. An agenda for the meeting will be made available 24 hours prior to meeting time. Should you have any questions regarding this mat- • ter, please contact David Marsh r ' �� at(520)797-9797.Bryant Nodine Request of ,.� Bryant Nodine AICP Planning & , r,�j IAIN OF ORO VALLEY Zoning Administrator Town of Oro Valley Pub: The Daily Territorial • March 29, 1999 ► Req: Town of Oro Valley pnhallaq 3/29/99 do Daily BySLAA- 4'1 1 • Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of MARCH 19 sr, OFFICIAL SSA h` DAWN LEIGH DOUGALL - � - NOTP,RY PUBLIC-ARIZONA PIMA COUNTY J1?. * ,,ly Oorrm. Exr res 5'.r- 2C,2002 Notary Public in and for the County of Pima, State of Arizona My Commission Expires:...t43/0,% f , MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL SESSION ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE APRIL 12, 1999 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Paul Loomis, Mayor Francis LaSala, Council Member Wayne Bryant, Council Member EXCUSED: Dick Johnson, Vice Mayor Paul Parisi, Council Member 1. PUBLIC HEARING—ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-24 STEWART TITLE AND TRUST PROPERTY (AKA CHAPARRAL HEIGHTS), TRANSLATIONAL ZONING FROM PIMA COUNTY CR-1 TO ORO VALLEY R1-20, WITH CONDITIONS (LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD) Robert C. Stubbs,representing the applicant. Mr. Stubbs stated this is a translational zoning,translating from Pima County CR-1 to Oro Valley R1-20 limited to 150 units per acre. He stated the Planning & Zoning Commission's recommendations that the minimum lot size should be 24,000 square feet rather than the 20,000 square feet permitted in the R1-20, is in conflict with the pre-annexation agreement. He pointed out that the height in CR-1 is 34 feet,the height in R1-20 is 18 feet. He asked that the Town Council adopt the ordinance with R1-20 limited to 150 units per acre as bound by the pre- annexation agreement. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. Alan Lathram, 1750 W. Tangerine Road. Mr. Lathram asked about the requirement of preserving the ironwood trees in the area. Dr. Chatfield explained the process the Town follows to preserve vegetation. Mr. Lathram voiced his opposition to the translational zonings scheduled for adoption this evening and pointed out that these are all within the Town of Tortolita. Barbara Smith, 13600 N. Como Drive. Mrs. Smith voiced her opposition to all of the translational zonings scheduled for adoption this evening and distributed the most recent ruling issued by the Arizona Court of Appeals and dated 11-24-98. She stated that since 04-12-99 Minutes, Council Special Session 6 Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to continue this item to May 5, 1999 and direct staff to check into the flight pattern of the airport and direct legal staff to look into issues discussed tonight. MOTION seconded by Mayor Loomis. MOTION carried 3 —0. 10. PUBLIC HEARING—THE HALLAQ PROPERTIES FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1, TR AND CR-2 TO ORO VALLEY C-1,R-6 AND R1-10 (LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD Dr. Chatfield requested a continuance of this item until such time as the Planning & Zoning Commission has heard this item and made a recommendation. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. There being no additional comments,the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Council Member LaSala moved to continue 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-1, R-6 and R 1-10. MOTION seconded by Council Member Bryant. MOTION carried 3 —O. ADJOURNMENT Council Member LaSala MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. MOTION seconded by Council Member Bryant. MOTION carried 3 —0. Respectfully submitted, leoftFt. cr Kathryn E. Cuvelier, CMC Town Clerk I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the meeting of the Town Council of Oro Valley,Arizona held on the 12th day of April 1999. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 26th day of April 1999. Kathryn E. Cuvelier, CMC Town Clerk NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING&ZONING COMNIISSION In accordance with ARS 9-462, 9-471 and Section 3-108 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised,NOTICE OF TRANSLATIONAL ZONING PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING COMNIISSION IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME : at or after 6:00 p.m.on TUESDAY,MAY 4TH, 1999 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall 11,000 N.La Canada Drive Oro Valley,Arizona SUBJECT: OV9-99-51 PARCEL # 224-24-0120 AND PARCEL # 224-24-0130, TRANSLATING AND REZONING RECENTLY ANNEXED LAND KNOWN AS THE HALLAQ PROPERTIES, FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1 (COMMERCIAL), TR (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICES), AND CR-2 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO ORO VALLEY C-2 (COMMERCIAL), R-6 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICES),AND R1-10(SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL),WITH CONDITIONS In accordance with Arizona State Statute,the zoning on the above-referenced properties must be translated and rezoned from Pima County Zoning Classifications to the nearest Oro Valley Zoning Classifications. LOCATION: The property listed is located in the area known as Map 4, and is located at the north-east corner of Lambert Lane and La Cholla Boulevard. The property extends approximately'/4 mile north of Lambert Lane, and approximately 1/2 mile east of La Cholla Boulevard. DESCRIPTION: A detailed location and description of the parcel slated to be translated can be obtained at the Oro Valley Town Hall. Members he public are invited to this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. An agenda for the me ng wil be made available 24 hours prior to meeting time. Should you have any questions rega 1 this a r lease contact David Marsh at(520) 797-9797. Brya dine AICP Planning&Zoning Administrator Town of Oro Valley F:\OV\OV9\1999\9-99-51\hal lagNOTICE2.PZ.doc POSTED: 4/20/99 12 : 30 SR • AFFIDAVIT UBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA) :ss. COUNTY OF PIMA ) STAA C EY o T i'NSON being first NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY duly sworn, deposes and says that:U(s )g foo.egal Advertising Manager PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION In accordance with ARS 9-462, 9-471 and Section 3-108 of the of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper`printed and published in the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, NOTICE OF TRANSLATIONAL ZONING PUBLIC HEARING BE- FORE THE VALLEYORPLAN- Countyof Pima, State o*Arizona, and ofgeneral circulation in the Cityof Tucson, PLAN- NING & ZONING COMMISSION ISSION is HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 6:00 p.m. on TPLACE: MAY Valley4T Town Countyof Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached PLACE: Oro Hall 11,000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona itV9„.,99_51 . ARC:EL SUBJECT: OV9-99-51 PARCEL #224-24-0120 AND PARCEL # #2 2 4—24—0 1 1.•w 0 224-24-013C. TRANSLATING _ AND REZONING RECENTLY ANNEXED LAND KNOWN AS THE �-!•�, � • THE HALLAQ PROPERTIES, FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1 (COMMERCIAL), TR (MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OF- FICES), AND CR-2 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO ORO VALLEY C-2 (COMMER- CIAL), R-6 (MULTI-FAMILY RE- was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE SIDENTIAL AND OFFICES), AND R1-10 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). WITH CONDI- TIONS DAILY TERRITORIAL for issues; that the first was made In accordance with Arizona State Statute, the zoning on the above referenced properties must be translated and rezoned from on the dayof 19 Pima County Zoning Classifica- tions to the nearest Ore Valley • - APR 1.1 ``C) Zoning Classifications. LOCATION: The property listed and the last publication thereof was made on the day of is located in the area Known as 9 t I Map 4, and is located at the north-east corner of Lambert Lane and La Cholla Boulevard. The property extends approxi- APR I L 19 ;that said publication mateiy 1/4 mile north of Lambert Lane,and approximately 1/2 mile east of La Cholla Boulevard.DESCRIPTION: A detailed loca- was made on each of the following dates,to-wit: Lion and description of the parcel slated to be translated can be obtained at the Oro Valley Town Hall. Hall. Members of the public are invited to this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. An agenda for the meeting will be made available 24 hours prior to meetinc time. Should you have any questions regarding this mat- ter, please contact David Marsh Request of at(520)797-9797.Bryant Nodine iJWN OF OR(...) VAL.L..EY Bryant Nodine AICP Planning & Zoning Administrator Town of Oro Valley Pub: The Daily Territorial April 19, 1999 Req: Town of Oro Valley pnhaliaq 4/19/99 tjs DailyTerritorial By Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of OFFICIAL SEAL 19 NI DAWN LEIGH DOUGALL NOTARY PUBLIC-ARIZONA ►y PIMA COUNTY s My Comm. Expires Sept,20,2002 Notary Public in and for the County of Pima,State of Arizona My Commission Expires:)60/n, • Page 1 of 7 Andrews, Joe From: Ritchie,Shannon Sent: Friday,April 19,2002 2:55 PM To: Andrews,Joe Subject: More Hallaq (May and July 1999) MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMIMIISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 4, 1999 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N.LA CANADA DRIVE 3. PUBLIC HEARING: OV9-99-51,PARCEL#224-24-0120,AND PARCEL#224-24-0130, TRANSLATING AND REZONING 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 RI-10,WITH CONDITIONS,LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 611-, 1999 MEETING). Mr. Nodine, AICP reported that the Town is required to change, or "translate", the zoning on the annexed property from the CB-1, TR and CR-2 Pima County zoning designations to the closest comparable Oro Valley zoning designations which are C-1, R-6, and R1-10, respectively. He stated that staff has recommended a continuance, non-date specific, to address options in the translation. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED David Volk, 3745 North Leamaria, represented the applicant and since recommendation is for continuance, non-date specific he does not see the need to talk at this time. Richard Tracy, 10674 North Sand Canyon Place, President of the D and E Homeowner's Association, stated that he is opposed to the rezoning because there is not a simple solution. Mr. Tracy added that he is already on record of what their position is and does not need to restate his comments. He expressed concern for the TR to the R-6 translation, he would also like to suggest that if there are any other choices that could be used for zoning translation, they would like to made aware of this. He asked that he be kept personally aware of anything that transpires regarding this property. Mr. Nodine, AICP replied that the only other one is PAD, which is a Planned Area Development and the TR zoning into Oro Valley as its own zoning category, PAD and then add conditions. Glen Smith, 10631 North Sand Canyon Place, stated that he had spoken to David Marsh in Planning and Zoning and would like to say thank you for the courteous assistance that he had received from David. 4/19/2002 • Page 2 of 7 Mr. Smith added that he understood that there were different translations that could be made. Mr.Nodine, AICP stated that the details are still being worked out at this time. In answer to Mr. Smith's question,Mr. Nodine, AICP stated that he did not know if Vice Mayor Dick Johnson was going to host an open forum and that he could call the Town Clerk's office to find out. Steven Shocat, 1795 West Hunter, stated that he would like to remind the Commission that in his opinion the said property is not in Oro Valley and would also like to mention that there have been a few instances (in the translational zonings that the Town of Oro Valley has perfected, in the alleged annexation areas)that seem to not conform to State Law. State Law requires that translational zoning is equivalent to or less than intensities already existing. He suggested to the Commission that Oro Valley should rearrange their zoning categories to conform to that of the County. He stated that Oro Valley is very likely to run into opposition of translational zonings in the near future. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION: Moved/Seconded (Briggs/Partridge) and carried by a 7-0 vote to continue OV9-99-51, Parcel #224-24-0120, and Parcel #224-24-0130,Translating and Rezoning 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, non-date specific. MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1999 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N.LA CANADA DRIVE 1. PUBLIC HEARING: OV9-99-51,TRANSLATIONAL ZONING FOR THE HALLAQ PROPERTY,LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD, (CONTINUED,NON-DATE SPECIFIC FROM THE MAY 4 , 1999 MEETING) Planning and Zoning Administrator Bryant Nodine, AICP reported that 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. This item was reviewed by the Commission on April 6th, 1999 and continued to the May 4th, 1999 meeting. At the May 4th, 1999 meeting, the Commission continued the item non-date specific until such time that Staff and the property owner could resolve several outstanding issues. 4/19/2002 • Page 3 of 7 Mr. Nodine, AICP stated that 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 Mr. Nodine, AICP informed the Planning Commissioners that meetings with the neighbors by Staff and the two 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 restricts 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 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 will allow a lower overall density of 2 dwelling units per acre (DU/ac), and will result in an increase in open space preservation through clustering. Mr. Nodine, AICP reported that because all of 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. Mr. Nodine, AICP explained that the one outstanding issue that remains is a proposed time restriction on the CB-1 to C-2 Commercial translation. Staff has requested 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. Mr. Nodine, AICP added that 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 DU/ac) which does not comply with the proposed translated zoning of C-2, R-6, and R1-10; however, the current Pima County CB-1, TR, and CR-2 zoning designations existed prior to the property being annexed into the Town. Mr. Nodine, AICP concluded with Staffs recommendation which is 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, with the conditions listed in Exhibit A. 4/19/2002 . Page 4 of 7 Exhibit A, Conditions for Approval, OV9-99-51, Hallaq Translational Zoning: 1. A 16,000 square foot minimum lot size shall apply for the area 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 area may not exceed two DU/ac. 2. The 5 acre R-6 parcel located immediately to the north of the 10 acre C-2 parcel shall not exceed a maximum density of 12.5 DU/ac. 3. The 15 acre R-6 parcel located along Lambert Lane shall not exceed a maximum density of 18 DU/ac. 4. The property owner, and their successors, shall record a final plat or begin construction upon an approved development plan 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. In response to Commissioner Briggs' question, Mr. Nodine, AICP answered that normally translational zonings carry a time limit because the staff does not know what the conditions will be in the future. Conditions do change and appropriate uses might change as well. Larry Shubart, Attorney with Stubbs and Schubart, 340 N. Main, Tucson, stated that the staff report was a very comprehensive report. He would like to add a couple of comments regarding the suggested conditions of the translational zoning. Mr. Schubart explained that he and his client are in agreement with the conditions that have been proposed with the exception of the time constraint. He added that Pima County does not have time constraints and he felt that it is not realistic that a commercial development could be finished within a five year time period. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Glenn Smith, 10631 N. Sand Canyon, Oro Valley, stated that he appreciated the efforts that staff and the Hallaq's had worked out. Mr. Smith stated the he understood that in RI-10 and R6 the maximum building height is 25 feet. He asked the Commission to restrict the height of the buildings to 18 feet for all properties. Mr. Nodine, AICP confirmed that the maximum building height in those districts is 25 feet. Richard Tracy, 10647 N. Sand Canyon, Oro Valley, stated that he is the President of the La Privada Homeowners Association and his property is north of the affected properties. He was under the misguided impression that homeowners of the adjoining properties were going to be included in the compromise conference. He stated that it was said that there were not any other issues. Mr. Tracy stated that there were many issues that needed to be addressed regarding washes, wildlife, etc. He concluded that the opposition backed off because he was under the impression that the homeowners were going to be included and they were not. Chair Douglas asked Mr. Tracy if his Homeowner's Association represented all of the affected properties. 4/19/2002 • Page 5 of 7 In answer to Chair Douglas' question, Mr. Tracy stated that his Homeowner's Association did not represent all of the affected areas. Commissioner Ruble asked Mr. Tracy what he did or did not like about the proposed translational zoning and or the conditions. In response to Commissioner Ruble's question, Mr. Tracy explained that views to the south are going to be obstructed. The homeowners in the lower section have paid serious money for the fabulous views. He added that people who do not own their own homes do not have the same concerns for the neighborhood community. In answer to Commissioner Moody's question, Mr. Tracy stated that yes, the homeowner should be responsible in finding out what the zoning is surrounding their property if there are issues that concern them. In response to Chair Douglas' question, Mr. Nodine, AICP stated that all property owners within 600 feet of the proposed translational zoning were noticed. Mr. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye, Oro Valley, stated that during the Pusch Ridge Apartment debate a 12.5 unit cap was evolved. All you have to do is drive by the Rock Ridge and Pusch Ridge Apartments and see the difference. The 12.5 is plenty, it may not make a dramatic difference but in terms of the mass and the bulk impression on the thoroughfare. He added that he would like the Commission to request a 12.5 cap instead of the 18 cap that was recommended. In response to Chair Douglas' question, Mr.Nodine stated that this is a translational zoning request and an amendment to the general plan is not needed. Mike Sellers, 1825 W. Wimbledon Way, Oro Valley, stated that he has been a resident at this address for seven and a half years and he has seen a lot things happen in Oro Valley. Mr. Sellers stated that there are not enough roads or schools in Oro Valley. He added that his daughter graduated from Canyon Del Oro High School four years ago. By the time his son, who is in 7th grade now, reaches high school the high school will probably just start stacking the kids on top of each other. The big picture is the type of environment that this property has. It is a very pristine area with wildlife and numerous washes, once development starts there is going to be significant grading done in order to build what has been proposed. He concluded by stating the beautiful desert is just being ground under and the homes are being built one on top of another. Bill Belskis, 1637 N. Sand Canyon Place, Oro Valley, stated that he would like to have the proposed property strictly residential. He asked the Commission to consider just residential for this property, no commercial developments or apartments. Ken Bowen, 2073 W. Three Oaks, Oro Valley, stated that when he and his wife bought their property at a premium price. At that time, he was told by U.S. Homes that nothing would ever be built on that property. Mr. Schubart added that this is not a request for a rezoning, this is merely a translation of existing zoning adopted by Pima County to the most appropriate zoning denomination in Oro Valley. It is not that type of discretion, whereas to down zone the property to make it one home, to put restraints on otherwise permissible heights. He would like no one to overlook the tremendous concessions that the 4/19/2002 Page 6 of 7 Hallags have voluntarily made on this matter. Under Pima County zoning the Hallags have the right to plat 43 homes per acre (TR Zone), to do the commercial site,to do everything that is permitted under the CD-1 zone in Pima County. To develop what was CR-2, to the maximum permissible intensity without any conditions or otherwise restraints on that rezoning. That is not what the Hallags want to do and the concessions should not be overlooked. He concluded that the amount of development has been greatly reduced and would like to ask that staff's recommendations be approved as written, without any time constraints imposed upon the commercial development. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Mr.Nodine, AICP, stated that he would like to clarify the states requirements in reference to rezoning. First of all there is a requirement to translate to the closest equivalent zoning that Oro Valley has. The other requirement is that the density cannot be increased. He added that the density is a lot less than what Pima County allows. The Town could not translate this to one unit per acre or all residential and meet the state requirements, it would be an illegal translation. Mr.Nodine, AICP pointed out that the only way this does not meet the closest Oro Valley equivalent is the added provision of 18 dwelling units per acre in the apartments that would be right along Lambert Lane, as opposed to the 12.5 dwelling units per acre that the code requires. That is in response to what the applicant has done by moving the dwelling units per acre down to Lambert Lane versus La Canada. Commissioner Briggs stated that it would be beneficial for people to know that the translational zoning is just the first step. There are still the matters of an approved development plan, grading permit for substantial grading, etc. It is important to remember that this is the beginning. Mr. Nodine, AICP stated that this is really the beginning of the process. The next step would be a preliminary plat for the single-family residential areas or a development plan for multi family residential and commercial projects. Those plans go before the Development Review Board and the Town Council. At the Development Review Board these plans are not considered public hearings, but typically people are allowed to speak. The next step after that is approval of a preliminary plat and or an approval of a development plan is to submit improvement plans, a grading plan, and those are reviewed per Oro Valley standards. The Grading Ordinance in Oro Valley has a maximum eight foot if you meet certain conditions, or six foot typically cut and fill, which is opposed to no limit in Pima County in terms of cut and fill. So there is significantly less potential for grading in Oro Valley. The other requirement for this type of development is for the grading plan to go to the Development Review Board and it has to be phased. Essentially only about 75 units at a time can be graded and the remainder of the grading has to be spread out over a number of years. The same is true of the development plan that might or might not have to be phased, that is at the breaking even point in terms of whether it is required or not. In answer to Commissioner Wiant's question, Mr.Nodine, AICP stated that the Pima County Zoning has been in since it was adopted August 24, 1970. In response to Commissioner Ruble's question, Mr. Nodine, AICP explained that the distance between the panhandle zoned R1-10 and the R6 and the pad at the top is about 300 feet. Chair Douglas stated that he agrees that all of the commercial development should not be on Oracle Road. He explained that appropriate commercial developments should be very strategically positioned throughout the community so that revenues can be generated for the town and people of the community can find the services that they need. Chair Douglas stated that he is in favor of restricting the fifteen acre parcel to the 12.5 cap on the dwelling units and encourages the time constraint suggested by Planning staff. 4/19/2002 Page 7 of 7 Commissioner Moody stated that at the time he purchased his property he had not checked the zoning surrounding his subdivision. Having known then what he knows now and seeing the apartment complex that has been built and is continuing to be built, he would not have purchased his house in that location. MOTION: Moved/Seconded (Moody/Wiant) and carried by a 5-0 vote to recommend approval of OV9-99-51, translational 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 RI-10,with the maximum of 12.5 units per acre under the appropriate zoning and the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit A: 1. A 16,000 square foot minimum lot size shall apply for the area translated to the RI-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 RI-10 area may not exceed two DU/ac. 2. The 5 acre R-6 parcel located immediately to the north of the 10 acre C-2 parcel shall not exceed a maximum density of 12.5 DU/ac. 3. The 15 acre R-6 parcel located along Lambert Lane shall not exceed a maximum density of 12.5 DU/ac. 4. The property owner, and their successors, shall record a final plat or begin construction upon an approved development plan 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 designation for the C-2 site is amended to "Community Commercial" by July 6,2004. Shannon Ritchie,Secretary III Town of Oro Valley Planning and Zoning 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley AZ 85737 (520)229-4815 phone (520)742-1022 fax 4/19/2002 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION In accordance with ARS 9-462 and Section 3-203 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, NOTICE OF REZONING PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, 11,000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: OV9-01-04, TRANSLATIONAL ZONING FROM PIMA COUNTY CODES TO ORO VALLEY CODES FOR A 350-ACRE PARCEL ANNEXED INTO TOWN OF ORO VALLEY KNOWN AS RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 12, LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD IN THE NOTCH FORMED BY THE TOWN BOUNDARIES BETWEEN RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOODS 11 AND 13 DESCRIPTION: In March 2002, the Town of Oro Valley annexed the area known as Neighborhood 12. In accordance with State Statutes, the Town is required to change, or "translate" the zoning on the annexed properties from its original zoning designations to the closest comparable Oro Valley zoning designation. Following is a list of parcels involved in this translational zoning: Parcel Area Current Pima County Adopted Oro Valley (Acres) Zoning Zoning 219-04- 190.0 CR-1 (Single Family PAD (Rancho Vistoso) 009E Residence) 219-20- 143.2 CR-5 (Multiple Residence PAD (Rancho Vistoso) 002A Zone) 219-20- 16.3 RH(Rural Homestead) PAD (Rancho Vistoso) 002B TOTAL 349.5 Members of the public are invited to attend this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Sangeeta Jain, Planner II at (520) 229-4800. Bayer Vella, AICP Senior Planner \\OV PZD\PZ1\OV\OV9\2001\9-01-04\P&Z Notice June 2002.doc it AFFIDAVIT Cr- ''UBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA) :ss. COUNTY OF PIMA ) being first duly sworn, deposes and says that (he) (she) is the Legal Advertising Manager of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tuc- son, County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached 0V9-99-51 PUB .«IC NOTICE was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE DALLY TERRITORIAL for issues; that was first made 2 4 h on the day of 20 4t h and the last publication thereof was made on the day of 20 ; that said publication was made on each of the following dates, to-wit: Request of r.. ,1 i«fit %R t VALLEY TAe i Dal Territorial By 14,7/ /6 LI Subscribed and s`Worn to before me this da of Y 20 Z %c rK NANN NOrary Public p �DmyComm,fMA.eiis Aril 15 2005 Notary Public in and for the County of Pima, State of Arizona My Commission Expires: C`1 t V C NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL In accordance with ARS 9-462,9-471 and Section 3-108 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, NOTICE OF TRANSLATIONAL ZONING PUBLIC HEARING BE- FORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME:at or after 7:00 p.m.on WEDNESDAY,JUNE 19TH,2002 PLACE:Oro Valley Town Hall 11,000 N.La Canada Drive Oro Valley,Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: OV9-99-51, TRANSLATING AND REZONING LAND ANNEXED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD, KNOWN AS THE HALLAQ PROPERTIES (PARCELS# 224-24-0120 AND#224-24-0130), FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1 (COMMERCIAL), TR(MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICES),AND CR-2(SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)TO ORO VALLEY C-2(COMMERCIAL),R-6(MULTI-FAMILY RESI- DENTIAL AND OFFICES), AND R1-10(SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), WITH CONDITIONS In accordance with Arizona State Statute,the zoning on the above-referenced proper- ties must be translated and rezoned from Pima County Zoning Classifications to the nearest Oro Valley Zoning Classifications. LOCATION:The property listed is located at the northeast corner of Lambert Lane and La Cholla Boulevard.The property extends approximately 1/2 mile north of Lam- bert Lane and approximately 1/4 mile east of La Cholla Boulevard. DESCRIPTION:A detailed location and description of the parcel slated to be translat- ed can be obtained at the Oro Valley Town Hall. Should you nave any questions regarding this matter,please contact Bayer Vella,Se- nior Planner,at(520)229-4810,or at bvellagorovailey.net Pub:The Daily Territorial May 24,2002 Req:Town of Oro Valley pnov9-99-51 kb TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 1 a COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: June 19th,2002 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: Bayer Vella, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCE NO. (0)02-17 ,OV9-99-51 PARCEL # 224-24-0120 AND PARCEL # 224-24-0130, TRANSLATING THE ZONING FOR THE 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 9-471 B 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 map identifies the location of the parcels owned by the Hallaq family and the proposed translational zoning designations. The property is located at the northeast corner of Lambert Lane and La Cholla Boulevard. This item has a lengthy history. In 1999, it was reviewed via multiple venues: several neighborhood meetings, three public hearings before Planning & Zoning Commission, and scheduled (not heard) 4 times before the Town Council. It was scheduled for review last in October of 1999 -- then it was put on hold for several years. The Courts restricted the Town from exercising authority in this area—pending resolution of annexations claims. SUMMARY: In accordance with State Statutes, the Town must translate the Pima County zones to Oro Valley's closest equivalent designations. The County zones and OV translational zoning designations are depicted below: COUNTY ZONING TOWN EQUIVALENT LAND AREA CB-1 (Commercial) C-2 (Commercial) 10 acres TR(Multi-family R-6 (Multi-family 20 acres residential/offices) residential/offices) CR-2 (single family R1-10 (Single family 50 acres residential) residential) While the applicant and staff have agreed to the general zoning designations for the translation, there were earlier discussions regarding the following issues: arrangement of zoning designations, proposed time limits for the CB-1 translational zoning designation, specific development conditions to be placed on the property, and certain legal TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 7OUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 4 questions which needed to be resolved by the Town Attorney. Staff has met with the applicant and resolved all issues The single greatest issue for staff and the neighboring property owners was the location of the proposed zoning categories. Consensus was achieved by aligning similar zoning densities adjacent to existing residents. The following steps were taken to accomplish this objective: • Staff and the property owner's representative agreed on a proposal that restricts the intensity of development on portions of the site by relocating the more controversial TR-to-R-6 translational zoning designation away from Canada Hills. The location is depicted in the attached map illustrating the proposed translational zoning designations. • The remaining TR area along La Cholla would be translated to R-6 with a maximum density restriction of 12.5 DU/ac. The TR area along Lambert Lane would also be translated to R-6 -- and the applicant has proposed a maximum density of 18 DU/ac for this section of the property. • The CR-2 designation would be conditionally translated to R 1-10. In order to more closely match the County CR-2 entitlements, the condition entails establishing a minimum lot size of 16,000 square feet with a lot reduction option to a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. This minimum lot size will also match that of the existing homes to the north, while allowing the property owner a degree of development flexibility. This lot reduction option requires 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 CB-1 area will be conditionally translated to C-2 without an increase in land intensity. Staff recommends establishing a time limit (as the County did when it was originally rezoned) to either develop the property or amend the General Plan (5 years). If one or the other doesn't occur within the time limits, the C-2 portion will revert to R1-144. 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 18 DU/ac 20 acres@44DU/ac 20 acres @ 18 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 6.0 DU/ac DU/ac . TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 'OUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 4 Because all the uses are permitted on the property, involve the same quantity of land, and the overall intensity of uses will not increase, the aforementioned actions are deemed to be a valid component of the translational zoning process. The Town Attorney has approved the legality of this translational zoning proposal. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: On April 6th, 1999, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of this item. The Commission added a density limit of 12.5 DU/ac to the portion of R-6 zoning area along the Lambert Lane frontage; whereas staff originally proposed a maximum of 18 DU/ac. Staff and the applicant concur with the Commission's recommendation. 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 is not compatible with the proposed translational zoning designations of C-2 and R-6. There are,however, two important considerations: • The current Pima County CB-1, TR, and CR-2 zoning designations existed prior to the property being annexed into the Town. • The current General Plan Update alternatives provide for commercial and higher intensity uses at this location. PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public expressed concerns about this proposal before the Planning & Zoning Commission on July 6th, 1999 (minutes attached). Neighbors were concerned about the amount of grading and the potential destruction of the washes present on the property. It is important to note that the Town's ordinances will afford considerable more protection than those enforced by the County. The aforementioned issues will be addressed upon submittal of a development plan. Staff noticed this item in accord with Town policy. To date,no public comments have been received. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of this item, as all elements of the translational zoning process have been addressed. All issues specific to site design will be addressed as part of the development review process. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move to alopt Ordinance No. (0) 02-170V9-99-51, 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, -id all applicable development standards of those Oro Valley zoning districts shall apply thereto, with the .,onditions listed in the Ordinance. OR • TOWN OF ORO VALLEY .:OUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 4 of 4 I move to adopt Ordinance No. (0)02_17 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: . ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. (0)02_17 2. Exhibit A, County Zoning and Oro Valley Translational Zoning Designations. 3. Exhibit B, July 6, 1999,Planning&Zoning Commission Minutes. F:\OV\OV9\1999\9-99-51\Town Council Report 2002.doc i/Lai i 1 Plannin ' Zoning Administrator 43-4- Community Dev opment Director Town Manager Cc: Larry Schubart Stubbs & Schubart,P.C. Fax# 882-3909 ORDINANCE NO. (0)021 7 - 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 R 1-10, 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 R 1-10 zoning designation. A 12,000 square foot minimum lot size may be permitted in the R 1-10 zone under a lot reduction option, which will require additional preservation of open space and buffering of adjacent properties. The gross density in the R 1-10 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 June 19th, 2007 in order to retain the C — 2 conditional zoning entitlement. This date shall be amended to June 19th, 2012 if the General Plan Land Use designation for the C-2 site is amended to "Community Commercial"by June 19th, 2007. 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; 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 19th day of June, 2002. Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Cuvelier,Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Daniel L. Dudley,Town Attorney \\OV PZD\PZ1\OV\OV9\1999\9-99-51\ORDINANCEHALLAQ.doc R s 4 _ / Street Net �J 7 Landbase(Parcels) 4 11111514.0, It 'J ipk le . 1.111Milli. 1 1Mhat iik AN/ .. ......, =HALLAQ PROPERTY r j a ofr.-----..... , , 1. C-2 10 ACRES a 0 0 0 04 2. R-6 5 ACRES 0 3. R-6 15 ACRES 0 18 UNITS PER ACRES MAXIMUM PERMITTED 4. R1-10 0 16,000 SQUARE FEET 0 MINIMUM LOT SIZE; CAN REDUCE TO ' 0 Sr 12,000 SQUARE FEET BY LOT REDUCTION OPTION _....,,.•..►w,msAmv— `wo_m,____ 10.41.1s_ ______________t k—_' LAMBEIRT LANE 12 1 SCALE 1 :6,201 N 500 0 500 1,000 1,500A FEET http://www.maps.co.pima.az,us/mwfs/dotmap3,mwf Wednesday, May 12, 1999 12:42 PM EXHIBIT B MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION JUNE 19,2002 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 6:05 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis, Mayor Dick Johnson, Vice Mayor Paula Abbott, Council Member Bart Rochman, Council Member Werner Wolff, Council Member EXECUTIVE SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 p.m. Mayor Loomis announced that in addition to the Town Council, the Town Manager,the Town Attorney, and the Deputy Town Clerk, Planning and Zoning Administrator Bryant Nodine would be present in Executive Session. MOTION: A MOTION was made by Council Member Wolff and SECONDED by Vice Mayor Johnson to go into Executive Session at 6:05 p.m. for the following purpose: -Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) discussion or consultation with the Town Attorney relating to the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development/General Plan Amendments and related matters, including the 1996 Supplemental (Water) Agreement with Vistoso Partners LLC and Vistoso Golf Partners LLC Motion carried, 5 — 0. RECESS of Executive Session: In the event that the Council would need to reconvene the Executive Session, Mayor Loomis RECESSED the Executive Session at 7:12 p.m. (The Executive Session was ADJOURNED at 1:45 a.m. along with the Regular Session.) RESUME REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 7:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis, Mayor Dick Johnson, Vice Mayor Paula Abbott, Council Member Bart Rochman, Council Member Werner Wolff, Council Member 10 06/19/02 Minutes, Council Regular Session 2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Loomis led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Town Manager Chuck Sweet reviewed the upcoming meetings. Mayor Loomis announced that Items 11 & 12 would be combined and the public hearings would be conducted simultaneously, after which,both items would be considered by separate for motions. CALL TO AUDIENCE Robert Rubino, 13878 North Lobelia Way, Oro Valley, AZ, stated that he was in full support of the police pension plan and new hires for the police department. CONSENT AGENDA At the request of Council Member Wolff, Mayor Loomis pulled Item E off the Consent Agenda for discussion. MOTION: Council Member Johnson moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Item E. Motion seconded by Council Member Rochman. Motion carried, 5- 0. A. Minutes—6-5-02 B.Building Safety Activity Report—May 2002 C. Coyote Run Monthly Report—May 2002 D. Economic Development Activity Report—May 2002 E. Police Report—May 2002 F. Project No. OV22-01-01 Award of Bid for the Oro Valley Water Utility Linda Vista Reservoir Overflow to DAR-HIL Corporation in the amount of$73,740.00 G. OV5-01-08 Approval of the Public Art Proposal for the Albertsons Inline Shops, Located on the northwest corner of First Avenue and Oracle Road, Parcel#220090250 H. General Plan Update 2020 Status Report#6 I. Resolution No. (R)02- 51 Authorizing the execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement for Animal Control Services between the Town of Oro Valley and Pima County J. Resolution No. (R)02-52 Approval of a Development Agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and Conquistador Properties, L.L.C. K. Cancellation of the July 3, 2002 Regular Town Council Meeting due to the Fourth of July Holiday E. POLICE REPORT—MAY 2002 STATISTICS 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 3 Council Member Wolff pointed out that there was an increasing number of violations that were occurring around the Town and it was important to have an efficient police department. Chief Sharp agreed that the call load continues to grow. He explained that the department has noticed a spike in calls since the September 11th incident and addressed the following concerns: • Calls for service have increased about 10% each year. • Due to the departments performances measure all calls response time is within 5 minutes 90%percent of the time. He explained that as a result, the demand for calls per service impacts the department's ability to be proactive in things such as citation and dark house checks. • The department currently has officers in training and has lost officers; the department is currently down 4 officers and 2 officers are on military leave. • 911 calls are first priority. Council Member Wolff agreed that being proactive was the thing to do as opposed to being reactive. He urged Council to recognized this and support the Police Department in their request. There was no action required for this item. 2. PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE OF APPRECIATION TO MARK BROSSEAU FOR HIS SERVICE ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Mayor Loomis announced that Mark Brosseau was not in the audience to accept his plaque. He stated that Mr. Brosseau served in the Parks Board from October 2000 through May 2002. 3. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WITH TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30,2004 MOTION: Council Member Wolff moved to appoint Mr. Don Manross, and reappoint Mr. Bill Matsukado and Mr. Bill Moody to the Planning & Zoning Commission for a term of two years with their terms expiring June 30, 2004. Motion seconded by Vice Mayor Johnson. Motion carried, 5-0. 4. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE BUDGET AND BOND COMMITTEE WITH TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2004 MOTION: Council Member Wolff moved to approve the appointment of Mr. Robert Jennens, Ms. Lyra Done, and Mr. Bob Schlichting to the Budget and Bond Committee with their terms expiring June 30, 2004. Motion seconded by Council Member Rochman. Motion carried, 5-0. 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 4 5. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE WATER UTILITY COMMISSION WITH TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2005 MOTION: Mayor Loomis moved to re-appoint Ms. LaQuita Stec and Mr. Leo Leonhart, and appoint Ms. Erin Loudermilk to the Water Utility Commission for a term of 3 years, with their terms expiring June 20, 2005. Council Member Rochman seconded the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. 6. PRESENTATION OF DESIGN PLAN—2002 SUMMER TRANSPORTATION ART BY YOUTH PROGRAM This year's project includes the tiling of 8 concrete benches to be located adjacent to the sidewalks on Rancho Vistoso Boulevard. The students have been working with Artist Supervisor Io Palmer to develop a design plan for the benches. The students provided specific details during their presentation. The following high school students are participating in this project. Julie Fisher Alex Atkin Nathan Graves Kristin Cuvelier Marc Gouveia Sean Thurlon Jessica Jones Anna Rodriguez Aaron Vosler Courtney Johnston The project is scheduled for completion on July 26, 2002. 7. PUBLIC HEARING—RESOLUTION NO. (R)02-53 ADOPTION OF THE TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003; SETTING THE LOCAL ALTERNATIVE EXPENDITURE LIMITATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003; SETTING JULY 17,2002 AS THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY Finance Director David Andrew reviewed the Council Communication. He reported that the purpose of this agenda item was for Council consideration and adoption of the Town's tentative budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. He explained that the approval of Resolution No. (R) 02-53 would also set the local expenditure limitation. He said that once the limitations are set, expenditures for the year may not exceed that amount. He explained that the Council does have the discretion to make changes to the budget prior to the final adoption which is scheduled for July 17, 2002; however the total amount of the final budget may not exceed the expenditure limitation as set this evening. He stated that Council also had the authority to modify the budget throughout the fiscal year. He further explained that the tentative budget includes those modifications that were directed by the Town Council during the six budget review sessions that were held between May 6th, 2002 and June 10th, 2002. He reported that the tentative budget was in the amount of $83,548,215.00 and was balanced with the following revenues and other financial resources: D Police Department 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 5 El Streets &Roads Maintenance ❑Development Services Cl Library Services ❑Parks & Recreation ❑Public Transportation ❑Water Utility ❑Magistrate Court ❑Administration ❑Municipal Debt Service ❑Capital Improvements Projects ❑Contingency Reserves ❑Health Insurance ❑Staffing ❑Employee Compensation ❑Capital Improvements ❑General Fund ❑Citizens Corps Council Town Manager Chuck Sweet stated that the Town Code and the Budget Policy requires that staff deliver to the Town Council a balanced budget, and balanced in a way of recurring revenues equaling recurring expenses which was done on May 1st of this year. He reported that within the last 30 days, the Town has had 2 major hits in revenue resources,which has caused an$189,316.00 recurring deficit,which was the result of a lack of funding from the state level. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 8:06 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:14 p.m. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. The following citizens were in full support of the Police Department increased funding and believe that this would assist in allowing the police department to continue to provide quality service in the community. • Lois Kriegh, Oro Valley • Josephine B. Ogurek, 12456 North Piping Rock Road • Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place • John Crauner, 982 North Calle Solanc • Larry Taylor, 1074 W. Short Creek Lane • J.R. Ragsdale, 528 West Paseo Rio • Kirk Hunt, 12428 Mesquite Crest Way • Michael Stevenson, 11000 North La Canada Drive There was discussion relating to the following issues: • Was the Step Plan included in the tentative budget or was it under consideration? • The implementation of the 480 hours sick leave buy back plan for all Town employees. 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 6 • In 6 months to reconsider the Police Department Compensation Step Plan. • Maintaining the current Police Department Compensation Step Plan at the 4% percent increase for all certified police officers. • Changing the merit salary increase from 2%percent to 4%percent for all Town employees on their anniversary date (non-police officers) effective July 1st, 2002. • To review the market adjustment at 6 months to review and compare cost. • The review of medical care coverage for employees at the 6 month review. • The Greater Tucson Economic Council (GTEC) funding to be reviewed at the 6 month review. • The recurring deficit. • Direct the Human Resources Department and the Finance Department to compare the State Retirement System and the ICMA including the financial cost associated with that, for both the employees and for the Town. • Cost of Living (COLA) recommendations Town wide. • Additional personnel would be reviewed in January. POINT OF ORDER MOTION: Council Member Rochman moved to divide the question so the Council Members vote on all the items separately so that there is no confusion among the Council Members or the public. Then everyone would have a better idea what is exactly happening regarding these issues. Council Member Wolff seconded the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. MOTION: Council Member Rochman moved to direct staff to review the retirement system and bring back to the Council at the 6 month review in January recommendations comparing the retirement systems including the Arizona State Retirement System and the existing retirement system International City Manager's Association (ICMA)to include financial input. Council Member Wolff seconded the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. MOTION: Council Member Rochman moved to review funding available in the contingency during the 6 month review and review the Town contribution to Greater Tucson Economic Council (GTEC). Motion seconded by Council Member Wolff. Motion carried, 5-0. MOTION: Council Member Wolff moved to direct staff to review various COLA's and come back to Council with a recommendation for a standardized COLA during mid-year to be completed by January. Motion seconded by Vice Mayor Johnson. Motion carried, 5-0. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson moved to review the COLA for an additional 1 percent at the 6 month review. Motion seconded by Council Member Abbott. Motion carried, 5- 0. MOTION: Council Member Abbott moved to review the market adjustment for the various categories of jobs in the 6 month review for all Town employees and the Police Department. Motion seconded by Council Member Wolff. Motion carried, 5-0. 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 7 MOTION: Council Member Abbott moved to include a review of the contingency funds in 6 months for additional personnel as needed for the Town. Motion seconded by Council Member Johnson. Motion carried, 5-0. MOTION: Council Member Wolff moved that the budget be changed to include the 480 hours (sick leave)buy back at the 50%rate for all Town employees and direct staff to bring back a comparison cost. Motion seconded by Council Member Abbott. Discussion: Council Member Rochman stated that since there were some difficulties understanding each other among the parties involved, this item could be delayed or postponed for further discussion to a future meeting and at the January review for implementation. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Mayor Loomis asked to leave the motion as is but include direction to staff to expand on their Memorandum to Council dated May 10, 2002 prior to July 17, 2002 when the Budget is presented to Council to identify the overall input and to make sure that both parties are in agreement with the overall impact. Motion as amended carried, 5-0. MOTION: Council Member Rochman moved to maintain the current Police Department Compensation Step Plan for all certified police officers and include in the 2002/2003 Budget and Merit Plan for all other Town employees not covered by the Step Plan, a Merit Plan up to 4%percent on the employee's anniversary date. Council Member Johnson seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-1, Mayor Loomis opposed. MOTION: Council Member Rochman moved to approve Resolution No. (R)02-53 adopting the Tentative Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 and Setting the Local Alternative Expenditure Limitation for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 in the amount of $83,548,215.00 The approval of the motion includes the granting of a deviation from the provisions of Section 2 of the Town's budgetary policy which was revised by Resolution No. (R)01-28, April 18th, 2001 finding that the budgeting of additional funding for FY 2002-2003 is necessary for the continuation of superior municipal services to the community and is in the best interest of the safety and welfare of the community. This included all subsequent motions as approved. Vice Mayor Johnson seconded the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 9:38 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:50 p.m. 8. RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. (R)02-36 CONSIDERATION TO ENTER INTO A COST PARTICIPATIO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER FOR A NEW 13.8KV ELECTRICAL SERVICE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOODS 3 & 4 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 8 MOTION: Council Member Wolff moved to adopt Resolution No. (R) 02-36. Council Member Rochman seconded the motion. The motion carried, 5-0. 9. RESOLUTION NO. (R)02-36 CONSIDERATION TO ENTER INTO A COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ANDTUCSON ELECTRIC POWER FOR A NEW 13.8KV ELECTRICAL SERVICE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOODS 3 & 4) Jeff Weir, Economic Development Administrator,reported that this item was recently presented to Council at the June 5, 2002 Regular Council Meeting and that Council voted 3-1 against the approval of Resolution (R)02-36. However, he explained that Council has requested reconsideration of this item. He proceeded to give a brief overview of the Cost Participation Agreement between Oro Valley and Tucson Electric Power(TEP)using various maps and illustrations. In answer to a question from Council Member Rochman, Mr. Weir explained that there had been no substantial changes made to the agreement. In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis, Art Fregoso, the representative for Tucson Electric Power, explained that there had been no estimated date scheduled to begin the project,but the company would prefer that the work coincides with the construction of the Tangerine Road expansion project. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson moved to approve Resolution(R)02-36 with the understanding that any increases in the costs associated with the agreement, notification would be provided to the Town in advance, and the increased costs would be shared with TEP on the same contribution percentage as currently exists in the agreement. As part of this motion, e further directed staff to accumulate needed information and data for the Town Council to consider the possibility of creating and entering into a Franchise Agreement(s)between the Town and all Utility providers not already covered by an existing Franchise Agreement. Additionally, by way of this motion, the staff is also directed to return to the Town Council within 180 days with suggested undergrounding of utilities within subdivisions and the Tangerine Corridor Overlay District. Council Member Rochman seconded the motion. Discussion: Council Member Rochman suggested wording be added to the motion to show any"decreases"in cost. Mayor Loomis asked that the wording be changed on the last portion of the motion to read, "undergrounding of utilities within the Town." Council Member Abbott stated that she had concerns with this item, but since this was a time sensitive issue, the Town needed to move forward. Also, she believed that the Town had a lot more to gain than lose therefore, she would support the agreement. • 06/1 9/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session - 9 Mayor Loomis explained that because the agreement would save the Town money overall, he would support the agreement. However, he felt that each case should be reviewed on an individual basis and that this did not establish the precedent that Oro Valley would be responsible for undergrounding cost. AMENDED MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson moved to approve Resolution(R) 02-36 with the understanding that any increases or decrease in the costs associated with the agreement,notification would be provided to the Town in advance, and the increased or decreased costs would be shared with TEP on the same contribution percentage as currently exists in the agreement. As part of this motion,he further directed staff to accumulate needed information and data for the Town Council to consider the possibility of creating and entering into a Franchise Agreement(s)between the Town and all Utility providers not already covered by an existing Franchise Agreement. Additionally,by way of this motion,the staff is also directed to return to the Town Council within 180 days with suggested undergrounding of utilities within the Town. Motion seconded by Council Member Rochman. Motion carried, 5-0. 10. PUBLIC HEARING—ORDINANCE NO. (0)02-17 OV9-99-51 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 AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator, reported that in August 1998, pursuant to Section 9-471 B of the Arizona Revised Statutes, the Town of Oro Valley's Mayor and Council annexed the area known as Map 4. He explained that the Town was required to change, or"translate"the zoning on the annexed properties from Pima County zoning designations to the closest comparable Oro Valley zoning designation. Mr. Nodine explained that in accordance with State Statutes,the Town must translate Pima County zoning to Oro Valley's closest equivalent designations. He reviewed the County zones and Oro Valley translational zoning designation as depicted below using the overhead projector: COUNTY ZONING TOWN EQUIVALENT LAND AREA CB-1 (Commercial) C-2 (Commercial) 10 acres TR(Multi-family R-6 (Multi-family 20 acres Residential/offices) Residential/offices) CR-2 (single family R1-10 (Single family 50 acres Residential) residential) In conclusion,Mr.Nodine explained that staff was recommending approval but, recommend changing the wording "Community Commercial"in Section 4 of the Ordinance to simply read "Commercial"because the designations are not all set for these types of commercial areas at this point. He explained that this would identify the 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 10 commercial property in the area and would essentially make the translation non- conditional or would pardon the zoning. G. Lawrence Schubart, attorney representing Hallaq Properties explained that there was one point within the staff report that his company continues to find problematic. He stated that staff suggestion that the commercial designation expires after 5 years unless the General Plan is brought into conformance was totally inappropriate. He explained that there had been no time limit in Pima County and he felt that it would be inappropriate to impose a time limit now, especially in face of all of the concessions the Hallaq's had made to bring the property into conformance. He asked that Council reject staff's suggestion of the 5 year limitation as an additional condition and merely adopt the first motion suggested. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. Joseph Pikosz, 2082 West Three Oaks Drive, explained that he was opposed to the Ordinance especially with the R-6 zoning revision. He stated that the area should remain a R1 Zoning area to be consistent with the single family home development. Glen Smith, 10631 North Sand Canyon Place, agreed with Mr. Pikosz. He said to increase the density in the area would be substantially counter to what has already been translated into the southwest corner of La Cholla and Lambert Lane corridor. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, stated that the General Plan currently shows the area as a low density residential area. He explained that if there could be a mutual understanding such as combining the uses "commercial and residential" on a neighborhood scale so that there wasn't quite the impact that this would be more consistant with the General Plan. Alan Lathrem, 1750 West Tangerine Road, stated that he would like to remind everyone that this area was in the Town of Tortolita and he felt that this was a waste of time. He stated that he was concerned with the fact that he had not been notified that his property had been rezoned into the Town of Oro Valley. In answer to a question for Mayor Loomis, Mr. Nodine explained that whenever a property has been annexed and within 6 months, a translation has to been done and it has to meet the criteria; He explained that at this point the applicant can then request to change the zoning. He explained that Mr. Schubart was absolutely correct that the county had not included a time limit and the staff report was incorrect. He explained that the 5 year limitation was inserted because staff was trying to create something to eventually match the General Plan, either through a General Plan amendment or through the cessation of the zoning. In answer to a question from Council Member Abbott, Mr. Nodine explained that with a translational zoning, school over-crowding conditions are not considered; it is strictly moving an area from the county entitlement to a town entitlement. He pointed out that • 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 11 the applicant has verbally stated that they did not have the intention of placing an apartment complex on the site but simply wanted to keep those rights in place. He added that the Homeowners Association was contacted about the translational zoning. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson moved to adopt Ordinance No. (0) 02-17 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 R 1-10, and all applicable development standards of those Oro Valley zoning districts shall apply thereto,with the conditions listed in the Ordinance and deleting Section 4 of the Ordinance. Council Member Wolff seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-1, Council Member Abbott opposed. Mayor Loomis combined Items 11 and 12 because they were directly related. Also, he asked that there be a single presentation that identifies the issues associated with each item. He explained that after which, he would open the public hearing and when Council was ready to make their decision that each item would be voted on in 2 separate motions. 11.CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING-RESOLUTION NO.(R)01-84 OV11-01-01 RECONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO AMENDTHE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN FOR A PORTION OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11,BORDERED ON THE EAST, NORTH, AND WEST SIDES BY THE TOWN BOUNDARY AND BY STONE CANYON III, II, AND IV ON THE SOUTH, FROM CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF PARKS/OPEN SPACE AND RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENT (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL#219050120, 21905010A, 21905011C, 21906013K, 21906013F, 21906013H, and 21906014A) (CONTINUED FROM 11/7/01) 12. PUBLIC HEARING- ORDINANCE NO. (0)02-18 OV9-01-09 REQUEST BY THE WLB GROUP ON BEHALF OF VISTOSO PARTNERS L.L.C., TO AMEND THE RANCHO VISTOSO (RV) PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT AS FOLLOWS: 1) CHANGE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM OPEN SPACE / VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR A PORTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD 11 (PARCEL#219050120, 21905010A, 21905011C,21906013K, 21906013F, 21906013H, AND 21906014A); 2) ABANDON THE 100-FOOT OPEN SPACE BUFFER ALONG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY LINE IN NEIGHBORHOOD 11 IN SECTION 23; 3)EXEMPTION OF RECREATION AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR NH 11; 4) REALIGNMENT OF TRAIL ALONG AGUA CANADA WASH IN STONE CANYON AS SHOWN ON THE PAD; 5) ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING ENCROACHMENT INTO 25% SLOPED AREAS . Planning and Zoning Administrator Bryant Nodine reported that he would be presenting the Planned Area Development(P.A.D.) amendment which would be very similar to the General Plan amendment. He explained that the only issues that the presentation did not 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 12 cover would be the 4 findings, however,the General Plan amendment and the P.A.D. with the conditions recommended by staff do meet the 4 findings in the General Plan. Mr. Nodine stated that the following 5 requests were made by WLB Group on behalf of Vistoso Partners and proceeded to give an overview of the site using the overhead project. • Change land use designation from open space/very low density residential to very low density residential to low density residential for a portion of neighborhood (NH) 11 (PARCEL#219050120, 21905010A, 21905011 C, 21906013K, 21906013F, 21906013H, and 21906014A) He reported that the Town would be looking at about 90 acres of open space that would be affected by the development and 360 acres dedicated to the Town essentially at a 4 to 1 ratio. He explained that staff was supporting the request with the conditions in Exhibit A. • Abandon the 100-foot open space buffer along the western boundary line in Neighborhood 11 in Section 23. He explained that staff recommendation was not to approve the abandonment of the strip until the properties are brought into the P.A.D. and a similar strip is provided on the western boundary of the property. • Exemption of recreation area requirements for Neighborhood 11. He explained that staffs recommendation to the applicant was to follow the Zoning Code requirements and provide the 2 acres of recreation area. He said that there was a number of ways this could be done(1)to provide access to the proposed fitness center to all homeowners (2) find another place to provide 2 acres of recreation area(3) or do an in lieu fee. He stated that staff recommendation was to simply have them area follow the Town Code. • Realignment of trail along Agua Canada Wash in Stone Canyon as shown on the P.A.D. He explained that either one of the trail alignments that has been proposed by the applicant was acceptable to staff. He explained that what staff was proposing was that the applicant dedicates $100,000.00 to establish the alignment and construct the trail and trailhead. Therefore, staff is recommending supporting the realignment of the trail with the conditions in Exhibit A. • Establish criteria for allowing encroachment into the 25% sloped areas. He explained that staff recommends that there be no changes to the criteria except Condition#6 which changes to allow some minor encroachment. He said that there was 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 13 some question to Exhibit#1 in terms of the restriction. He stated that staff recommendation was to approve the item with the conditions listed in Exhibit A. He said that staff supports the change in land use designation, the change in trail alignment and the new criteria to be incorporated into the P.A.D. as regulatory versus guideline. Staff does not support the abandonment of the buffer at this time or the exemption of recreation area requirements. He added that the applicant had concerns regarding the 12,000 square foot grading limit. He explained that the grading limit could be increased to 20,000 with the Planning and Zoning Administrator approval. He stated that staff would support the change from 12,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet to be consistent with the Stone Canyon Development. Dick Maes, representative for Vistoso Partners and Stone Canyon, explained that both parties have worked diligently with staff for quite sometime and are in agreement with the majority of the conditions as stated but wanted to address the following issues: • If there were questions regarding how a home was being constructed the applicant or owner could meet with the planning director and staff to determine if the model meets the criteria. • Suggested that addition information to Condition 11 that there is a conservation easement already in place on the property stating that it can not be developed. • Requested clarification if the park acreages 77 acres or 60 acres. • With regard to Condition 5d, he explained that there are funds that were owed to Vistoso Partners from when the Water Company that was sold that there was no mention of the interest accrued in the agreement. • He had concern with Conditions 6a and 6b, the dedication of the water plant. He explained that this site has been identified with the water company and with the plating therefore the site would be deeded to the Oro Valley Water Company along with the final plat approval. • There was concern with Condition 8 and explained that Vistoso Partners was in agreement with the trail and the 2 acre trailhead. He point out that Vistoso Partners was willing to give the Town the easement on property owned by Vistoso Partners. • Vistoso Partners had agreed to contribute $50,000.00 not $100,000.00 for trail easement acquisition and construction. He explained that these funds could be used for the construction of the trails or the acquisition of the easement going crossing State land. He explained that the issue of getting the easement across State land needed to be handled by a municipality. • Condition 11- all 1 acre lots are approximately 20,000 square feet in size per maximum build out,therefore he disagrees with the 15,000 square feet and the existing lots are 20,000 square feet. This should remain consistent. • Takes exception that the 100 foot easement would not be lifted until the property was annexed into Oro Valley. • The recreation facility that is being built within Stone Canyon will cost over 3 million dollars to build. • Of the 165 people that have purchased property within Stone Canyon, 148 of them have joined the golf course. • 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 14 Larry Rollins, attorney located at 33 North Stone Ave, addressed conveyances set forth in Condition#4 of Exhibit A. He said that technically 2 of the items in Condition 4, Condition B &D did not reference the phase except for conservation easements or except for conservation easements running in favor of Pima County. He said Vistoso Partners would provide no other encumbrances with respect to conservation easements. He added that from a clarification standpoint as to coordinate timing of the dedication and releases under Condition 6 "Vistoso Partners, L.L.C. shall"relating to both A &B, additional wording be added to read"at the time of the recording of the final plat." He pointed out that many of the conditions are tied to the recording of the final plat. In answer to a question from Council Member Rochman,Mr. Rollins explained that the sole purpose for Condition 6b would secure the agreement between the Town and Vistoso Partners and the financial obligations have been either waived released or otherwise terminated with no further obligations to the Town. He stated that Vistoso Partners was asking to include Condition 6a in the recording of the Final Plat and Condition 6b to a 90 day period to effectuate the condition. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 11:16 p.m. The meeting resumed at 11:28 p.m. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. The following citizens expressed concern with the new General Plan Amendment for Neighborhood 11. • Ann Britt, 9601 North Calle Bueva Vista • Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place • Nancy Young Wright, 100 West Wilkenson Drive • Louis Benson, 2590 West Tortolita The following concerns were identified: • The trail should be a viable trail. • The trail should be a multi use trail. • The General Plan Amendment Criteria had not been met with the added conditions. • The new plan would only benefit the property owner and is not an overall improvement to the general plan. • The land trade that has been discussed is not equivalent in terms of environmental sensitively or scenic value and therefore is not balancing the loss of open space. • Revenue. • Policies and goals are not being met. • The beneficiary would be the developer and a bad bargain to the Town and its citizens. • The area remaining is the Sonoran Desert and the Town should protect the area as open space. • Developer is offering land that has already been given to and identified as open space by the County. 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 15 Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. In answer to questions from Mayor Loomis,Mr. Maes explained that the reason they have requested that the recreation requirement be moot was that instead,they would build a 3 million dollar facility which would consist of a golfing community and hiking trails. In answer to question from Mayor Loomis,Mr. Maes explained that Condition#7 should be omitted (the facility would be a free facility to the property owners). He further explained that if the developer built any additional facilities within the guarded gates of Stone Canyon it would be a facility that the property owners within Stone Canyon would finance. MOTION: For Item 11, Vice Mayor Johnson moved to approve Resolution No. (R)01- 84, OV 11-01-01, to amend the Town of Oro Valley General Plan for portion of Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11 with the conditions included in Exhibit"A" as amended. EXHIBIT "A" (with the amendments added) ,Oy 1_JAL -.01 CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PORTION OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11 1. Open Space encroachment will be balanced by the dedication of other comparable areas to the Town. 2. The Supplemental Water Agreement by and between Vistoso Partners, L.L.C.,Vistoso Golf Partners, L.L.C. and the Town of Oro Valley dated April 29, 1996 shall be amended in a manner acceptable to the Town. 3. Vistoso Partners shall provide a public trailhead and trail and mutli-use trail access to Tortolita Mountain Park 4. Vistoso Partners will dedicate an acceptable site for a water reservoir in Neighborhood 11. The General Plan designation for that site will be amended to Public/Semi Public by this amendment. 5. There will be at least 300 feet wide contiguous areas of open space left as wildlife corridors along riparian areas unless mitigation measures or existing conditions (topography,vegetation, etc.) adequately buffer the riparian areas from the effects (lights, noise, etc.) of development. 6. All street crossing of riparian areas shall be designed to be wildlife friendly by providing: shrubs up to the shoulders speed limits of 15-20 mph culverts or other structures where the length is no more than two times the width (for wider roads [longer crossings] this may mean providing a light well at the median) sandy-bottomed, square culverts or at least large, sandy bottomed, %2 or '/4 round culverts as an option, a 2'-3' culvert-type crossing for smaller animals such as javelina in conjunction with an area on • 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 16 either side of the drainage level with the roadway and enhanced with vegetation to provide an area where larger animals can cross as an option,pavement materials that mimic native materials 7. All rock outcrops identified in the Harris Study shall have 50-foot buffer around at least 75%of their circumference. 8. No buildings shall be visible from the floodplain of Honey Bee Wash. 9. Grading limits of no more than 20,000 square feet shall be imposed on all lots. 10. The approval of this General Plan amendment does not constitute an approval of the number of lots or the layout of lots as submitted these will be evaluated at the time of the PAD amendment. In particular, those lots in the northern area of the proposal will be evaluated to determine if there is an adequate buffer to the public lands and wildlife corridors. Council Member Wolff seconded the motion. Discussion: Vice Mayor Johnson asked for clarification regarding Exhibit#7, all rock outcrops identified in the Harris Study shall have 50-foot buffer around at least 75% of their circumference. Mr. Nodine reported that this was a consideration in the General Plan Amendment. He explained that the reason this item was not carried forward in the Planned Area Development (P.A.D.)was because the tentative development plan actually meets the condition. Council Member Rochman asked if all the conditions set forward in the P.A.D. are not met would the General Plan be void. Mr. Nodine explained that in Section 2 of the Resolution which state"the revised Land Use Map shall be effective within thirty days from the date of this resolution and shall cease to be effective by December 1,2002 unless a P.A.D. amendment is adopted in substantial conformance with the General Plan Land Use Map and the considerations in Exhibit A". Therefore, he explained that Section#2 doesn't say that it has to meet everything specifically but it has to be in substantial conformance with the General Plan and Exhibit A and then that gets translated in the specific condition in the P.A.D. amendment. In response to concerns expressed by Council Member Rochman regarding the terms "substantial conformance"in the resolution, Mr. Dudley stated that if an applicant disagreed with the substantial conformance condition and enters into litigation, it could ultimately be determined by the court. 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 17 AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Mr. Dudley stated that if the Council desires, wording could be included to read, "in substantial conformance as determined by the Town Council,"in the Resolution, Section 2. Council agreed that the wording should be added. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Mayor Loomis asked that the wording be changed in Exhibit A, #3 to add the wording, "Vistoso Partners shall provide a public trailhead and trail and multi-use trail access to Tortolita Mountain Park." Motion as amended carried, 3-2, with Mayor Loomis and Council Member Abbott opposed. MOTION: For Item 12, Vice Mayor Johnson moved to approve Ordinance(0) No. 02- 18, OV09-01-09 Amending the Rancho Vistoso P.A.D. document and Land Use Map, effective on the date of satisfaction of attached conditions listed in Exhibit"A"as amended. EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL(Renumbered and amended) OV09-01-09: REQUEST TO AMEND THE RANCHO VISTOSO PAD 1. Change the land use designation on the TDP for lots 342 and 343 to very low density residential. 2. Add a general note to the TDP about the close proximity to the existing La Cholla Air Park, which lies directly west of Rancho Vistoso NH 11. 3. The TDP and affected areas of the PAD Map and document will be revised as approved by Council and submitted to the Town in an acceptable digital format (DXF format for images and WORD format for text files). 4. The applicant will dedicate the areas to the Town as follows (see Proposed Trade Areas Exhibit C): a. 65 acres (northeast corner of the NH 11) shall be deeded in fee to the Town at the time of recording of the Final Plat,however title in fee, free from all liens and encumbrances, except conservation easements, shall be transferred into trust within 90 days of the Town Council vote approving the PAD amendment and shall not thereafter be encumbered; b. ITC property(120-acre north one-third of RV NH 12) shall be deeded in fee to the Town at the time of recording of the Final Plat, however title in fee, free from all liens and encumbrances, except conservation easements, shall be transferred into trust within 90 days of the Town Council vote approving the PAD amendment and shall not thereafter be encumbered; . 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 18 c. Honey Bee Park (77 acres) shall be deeded in fee to the Town at the time of recording of the Final Plat, however title in fee, free from all liens and encumbrances, except conservation easements, shall be transferred into trust within 90 days of the Town Council vote approving the PAD amendment and shall not thereafter be encumbered; d. Honey Bee Wash Common Area(98 acres) shall be deeded in fee to the Town at the time of recording of the Final Plat, however title in fee, free from all liens and encumbrances shall be transferred into trust within 90 days of the Town Council vote approving the PAD amendment and shall not thereafter be encumbered; e. Within 36 months of the Town Council's vote approving the PAD amendment, the Final Plat shall be submitted to the Town in conformance with the Zoning Code. 5. Within ninety(90) days of the Town Council's vote conditionally approving this PAD Amendment, the Supplemental Agreement by and between Vistoso Partners, L.L.C., Vistoso Golf Partners, L.L.C. and the Town of Oro Valley dated April 29, 1996 shall be amended. Such amendment shall incorporate terms to the absolute satisfaction of the Town of Oro Valley at the sole and absolute discretion of the Town Council. The failure to adopt such amendment to the Supplemental Agreement within such ninety(90) day period shall result in the failure of this condition and this PAD amendment. The amendment to the Supplemental Agreement shall incorporate the following provisions but shall not be limited to those provisions: a. The recharge fee associated with water use for the Golf Club at Vistoso and the Stone Canyon Golf Course shall be assessed for all water used, on an annual basis. b. Vistoso Partners L.L.C. /Vistoso Golf Partners, L.L.C. shall pay to the Town $890,000.00. Such amount shall be secured by first liens on each of the designated 89 lots within Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11. Each lien shall secure the amount of $10,000.00 due when the property is sold. c. Vistoso Partners L.L.C. /Vistoso Golf Partners, L.L.C. shall pay the standard base charge for all water meters associated with the golf courses. d. All water connection fees (impact fees) alleged to be exempt under the Supplemental Agreement are eliminated retro-actively to the date of execution of the Supplemental Agreement in consideration of reimbursement with interest of Vistoso Partners, L.L.C.'s cost of construction of Off-Site Facilities as set forth in Exhibit "C"of the Supplemental Agreement. 6. Vistoso Partners, L.L.C. shall: a. Effective no sooner than 90 days of the adoption of the PAD, but only when reasonably necessary for the Town's use, dedicate Water Plant Site# 15 (as shown in Exhibit D)to the Town without cost to the Town on or before the effective date of the PAD 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 19 amendment. Such dedication shall include all necessary ingress and egress routs and water line easements to the site. b. Secure within 90 days a satisfaction and release from Stone Canyon L.L.C. or any other entity having an interest in the Town's obligation, if any, with regard to the acquisition of Reservoir Sites required for Water Plant# 13 and Water Plant# 14 which were dedicated to the Town pursuant to the Development and Pre-Annexation Agreement executed on or about March 8, 2001, between the Town and Stone Canyon L.L.C. Furthermore,Vistoso Partners, L.L.C. agrees to secure such satisfaction and release without cost to the Town. 7. The Agua Canada trail will be relocated provided an alternate trail alignment is chosen per Exhibit F. Vistoso Partners shall deed to the Town the two-acre trailhead south of Stone Canyon III development and shall deed land or dedicate easements for connecting trails from the trailhead through their property to public lands at the southwest corner of Neighborhood 11. Vistoso Partners shall also contribute $50,000 to the Town for the costs of providing access to and trails from this trailhead. 8. Prior to recordation of the final plat associated with these amendments, Rancho Vistoso Partners shall complete all trails shown in the PAD, except those that are part of future developments, and shall provide public access to all of those trails through recorded easements. 9. Encroachment into 25%or greater slopes, throughout the PAD, shall follow the criteria listed in Exhibit G. 10. Correct condition#11 on the TDP to read as follows: a. All lots will have a maximum of 20,000 square feet of gradable area per lot. b. The Town may approve lots with less than 12,000 square feet of gradable area to as low as 8,000 square feet with the specific identification of such lots on the Final Plat. A separate notice will be given to the property owners about such limitations. Council Member Rochman seconded the motion. AMENDMENTS TO MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson recommended that the following changes are added to the conditions in Exhibit A: 1. To change contribution for trail easement from $100,000.00 to $50,000.00 2. To change the grading limit to 20,000 square feet. 3. Conditions 4b and 4d, the trust be transferred within 90 days of Town Council vote approving the P.A.D. amendment and shall not thereafter be encumbered. 4. Additional wording for Condition #8 change connecting trails to from the trailhead. 5. Additional wording for Condition#9 which was change subdivision to development. 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 20 Discussion: Mayor Loomis had concerns with conservation easement and if the Town would need to establish an Intergovernmental Agreement with Pima Council so the Town could use the $50,000.00. Also, he felt that there were significant elements relating to the project that had not been revealed,therefore,was very opposed to the agreement and could not support the project at this time. He urged Council to vote no on the motion. Vice Mayor Johnson stated that he would prefer to see the Oro Valley in control of the 89 acres and not Pima County. Council Member Rochman pointed out that the new development would bring in a substantial amount of tax money into the community which would be paid to the school district that would benefit children throughout Tucson. Council Member Abbott pointed out that the citizens of Oro Valley wanted to maintain and protect the open space, therefore, the General Plan should not be altered. She felt that the P.A.D. would cause a liability because of the clause"substantial conformance" and would eventually come before the court. She felt that the public would benefit regardless of whom controlled the 89 acres. She stated that she was opposed to residents paying a fee for any amenity that is a recreational facility requirement of the Town. AMENDMENTS TO MOTION: Mayor Loomis asked that the wording be changed in Condition 6b of the exhibits to read: to be effective in 90 days; Condition 6a to state, effective no sooner than 90 days of the adoption of the P.A.D.,but only when it's reasonably necessary for the Town's use; Condition 5b, that it is the understanding that each lien is due when the property is sold; Condition 5d,to include the dollar figure plus interest; Condition 8, that the $50,000.00 should be paid to the Town of Oro Valley. Mr. Nodine reiterated that the resolution the way it was currently worded did not include the exemption for the recreation area and did not include the removal of the open space strip. He explained that if it was the intention of the Council to approve this resolution, changes would need to be made. He explained that he would also need some direction if Planning and Zoning Administrator discretion applied to encroachment into slopes. He explained that the recreation area exemption and the open space strip on the west are not included in the resolution because of staff's recommendation. Vice Mayor Johnson recommended that an exemption be included to waive and or eliminate the buffer and recreation facility requirements. Council Member Wolff agreed. Motion as amended carried, 3-2, Mayor Loomis and Council Member Abbott opposed. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 12:37 p.m. The meeting resumed at 12:45 a.m. 13. PUBLIC HEARING- OV12-00-25 CATALINA COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTING THE TEPPER PROPERTY, RECREATION AREA IN-LIEU \-/ FEE PROPOSAL FOR THE VISTA MONTANA SUBDIVISION; LOCATED ON 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 21 THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LINDA VISTA BOULEVARD AND EGLESTON DRIVE, PARCEL #225112350 Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reported that as a condition of the rezoning request for this property, an in-lieu fee will be required for the recreation area. He explained due to the close proximity to James D. Kriegh Park and the small size of the subdivision, a recreation area would not be provided and the in lieu fee would be used for the funding of future Town Parks and recreation facilities. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. Lousie Renneckar, 9751 North Horizon Vista Place, explained the she was in support of the request but proposed a condition that the in-lieu fee is kept at $14,654.00 which would be dedicated to the James D. Kreigh Park, the southern portion of the Town and the reduction of light pollution. Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. MOTION: Council Member Rochman moved to approve OV 12-00-25, In-Lieu Fee proposal for the Vista Montana subdivision, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit A, attached herewith and to direct the Park and Recreation Advisory Board to investigate how the in-lieu fee would be used throughout the Town and to find a way to use this particular in-lieu fee in the southern portion of the Town. Exhibit A OV 12-00-25 In lieu Fee Proposal 1. The in lieu fee shall be $14,654.00 to reflect the fair market value of the required area for which the fee is being proposed as an alternative and shall be used for the funding of future Town Parks or recreational activities. 2. The applicant must provide a written appraisal report prior to Town Council approval of the proposed recreation area in lieu fee. Vice Mayor Johnson seconded the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. 14. OV12-00-25 - FINAL PLAT TEPPER PROPERTY REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE VISTA MONTANA SUBDIVISION, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LINDA VISTA BOULEVARD AND EGLESTON DRIVE, PARCEL #225112350 Community Development Director Brent Sinclair explained that Catalina Communities is proposing to develop Vista Montana, a 20 lot subdivision on 7.82 acres. The subdivision will consist of two types of single family uses on the subject property; a low-density residential (R 1-36) along the west edge, and a medium density residential (R1-7) on the 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 22 remaining portion of the site. He recommended that a second condition be placed on the exhibit that the multi-use path placed on the eastside of the property must be dedicated as a public easement prior to recordation of the final plat. The final plat must be revised to indicate that the easement will be recorded as a separate instrument for the multi-use path. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson moved to approve OV 12-00-25, Vista Montana Final Plat, effective on the date of satisfaction of the conditions listed in Exhibits A including the additional Condition#2, attached herewith. Exhibit "A" (with the additional wording) OV 12-00-25 Final Plat 1. The Final Plat and/or the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Vista Montana shall state that the Association shall be responsible for the maintenance of the floodwall. 2. The multi-use path on the east side of the property(Egleston Drive)must be dedicated as a Public Easement prior to recordation of the final plat. The final plat must be revised to indicate that the easement will be recorded as a separate instrument. Council Member Wolff seconded the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. 15. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (0) 02-19 , OV8-02-02 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A WOMEN'S FITNESS CENTER LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE WITHIN THE CANADA CROSSROADS PLAZA Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reported that Romano Real Estate requests a conditional use permit to allow a women's fitness facility to provide aerobic and exercise activities for women. He explained that a conditional use permit is required to assure land use compatibility. The proposed fitness center will consist of 1,200 square feet within the Canada Crossroads Plaza. He added that the Planning Commission recommended Condition#2 should read, "Music may not be played at a volume that can be heard from surrounding land uses". Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. MOTION: Council Member Rochman moved to approve Ordinance No. (0)02-29, OV8-02-02, conditional use permit for a women's fitness facility, with the conditions listed in Exhibits A, attached herewith as corrected. Exhibit"A" (as amended) OV 8-02-02 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 23 Women's Fitness Facility 1. All doors and windows to this facility must be closed, as necessary,to restrict potential noise and music from impacting surrounding uses. 2. Music may not be played at a volume that can be heard from surrounding land uses. Council Member Wolff seconded the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. 16. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (0) 02- 20, OV8-02-03 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MARTIAL ARTS FACILITY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE WITHIN THE CANADA CROSSROADS PLAZA Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reported that the applicant requests a conditional use permit to provide martial arts classes for a range of ages throughout the day. The facility will be located in the same complex as the women's fitness center as approved in Item 15. He explained that the proposed business will encompass one suite, approximately 1,200 square feet in size within the existing building on the west side of the property. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. There being no speaker, Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis, Mr. Weir explained that in neighborhood commercial districts there will be more service oriented businesses. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson moved to approve Ordinance No. (0) 02-20, OV8-02- 03, condition a use permit for a martial arts school, with the conditions listed in Exhibit A, attached herewith as corrected. Exhibit"A" (as amended) OV 8-02-03 Martial Arts School 1. All doors and windows to this facility must be closed, as necessary, to restrict potential noise and music from impacting surrounding uses. 2. Music may not be played at a volume that can be heard from surrounding land uses. Council Member Rochman seconded the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. 17. OV12-01-14 PRELIMINARY PLAT- RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 2, PARCEL I REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1.5 MILES NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 24 OF ORACLE ROAD AND RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD ON THE WEST SIDE OF ORACLE ROAD Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reported that Cottonwood Properties has proposed to develop single family homes on the site consisting of 33.31 acres with approximately 11.7 acres of developable land. He then proceeded to give a brief overview of the site using the overhead project. Bill Hallinan, the owner of Cottonwood Properties stated that the community has been very supportive of the project. In answer to a question from Mr. Sweet, Mr. Hallinan explained that Big Wash area had not been dedicated at this point but would be dedicated to the Town in the future. He pointed out that Parcels 2a, 3a & 3b and a portion of Parcel 2b had not been dedicated as well. Mr. Sweet point out that the P.A.D. requires that the Big Wash be dedicated to the Town and that it would just be a matter of when and what mechanism. Mayor Loomis recommended reviewing this issue again during the approval of the Final Plat to make sure that it ultimately meets the requirements. In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis, Jim Hossley, the Storm Water .-r Administrator explained that staff did not expect any problems in the traffic flow in the area. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson moved to approve OV 12-01-14, Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 2 Parcel I, Preliminary Plat, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit"A" attached, herewith. Exhibits "A" OV 12-01-14 Preliminary Plat 1. A study for potential breakout for HDPE pip outlet at emergency access adjacent to lot 40 shall be provided. 2. The Q100 for twenty Seven Mile Wash at project site shall be corrected or notation shall be deleted from Hydrology Report. 3. Delineations of 100 year Floodplain Limit lines near Concentration Point D5 on Sheet 6 shall be correctly depicted. 4. A. calculation sheet for the RCP pipe with 31 cfs shall be provided for Hydrology Report. 5.Design shall ensure that stilling basins are completely drained in 24 hours. 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 25 Council Member Abbott expressed concerns with the traffic flow onto Oracle but commended the applicant for getting together with the community and listening to their concerns. Council Member Abbott seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-1, Mayor Loomis opposed. 17. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION RELATING TO DIRECTION TO THE NARANJA TOWN SITE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND TASK FORCE RELATING TO TOWN FACILITIES Town Manager Chuck Sweet reported that the purpose of this request was to identify a site for the Town facilities on the Naranja Town Site Master Plan. He said that it would be appropriate to direct the Executive Committee and Task Force through their consultant to find the optimum location in a manner that is functional with the rest of the master planned facilities. He stated that it was important that a suitable site be identified for future municipal services needs at this stage of the Master Planning process. He explained that there would be fiscal impact. He explained that the inclusion of a town facilities site on the Master Plan would result in some adjustments to the project cost and schedule. He said that a cost increase of about $5,000.00 would be necessary with an additional 2 to 3 week at a time. He then proceeded to review the personnel, vehicles & equipment at the Calle Concordia location. Mayor Loomis opened the floor for public comment. Stan Weintraub, 1320 East Starship Place, was not in favor of Town facilities at the Naranja Town Site development and wondered if the desires of the Town residents were being addressed. Colleen Wampler, 499 West Wheeler Road, stated that the site would affect many citizens in the area and was opposed to the additional Town facilities at of the site because it would be a great impact on the community. She encouraged the Town Council to consider a more commercial location. Council Member Abbott had concerns with the topography of the area,regarding the facility taking up prime acreage but understood that there was no doubt a need for the new Town facilities. She reiterated that this was only a proposal and not a"done deal." She asked if the site was sold to the public as a park or as a Town site because there seemed to be confusion about this. Vice Mayor Johnson stated that all aspects of the project would be considered such as the walls and landscaping so that the site would blend in with the community Mayor Loomis explained that the Town has worked very closely with the Task Force and Executive Committee to not the stifle the creativity and allow the committee to develop a menu of needs. 06/19/02 Minutes,Council Regular Session 26 MOTION: Mayor Loomis moved to direct staff to develop a Map"C"that reflects their best ideas and alternatives and to identify whether the development should be developed in three spots or in a single spot and determine if these areas would accommodate the Towns needs. Council Member Wolff seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-1, Council Member Abbott opposed. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT No report. CALL TO AUDIENCE No speakers. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 1:45 a.m. Council Member Wolff seconded the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. Respectfully submitted, in ersha, Secretary II 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 19th day of June,2002. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this day of , 2002. , Ca4A,J1-01''' Kat E. Cuvelier, CMC Town Clerk 11 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING&ZONING COMMISSION In accordance with ARS 9-462,9-471 and Section 3-108 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised,NOTICE OF TRANSLATIONAL ZONING PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME : at or after 6:00 p.m.on TUESDAY,JULY 6TH. 1999 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall 11,000 N.La Canada Drive Oro Valley,Arizona SUBJECT: OV9-99-51 PARCEL # 224-24-0120 AND PARCEL # 224-24-0130, TRANSLATING AND REZONING RECENTLY ANNEXED LAND KNOWN AS THE HALLAQ PROPERTIES, FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1 (COMMERCIAL), TR(MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICES), AND CR-2 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO ORO VALLEY C-2 (COMMERCIAL), R-6 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICES),AND R 1-10(SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL),WITH CONDITIONS In accordance with Arizona State Statute, the zoning on the above-referenced properties must be translated and rezoned from Pima County Zoning Classifications to the nearest Oro Valley Zoning Classifications. LOCATION: The property listed is located in the area known as Map 4, and is located at the north-east corner of Lambert Lane and La Cholla Boulevard. The property extends approximately 1/4 mile north of Lambert Lane,and approximately'/2 mile east of La Cholla Boulevard. DESCRIPTION: A detailed location and description of the parcel slated to be translated can be obtained at the Oro Valley Town Hall. Members of the public are invited to this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. An agenda for the meet' g will be made available 24 hours prior to meeting time. Should you have any questions regard' this matt-r,please contact David Marsh at(520)797-9797. Brya dine AICP Planning&Zoning Administrator Town of Oro Valley F:\OV\OV9\1999\9-99-51\hallagNOTICE3.PZ.doc POSTED: 6/17/99 3: OOPM SR AFFIDAVIT ?UBLICATION -SATE OF ARIZONA) Le • , :ss. 1. COUNTY OF PIMA ) ;„TACEY S T I N SON JUN 2 3 .1Vitl,g first NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING duly sworn, deposes and says that )he) (she) is the Legal Advertising Manager BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION • In accordance with ARS 9-462, of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the 9-471 and Section 3-106 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, NOTICE OF TRANSLATIONAL ZONING PUBLIC HEARING BE- County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tucson, FORE THE ORO VALLEY PLAN- NING & ZONING COMMISSION IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or atter 6:00 p.m. on County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached TUESDAY, JULY 6TH, 1999 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall 11,000 N. La Canada Drive Oro u: HALL Valley, Arizona • ��° AO SUBJECT: OV9-99-51 PARCEL PROF'ERT I ES tt 224-24-0120 AND PARCEL a PUBLIC • �� 224-24-0130. TRANSLATING • P UBL I CC NIZT ICE AND REZONING RECENTLY ANNEXED LAND KNOWN AS THE HALLAO PROPERTIES, FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1 (COMMERCIAL), TR (MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OF- FICES), AND CR-2 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO ORO VALLEY C-2 (COMMER- I was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE CIAL), R-6 (MULTI-FAMILY RE- SIDENTIAL AND OFFICES), AND R1-10 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), WITH CONDI- DAILY TERRITORIAL for issues; that the first was made TIONS In accordance with Arizona State Statute,the zoning on the above- referenced properties must be on the day of 19 translated and rezoned from Pima County Zoning Classifica- �''I. ry t tions to the nearest Oro Valley Zoning Classifications. and the last publication thereof was made on the day of LOCATION: The property listed is located in the area known as Map 4, and is located at the north-east corner of Lambert Lane and La Cholla Boulevard. • •,,j UNF 19 ;that said publication The property extends approxi- mately 1/4 mile north of Lambert Lane, and approximately 1/2 mile was made on each of the following dates,to-wit: east of La Cholla Boulevard. DESCRIPTION: A detailed loca- tion and description of the parcel slated to be translated can be (. :s/2 1/99 obtained at the Oro Valley Town Hall. Members of the public are invited to this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. An agenda for the meeting will be made available 24 hours prior to meeting time. Should you have any questions regarding this mat- Request of • ter, please contact David Marsh TOWN OF ORO VALLE::Y at(520)797-9797.Bryant Nodine Bryant Nodine AICP Planning & Zoning Administrator Town of Oro Valley Pub: The Daily Territorial June 21, 1999 Reg: Town of Oro Valley pnhallaq 6/21/99 tja DaiiyTAe Territorial By • • C1-.`,\AAA Subscribed and sworn to before me this ''(( day of ,� 2..1.s•t; J U N E 19 ,,..�r,,, OFFICIAL SEAL DAWN LEIGH DOUGALL � .' NOTARY PUBLIC-ARIZONA '�` • PIMA COUNTY "`. Corrn.Excirts Sept.20,2002 Notary Public in and for the County of Pima, State of Arizona My Commission Expires: 1` /e), AFFIDAVI UBLICATION e'STATE OF ARIZONA) :ss. COUNTY OF PIMA 1 STAC EY STINSON being first NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY duly sworn, deposes and says that (he) (she) is the Legal Advertising Manager TOWN COUNCIL In accordance with ARS 9-462, 9-471 and Section 3-108 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the NOTICE OF TRANSLATIONAL ZONING PUBLIC HEARING BE- FORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL IS HEREBY County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tucson, GIVEN: TIME: a: or after 7:00 p.m. on WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4TH, County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall 11,000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona r •." r "' .. r" SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: � �""�-' i''I 'I'"I ~�_�� `"' • OV9-99-51 PARCEL # FROM PIMA COUNTY Y,,�_ 2 1 I >` 224-24-0120 AND PARCEL • ----+, 224-24-0130. TRANSLATING f: ,. CB-- ..i_' TF +4: C AND REZONING RECENTLY ANNEXED LAND KNOWN AS PUBLIC NOTICE THE HALLAO PROPERTIES, FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1 (COMMERCIAL), TR (MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OF- FICES), AND CR-2 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO ORO VALLEY C-2 (COMMER- was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE CIAL), R-6 (MULTI-FAMILY RE- SIDENTIAL AND OFFICES), AND R1-10 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), WITH CONDI- DAILY TERRITORIAL for issues; that the first was made TIONS In accordance with Arizona State Statute,the zoning on the above- referenced properties must be on the day of 1 9 translated and rezoned from Pima County Zoning Classifica- .1 :J t h tons to the nearest Oro Valley Zoning Classifications. and the last publication thereof was made on the day of LOCATION: The property listed 1 9 t l•.I is located in the area known as Map 4, and is located at the north-east corner of Lambert 19 ;that said publication Lane and La Cholla Boulevard. •.i UL.T The property extends approxi- mately 1/4 mile north of Lambert Lane,and approximately 1/2 mile was made on each of the following dates,to-wit: east of La Cholla Boulevard. DESCRIPTION: A detailed loca- tion and description of the parcel ,�. ,..,.. slated to be translated can be 0 ./ /"1; obtained at the Oro Valley Town Hall. Members of the public are invited to this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. An agenda for the meeting will be made available 24 hours prior to meeting time. Should you nave any questions regarding this mat- Request of ter, please contact David Marsh TOWN OF O R O VALLEY at (520) 797-9797. Bryant Nodine Bryant Nodine AICP Planning 8 Zoning Admini- strator Town of Oro Valley Pub: The Daily Territorial July 19, 1999 Req: Town of Oro Valley pnhallaq 7/19/99 tjs DailyThe Terrz tO i By Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of :l.9 t 4-I J U L..' 1 99 9 yd.y�or•nm:^iv s ...+x- as:isrorse xrurc::-•.•:.cz.:rs tt..` Notary Public otary Public in and for the County'ciffi.Ma'i.,131. e of Alitrtatio.,Arizona p``1 iv C�5Is^I�d�a E Iy r"dt!�i ��is'r��2 FFFF11 .tl.'f!Yt'1VllYL'XN'-'"id:._.d�:•.L.�i15'.':-.,S"-KY'::!'2.^..i!"�+' My Commission Expires: F/36 • MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER 7: 05 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis, Mayor Dick Johnson, Vice Mayor Paul Parisi, Council Member Fran LaSala, Council Member Wayne Bryant, Council Member 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 also reported that the Town would be hosting the League of Cities and Towns Annual Conference at the Sheraton El Conquistador, September 7th—September 10th. CALL TO AUDIENCE Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, commented that he believes that the Federal Communications Commission will approve the use of low power FM frequencies and he suggested that the Town follow the issue. He also referenced the Environmentally Sensitive Land Ordinance and stated that the Town should put into place an interim measure to protect environmentally sensitive lands that have either been identified or will be identified between now and the time that the ordinance is actually approved. 1. CONSENT AGENDA At the request of Council Member Bryant, Mayor Loomis pulled Items F, H, I, J, and L from the Consent Agenda. MOTION: Council Member Bryant MOVED to APPROVE the Consent Agenda excluding items F, H, I, J, and L. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. A. Minutes - August 18, 1999 09/01/99 _Minutes, Regular Council Session 2 B. Police Report, July 1999 C. Building Safety Division Activity Report, July 1999 D. Finance Report for Month Ended July 1999 E. Postponement of the September 15th, 1999 regular meeting to September 22", 1999 due to the League of Arizona Cities & Towns Conference F. Resolution No. (R) 99- 87 Awarding a Contract Proposal to WestLand Resources, Inc. for a Preliminary Site Investigation and Land Acquisition for an F-Zone Reservoir and Route Study for a 16" Supply Pipeline (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) G. Resolution No. (R)99- 88 A resolution authorizing the amendment of an Intergovernmental Agreement with the State of Arizona concerning traffic signal maintenance H. OV12-97-18A Approval of Brake Max at Oro Valley Retail Center Public Art Proposal located along Oracle Road between First Avenue and Pusch View Lane (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) I. OV12-98-1A Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11 Stone Canyon Golf Course Temporary Clubhouse and Recreation Center Landscape Plan, located west of Rancho Vistoso Blvd., one mile north of Vistoso Highlands Drive (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) J. OV12-99-01 Villages of La Canada Final Plat, located on the northeast corner of Congressional Way and north La Canada Drive (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) K. OV12-99-08 Oro Valley Retail Center Block 8 Development Plan, located northwest and adjacent to Oracle Road L. OV12-99-10 Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel N Model Homes Development Plan, located west and adjacent to Rancho Vistoso Blvd. and east and adjacent to Hidden Springs Drive (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) M. OV12-99-10 Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10 Parcel N Model Homes Landscape Plan, located north and adjacent to Vistoso Village, east of Hidden Springs Drive, south of vacant land, and west of Rancho Vistoso Blvd. N. Reappointment of Public Art Selection Committee for CDO Riverfront Park & the new Development Services Building F. RESOLUTION NO. (R) 99-87 AWARDING A CONTRACT PROPOSAL TO WESTLAND RESOURCES, INC. FOR A PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION AND LAND ACQUISITION FOR AN F-ZONE RESERVOIR AND ROUTE STUDY FOR A 16" SUPPLY PIPELINE In response to a concern expressed by Council Member Bryant regarding item 4 of the contract, Water Utility Director David Hook explained that the language used in the contract was standard. He stated that the Town's risk was minimal in this type of contract and if damage were done,the Town would have the opportunity to pursue the responsible party. In response to a concern expressed by Council Member Bryant regarding item 10 of the contract, Mayor Loomis explained the contract is a cost plus contract. Mr. Hook also 09/01/99 Ainutes,Regular Council Session 3 explained that regarding item 13,there are different ways to calculate late fees. The language used is WestLand Resources standard calculation for late fees. MOTION: Council Member Bryant MOVED to accept the contract with the deletion of item 13. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: In response to a question from Council Member LaSala, Town Attorney Dan Dudley stated that pursuant to item 11 of the contract, invoices are due thirty (30) days after due. CALL FOR THE QUESTION: Motion failed, 1 —4 with Mayor Loomis, Vice Mayor Johnson, Council Member Parisi, and Council Member LaSala opposed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to APPROVE Resolution No. (R)99-87, a Resolution of the Town of Oro Valley, Pima County, Arizona awarding a contract proposal to WestLand Resources, Inc. to provide preliminary engineering services for a 1,000,000 gallon reservoir at Water Plant No. 13 in the amount of$8,000. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4— 1, with Council Member Bryant opposed. H. OV12-97-18A APPROVAL OF BRAKE MAX AT ORO VALLEY RETAIL CENTER PUBLIC ART PROPOSAL LOCATED ALONG ORACLE ROAD BETWEEN FIRST AVENUE AND PUSCH VIEW LANE Planning and Zoning Director Bryant Nodine reviewed overhead slides of the art proposal being presented for the Brake Max facility. He explained that the proposal consists of picnic tables and benches with tile inlay of colors in blues, greens and browns. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to approve OV12-97-18A, Public Art for Brake Max, Oro Valley Retail Center as shown. Vice Mayor Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5—0. I. OV12-98-1A RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11 STONE CANYON GOLF COURSE TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE AND RECREATION CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN, LOCATED WEST OF RANCHO VISTOSO BLVD., ONE MILE NORTH OF VISTOSO HIGHLANDS DRIVE In response to a question from Council Member Bryant, Community Development Director Brent Sinclair explained that this item was the landscape plan for the entire area. He explained that the temporary clubhouse would probably be a modular unit and would be taken off site when the permanent building is constructed. He explained that until the final development plan is presented, staff would not know exactly where the permanent clubhouse would be located. 09/01/99 Minutes, Regular Council Session 4 MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to APPROVE OV 12-98-1 A, Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11, Stone Canyon Golf Course Temporary Clubhouse and Recreation Center Landscape Plan, as submitted. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —O. J. OV 12-99-01 VILLAGES OF LA CANADA FINAL PLAT, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CONGRESSIONAL WAY AND NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE In response to a concern expressed by Council Member Bryant regarding mass grading, Community Development Director Brent Sinclair explained that the grading for the site was approved in 1994 before many of the Town's grading conditions were put into place. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to APPROVE OV12-99-01, Villages of La Canada Block A Final Plat, effective on the date of satisfaction of attached conditions listed in Exhibit"A". A) 1. The applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee since they will not provide sidewalks along La Canada Drive. 2. The applicant shall correct inconsistencies of plat information and coordinate file date including,but not limited to the following: • Centerline data for Sand Trap Way and Tee Up Way • Common Area C boundary data and square footage • Boundary data and square footage for the Common Areas A located adjacent to Congressional Way and the Private Drainageway • Centerline and tie data for Pitching Wedge Lane • Boundary data and square footage for Lot 533 3. The applicant shall submit a blueline of the corrected plat for Town staff review and approval prior to the submittal of the final plat mylars for recordation 4. Approval of this plat is dependent on Town Council approval of the recreation area plan submitted with the landscape plan. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —O. L. OV12-99-10 RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 10, PARCEL N MODEL HOMES DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LOCATED WEST AND ADJACENT TO RANCHO VISTOSO BLVD. AND EAST AND ADJACENT TO HIDDEN SPRINGS DRIVE In response to concerns expressed by Council Member Bryant regarding mass grading, Community Development Director Brent Sinclair explained that this property is in the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development (PAD) and some of the conditions within the PAD allow things to be done in certain ways. 09/01/99 .Minutes,Regular Council Session 5 Mayor Loomis stated that the development is Medium Density Residential and is being developed at that density so mass grading is almost necessary. He also explained that the Town's salvage requirements would apply for the property. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to APPROVE OV 12-99-10, rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel N Model Homes Development Plan, effective on the date of satisfaction of conditions listed in Exhibit "A". A) 1. The architecture for this model home development plan must be reviewed and approved by the Development Review Board (DRB.) 2. The boundary calculations for the proposed Stonecrest Place do not match the information shown on the plans. The information on the plans is incomplete. 3. Provide a summary of the capacity of the Moore Road Detention Facility which shows, in tabular form, what runoff is presently being conveyed to this site, what projects in design are proposed to contribute flows and the amount of remaining reserve capacity. 4. Provide a short form traffic impact analysis showing trip generation, distribution and capacity analysis at the Hidden Springs Drive and Stonecrest Place intersection. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —O. 2. APPOINTMENT OF WATER UTILITY COMMISSION MEMBERS MOTION: Council Member Bryant MOVED to APPOINT John Dohogne and Leo Leonhart to the Oro Valley Water Utility Commission, serving a term to expire on June 30, 2002 and to assign the constituency of each member as recommended (in Council Communication.) Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 -0. 3. APPOINTMENT OF BUDGET & BOND COMMITTEE MEMBERS MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to APPOINT Louis Dudas, Jack Longley, Mark Neihart, Barton Rochman, and Vito Tedesci to the Town of Oro Valley Budget and Bond Committee. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 -0. 4. APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL MEMBERSHIP TO THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS ORDINANCE (ESLO) PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to APPROVE the addition of Joe Murray and Dick Maes and open positions for Sector Boards 5 and 7 to the ESLO Public Advisory Committee. Vice Mayor Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —O. 09/01/99 1Ainutes, Regular Council Session 6 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)(CONTINUED FROM 08/04/99) Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reported that the applicant has met with homeowners surrounding the area of the proposed La Canada/Lambert Lane Commercial Center. As a result of the meeting, a new Concept Plan(Concept Plan L), has been submitted by the applicant. Charles Hulsey, The WLB Group, representing the applicant, Beztak, reviewed the development plan and grading waiver for the area. He stated that they have met with the neighbors and some changes have been made. He explained that they propose to move the Bank south on the property, which would open the view shed on La Canada Drive. He further explained that the architecture would "wrap" around the buildings. An eight (8) foot high berm would be added to protect view sheds along the golf course and as the mature trees are salvaged, they would be placed along the perimeter of the site before the grading takes place. Mr. Hulsey further reviewed changes and explained that with approval of staff,they have been able to move the driveway at the north end of the site towards the eastern boundary, which saves most of the hill. He stated that one pod of parking spaces has been removed which also saves a portion of the hill. He also explained that they have agreed to wall in the well site but would like to have "rounded" corners on the structure. Mr. Hulsey stated that they would provide a seating area, a fountain, and trail head connection on the corner of Lambert Lane and La Canada Drive. Mr. Hulsey reviewed the grading waiver request. He explained that the same amount of cut and fill would be done as in the original request with no changes to grades except in the parking lot area by the hill. In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala, Mr. Hulsey explained that they currently have no tenant for Building 2,the anchor store, which is 50,8000 square feet in size. He stated that they could change the size by amending the development plan depending on who would be using the store. In response to a concern expressed by Vice Mayor Johnson regarding the backs of the buildings, Mr. Hulsey reviewed renderings depicting the architecture of the buildings. He explained that the architecture wraps around the buildings and was approved by the Development Review Board. He also explained that the lighting at the backs of the buildings will be restricted and would be "down" lights so they would not shine into the neighbor's back yards. In response to a question from Council Member Bryant regarding the small hill on the southwest corner of the site, Mr. Hulsey stated that most of that hill would be removed with the grading approved for the Villages of La Canada. He stated that the remainder 09/01/99 1Ainutes, Regular Council Session 7 would be removed with the grading if approved for this site. Mr. Hulsey further explained that the number of parking spaces could be adjusted if appropriate when the tenant of the anchor building is determined. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. Jerry Roberts, 10280 N. Camino Valdeflores, stated that there has been good communication with the applicant and the neighbors. He stated that he felt the neighbors concerns had been listened to and addressed. He was pleased that the bank and drug store were repositioned and that large trees would be provided for buffers. He stated that he would rather see natural landscaping but knew that "give and take" was necessary and he felt that they were on the right track. Sherry King, 10492 N. Fairway Vista Lane, reviewed her suggested revisions to the concept plan as presented by Mr. Hulsey. She stated that her plan would help keep more desert terrain and the hill, and would provide views of the Catalina Mountains and lights of Tucson. She also stated that the site does not need a 50,800 square foot anchor store. Roe Young, 10421 N. Fairway Vista Lane, stated "big box" stores are passe. She stated that they are offensive in residential areas and are being voted out in Arizona and the entire country. She stated that she was not supportive of the grading waiver. She stated that the citizens need the services of smaller stores such as restaurants, beauty shops, bakeries, clothing stores, etc. She stated that "big box" stores lessen property values and asked that the property not be allowed to be over built and be allowed to fit the needs of the residents. Bonnie Harris, 1212 W. Desert Greens Way, asked that Council do what is best for the citizens and the Town. She stated that no one is against commercial development but they want it within a natural setting and tastefully done. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, questioned whether the grading waiver request meets all six criteria as required by ordinance. Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. In response to questions from Council Member LaSala, Community Development Director Brent Sinclair agreed that they are looking at the grading waiver request and stated that the new concept plan better meets the criteria. He stated that the plan is conceptual and conditions will apply to the grading waiver. Mr. Sinclair then reviewed the proposed conditions as recommended by staff: > The applicant shall work with staff to reduce the height of fill on the site. > The height of fill on the perimeter of the fill area should strive to meet the Town's grading ordinance requirements. > The applicant shall work with staff to provide additional landscape elements to `beautify' the hill and landscape berm at the northeast corner of the site. 09/01/99 Minutes, Regular Council Session 8 ➢ The approval of grading waiver based upon the concept plan known as "Concept Plan L" shall be for grading only. All other development aspects of the site, including site design and layout of buildings, shall be in accordance with the project development plan. Mr. Sinclair stated that the new concept plan with the conditions meets the grading ordinance requirements. In response to a question from Council Member LaSala, Mr. Sinclair explained that apartment complexes (approximately 220 units) could be placed on the property. In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis, Mr. Sinclair stated that the DRB and Council could place conditions on the grading waiver. Mayor Loomis expressed his concern that in the past, grading has occurred and development did not occur. He stated that he would like to apply a time limit to the grading waiver and apply significant bonding to the project. Mayor Loomis stated that he would like to move forward on the grading waiver but he felt that further refinements needed to be done on the concept plan. He stated that he also felt that the plans (development plan and landscape plan) should go back to the Development Review Board(DRB) for their approval. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to APPROVE the applicant's appeal of the grading exception, OV 12-99-07 with the conditions presented by Mr. Sinclair also tying the grading waiver to the development concept as seen tonight with the additional condition that a time line be set for one year that if the development does not begin within one year after grading, the Town move ahead and the applicant would have to re- vegetate. Also, a time limit of two years will apply to the grading waiver and the four corners are to be developed*. CONDITIONS AS PRESENTED BY MR. SINCLAIR TO BE INCLUDED PER MOTION ➢ The applicant shall work with staff to reduce the height of fill on the site. ➢ The height of fill on the perimeter of the fill area should strive to meet the Town's grading ordinance requirements. ➢ The applicant shall work with staff to provide additional landscape elements to `beautify' the hill and landscape berm at the northeast corner of the site. ➢ The approval of grading waiver based upon the concept plan known as "Concept Plan L" shall be for grading only. All other development aspects of the site, including site design and layout of buildings, shall be in accordance with the project development plan. Vice Mayor Johnson SECONDED the motion. 09/01/99 vIinutes, Regular Council Session 9 DISCUSSION: Vice Mayor Johnson asked for clarification to the four corner development. Mr. Hulsey responded to Vice Mayor Johnson and the conditions as presented. He explained that the applicant and The WLB Group have made a commitment to all involved that they would lower the grading as much as possible throughout the entire project. He also stated that they have concerns regarding sending the plans back to DRB. He stated that the plan was presented to the DRB and the Planning and Zoning Commission at a joint meeting and seminar, and everyone voiced their approval. He stated that sending the plan back to DRB would slow down the process, and the issues that would change are technical issues that would relate to staff and not to the DRB. He requested that if the plan did have to go back to DRB, that a special meeting be held in two weeks so the plan could be presented to Council in one month. Mr. Hulsey also explained that to pull the grading permits, a bond must be placed in the amount of 120% of the estimated cost of replacing re-vegetation. Mr. Sinclair explained that if a grading waiver were granted, the applicant would still have to apply for the permit. Once the permit is issued, they would have one year to complete the grading. Council Member Parisi stated that the Town's new grading ordinance protects the Town and the citizens. He explained that criteria are listed in the ordinance. Regarding development of the four corners, Mr. Hulsey explained that his client does not own the four corners and therefore, could not develop them. He stated that they would be glad to set the standard on the corner that the applicant does own. *AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION Council Member LaSala moved to amend the motion to develop one (1) corner(not 4). Vice Mayor Johnson agreed to the amendment. CALL FOR THE QUESTION Motion as amended carried, 4— 1 with Council Member Bryant opposed. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Meeting resumed at 9:00 p.m. 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)(CONTINUED FROM 08/04/99) MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to CONTINUE the Development Plan for OV 12-99-07 until such time that the development plan is presented. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. 09/01/99 Minutes, Regular Council Session 10 7. OV 12-99-7 LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN (PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE)(CONTINUED FROM 08/04/99) MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to CONTINUE the Landscape Plan for OV 12-99-07 until such time that the development plan is presented. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. Mayor Loomis moved Agenda Item 14 forward on the agenda. 14. PUBLIC HEARING—ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-48 OV12-94-32, SUNRIDGE II IN-LIEU FEE PROPOSAL,LOCATED 3/4 MILE EAST OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND 'A MILE NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reported that the developer of Sunridge II, has requested an in-lieu fee for two recreation areas in the subdivision. The developer and most owners prefer to leave the recreation area in its natural state. Mr. Sinclair reported that staff has recommended $2,400 for the in-lieu fees if approved by Council. Council Member Bryant reported that he received a videotape of the area from a resident, Mr. Woliver. Mr. Woliver feels that the amount of$6,000 to $8,000 would be more appropriate for the in-lieu fee to keep the area from washing away into neighboring lots. Mr. Sinclair explained that the Board of Adjustment approved a variance allowing the developers to have an in-lieu fee. He explained that the area may take other improvements to keep the natural landscaping from washing away but that was the developer's choice. In response to a question from Council Member Bryant, Mayor Loomis and Mr. Sinclair explained that the homeowner's association would be responsible for keeping the area intact. They explained that the town is not accepting the property but would only be allowing an in-lieu fee for natural open space instead of a recreation area. Mr. Bill Dallman, 681 W. Silver Eagle Court, applicant, explained that Mr. Woliver's concerns have nothing to do with the request for an in-lieu fee. He stated that they would like to keep the area in Sunridge II in a natural state. He stated that they would fix the engineering and drainage problems in the area. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to APPROVE OV12-94-32, Sunridge II in- lieu fee proposal. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4— 1, with Council Member Bryant opposed. 09/01/99 Minutes, Regular Council Session 11 8. PUBLIC HEARING—RESOLUTION NO. (R)99-89 INCREASING SERVICE FEES AND CHARGES FOR THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Water Utility Director David Hook reported that on July 21, 1999, Council adopted a resolution providing Notice of Intent to increase Service Fees and Charges. He reported that these changes relate to administrative services, primarily dealing with new customer accounts, installs, billing, etc. Mr. Hook reviewed the main recommended areas of changes: > $5 increase to new service establishment fee > $5 increase for meter re-read fee > $10 increase for insufficient funds return check fee > $150 increase for hydrant meter deposit > $35 (new fee) for a permit for installation of back flow prevention device > Increase in meter fees (relating to type of meters-changing to radio-read meters and to recover costs of labor for installing) In answer to a question from Vice Mayor Johnson, Mr. Hook reported that they are currently working on acquiring the radio-read equipment and will be installing the new equipment into the new subdivisions. They will be retrofitting old meters as part of an on-going plan. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. There being no speakers,the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to APPROVE Resolution No. (R)99-89, a Resolution of the Town of Oro Valley, Pima County, Arizona increasing Service Fees and Charges for the Town of Oro Valley Water Utility. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. 9. PUBLIC HEARING —ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-45 OV9-99-51 PARCEL #224-24-0120 AND PARCEL #224-24-0130, TRANSLATING AND REZONING 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 BLVD. (CONTINUED FROM 08/04/99) Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reported that the applicant has requested a continuance on this item. Mayor Loomis explained that the applicant wants to work with the Canada Hills Homeowners Association and therefore, has requested the continuance. 09/01/99 .VIinutes, Regular Council Session 12 MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to CONTINUE Ordinance No. (0)99-45, OV9-99-51, until the second meeting in October (October 20, 1999.) Council Member Parisi SECONDED the motion. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. Alan Lathrem, 1750 W. Tangerine Road, stated that this property is located in the Town of Tortolita and Oro Valley is wasting its time and efforts. Richard Tracy, 10674 N. Sand Canyon Place stated that he would speak to this item at the October meeting. Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. CALL FOR THE QUESTION: Motion for continuance, carried, 5 —O. 10. RESOLUTION NO. (R)99- 86 APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH PIMA COUNTY REGARDING THE UTILIZATION OF COUNTY BOND PROCEEDS TO DEVELOP THE ORO VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY (CONTINUED FROM 08/18/99) Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reported that the Pima County Board of Supervisors has approved a revised Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA) for bond proceeds for the development of the Oro Valley Public Library. He explained that staff has reviewed the revised IGA and found it acceptable. MOTION: Council Member Bryant MOVED to APPROVE the Intergovernmental Agreement with Pima County, as revised per the Pima County Board of Supervisors, 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. Vice Mayor Johnson SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: Vice Mayor Johnson stated that the Request for Proposals for architects will be going out soon and they hope to begin construction next spring. Motion carried, 5 —O. 11. OV12-98-1A RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11 STONE CANYON GOLF COURSE TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE AND RECREATION CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF RANCHO 09/01/99 1Ainutes, Regular Council Session 13 (PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD, ONE MILE NORTH OF VISTOSO HIGHLANDS DRIVE) Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reported that staff recommends approval of the Development Plan for OV 12-98-1 A, Stone Canyon temporary clubhouse and recreation center with conditions as recommended by staff. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to approve OV12-98-1A Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11 Stone Canyon Golf Course Temporary Clubhouse and Recreation Center Development Plan with recommended conditions. CONDITIONS: 1. There shall be no encroachment into the dedicated natural open space, with the exception of the areas identified on the development plan. A trample zone, not to exceed 5 feet in depth, may be permitted. 2. Any significant changes to the approved development plan must be submitted and reviewed by planning staff. 3. All sidewalk against the curb must be 5 feet wide, detail 3 /2. 4. Remove the ribbon curb from details 1 /2 and 2/2, and add vertical curb. Council Member Parisi SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —O. 12. PUBLIC HEARING-LIQUOR LICENSE APPROVAL FOR QUINCY ZHANG/HARVEST MOON CHINESE RESTAURANT, 12985 N ORACLE RD., SUITE 125 Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to approve the request for a Series 12 liquor license for Harvest Moon Chinese Restaurant, 12985 N. Oracle Road, Suite 125. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. 13. PUBLIC HEARING—ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-47 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED, CHAPTER 3, CRITERIA,AS IT PERTAINS TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Planning and Zoning Director Bryant Nodine reviewed the Council Communication. He reported that the Ad Hoc Committee has proposed additional language to criteria as set forth in Section 3-302 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. These criteria provide general guidelines for the Development Review Board when considering applications for development review. Mr. Nodine stated that staff has reviewed the changes, along with the recently adopted Design Guidelines and the comprehensive code amendments currently in progress. He explained that staff is recommending that since much of the 09/01/99 Minutes, Regular Council Session 14 current code language is now covered in more detail in Chapter 16, Design Guidelines, that they delete the criteria that are covered in Chapter 3. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, stated that he appreciated the wording changes being recommended in paragraph"C." He also stated that in paragraph "E,"the language limits the Development Review Board's (DRB) ability to look at traffic circulation management. He stated that the DRB should not be limited in any way to consider innovative, creative or proper problem solving with regard to traffic. He recommended that that language be struck out of the amendments to the criteria. He suggested that the language was an attempt by the Ad Hoc Committee,which he felt was essentially dominated by the builders' associations,to limit the problem solving and creating thinking of the DRB. Charles Hulsey, 11361 N. Twin Spur Court, stated that he served on the Ad Hoc Committee and stated that the committee was not controlled or dominated by the development community. He agreed that there should not be limits as to what the Development Review Board looks at. He stated that it is a critical body in the Town and it provides a wonderful service. He stated that he did not remember that recommendation coming from the Ad Hoc Committee unless it was an issue that related to liability. Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. MOTION: Council Member Bryant MOVED to DENY the amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Chapter 3, Criteria as it pertains to recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Development Review finding that current language is fine and works well. MOTION DIED due to lack of second. Council Member LaSala stated that we need to be creative when trying to solve problems, but how can we can accommodate engineering standards while still allowing creativity? Town Engineer Bill Jansen stated that there is nothing in the recommended criterion that constrains the innovative uses on internal traffic circulation, off-street parking, etc. He stated that when you look at the issue in accordance with accepted engineering design principles, many items need to be addressed (such as turning radius, etc.) He stated that you can still be creative but you must follow basic guidelines and principles. He also stated that some items would be "fixed", such as ingress, egress, acceleration and deceleration lanes and would not allow a lot of creativity. MOTION: Council Member Bryant MOVED to APPROVE the amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Chapter 3, Criteria, as it pertains to recommendations of 09/01/99 ,Ainutes, Regular Council Session 15 the Ad Hoc Committee on Development Review with the following revisions, "that we delete the changes in "E", and accept it as is. Mayor Loomis SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: In response to a question from Council Member LaSala, Mr. Jansen stated that he would always recommend against a plan if there was a material defect or safety issue relative to a particular plan. He also stated that he felt the language was not redundant but that it helps clarifies. Council Member Parisi stated that the Ad Hoc Committee worked hard on the amendments to the criteria and he felt that changes could be made a later date if it was necessary. He also stated that he did not see that the changes were restrictive. CALL FOR THE QUESTION: Motion carried, 3 —2, with Council Member Parisi and Council Member LaSala opposed. 15. PUBLIC HEARING—ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-49 OV9-99-112 REQUEST TO AMEND THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD), REQUIRING SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF RANCHO VISTOSO BLVD. FOR ALL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Community Development Director Brent Sinclair stated that staff is requesting a continuance on this item in order to provide further study and clarification concerning the impact of the ordinance. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. Dick Izen, 12356 N. Mt. Bigelow, stated that he did not see a reason for a continuance. He stated that he understands that the concern by staff is "who pays for sidewalks in the already developed areas?" He stated that the proposal deals with future developments and if the proposal is further delayed,then that is another area that a sub-developer does not have to pay for the sidewalks. Mr. Izen stated that the owner of the land and the homeowner's association both support the installation of sidewalks. Charles Hulsey, stated that Vistoso Partners has no difficulty with the requirement that future developers install in sidewalks. Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. In answer to a question from Vice Mayor Johnson, Town Engineer Bill Jansen explained that Public Works requested the continuance, as they did not know about the proposal until Friday afternoon. He stated that Public Works is responsible for the right-of-way, funding of new sidewalks, maintenance, etc. He explained that have had no input on the issue and the preliminary review of costs and liability to the Town is underestimated at approximately 300-500%. He stated that Public Works staff needs to study the issue further. 09/01/99 Minutes, Regular Council Session 16 MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to CONTINUE OV9-99-112 until October 6, 1999. Council Member Parisi SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 — 0. 16. PUBLIC HEARING—ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-50 OV9-99-113 REQUEST TO AMEND THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD), TO ADD THE DATE PALM TO THE APPROVED PLANT MATERIALS LIST Community Development Director Brent Sinclair stated that this item is to amend only the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development (PAD). He stated that staff has recommended against approval of the amendment with the Planning and Zoning Commission recommending approval with conditions. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. Hector Conde, 14040 N. Lobelia, stated that there were good reasons not to have exotic plants in the desert. He explained that the date palm is a habitat for exotic birds that do not belong in the desert. He stated that the date palm is a habitat for palmetto roaches and scorpions. He stated that he has worked on the committee that studied native plants and their recommendation was approved last month. He stated that now there is a request for an exception to the ordinance. He asked why the ordinance was adopted if they are going to change it immediately. He asked that Council reconsider the request. Charles Hulsey, The WLB Group, representing the applicant, Vistoso Partners, stated that they wanted to create an"oasis"type of effect that everyone associates with resorts. The palm tree gives that"sense of resort." He stated that they were asking that the landscape and architectural design community not be limited when they were designing these types of projects. He said that they would have not problem with the conditions as set forth by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. In answer to a question from Council Member Bryant, Mr. Hulsey stated that the numbers of palms allowed would be subject to the Development Review Board's review. In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala, Mr. Sinclair stated that staff felt that they should stick to the General Plan as much as possible. The date palm is not included on the approved plant list. Mayor Loomis stated that date palms grow very tall and are not natural in the desert. He stated that the date palms do not provide shade or no other"real purpose." He stated that there are processes in place that allow date palms to be used by "exception." He stated that the conditions being proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission do not provide limitations or restrictions that limit the date palms to just resorts. 09/01/99 LAinutes, Regular Council Session 17 Council Member Parisi stated that he does not like date palms, but is it government's place to tell people what they can and can not plant? He said that even if the date palm were added to the list, the Development Review Board would still look at the landscape plan. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to approve Ordinance (0)99-50, OV9-99-113 Rancho Vistoso PAD amendment with conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Council Member Parisi SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: Council Member LaSala stated that by adding the date palm to the list, it makes it uncontrollable. They are not restricting the use of plants, as applicants can ask for exceptions and a mechanism is in place for such exceptions. He stated that as long as they follow the General Plan, he did not think there would be any problems. Motion failed, 2—3, with Mayor Loomis, Council Member Bryant, and Council Member LaSala opposed. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to DENY Ordinance (0)99-50, OV9-99- 113, Rancho Vistoso PAD amendment. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: Council Member Parisi asked Council Member LaSala if the applicant came back and presented a plan using date palms, would he agree to the same exception as was given to the Radisson? Council Member LaSala stated that the General Plan encourages restricting the use of non-native plants, but a mechanism is in place for exceptions. He stated that if DRB recommended the exception, then he would agree to it. Council Member LaSala stated that he wanted to keep the same process that was used for the Radisson in place and not open up the floodgates. CALL FOR THE QUESTION: Motion carried, 3 —2, with Vice Mayor Johnson and Council Member Parisi opposed. 17. PUBLIC HEARING —ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-51 AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED, CHAPTERS 2, DEFINITIONS,AND 9, CONDITIONAL USE REGULATIONS, LOCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE USES Planning and Zoning Director Bryant Nodine reported that staff has prepared a Zoning Code Amendment that would permit the location of convenience uses in shopping centers and office parks of nine (9) acres in size or larger. He explained that the amendments would also allow for convenience uses to be located in mixed-use developments, both commercial and office in nature. Convenience uses would be subject to timing of development restrictions (cannot be constructed until 50% of the total floor area of the non-convenience use structures have been built.) He also explained that convenience uses in office parks would only be permitted in commercial zoning designations. Mr. 09/01/99 1Ainutes, Regular Council Session 18 Nodine explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the amendments with the condition that the number of drive-thru and retail motor fuel convenience uses be limited to one per nine acres. He reported that staff concurs with the recommendation. In response to a question from Council Member Bryant, Mr. Nodine explained that the development plan would study traffic issues. He also explained that convenience uses require Conditional Use Permits and so that process would also study traffic concerns. In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis, Mr.Nodine explained that the number of drive-thru and retail motor fuel convenience uses would be restricted to one total of either of those. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, stated that convenience uses are incompatible with office parks in all aspects. He stated that with the conflict potential with traffic, pedestrians, signage, etc., Council should not consider this amendment request. Steve Hagedorn, 110 S. Church, representing owners of a 14 acre parcel on the northwest corner of Linda Vista Boulevard and Oracle Road, stated that they are looking at an office complex for that corner which would require a rezoning from R1-144 to C-N. He stated that the proposed project would be about two-thirds offices, with a sit-down restaurant at the Desert Sky corner and a convenience use at the Linda Vista corner. He stated that they feel that convenience uses are compatible with office parks as they provide workers the use of services. He requested Council's support of the amendment to the Zoning Code Revised. Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. Council Member Bryant expressed his concern regarding the potential traffic at the corner of Linda Vista and Oracle Road. He stated that he felt that convenience uses are not compatible with office parks. MOTION: Council Member Bryant MOVED to DENY Ordinance No. (0)99-51, Amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Chapter 2, Definitions, and Chapter 9, Locational Requirements for Convenience Uses. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: In answer to a questions from Council Member LaSala, Mr.Nodine explained that convenience uses are gas stations, fast food restaurants, a deli, places that serve alcoholic beverages in disposable containers,plus others. Council Member LaSala stated he has seen nice office complexes with nice convenience uses. He stated that he felt that it is a wonderful service to the people that work there and he thought they were compatible if done correctly. • 09/01/99 Minutes, Regular Council Session 19 Vice Mayor Johnson stated that there are many nice office complexes that have integrated convenience uses within them. He stated that each conditional use permit would have to go through the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Development Review Board and Council and each would be looked at for compatibility. CALL FOR THE QUESTION: Motion to deny failed, 1 —4,with Mayor Loomis,Vice Mayor Johnson, Council Member Parisi and Council Member LaSala opposed. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to APPROVE Ordinance No. (0)99-51, Amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Chapter 2, Definitions, and Chapter 9, Locational Requirements for Convenience Uses adding the condition as set forth by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the number of drive-thru and retail motor fuel convenience uses be limited to one per nine acres. Vice Mayor Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4— 1, with Council Member Bryant opposed. 18. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MOTION: Council Member Bryant MOVED to APPOINT Ms. Becky Blakenship to the Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, with a term to expire in May, 43:014. Vice Mayor Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —O. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT No report. ENGINEER'S REPORT No report. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Finance Director David Andrews reported that the field work for the Town's Annual Financial Audit was completed. The audit will be sent to the Budget and Bond Committee in October and then forwarded to Council. He also reported that the position for the Town's Network Administrator has been filled. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reported that construction has begun on the new Development Services Building. He also reported that bids were opened for the CDO Riverfront Park development. Staff will evaluate the bids and will be returning their findings to Council in October. Mr. Sinclair also reported that the Citizens' Planning Institute (CPI)will be beginning in September. Also,the Environmentally I 09/01/99 1 Minutes, Regular Council Session 20 Sensitive Lands Project will be holding a public workshop on September 9th in the Town Council Chambers. POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT Police Chief Wolff reported that the 8th Citizens Police Academy started today (September 1, 1999.) WATER UTILITY DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Vice Mayor Johnson reported that the Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitor's Bureau met with the Deputy City Manager of Tucson regarding their Rio Nuevo project. He asked that Council support the project in downtown Tucson that would enhance the entire region. Council Member Parisi stated that he has been speaking weekly with the Fraternal Order of Police and things are going well. He also reported that the Fire Advisory Committee met with the Focus Group on the Strategic Plan. He urged Council to call him if they had questions regarding the Plan. CALL TO AUDIENCE Dick Maes, 945 W. Vistoso Highlands Drive, addressed the Native Plant Salvage Ordinance that was approved by Council in August. He stated that he was surprised to see what took one year of work and effort by an Ad Hoc Committee composed of professional experts and Town staff, turned into a bureaucratic nightmare of public hearings on something that should be handled by staff and not reviewed by the Development Review Board and Mayor and Council. He stated that because of one person's opinion, two more months would now be added on to the process, which will determine whether a plant will live. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Council Member Bryant MOVED to adjourn at 10:50 p.m. Vice Mayor Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion to adjourn, carried, 5 —O. Respectfully submitted, Roxana Garrity,Deputy Town CI k I 09/01/99 1Ainutes, Regular Council Session 21 t 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 1st day of September 1999. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this " dayofS , 1999. / FU Cet-c• -li-c-t,-.: Kathryn E. Cuvelier,CMC SKATE OF ARIZONA) 0 AFFIDAVIT illiUBLICATION :ss. COUNTY OF PIMA 1being first L.Al.RA I I I.:T:I...I duly sworn, deposes and says that (he) (she) is the Legal Advertising Manager of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tucson, BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL in accordance with ARS 9-462, 9-471 and Section 3-106 of the Countyof Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. NOTICE OF TRANSLATIONAL ZONING PUBLIC HEARING BE- FORE THE ORO VALLEY H AI-L AID C.r.CIF=F•F'T I ES 1 TOWN COUNCIL IS HEREBY GIVEN: FROM PIMA COUNTY TIME: THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED NON-DATE SPE- .� C. t.:i` I.` (CI MMYMERC l AL - CIFIC UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE PUBLIC IMI.I- . PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall E 11,000 N. La Canada Drive Oro • . Valley, Arizona . SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: OV9-99-51 PARCEL a 224-24-0120 AND PARCEL a 224-24-0130. TRANSLATING was printed andpublished correctlyin the regular and entire issue of said THE AND REZONING RECENTLY g ANNEXED LAND KNOWN AS THE HALLAQ PROPERTIES, FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1 DAILY TERRITORIAL for issues; that the first was made (COMMERCIAL), TR (MULTILTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OF- FICES), AND CR-2 (SINGLE i FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO on the day of 19 ORO VALLEY C-2 (COMMER- CIAL), R-6 (MULTI-FAMILY RE- SIDENTIAL AND OFFICES), 19th I»ICMT� �II- �.� 1 ER AND R1-10 (SINGLE FAMILY and the last publication thereof was made on the dayof RESIDENTIAL), WITH CONDI- TIONS .I.9' .l"I In aocordance with Arizona State Statute,the zoning on the above- 19 ; that said publication referenced properties must be I:�fC1" 'IL• � �,,4 translated and rezoned from Pima County Zoning Classifica- tions to the nearest Oro Valley zoning Classifications. was made on each of the following dates,to-wit: LOCATION: The property listed is located in the area known as Map 4. and is located at the north-east corner of Lambert10 9 Lane and La Cholla. Boulevard. The property extends approxi- mately 1/4 mile north of Lambert Lane,and approximately 1/2 mile east of La Cholla Boulevard. DESCRIPTION: A detailed loca- tion and description of the parcel slated to be translated can be Request of obtained at the Oro Valley Town Hall. TOWN OF 'ORO V A(....I.-.LY • This item has been continued non-date specific until further no- tice. This public hearing wit be re-noticed, if applicable. Should you have any questions regard- ing this matter, please contact David Marsh at (520) 797-9797, Th- • or at dmarsh@orovalley.net Daily Teruo AICP Planning & Zoning Admini- strator Town of Oro Valley Pub: The Daily Territorial October 19, 1999 � Reg: Town of Oro Valley By • 2r\i\tV1 i • pnhaltaq 10/19/99 Os .` *' f'.--, f� /'' v _ f • Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of •- _ 19 t h O C TO B Cw R 1 9 9 �'Z+f ; C.); a•;CiAto�.�t.: • ,,,r:,_:_•. DAWN LEIGH LU ,'1 t ... tNOTARY PUBLIC-ARIZONA PIP,,h.A COUNTY ,, My Comm. E'xares Sept.20,22 C2'', Notary Public in and f r the County of Pima,State orizona My Commission Expires: L. ' b _ o .+-� t I piw ,- y i `_ ESL °UNDED Office of the Town Attorney Memo To: Dan L. Dudley From: Joseph N. Andrews Date: April 19, 2002 Re: Hallaq Property Zoning Proposal Question: Is the currently proposed translational zoning the same as the proposed zoning that went before the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 6, 1999? Answer: No. The Hallaq property is the sum of two forty(40) acre parcels under common ownership by the Hallaq's located on the North-East corner of La Cholla Blvd and Lambert Lane. Combined, the parcels form an eighty(80) acre area of land, the length of which is approximately 2,600 ft from the corner of La Cholla Blvd., extending east along Lambert Lane and the eastern boundary of the property extends north from Lambert Lane along La Cholla Blvd for approximately 1,250 ft. At the April 6, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting(the "Meeting"), it was proposed that the zoning be translated from conditional Pima County Zoning to the nearest Oro Valley zoning designation. The"Zoning Swap" proposal is different in the following ways: 1. At the Meting, it was proposed that the Southwest quarter of the western parcel be translated to TOV zoning classification C-1. The proposal changes this zoning to C-2, a more dense zoning classification that allows regional shopping etc. 2. At the Meeting, the Northwest quarter of the western parcel was to be translated to TOV zoning classification R-6. The proposed difference allows for an R-10 buffer between the northern boundary and the R-6 zoning, making smaller the northwestern area subject to R-6 zoning. H:\ALL DRAFT DOC IN PROGRESS\Memo Re Hallaq proposed translation.doc 3. At the Meeting, it was proposed that the southeastern quarter of the western parcel be translated to TOV zoning classification R-6. The proposal extends this R-6 zoning into the eastern parcel. Question: With regard to notice, are the differences between the proposal and the Meeting considered "Substantial Differences" as relates to the notice required for the Meeting? Answer: It depends. In terms of the notice for the April 6, 1999 Meeting, it depends on what notice was given whether the proposed changes fall within the notice. However, the maps and zoning classifications, specifically the change in translational zoning from TOV zoning C-1 to C-2, would likely require a new notice and hearing procedure. The purpose of C-2 zoning includes every use outlined within C-1 plus commercial activities designed to serve a large area. I am sure that the inclusion of regional commercial uses such as this would be substantial differences with higher intensity than the initial notice contained. Whether the translation to C-2 rather than C-1 from Pima County CB-1 zoning is proper is a matter of interpretation that should be left to the Planning and Zoning Administrator Because there is allot of overlap between these zoning classifications. NOTE: I received minutes for the July 6, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission that verify that a hearing on the modifications was finalized on that date. Question Will the property owner be required to go through the Planning and Zoning Commission process again? Answer: Not likely. The law in Arizona on proper Planning and Zoning Commission meeting notice is clear. In Arizona, the recommendation of the Zoning Commission forms the jurisdictional basis for any later zoning action. Maricopa County Board Of Supervisors v. Bell, 51st Investors, 108 Ariz. 261, 495 P.2d 1315 (1972). "[T]this jurisdictional basis must itself be free from jurisdictional defects. In order to assure the Commission's jurisdiction, the notice requirements for a hearing before the Commission cannot, and should not, be taken lightly." Summit Properties, Inc. v. Wilson, 26 Ariz.App. 550, 550 P.2d 104 (Ariz.App.1976). The Summit Properties Court went on to hold that failure to strictly comply with the enabling act and statutory notice requirements for Zoning Commission meetings, nullifies the action eventually taken by the legislative body as a result of that defective notice.Id To clarify their holding, the Summit Properties Court reasoned that their"holding is not to be considered as precluding all variations absent a second notice and rehearing. Variations from the original notice may be considered where a classification or subject matter either is of a more restrictive nature or is a minor or insubstantial variation from the noticed proposals. IcL (citing) 96 A.L.R.2d 484, s 19(1964). • Page 2 Conclusion: Before final action is taken the following needs to be addressed: 1. Determine what zoning is currently effective on the property. 2. Whether the shuffling of the R-6 zoning is a minor or insubstantial variation from the noticed proposal. However, based on the minutes from the July 6, 1999 meeting,the proper notice and hearings have been held. •Page 3 0LLE Y q,4� Wrt. %"") ® FUNDED Office of the Town Attorney Memo To: Dan L. Dudley From: Joseph N. Andrews Date: 4/18/02 Re: Transitional Zoning Question: Does Arizona law provide guidance regarding the zoning within a proposed annexation area? Answer: Yes. Pursuant to Arizona law, municipalities are not required to adopt county zoning. Specifically, "[a] municipality may enact an ordinance authorizing county zoning to continue in effect until municipal zoning is applied to land previously zoned by the county and annexed by the municipality, but in no event for longer than six months after the annexation." ARS§9- 462.04(E,). The only mandatory Arizona law as it pertains to annexation and zoning is ARS§ 9-471 (L), which outlines that"[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 shall be made according to existing procedures established by the city or town for the rezoning of land."ARS§9-471 (L). Question: Does Arizona law provide guidance regarding how transitional zoning is to be applied to an annexation area containing multiple county zoning designations? Answer: No. As outlined above, "[a] city or town annexing an area," is required to adopt transitional zoning. Arizona law provides no direction outlining what or how an annexation area is to be defined. This begs the question; can an annexing city or town rearrange the zoning within an annexation area to better meet its General Plan needs? Arizona law does not directly answer this question. F:1P&Z\Annexation\Memo Re Transitional Zoning Hallek.doc • Other jurisdictions have taken a different approach to the problem of translational zoning. Washington State, avoids the problem entirely where the county zoning in existence before annexation remains in effect "until proposed amendments to the approved community comprehensive plans and approved community zoning ordinance have been approved that apply to the annexed area." WA ST 36.105.090 (2001). Along similar lines as Washington State,the Arizona Supreme Court reasoned that in the event of consummation of an annexation of land by cities and towns, all of the land automatically carries over its changed zoning classification.Maricopa CountyBd of Sup'rs v. Bell 51st Investors, 108 Ariz. 261, 263, 495 P.2d 1315, 1317(1972). "Changed zoning classification" being a county rezoning that occurred immediately before annexation. This holding may indicate how the Court may interpret transnational zoning in the future. Nonetheless, if cities and towns are not prohibited from rearranging the zoning within the annexation area, possibly cities and towns will be allowed to do so. If it is a sensitive zoning issue, litigation is possible. Therefore, a zoning manipulation within an annexation area is not prohibited under Arizona law. However, such a manipulation is not specifically provided for under Arizona law either. In an abundance of caution, and to avoid litigation over manipulation of zoning within an annexation area,the most conservative action would be to not manipulate the zoning upon annexation. As an alternative, the statute requiring that, upon annexation, a parcel retain zoning classifications that permit uses no greater than what had been permitted prior to annexation and that "subsequent changes" be carried out in compliance with the appropriate rezoning provisions did not bar city from initiating rezoning proceedings before annexation of parcel was final.Blanchard v. Show Low Planning and Zoning Com'n, 196 Ariz. 114, 119, 993 P.2d 1078, 1083 (Ariz.App. 1999). Thereby, an immediate rezoning is possible once the annexation is finalized. • Page 2 0 rt ORDINANCE NO. (0)99- 25 AN ORDINANCE TRANSLATING THE ZONING FROM PIMA COUNTY SR TO ORO VALLEY R1-144, WITH CONDITIONS, ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE FUTURE ARIZONA INC. PROPERTY, LOCATED WITHIN MAP 4; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. WHEREAS, the owners of certain real property known as the Future Arizona Inc. Property, located within Map 4, has requested that the provisions of their previously approved annexation agreement be retained;and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, has considered said translational zoning with added conditions on this property 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 and finds that it is consistent with the Town's General Plan, and other Town ordinances, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: SECTION 1. That the Future Arizona Inc. Property contained within Map 4 be translationally zoned from Pima County SR to Oro Valley R1-144, and that all applicable development standards of the R 1-144 zoning district shall apply thereto to said property. SECTION 2. That the provisions of the previously approved annexation agreement, attached herewith,be retained. SECTION 3. That all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict; SECTION 4. 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. 4 (0)99-25 p.2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 12 day of Apri'1999. aul H. Loomis,Mayor ATTEST: Ka n Cuvelier,Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 'd71t Dan L.Dudley, Town Attorn Annexation Development Agreement is on file and available for public review in the Oro Valley Town Clerk's Office at 11,000 N. La Canada Dr. , Monday - Friday, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PUBLISH: Daily Territorial May 6, 7, 10, 11, 1999 POSTED: May 3 - June 2, 1999 rg Zoning : .,..... R o -ure izona nc. rans a iona , ,_-- __ ,, , I •� — PAD , z } 0. .4, _ . J Map 3: SR to R1-144 CB-1, TR, and CR 2 R1-144 �W to C-1, R-6, and R1-10 ''>dyy fly, \ ,,,AL3 g .; a a.�..: .. t5 e i>a•..,'s• �a7Y 3 LNe yyk gjas a kV41111 a tt���'�a,�`�a SF,,, ��. ��z'�v x�.x�2 !� z�x,` !' �3� �•4�1a31�lK�'�>� �z°5�. '�.,y>�'T•k�._:r�'Fy.�''�;v?.,9"t,S�:sF!:d'3..�'�YS�.g,.:m s�ra9r iw'•;"=�A�:; :�i''�:,b„F�>8+3y� �� Y�aY'� °`�>"'F��' �+4� k>x �'t,��v�•' >3��%:^k>°,;�!rw�+Xs•, .'3.! 1 c'��a. .z'�:.L e.ha �o..e...: .:��;..,.:.v;. `.be k,�A.';�c' C/...f"F.�:S•xi�a}L v F:i,!�� .fi'; :}!.� ?�,za>,�>v:,:.'>,�!"i' M ?'.., s::'�:fi:�'S-;cY it.ry f.�;F � i�sa'•''. g :.:�'�� 'yam, k x2.;,$�+a��'%v''iA':Li:sf:.:'>!.::::::::::::>2 n':.,x:...:;:: �� � Y S:i S : •+'�:. '�.."�R VeC'i.;.�'•a�i'. 'bi�o>�'.�,<; .�..a}!}:N:;aS.>*``�!$/.�i?s:.G ; skAv>, ,�.;5 �p � ks.r!t+'�ix :..52:'::Y+f'o!''C�'»:;;F,,o.:,,v ;;2�.,.a .:> ,,,!�_,',:..:•) ..; t,,,,y .,,,,, ..'2:...•-.•`ti :�.;ig:..��';:f. ... ,:'x>:.'F.t�.Y�.�j� y'' ;%Y`'k' .',.'SSYY y<' is<'��: `nn � .:Y4W,.r,. x. z',.p'.';r<? .'r<;,;5.'3;:�:�a :%�':!2 :•m.:�`r'»,y�,e."fi"�b-`1',ryu.� 2:':. 2!re. .°,�'' �°Y<,,,,,,,,,A,,,- ...�'. S3'sxs *411111 :R': b'<3"£1 �::bv;:, .ai '>:S. .�J..?f.�,.. ;.`�`:',`•� �( ':'�. •a?Y:b� y; fit: ,�s.> %g�:;. .:��:} a)k.:::7 r �::�•`yi� .'b.`:�'' .. '%� .K2 ,C,:..:. :ti'#ir K.�y,�7'j • ..�4y k.`:r, ,".{.,Y. ..f"/.'. •...•,.., : ,. ry: vi „4 n• 12.. SC,„. v%3.S'..,aR:Y,#s<`:.:f�NW�..=;.E...�t efz, ":4;::$4;;;.!', !rr:s;Yx,!::;}F:4` ..1,,•^t: :us f::•i"•:'.. ��.,` :'*.�:.i. i `'v�:';s':�::;w.X �:�4'r.:✓:':ii.�:�;',L,!.y� <;.�,.';.':.:>:.»s:. ..axi'�..i�«, ,rr..i...:: �..:,;...w L€;•:a.'<�:�£j!v'. ..... �`> .krc.:�:,r+, "�,s�.�v ,. .'� ...�.aL. ';.E',r ����': ,cri ^ri 3r,lta,.'! 5a.:I:iO Z3.tey >s :f ,.:r` .!',c °' & 3!:°,:,..�..i., pin' .:s..:FM� ;�� ';.Z�9 h �s,fy D •k6b ''�,��',+`'�,,.. • �a�,0v.'':L::<. '�,�,��+�Y�Y2'r.`Y.�, �'• '#����`�q�!:: z::}. :;fig: i �: NI', `y p. y, .<{')$> C :;, .,.itf.•.fj'SiF.: ...£_; 5�I i 'a .� h. iF.,F,.: 'y:>�:RS'. ` i lit., ,�a29r.;.., i:i.•`?g<L'.;l,,:' ,.:v•`^:t' ..i`p \' • • 111 / ,:��i::'F.�..;r$t.,�.,n' :.`�;.. yy";r��.:>�" jiff:'. M.j„E.�:p:' !�,,�: F�x: :� ��;,,�+. �3%•"S5' ..pg.':�'.s:�"' .2Y.r .l:k::,y...g ::'t��::i:K £' <$.Z.2>. .:''!..'.$•�.f'.`:2> �Y�,�2%+• .�'+iC..Y"�(%. ,..!.nr,.LR' ,+i'yy»..,y. ,.�.ry,,,,.:':Sy:F�ri:%:�:.r.X!��!,,'' ,,,!..:..q8.., ,4 3'�. .r •'E.. itiowilla,t;,,,,4140:',4;rigglitogir: x}> :..a;'y <s,„3o :n.. ,. .`;•;ems•.'». .zr..;.� `,•3.. ,y a.2zE:o- Q:� ° ;ifo's4: , '.: . ; `s,,,;.x;,.:Y'... »ir ,; :•••: 2 — 1 ,Wil 1 nits =1 imum ? :4 ,.,, .� � � .. :y:z> ': �.g'SR r �.; fi:,t �fi` '�G`y.' :�.:'<�t�:3:""::;,f; r. G. .h'"r'it� !$;?o�;.�<� �y 4.: r➢!C,o;s,� i,+s 6y�b;;&?' .V/.•.+�•f.y.� .�"': ::i�': s.s. }:!;,414 7z�:>::a:•3:'wr.<?G:'v.tog,� �� a, Y5`;lY.<.. ;':fC!,%.:...:;f.�:,Y:r ,�},�,'s<'/.�;..� �n��;{tf�, :.s!..S:W..f�f� $ � ri:.£:':by! 'E:i�;',°L.;�. ,.H:�.',,.�s,:> ,.s:. ' :, .F.,ma's.A,. :c"Y��''�.''::�:>.� ,�;,':' „�> " :::g32u:(,£.: 'zy::��," •'.';s,�£.L�fin;'�', ',�''>"` 2;%ii>fc,, .?7:,.�:. ..r�y; g>:' --._._ 1.1111 i __.____� � ::owl .. �. '��:'� Sad.:,��qq k:. 9: >�. >^'�' ' "'�.ill :,�"�. .�.��'; .b,• •' ��,;.• ,."u�'&`�,^;•�.;'^`. •, T.>,. .,;.�x' : .:s�.".! '::?F.:ozqq" >'s<���!+a v5.�',� F"r .¢ �:=2„1i`�f.'' "q,:`•'s!i / 7,s2:•a...:.l.A;u' ;1::,,<.e..;. :34. ..t'::'"$'�,:3r.'., r ,::42., ':w ,4.:•�:..�v;..:.s 0 5 .. :.! ` J4:::'. :n}.'b:S;.�g!�.,.2.,#b'.r,.' ;9: ;'r`: 1,:5,::`. ^5.�:,'.• ,.:'`" ,do'i .3" .t.`::'.:i> s'<kt?tsx #'`:'_.. r»:: y. �' �� ::='>�sx;',�;,: s.:4:. ,.>..s�s 'Gyi r,i' S: ,'k%i.b'yf;:...A.,,to, "dtx f ! f• :"a"r4? „iy^` R���� 3 )': :�•y<9''<i¢�, L- Y # iY�t� ."�, %2'`. a¢ 2 Q�`�'z+`,:'�''"�2°.H.: iti* S^Al /'` y,� Y :}::x `.`hS'. 'i >..5,. .,3y,•i .i�x.0 .' $jV;.' �L S�'4:6'.•J,t•.J �3,% .,YY lx.r f A yJ��tY�+�9 tE:`� 2�`, `r: iYb>:Z 'f: ..•l 'F,�jZ;". ;2'�xi; � 4 Y 3 TG iii::?:!,;01','!:,4'.; ''' Oritilr* AtiAlliA00014111110" ' � ''w ,e 5�r�u>�3 � z�`u a�`„AYi��,�y"�r<>,6si '�`.,,C$;.3�'^f: './� :l. y.rd'�- • �� `::g +'awl. �.L ���` ^�2. ,} �'C,`Y.S>. `�.,,.a!3't ';.. Oil ;;a.���.:�e�" �'a. 4,001.41 :.�`���.:. .'}" .�.�R '�;.�u':� ..2.o..•R;,.', :K:.��. • �;. s�� .Yz' .��.�'x :'i ..¢;,Y;tC: a� 8�.�' g: �.� R,`;�v.a...zn5 its-?t.!:aY'?�j.. �F.3„�. `�a•2 2:,4�.,.:;a,:.Y.6: tf,,"�,',- y:e •,, a s 3 .'ki e su s s y f� 3 x k .`t'(•' trb a`+ \ i `XR' 3 �.� r .R 'L•Y�g'Y L �fPa�J``3''�} x�5 ,yam. ',>, s° :k .:.1` t `rr 'Y y�.iig£t!F""r�. .A.3,,'�L mute. 'F ot'�i ,��i*t:�'i <. .x z< 5 L�f `?;a>,,. s:., • ' •.� •+s. . 'i+x •c „ ..` \ immimii �3� � Y ,, ��„'Ae�j . :rr` .4.,,,, :;'2 fie,A,i Niglio m Admin. milli C viiiiiii JI P0iiiiii SR - SR w. ' iiiitoj -m ■IIUflIUIIlihII ii I.uIIummemollulul P llil( tIIIIIllllllillllltllal 1 ( ____. I 1 I I I _____\ 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Feet N 3/25/99 .Lia,, ILL Q I° Y 2 ',3 1999, MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY FROM: G. LAWRENCE SCHUBART, STUBBS & SCHUBART, P. C.7c1.5 SUBJECT: HALLAQ PROPERTY: TRANSITIONAL ZONING 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-of-way; (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 TR 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 ZONING 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 adjusting 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. This type of analysis is consistent with many of the prerogatives that exist within zoning codes themselves. A planned area development (PAD) typically designates broad zoning classifications in large areas, while at the same time permitting 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]. 2 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 Hallags 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 Hallaq property and reflects the configuration for the translation zoning. This exhibit 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 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 require the property 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 43.5 units per acre,which we concede is excessive. There are, though,many luxury apartment developments that have density in the range of 18 RAC and I have attached one additional brochure depicting this type of development. 3 13.23.013 B. Minirrzum lot sire requirements for lots in a CR- B. Minimum area per dweli-;,-Ig unit: Sixteen thou- 1 subdivision may be approved by the board of sand square feet. supervisors for reduction from thirty-six thousand C. Minimum lot width:Eighty feet. square feet to twenty-fopLthousand 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 18023 F. Minimum distance between main buildings: Twenty feet except as required in Section CR-2 SEGLE RESIDENCE ZONE 18.09.020D (General Residential and Rural Sections: 18.23.01D Permitted uses. 13.23.020 Conditional uses. 13.23.930 Development standards— General. 13.23.040 Development standards— Detached accessory buildings. 13.23.051) Cluster development option. 13.23.060 Lot reduction option. 13.23.070 Lot development option. 13.23.1)10 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) 18.23.1)20 Conditional uses. A. Uses conditionally permitted: 1. Any use as conditionally peuuitted in Section 18.21.020(CR-1 Single Residence Zone),except the raising of rates is not pelinitted. (Ord. 1994-146 § 7, 1994: Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) 13.2301)30 Development standards—General. A. Minimum lot area: Sixteen thousand square feet. (Pima County 3-96) 18-52 EX1-113IT A • 18,23.04D Zoning Provisions) for a rear dwelling. (Ord. 1925- 13.239D60 Lot rezludion optiom. 32(part), 1935) A. Refer to Sectic:a., 13.09.050 (General Residential and Rural Zoning Provisions) for the general provi- 12.23.040 Development stanchrzlz---Detzched sinus of the lot reduction option. enrybuileings. B. -Minimum lot size requirements 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-fmily 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), 1985) a. Four feet if building is not used for poultry or animals, 18.23.070 Lot development option. b. Fifty feet if building is used for poultry or ani- A. Refer to Section 18.09.060 (General Residential 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 Chapter 13.25 shall be set back ten feet from the rear where it abuts an a,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, RH, a, SR, SB, CR-1, CR-2, or Sections: MU, and forty feet from a side property line. A set- 13.25.91D Permitted uses. back of ten feet shall be permitted on the side yard 13.25.020 Conditional USBS. where the adjacent property owners have a written 12.25,0030 Development standards— recorded agreement to this effect, but, in no event, Genera/. shall a corral be closer than fifty feet to any residence 18.25.040 Development standards-- or living quarters in an abutting property. (Ord. Accessory buildings. 1985-187 § 1 (part), 1985; Ord. 1985-82 (part), 13,25.0.50 Cluster development option. 1985) 13.25.060 Lot reduction option. 13.2E4070 Lot development option. 13.23.050 Cluster devel,vpment option. A. This option shall be permitted only for subdi- 13.25.510 ID' 2.222Ittl'd 11°25° vided residential lots as allowed in this chapter, and A. Uses penrnitted: 1. All uses as permitted in Section 18.09.020A their associated open space,in accordance with Sec- tion 18.09.040 (General Residential and Rural Zon- (General Residential and Rural Zoning Provisions); ing Provisions). (Ord. 1985-111 § 1 (part), 1933; 2. Temporary trailer or mobile or manufactured Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) home: In accordance with Section 13.17.020A2(SR Suburban Ranch Zone); 18-52.1 pi county 7-33) • . __18.C9.050 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 no more individual one- K. Phased development, family lots than provided for in the lot reduction 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 all park, recreation - • fled cluster site plan for the total project.The phased areas, and drainage areas (CR-i only) conform to portions shall be shown on the subdivision plat. this code, including area and neighborhood plans,as • 2. Open space requirements for each phase shall be supplemented and amended; the same as stated in Section 18.09.040F. Separate • 3. That full and adequate provision is made for sur- homeowners' associations with provisions . for face drainage, including dedication of rights-of-way 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-I only) or otherwise permanently 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 said park,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 or rec- 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 ded1 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 lot owners within the subdivision. 1985-187 § 1 (part), 1985; Ord. 1985-111 § 1 (part), C. Approved plat recordation required:No approval 1985; Ord. 1.985-82(part), 1935) on a minimum lot size reduction shall be effective until a subdivision plat complying with the commis- 13.09.950 Lot reduction option. sion's findings and certification and approved by the 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 13.09.060 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 I C-98) INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: GLS FROM: BELLE SUBJECT: RECONFIGURING ZONING LINES WITHIN A SINGLE PARCEL SUBSEQUENT TO A PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 5/5/99 Pursuant to your instructions, I looking at variations from zoning proposals set forth in public notices. Summit Properties, Inc. v. Wilson, 26 Ariz.App. 550, 550 P.2d 104 (1976) states, in pertinent part: "Variations from the original notice may be considered where a classification or subject matters either is of a more restrictive nature or is a minor or insubstantial variation from the notices proposals. See authorities cited, 96 ALR 2d. 484 §19 (1964). Id., 550 P.2d at 109. 96 ALR § 19 discusses Neuger v. Zoning board of Stamford, 145 Conn. 625, 145 A.2d 738 (1958) in which a proposed zoning amendment defined a shopping center and after notice and hearing the form was changed in that the single-ownership requirement was eliminated "so as t require that only one such package store could be opened in any shopping center." The court stated: ". . . The very purpose of the hearing had been to afford an opportunity to interested parties to make known their view and to enable the board to be guided by them . . . it is implicit in such a procedure that changes in the original roposal might ensure as a result of the view expressed at kviv .) CC: File li the hearing and ruled that the notice was not required to contain an accurate forecast of the precise action which might be taken upon the subject matter referred to in it." 96 ALR at 485. Sandblom v. Corbin, 125 Ariz. 178, 608 P.2d 317 (1980) involves a suit brought to surrounding landowners against Camelback Shadows, Inc.,, and other Maricopa county defendants regarding the board of supervisors' approval of a revised site master plan. The Superior Court granted judgment in favor of the defendants. The Court stated, in pertinent part: "In our opinion, the administrative action here involved does not entitle the public to any greater procedural protection, than it is afforded when the Board acts in legislative capacity. Therefore, we believe that the Board may effect insubstantial changes in a permit if they fall within the general purview of the original notice without having to resort to a new round of notice hearings . . ." (Citation omitted, emphasis in original.) Id., 608 P.2d at 324. While this case contains language that supports the issue at hand, it is factually dissimilar in that it deals with, among other things, special permit issues. It seems that all of the cases involving deviation from that which is stated in a public notice cite, as authority, Summit Properties, Inc. v. Wilson, supra. As authority that the governing body may make minor insubstantial changes to zoning ordinances. 2 March 29, 1999 Tobin: As you may be aware on the Hallaq Property, the Hallaq property has conditional zoning that is in place which has not been sunsetted. Therefore, when we do our translational zoning, it will be translated to the closest analogous zone. Are you aware of any provision in the Oro Valley Zoning Code or any provision in the State Code that would prevent us from placing a time limit on that zoning when it translated? Is there, in our Zoning Code, that you are aware, any provision authorizing the translation on a conditional basis? � t Please advise ASAP. Dan 6"/ r-- Gc. ae-r- / /?7,(47/R ‘f a77--- 'OS? /1°/ rt. tfr/L.e &"- 1 STUBBS & SCHUBART, P . C. (16 ATTORNEYS & COUNSELLORS AT LAW gri 340 NORTH MAIN AVENUE TUCSON. AZ 85701 PHONE: (520) 623 . 5466 FAX (520) 882 -3909 stubbs 1 @azstarnet . com ..1111111... FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: DAN L.DUDLEY,ESQ. G.LAWRENCE SCI-ILJRART,ESQ. COMPANY: DATE: DUDLEY LAW FIRM Agri 6,1999 FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO.OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 297-3927 6 PHONE NUMBER: CHARGE: HALLAQ RE: 0 URGENT 0 FOR REVIEW ❑PLEASE COMMENT ❑PLEASE REPLY ❑PLEASE RECYCLE PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED BELOW. IW THE READER Or THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT,OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT,YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION,DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE,AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA 11-1E;U.5.POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. NOTES/COMMENTS: COPY TO FOLLOW BY LIT CLASS MAIL= XX YES _NO I"� I V iJ J J v_T . V�J• J • v v v v to �+�.• r v.-+. .• . - -- Stubbs & Schubart, P. C Attorneys and Counsellors at Law 340 N. Main Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701 srubbsleazstarnet.com Robert C. Stubbs P. O. Box 50547 G. Lawrence Schubare Tucson, Arizona 85703 Thomaa M. Parsons (520)623-5466 Damian M. Fellows Fax(520)882-3909 •Q14c licrrtesed ut renmzylvania April 6, 1999 SENT BY FAX TRANSMISSION/1ST CLASS MAIL Dan L. Dudley, Esq. 7435 North Oracle Road, #101 Tucson, AZ 85704 Re: OV 9-99-51 Hallaq Translational Zoning Dear Dan: Recently I spoke with staff and also with Chuck Sweet,Town Manager, I placed willthe call before 5:00p.m. today. a call to you, and hopefully�you be able to return y This letter will discuss brieflythe issues I want to address with you. After Dr. and Mrs.Hallaq became aware of the recommendation for translation zoning,theyfelt they needed the assistance of counsel. Recently,I began to act on their behalf but I feel more time is needed to address the various issues raised by neighbors hbors and by staff, Although I was told yesterday that staff would support the request for postponement, today I was told that the 6 month limitation in A.R.S. § 9-462_04(D) precluded any such postponement. I have researched this issue and determined that a postponement requested by the landowner cannot be used to the detriment of the Town in any subsequent hearings. It is not the Town failing to initiate translation zoning—we are the ones making the request for a postponement. There are reasons for this request beyond just working further with staff to reach a mutual agreement. The notice for public hearingidentifies, in part, translation to the now staff agrees with r request tht C-2 (restricted)may, in fact,be C I zone,butgr q y more appropriate. Unfortunately,we cannot go forward even with that agreement because the Commission can never v make a recommendation in excess of that which has been noticed for public hearing. See, Summit Properties, Inc, v. Wilson,26 Ariz-App.550, 550 P.2d 104 (1976). Dan L, Dudley,Esq. April 6, 1999 Page 2 Re: OV 9-99-51 HallaqTranslational Zoning g Finally, there is the issue of the adequacy of the translation zoning itself and whether that meets statutory'requirements. This is an issue that I would much rather discuss with you as opposedto presentinghearing.it at a public hearing. Very truly yours, STUBBS&SCHUBART,P. C. )11-Litz"wes. 4.9 G. Lawrence Schubart G LLS/bnnmh .... •••••••••....., ....•V...... .....,....,V-...../ 1 .• %....0-.11. ., .. i . . . .......,%.„. . • • .'.'t . .• . ••••.. . , _ .. . 74 ' • • . • . 13e; - -•'''''''''-1•••...••...2.414 ' •i••••1 • ....1.,..- +,: •'.•:' .•• •• , . . .,.'„,.'.-IL...-,,-.•:::7•...."2,,,,......*fri,..,',..',e.":;..'4 ....:',,!...1,•.' ,".^.... . . . Vs>1..-.7•:.':::F.*:::•-..4i.e.--i•i•W'.4..-,-/P:t•T-7:•••••=',...,....ri'-'-,•".':......:.t__••'..........,_..-:,,,•.-,: .s., p......„ .._,.-..:. .. • .••. .• .. ...-:.•,•,•:.:-,,,- ,--. It:- ':-•-,.". -i.'1....:•-Oir"..i .l':-....... ; .•144,..-1•8444t.'±44W:-.1,1/4. .."." ,-4,•••;;;.7. ,.1%K-,--..., ,•••`,,-•,rr..1::,.•...‘._ •.';'0);.:••......2144"..‘ .,!:',.:,... •..•-.;.,.'•• . . ..,:...... ,, - _ . • - -.... ,. , • ,....- • • .• . -:-.--- - \ . '•,:......,,.-,.:' • • • . • •.4 ..:...„:„...„ PA-4-tiet_, )2 O)4 kvo . - .- -., . -.... -•. . • ,..-!:,....- : 21-7 ANNEXATION ZONING § 21.02(11 I/ 7i .....- .: ... . •.5 -..'' ., ....'...4 .., .:. -• 1, ..A. ' . • .:...., . 21.02 Zoning Status of Land Upon Annexation; . . . • :iv:, . _ . • ,.. '.i.:..:•,..„!'.4.t ' Methods of Enactment . .-- .., - ...... • ''''-r-7'41:•-r..-..*•.:. L...,.--,,,,,.......!-.•••,.flj—Applcable Classification ,.: .• ,' 7,•. , r.;•,;,_•...:-...4.,r..,:'..,..f. • -...'.• -.:.A.-•-. . ' - ,a..VA .• ,t,''.' • - •'•• - • • i'..`• [al—During Litigation. While annexation proceedings are .V.,- .-f,..•.• .....,„, ....._,_.,...• • - . • ' ,,,,,,,•---3.- --'•A . :.being litigated, the county zoning regulations continue to apply in . •, • •• . •"':...!-.. ', area. contested the1 ..4,...!.,,-,.. .., .s::...-.-- ... •1,,T... • L',...,•:.';'•.:', ., .-k-,....,• L • . .. : 1.p/i.•- _ Chli---Post-Annexation. There is some disagreement among the L ,.., „iii: .,: , ...- • ,,.... . 5 ':,:;.--.'. various jii.risr.i. ;tions as tc the 70ning laws that apply after land ha.' E jk •‘-'1. 7 . .:- ',.'''t.•••.,,. ..l...,'.''-,z:'•*:'''''''''.;. .•. ' •'...-•'•'` been alineAec by a municipality.Som,;hold that annexed land retains.4•••••.'; , ..„••., c,,,x•...-- .••. ,.,sa,' • ••,,,,•-•. . •t".1.*t*.':, itIl prior zoning classification; others hold that such land iR free of , . .-i'.....i.:',;viii,4-:‘;. "'.-- .•::::, ..L., ... , '451P .'-•.---rior regulations; arid still others view the land as being subject to ,..,-...,,, ,-.'"Wqrr-s-•-i,".-AN5-,-.-;. , . ..X,':.• ‘• ' pr . . ...:;i.:' ' ...i......i-4 tie laws of the annexing jurisdiction. The first view—that annexed .....-.-J.••.:...,• 2 f-trAr.And retains its original zoning classification-has been adopted by .„.., . --i•f"-i.•-•3eVeta/courts.2 A Kentucky court ruled, moreover, that a city ordi- • llittligtiice niay properly provide that annexed territory receives the same t; -.....;' -7;• . :,- . • . - - .i..::,,:... -• .c. ..:..**.z.- .,,y.f.i...'" '•-'..'.;,.. ,,,,i'-•- • ''''i'• ': ' ..P:'•'..?:'-''` ' ,-. '...,-J, '•. ; ' ,,,ik ,...... .'',":',;'•i•4.'''' ,,it, "Zni.1/g classification that it possessed under the county regula- -. ,:.-,:•;541k 1-'411.A„..•.,,•''l',.......-• ' • . r.' • aZi.'. _ '4%.....7.•,;‘',.. , ,ok:.• 7 An ordinance providing for continuation of the previous zon- .-:-,..'•...,...i.:.. v ,':-:•`.....::',-',-•17i''';'.- • .--;;:% ',.. -. zlig,. classification does not, however, authorize the county to zone . •.-,,,...7.-,-,..gt) property. It merely recognizes a status that has been acquired , ,,,l'or.-.1.,:.-,..k,• , . 4.•.•..1.--;•.:,....„,. .....'stit.,11,State ex ref Albert Realty Co v. Village Bcl. of Vill. of Brown Deer, 7 Yiis2d .•..•1.•-ilki:134„95 NW2CI 508 (1959). ,.4-•--,!t.:1=•,44.,_,__ ....' • 74-... una: Maricopa County Dd. of Supervisors v. Bell 51st Inva,tors, tOR Ariz .• ..,":•.•.•04 in.495 P2d 1315 (1972). ...1'..+,,,NT•• ••fr.v.*nteky: Stetter v. Cie. of Erlanger, 4-/5 SW2d 629 (Ky 1972). - • ' • -.'-',..........:7,,::, . • . . , ..:. . . . , ; .) .,.•..,,,.....,....,•:. '._ ., 74--A7.,:':- 16,... -, .,i;r7"• ' •,....."-'.•' .'..-fr:,•,.,•'. 41,Cx5 ''!,'.. •.... • 4.• '''' . , . ..,.... .:-,,,,,,1-,.. :::.. •-:.• ,-,,. • ,. ,..- •. .,, •.........,.7. .-.- .. .. 0... •. .. • E.:7, ..?..:1,;(.b.' . ,..t •'VI , ., ...:.4.,,,,,t . ' ...,'• , ) 1.'.1\' •-•-•.4 .,.'''A'i'' .. ' :+iti...'"':';;;:'.,'t*::•,.' -. .::::.;"11r.: - . , :...:. -....Mho'....'„ .'.•44'.' ' .i.a,.... ....hankvippi2 City of Jackson Y. Holliday,246 Miss 412, 149 Sold 525 (1963);City ..,". .•••••(.4. _ -t.....::.4*w:b.:. - — -.., ,•• -.1.4',.......:•'...: ... :.,....:,.'•'.!i=.7"'OlactihOn v.Bridges,243 Miss 646, 139 Sold 660(1962).See also City of Jackson •.,. --,-.-A-'.". .::•:ii:.7,1c1": ..!'— '.....,-..0„:-.z.3.:*•;:iii-----y DX Oil Co., 197 Scad 882 (Miss 1967). ,...: 7.,-,,,,,,,,e. 4,•::•...,..: . , ..,... - • ' ; ft,''''' - ....*:,.- ••• ,..,..1,. . Daiunan v. City of Ballwin, 483 SW2d 605 (Mo App 1972). .,,,,,,Atit,k,i....A. ....•.T:.':::-.;"1":'..1:-.461a-Kligler v.City of Elyria,2 Ohio App2d 181.31 Ohio Ops2d 279,207 NE2d ,• ;,„__,,„„,--,,,g.•' . .-•''...''.'s.• :._...,,•• flt+d-F,.!, . 965). In that case, the applicable statute provided that upon annexation the ••,..,,,,,,,„..,,....,,,.,- .. .-,,,,,...;-4.:•- •_• ,."...„,;1;11." .,.....:••-•.••.- •'...,'• .,. 4•'••••c ---'n*-•'••••-..'• ', zoning laws were to remain in efTect until either adopted by an annexing .,, .-..7.*,,,...„.,... • •.• ..',...,(F,• • .1,4.:,..•'• kl ....•..,11,44, - '..........,:7.-4 or substituted with new zoning regulations Accordingly,an ordinance .• .. ., •.- . .:--r.s,,,. !.. •••.-.• • , ... --c-•,, '.• '.•:.,•:-.!'i-. • l'..'•,..; ,. _,, .i.,...-. • -• to place all property thereafter annexed into a single-family rmiidert- . ... _ ... • L .. ' . :.A..--- ••• ,..,,,,w.. ...t.-•••••• • . • -, ".. was licid to be unconstitutional.But see Sanders v.Snyder. 113 Ohio App .,... .4„..,.,..„,,,4..,,... ...... ,,,!3...„.- ., . .: ...,.. .•. ..:,;,.i.,.,..,:::::-.: . ..,...,.. ... .2.,...:. 4.. ,.0ps 392, 178 NE2d 174(1960),where the court stated that because • - +,-•, '''.%::.; ..,'••1;*-. --. ! :•,t..!•••••-• .• ,,•••,• : ...4.,.• , ••,,•.•• . '.,,..- •, , . 'ci•-•,•••..• - -.6,...- - that zoning ordinances are not intended to embrace property lying •• -, •- 4 ns,r. . ..?- • -:::•::.,- . -4:- . :::. '" ‘..it:.. ' ....:. -. •"F... •''' •::. ,...::,...,,.Ci. EICRusdaries of a municipality, upon annexation such property becomes . ',,... • ::::.:,...-.•.:•',„ _ ,;•;.' . :••••• . . ....;.,.,...n1;;_,• •• not governed by previoualy enacted law. r,..;•-• • •••••,•..-,...4-..,:-::...,-,•.,,..• ...51,r, '..i.,17.4.......::4kir,,.... ,.i....- '-'. ... • ...-.,.. :.,„. '-fzity-of Erlanger, 475 SW2d 629 (Ky 1972). ' • '• •••••••'-'7,1,.',' /- (Zanins La.) . • •i•••,.: •' • i' •‘.i V.t:1:'' '1: --.•..• .-,'.. ..,':...',...',. `. •-. - ..•- •-• • ...I i-• ,•.,...•:. '',,,.'--...i;iii.,„,„_..f1••.-..,!'-e.... 4''''410:-,"-..;...'1Et.....'#".' ;."'s'II e t:.'...", ' . ."..T.,'.•: ., k,.. .-'.._,,'t,'.,;,-_,ZI,.' ,.- , '...,:- ..rl ..1.., -.•:,,,' .....1.._. . -: ''.... ....,';';'...,t*,;•4."'''.. '.•• • ,,7- ',. • -.—r-i'-'4%,,,,'• ''..••• ......-' '::'.......;:''''''' .''.'• • . •.• -.•:,*:'''-'••''.-'..',WV, •••••- .•.,.,•' : .'7..7 -.,.:,....;:. i-.•.",•:4'.•• ,....:,''.'.,;t....•-•,..:.:-. .•,•••:.: .: .'_'' •",".•- ' ..,. _.,.•.:.•..,-•..,',--•' - .111101K4,P7p.,.....r.....----,......r....,...,,,,,.....,;,.....7 .., -1,........,.7. ..*,I.V.1.1,..,„Zr e..,••••••• ,,,,;;;Z :...eiiirelEW'.. • .....A''.14..Vireaaeikai.414..... •,‘••••••.'• ,'•••:':,,:.:•':.....‘.. '..k.'.... ... ' ' p.♦t� _ V V --7 7 V.'•'r..:.7`t r 31 t.J L7 L7• L I - V 1 1,..i LJ H 11 1 1 JLV c..3..)4- .��v.7 r .V.7 -•.A• rr i�P .. L •.w- .•N.J""'mod' ..w....O...i�+�at� ••..r....+i_w..w..+�.•+ .�..�� • • ,`fit. _•Y.T.:' >y yi. '�./t,'. w ram . fv ai '..'h••.:4. •i j. § 21.0211J ZON[NG AND LAND USE CONTROLS • :' `..''*: .'-" . s'` •• �Y and provides that such status be"frozen"pending appropriatd +=`. - 4., • by city officials.' _ •.,., , :"Y"r • Another group of cases, however, has taken the view that .• • annexation, the regulations in the former controlling jurisdictie," :. 'longer apply to the annexed territory unless made applicable b3r•.. .'.: ordinance.' Under this theory, the zoning status of annexed :., 1--��= �' _ depends upon the local laws in effect in the particular locality. ' .,-,,"�:,.. an annexing city fails to take an action to provide a zonin: sc •�.•:. ` it •is h e y urisdictions that the annexed land enters_ r•M'-. , • municipality with an unzoned status It has been held, moreover,:!:= • Hawkins v. Louisville and Jefferson,266 SW2d 314(Ky 1954).The court A.,',. that passage on "fiat reading" of an annexation and zoning ordinance that xu' ---`. r%;.i. . parted to annex certain property vested in the city jurisdiction under its police power I.'' to hold the area in status quo pending final determination of annexation and zc - . Thus. landowners who sought a permit to construct a service station on '" -� • classified as residential under the proposed ordinance were deemed to hold tueh.',-. `' property subject to the city's right to annex and plan the zoning of that land..A. i, -'s contrary holding, the court maid, would destroy the city's right to plan the zonia •`'i:i:. =`:: •:t; t of annexed areas,and would permit property owners in such areas to begin constrtto�::' tion and thereby defeat the ultimate execution of the plan.Westwood t)evcioprnertt• .:',. : :°: '' • Co. v. City of Abilene, .3 SW2d 652 (Tex Civ App 1954). :-+'•:: '. ..�►: - 5 See Note 6 it -o ' California; Cityof South San Francisco v. Berry, 120 Cal App2d 252, 260 P2d '.7''' ''' 1045 (1953). The court ;•u1e3d 'hat a county zoning ordinance doe4 not apply 10 " county land following its annexation to a city. There,the county ordinance zoned„ ?`-•' : R s:r defendant's property for single-family residential uce. The defendant built an addi_ ,,.,,c-,, ,a is' tional buit•lin and alter �'�` ' g ed the existing structure to accommodate more than one .0 .,;' ,►:=:. family. The court held ,.} ,. .�" that the defendant was not limited by the county ordinance '''1 '•* "'-' 5 and that the city did not have an ordinance regulating this particular subject. .••• : -:. • '"j, - Idaho:.Rcn Lomand,Inc.v. Idaho Falls, 92 Idaho 595,448 P2d 209(1968) fhe :a. a,it,-.1 Ar�• court stated that land annexed to a city becomes subject to its jurisdiction,and that, •-',•: ' • *` where an annexing city fails to take.any action to provide a zoning classification for•... -�: ;�• • the annexed land,it attains an unzoned status.Thus,the court held that an applies-;;i• t.„- .- tion for a permit to operate a service stat ion on an unzoned shopping center tract, ; had to be issued where it was filled before any zoning ordinance applicable tn,tbe" -,, '";,-` property was pending, notwithstanding that an ordinance was enacted subsequent''::?;-.� 'f .ti. .-" ' to the filing. After annexing the land, the city had not adopted zoning restrictions:i: ::' _ - and for several months had failed to approve any of the various requests for building.. •-.•• ., permits on the land,even though no contention was made that the requests failed ••" "```-'r to comply with existing legal requirements, t.; ;' -=, 1•' Kentucky: Farley v. DeMuth, 399 SW2d 469 (Ky 1965). t ;j`-• i.�t•_ - z _ • • .. ~.,. r ." '.; • t •!. •�' -„ • ; n. _, , ' ' • - • . • • •• .. • -',7‘.:',.''..'• Y.. • rt;4n •'C,,+•' �'•tom.i:.,•': ,j"7i,, r 1 i•..s' A4'.,*„ ., , -; • ,,' p,♦•,•, e.• + -tw�.�•::• ..t d: :,:. .. , '.• • . t `.+:.;vr.11L.''' r'y. • • ",i'/�.•• yCAK•`•v.2SR.•+�fYt7r-1':: ;•`l'.•L. ,.�i': - i:f: ..': „Y Ra,7Y .,• • • , �j�L* .V I'Kt 't,,�, i"�,•:. ' . : •,i'�1 .. .V ••.• i-• wh` , _'. .• .',., ' s•.;. . �•; . . ' .fr•1.,..i ., ,4 '• .• to,.'.:, _ Y' 32 L ,l t i.L t^� i1 •f .- ,... - . . f l. A\ii �( YY -•{.� �'•N t.t � t „...., ...._ -- .,,i,.,.. tx_; : . . ,... • . . ‘,... ,..... . . . . .. ,5.0.,,.:...,. ..• .-... .. ,v.. ....:- .,;.:,,-,.::,..., ........ . . , ..: .. • . Ip _•r}, ••Li .•,».• ` l• 1•-��•.t Y;1a.• S1•,I•�....•(i.7{!. t .. , . . •'�'T '~Jar•.v:•r•. .'7Z-•c! e; .1* 'y. d�� '4`;::} ' ..• ... •:... .,`..•` ^'t r,f•.+Nir!+Lwy k. .yc.M4 t•� 74 -.w...: S",1 .•.. _•.. ' •'�, • �. - ' ,• =,C •v;-'j�i;:S�+!1'�: -y. •�Y`T'•” ty:.r•t.�.ti"• j,•�.•t;w.,,.t•. ryI yi M•:�?';,�•f`l',�.•'M�X�':�r,. '�•iay4': ���~ •.. •.. '. '...1',4"•: • •`;::r.., 1 .• �-•mo. t • ;•wt r'~t 21-9 ANNEXATION ZONING $ 21.02(21 - .` - ...:,- •that where a city fails to zone annexed territory, it must grant per- - 41 `;-- nuts for uses that are not prohibited in the annexed area.' •. �• �, =r Finally, fewcourts take neither of the above approaches. These a z herpp ._ ' '-cases hold that upon annexation, land immediately becomes subject . • �',� '�� even in : .. � ••�� • ,�-� �• <,: •.,Ito all the laws and ordinances of the annexing municipality, _ ' -• .,*r .� the absence of any express legislation to that effect.a - ,.t,t . t21_Legislation k • .r--.• =,�;••C•f''..•• f',*-: [Ai—Combined in One Ordinance. Delay in classifying newly t r- `a=�. ':=. ..�.:.ti, `�' ., .yam, ' e.. - ; }p4..A - acquired, i.e.,annexed, lands can result in considerable financial loss _ :�;-.};',-' to proper owners. Moreover, it is illogical and wasteful to require f , ,' •:- , • <: • ,..,:?.a.two step process of first, annexation and later, zoning, because a -` `rAe .:.:. =': • -t �-municipality having an authorized planning and zoning body has ;;•-- �-''4 excl:2sive jurisdiction to zone annexed property.9 Acc I- ordingly, it has - - ' = •' ��'' .••; . • .been held that the fixing of a zoning classification for newly annexed y. _• '• 't'- -.it -_•, •: -'And is properly includable in a resolution providing for annexation y • r,i4 , by a municipality which has an authorized planning and zoning • . '�4� is - : }, ��.�1 -. COLIImisssion. �: • y �j Since newly annexed land may properly be zoned by a city as part r•'=fir'-a ants annexation proceedings, it is proper in such circumstances to ti, . ;�-apt by reference, as a part of the annexation ordinance, the zoning ' ' t = classification of the property that had previously applied under the • r • : :,, unty zoning regulations. Furthermore, a municipality may �h Text continuedon a ZI-11) ? ,__',.. • ,•`'' -2. fi:Maryland Beshore v• Town of Be! Air, 237 Md 398, 206 A2d 678 (1965)• ..-- -;.;�;;, - ''•'Yew York Elfish v.Village of SufTern, 30 AD2d 554,291 NYS2d 178(2d Dep't • :: "^;"—af, :Incorporated Village of Mutton town v-rriscia,64 Misc2d 1014,304 NYS2d • - .' •-'• r. •▪ t= yc• (i969}, affd 38 AD2d 737. 329 NYS2d 337 (2d I3cp't I972)_ • . .', .•,,, rz, .North Carolina: Taylor v. Bowen, 272 NC 726, 158 SE2d 837 (1968)• '-`� yyT ^�,'_.• -1 `9tetter v. Erlanger, 475 SW2d 629 (Ky 1972). • • t.y ►mix- Citizens Bank and Trust Co. of Park Ridge v. City of Park Ridge, 5 _ • -' j , 'r ' 77. 282 NE2d 751 (1972): People ex,1 Trcbat v. Park Ridge, 110 111 t�• -, ' 404. 249 NE2d 681 (1969). • • t '''. 1'' •. on; Western Gas Co- of Washington v•City of Bremerton, 21 Wash2d • «w t is • • 846 (1944)_ . •-: - r• • • • r• • v.Town of Bel Air, 237 Md 398, 206 A2d 678 (1%5). • • • �' 7 • • - v.Lewiston,95 Idaho 243, 506 P2d 470(1973)_Tbt court stated(506 w. r'r:"` • '• •74). � : , ' 4...;' (Zoning L..) ~~� ; �.�,; - RECEIVED APR 6 1999 JAMES D. McDONALD Inn nt Oro Valley TUCSON, AZ 85737 April 5, 1999 HAND-DELIVERED Mr. Bryant Nodine, AICP Planning & Zoning Administrator Town of Oro Valley Community Development Department 11, 000 North LaCanada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Re: OV9-99-51 Hallaq Property, Translational Zoning From Pima County CB-1, CR-2 and TR to Oro Valley C-1, R1-10 and R-6 - Public Hearing: 4-6-1999 Dear Mr. Nadine: I am writing to you regarding my concern with what is being called a translational zoning of the OV9-99-51 Hallaq Property. After attending the meeting held March 22, 1999, my understanding is that the Town of Oro Valley is bound by law to reclassify this property from County Zoning to the closest applicable Town Zoning. The property is currently zoned CR-2, which I understand is one home per every 16, 000 square feet with allowable variation under certain circumstances to 12, 000 square feet. My limited understanding is that reclassifying the property to R1-10 allows one home per every 10, 000 square feet. I believe that the closest zoning under law would be Ri-20, which is one home per every 20, 000 square feet and am respectfully demanding the following: That the said property be translated from CR-2 to Oro Valley R1-20 or that, at the very least, the translation be conditioned in accordance with County CR-2 allowing no more than one home per every 16, 000 square feet and any variances under the conditions already stated. My request is not unreasonable because the property owner will still maintain the zoning they enjoyed under the County. My property is adjacent to the Hallaq property and I believe that I am entitled to protection under the zoning guidelines as well the Hallaqs . Mr. Bryant Nodine April 5, 1999 Page 2 I am unable to attend the April 6, 1999, meeting due to prior commitments and would like this letter entered into the record at the meeting. Please advise me, in writing, as to the determination made on this property so I can take whatever steps may be necessary. Sincerely, (.7��1�--�r� ..�....�J ,ems-=....�.__:: James D. McDonald JMD: ltm cc: Mayor, Oro Valley Mr. David Marsh (Both Hand Delivered) JPA,LEY 4,). O cO �r TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • Planning and Zoning • Building Safety . 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-4800•Fax(520)742-1022 • Parks and Re creation O 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5050•Fax(520)797-2202 UNDEO\ September 11,2002 Larry Schubart Stubbs& Schubart,P.C. 340 N. Main Avenue P.O. Box 50547 Tucson, AZ 85703 RE: . PUBLIC HEARING—ORDINANCE NO. (0)02-17 OV9-99-51 ORDINANCE TRANSLATING THE ZOMNG FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1, '11R., AND CR-2 TO ORO VALLEY C-2, R-6,AND R i-10,WITH CONDITIONS, ON THE PROPERTIES KNOWN AS THE HALLAQ PROPERTIES, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD Dear Larry, At their regular meeting of 6/19/02,the Town Council voted by a majority(4-1) to conditionally approve the aforementioned request. The minutes and ordinance approved by the Council are attached. The rezoning was made effective 30 days from the date of the hearing. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely: .-R Bayer Vella, AICP Senior Planner xc: Shirley Gay, Subdivision Clerk Raul Duato, GIS Analyst OV File Attachments: Excerpt for Town Council Minutes Ordinance No. (0)02-17 www.townoforovalley.com 10. PUBLIC HEARING—ORDINANCE NO. (0)02-17 OV9-99-51 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 AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD Bryant Nodine,Planning and Zoning Administrator, reported that in August 1998, pursuant to Section 9-471B of the Arizona Revised Statutes,the Town of Oro Valley's Mayor and Council annexed the area known as Map 4. He explained that the Town was required to change, or "translate"the zoning on the annexed properties from Pima County zoning designations to the closest comparable Oro Valley zoning designation. Mr. Nodine explained that in accordance with State Statutes,the Town must translate Pima County zoning to Oro Valley's closest equivalent designations. He reviewed the County zones and Oro Valley translational zoning designation as depicted below using the overhead projector: COUNTY ZONING TOWN EQUIVALENT LAND AREA CB-1 (Commercial) C-2 (Commercial) 10 acres TR(Multi-family R-6 (Multi-family 20 acres Residential/offices) Residential/offices) CR-2 (single family R1-10 (Single family 50 acres Residential) residential) 1 J In conclusion, Mr. Nodine explained that staff was recommending approval but, recommend changing the wording "Community Commercial"in Section 4 of the Ordinance to simply read "Commercial"because the designations are not all set for these types of commercial areas at this point. He explained that this would identify the commercial property in the area and would essentially make the translation non-conditional or would pardon the zoning. G. Lawrence Schubart, attorney representing Hallaq Properties explained that there was one point within the staff report that his company continues to find problematic. He stated that staff suggestion that the commercial designation expires after 5 years unless the General Plan is brought into conformance was totally inappropriate. He explained that there had been no time limit in Pima County and he felt that it would be inappropriate to impose a time limit now, especially in face of all of the concessions the Hallaq's had made to bring the property into conformance. He asked that Council reject staffs suggestion of the 5 year limitation as an additional condition and merely adopt the first motion suggested. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. Joseph Pikosz, 2082 West Three Oaks Drive, explained that he was opposed to the Ordinance especially with the R-6 zoning revision. He stated that the area should remain a R1 Zoning area to be consistent with the single family home development. Glen Smith, 10631 North Sand Canyon Place, agreed with Mr. Pikosz. He said to increase the density in the area would be substantially counter to what has already been translated into the southwest corner of La Cholla and Lambert Lane corridor. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, stated that the General Plan currently shows the area as a low density residential area. He explained that if there could be a mutual understanding such as combining the uses "commercial and residential" on a neighborhood scale so that there wasn't quite the impact that this would be more consistant with the General Plan. Alan Lathrem, 1750 West Tangerine Road, stated that he would like to remind everyone that this area was in the Town of Tortolita and he felt that this was a waste of time. He stated that he was concerned with the fact that he had not been notified that his property had been rezoned into the Town of Oro Valley. In answer to a question for Mayor Loomis, Mr. Nodine explained that whenever a property has been annexed and within 6 months, a translation has to been done and it has to meet the criteria; He explained that at this point the applicant can then request to change the zoning. He explained that Mr. Schubart was absolutely correct that the county had not included a time limit and the staff report was incorrect. He explained that the 5 year limitation was inserted because staff was trying to create something to eventually match the General Plan, either through a General Plan amendment or through the cessation of the zoning. In answer to a question from Council Member Abbott, Mr. Nodine explained that with a translational zoning, school over-crowding conditions are not considered; it is strictly moving an area from the county entitlement to a town entitlement. He pointed out that the applicant has verbally stated that they did not have the intention of placing an apartment complex on the site but simply wanted to keep those rights in place. He added that the Homeowners Association was contacted about the translational zoning. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson moved to adopt Ordinance No. (0) 02-17 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 deleting Section 4 of the Ordinance. Council Member Wolff seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-1, Council Member Abbott opposed. ORDINANCE NO. (0)02-17 AN ORDINANCE TRANSLATING THE ZONING FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1,TR,AND CR-2 TO ORO VALLEY C-2, R-6, AND RI-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 R 1-10, as shown in the attached Exhibit A, and that all applicable development standards of the C-2, R-6, and Rl-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 R 1-10 zoning designation. A 12,000 square foot minimum lot size may be permitted in the R 1-10 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 all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict; SECTION 5. 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. (0)02-17 p.2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 19th day of June,2002. Paul H.Loomis,Mayor ATTEST: et ..L(4;— Kathfyn Cuvelier,Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: L A, ,. I A .44..446.016 Dana L. Dudley, Town Atto ey PUBLISH: Daily Territorial June 27, 28, July 1, 2, 2002 POSTED: June 25 - July 25, 2002 rg \\OV PZD\PZi\OV0V9\1999\9-99-51\ORDINANCEHALLAQ.doc 4 Street Net / -----....... incilll AIP Z37/ -,..-........ ____:,0 Q Landbase(Parcels) 111 44 prisminssimonaso, iii , 1i iik . 11111111/.. 1111111i 04 4, - , - 4111t. "h. rAW ,,„r.„ =HALLAQ PROPERTY t-$ O 1, C-2 10 ACRES 0 0 2. R-6 5 ACRES ;0 3. R-6 15 ACRES e 0 18 UNITS PER ACRES MAXIMUM PERMITTED 4. R1-10 i 0 0 16,000 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM LOT SIZE; CAN REDUCE TO $ CC 12,000 SQUARE FEET BY LOT REDUCTION OPTION ` 46....111\...IN011111.111,110.11, 111._11.,.1..........►V..I\__ 11►111.11,41\..111011111,..1►..11..r,111.ftj LAMBERT LANE •`�"�� 1 1 I 1 i i.-11 SCALE 1 :6,201 N 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 s. FEET http://www.maps.co,pima.az.us/mwfs/dotmap3.mwf Wednesday, May 12, 1999 12:42 PM EXHIBIT B m t a r` I N 0 O Pima ____ , , --_im z-- - -,,, /, "Pr ----7 r „ --- \, Street Net I ,� I . / 1 midi. \/ [—� Landbase (Parcels) r i _ a 1 SIP i'/ _/--- , Jar ``` _,1 ,f------__ ___ - -- 1p 1 ,0 ,r____„3 s ,\ ,...., / \ ,---. _ _i_j r \ \ \ t .4.1 _11‘f 1 ...66.mk-a —HALLAQPROPERTY t-+0 00 Er,..........,....., O. 1. C-2 10 ACRES > 0 0 01 0 2. R-6 5 ACRES $ ri f 3. R-6 15 ACRES i 10 S! 18 UNITS PER ACRE d 10 MAXIMUM PERMITTED I! 0 4. R1-10 0 0 0 16,000 SQUARE FEET 0 MAXIMUM LOT SIZE; . 0 CAN REDUCE TO r 0 12,000 SQUARE FEET Q t0 BY LOT REDUCTION OPTION _ 7�.1■►�.1,`�.` 1.11 11.1 .WW1 11' 1.1 W. �.1111..'a.:..�...►,�,1 __ -- —-__-_ -- _ _LAMBERT LANE__ --- --- - -- ___,__ I \ I N SCALE 1 : 6,201 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 FEET http://www.maps.co.pima.az.us/mwfs/dotmap3.mwf Wednesday, May 12, 1999 12:42 PM EXHIBIT B Pima _ , 7_-N, ,, I J _ a ' I Street NetARV ., c ----/— / Landbase (Parcels) -,• _J- }* _ 1,\\ \`/ r\'‘, \ - j / \ -.. --i ' 1 i / \ ,, \ 11Iiiktr WNW'r PRJPERTY0 0 ���a HALLAQ � n x o r 1. C-2 10 ACRES a 0 0 0; 00 0 2. R-6 5 ACRES 01 �r 3. R-6 15 ACRES .�.f� '� ' 18 UNITS PER ACRE tJ '' MAXIMUM PERMITTED 0 4. R1-10 0 0 0 16,000 SQUARE FEET 0 MAXIMUM LOT SIZE; 0 CAN REDUCE TO 0 12,000 SQUARE FEETiSdBY LOT REDUCTION OPTION .1.11.11M 1111.11W NW*MIL'MIL.11k'MI I. ..111►11S.111111,..'Mk In&‘111.NW•WIlla.Illk NIL -MIL'I&In.MIL Mk�NO lk11WIEL,111:11■►111111.11111k j LAMBERT LANE_ N SCALE 1 : 6,201 1—.— 1--1 o.--i . , 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 FEET http://www.maps.co.pima.az.us/mwfs/dotmap3.mwf Wednesday, May 12, 1999 12:42 PM EXHIBIT B LOT Nza AREA— 5tA<< ; FEET 30 8,054 29 7,370 28 7,370 27 6,820 26 6,820 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 14,646 20 10,147 Open Space 24 10,928 25 12,780 27 11,565 28 12,713 29 12,546 32 12,376 33 11,746 34 12,801 Exam 1 f C a ' ,►uL-2a-19%6 21 r 17 FROM I.Y.a H. HALLAD TO 32BSi P.02 rcrttthte Ctcrk. .413.oarb• of gpuperbtez" ov of Viina Countp, trIona OWL, iif Ar{ ;t • t ntuttg cif riut t • ifif Sipz , Slannux, e/e a j , anus/ ui c 1.4 /t% J4;- 6, d, /2 P/xcal %at• the Aauto>,'tl7. !rt a once, • d crOnfreated free,faet4/the. 1fru;natoi ez 9itee t 9I t%e P'ha'do/ $ e,ezu4o, on ae 2' t July 1.g--?�--, gird eit ` vizograint wa1I-�z . • 10. UY&L-z!_Co9-0'42, LAWY 1S TITLE OF ARIZONA PETITION The. Chairman stated'this is the titr.a and the place legally advertised for hearing on the petition. (Co9-?q-42) of Lawyers Title of Arizona to rezone fro. SR to CB-1, TR, and CR-2 property at the northeast corner of the inter- section of Lambert Lane and.La Cholla Boulevard. The Associate Planning Director reported that the petition is in older and that the Planning and Zoning Con- mission unanimously recommends thee the rezoning to CO-1, TR, and CR-2 be ap- proved subject,to. . "(I) Recording an acceptable plat that vill provide for any dr:inage problems as well as,the necessary rights-of-way; (2) A suitable arrangement with the Pima County Department of Sanitation regarding. sanitary facilities; and (3) Recordings covenant holding pima County harmless in the • event of glooding." • The Chairman inquired whether anyone wished to be heard. Gerald B. Hirsch, attorney representing the petitioners, stated requirements were acceptable to their and that he was prepared to answer any questions 'which Might arise re- garding the property. Mrs. Hazel Forbus, a property owner in the genera/ area, protested the proposed changes. John W. Smith, who stated he represented owners of adjacent property and has a pereanel interest, .expressed his opposition, describing the proposed rezoning as a."catch-all" type of 'zoning which will result in installation of trailers and trailer courts and will Change what is basic-01ly "an area of amali suburban homes and ranchettes." 2Ir. Hirsch stated the requested zoning *is fr accordance with development of the area and that the owners have no intention of installing trailers or'nrobile hones. After further discussion and on due consideration, it was moved by sir. Weaver, se- conded by Mr. Uucphy, and carried chat the rezoning to CB-1, Tr, and Cf-2 by approved subject to the Commissioim's recommendations and that the necessary ordinance be drawn for presentation to the Board upon compliance with the re- . quiresaents. CLH1~?K'S NOTE. Copy to Lawyers Title of Arizona -�- xltibrtft 'Stone' Avenue, 01 • . Mr. Geralc B. Rirsch Tucson Federal Tower Suite 1005 ' 32 North Stone Ave., 01 8-2►14-70 ri 3itn WI p °1 f v:Y.� � d:;w is.e:n wawa a•sti , /ii• #eial 6, awed o/.l�jis,.rwo,d gf ghee Va_'1, 24th Amu s t .._.l.9 70 • ________ TOTAL P.02 lit 24 '96 21:25 � M ll � ACSIMIL TRANSMISSION II 1 1nn Date: `* / (J `1 '7 - For Approval } e.,"—' 1 i - I Regarding our ConversationTo:ISIARA-,1 c---14--kA, CA1 r — As Requested D \AA02.125 cq _ For Review and Comments Fo I) r or Your Records �� ^ Please Cali to Discuss -. No Response Necessary Original Will Follow by Mall Paps: 'Original Will Not Follow (IN CLU.iNG COVER) -- —-- if Ce !! RIhrd smati CB RICHARD ELLIS_ INC: li II IIit 3901 EAST BROADYAY rL`D. uII II it ii TUCSON,Az 85711-3499 ii 11 ii 11 /c1.A\ 21 c,nn II IIk..rrvJ,A., ,AVV it II H 11 FROM: M1CHAFI, K. CAd�MAN FAX V �_. (520) �/�/� w.� wi^^ �r�aa si A�LL-11\ 1 ���� J/ � J������� SENIOR ASSOCJATE VOICE�. (520) �A/� I.r � �#. 323-5110 n /-,, 1 I .P 61 \1 q/ r i r n_ iv/ I T=-Y1 A , , n n . . , „ ., i7V �� `U � � (I 1 -----e-aPT-4._____Cndar ± L — — ale GLS 7C S _ TMP .__ DMF ,,CSB_ KM D FOE —- -- MSN Client JAC —' OfUGINAI TO_FILE 1. L D,�y.N RECE Er ALL PAGLS,TELEN:IONE CR IST NA BoijoA{020)323-5100 COUNTY ENGINEER ti‘ A, COuN ASSISTANT COUNTY ENGINEERS D. A. DI Cicco, P. E. fe‘ E S 1'k ALLISON C. DOW P. E. nt" JAMES E. RILEY, P. E. 1 0 ' OF AR‘' OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER 1313 SO. MISSION ROAD TUCSON, ARIZONA - 85713 June 17, 1970 Mr. John S. Tsaguris, Director Pima County Planning & Zoning Pima County Governmental Center Tucson, Arizona Re: Lawyers Title-Lamber Lane ReZoning Co9-70-42 Dear Sir: This area is crossed from north to south by two very large washes and several smaller ones. As a result, development of East-West streets might prove difficult, if not impossible. However, this would best be determined, along with drainage requirements, during the process of recording an acceptable plat. Therefore, rezoning of this property should be subject to that requirement. Very truly yours, D. A. Di Cicco, P.E. County Engineer /,- , --, 44.,,, ":4A Jo n L. Delaney 6/Subdivision Engineer JLD:mc cc: Bd/Supr. \ Ns , \• q-QKz ..c° ..... ' :9 Plik4 „ 40,,,,„fro, 0tb 197e HO ,— \---,--<\ • '\ COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING PIMA COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL CENTER TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701 July 9, 1970 HONORABLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Eleventh Floor, County Admin. Bldg. Tucson, AZ 85701 SUBJECT: 6-70-42 LAWYERS TITLE - LAMBERT LANE REZONING Gentlemen: Transmitted for your consideration on July 21, 1970, are reports, findings, and recommendations of the Pima County Planning and Zoning Commission on: Petition of Lawyers Title of Arizona to rezone from SR to CB-1, . TR, and CR-2, the northeast corner intersection of Lambert Lane and La Cholla Boulevard. The Commission, on June 30, 1970, on motion VOTED: To recommend to the Pima County Board of Supervisors that the rezoning to CB-1, TR, and CR-2 be APPROVED, subject to: (1) Recording an acceptable plat that will provide for any drainage problems as well as the necessary rights-of-way; (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. Carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, ' P MA COUNTY P :ANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION • John S. Tsaguris \Je)cecutive Secretary ARG/rdb Attachments cc: Mr. D. A. DiCicco, County Engineer Mr. William Ernst, County Right-of-Way Agent. Mr. Robert N. Hillock, Special Counsel Mr. Howard D. Watt, Legal Adviser Lawyers Title of Arizona, 199 North Stone Avenue Mr. Gerald B. Hirsch, Tucson Federal Tower Suite 1005, 32 North Stone Ave. • , C, rift,am, .4.4.7 .40e0°..1 U 0 I+� I I ' J+a`1 = I I a w w.. I 1 ...1... t I - 1 I{ ►N Z ►.• ; .r * .. I 1:!• ' r.a ; nl y�;i< •.... .. .... _..... �• w I .�_y, f ` . '. 1 t�, : �- C//.I'/' I r w I - �...'f .• a, r .• . r �p. L,2•.Trww,...-...' --„,,t.; Z ----I. -w' .Mww+w...su...w....ra�`f a.......,+..7 ---- t} ;� :::.�'• ���+•,;n u -•---7..-ems%Y f — � 'r r1 ` •✓r. ?ty,'. '.'Jfyri w`1�I rr'r.w.4`\ar..� ° 'W •� 1 i M `i' !S � "L' ' , �rTS 1_lu��`�a}��°� '" i7, • ��i i 1 1 w °. « w .f• ..e r r : .1 l I .,� ' # i_' --�. �C w��,� to�`y hi � 1 p: • JP 0(0, O 11 :I -f !t i ( ' �w w / y.2_,i5...,.,4 / y'I. \•/�, r�)<,1 1 LIIi�GFri' a ,� • • { •• ■ • F �.i .a T, •MY� � �F • w• _= • ly /,� ! T \�.Ai<u►�j� \I •l a !K i . +n r • • n •n n • t i -,�, w w + ° '• �l/ \-/ fit, I Etl/ ! q !• / .._...F ...... R! ile.,../g/p.....7/E. 5... I.i /// /�C•wr�w..�♦ L t:✓r '�ifLl��.1 J / i '//j/y�1I //� w�I�/N ►.• 1 .1-, - �,a ,i N ,r q, y. -%n r• /' ,• ,v,•:••••a.,,/,,,t_,1-7'; 21VA C \I , !,=a• =:,,,.,...4. 1 1, , ,f,'"„:„,,,,,,,,,Lf...4.... / ! / N I« ill i I :�M I\f .-i tl Y 1� t_- r f �f M 1 , ti )\._ 1,// ,-----7 • ...„4., .1 dr • ELEM. -f,r r� ^.�. . =' 1----,--4-- -/..--1-----, ..),1 ... ,N, ,-.,,,,,,..—..,;. ...L...._,.:..—,/ sr li .. , ft - =- _':=•._�.t,,, •1 T,, ,s r ' __ CJt:hQ7L r.l` I I I•} 'L� � .. ..// N TN 4) w r i « i I .. N . s i fair"! U.-. Cr i/ (I ...i `�`� , ........ \ 1 . h1/ f n'`IS �I f�C Il;. I I LOCATION MAP a I t CITv ITT-COUNTY rtAnNIN4 oewT I` Y IT /1 taEARamniii r �, T 1 s w. /•M..AUw.[ a1N[CTO4 11 I / 1' — V hiU1.7�g !rhomILY I -4,,..„7,-5. - Q ) �'ChCO G�, ,^u] M ��` w• 6: .e1,�• .n Ia.aT .3 1. Jt- I----s•, s7` --' ram-----/r....}-t�� :. I_._+t ...14 `- +. � 1 ,�� vL,�f Y`7 rJ '''.ti1'ir -�_� T..:./'/�-_-_(>i .w�...��1.'�^- �r '� �.+,.,y ,•,.__ ro�¢�'� « '-'1.ti o aeo ioo scoo 11 11�, 4 a�r•_� .: ,�f' t I,;}t kl I �� '�,, A (� ti � . �� �'� :t 1� � :m,1i_u �s:i`FLP.- t�1_r'�:5_rlr.�_J ►a tfiE, , 1 7-nr,7 a I V 1 .--_i��5: ; 1~ 'ti.z']� `i �` i ' j I. .., l a ;,.(S i 4,•c:,&A•• 1 .1 w I - --,.r ".----- ..iGZ-L , �`P4. a 4 R'�1'�,/ ",p ! -,+-` r.a i I.1♦ CC r.e C 7 -? a5;III9-" Y p, .•,,,,,om- Sr , ~I M� 4 Uui(., 4 j 1.# ITV t g t- 1 F ..f , I.ar�1 n• ,1 , I s t 9•.t%�.`y- srn� p�ry� J} '7' 1E49;1.1 '1 , FI • 1 G� (I i���..1��,,q}1 s I 4 a ss,T �,.Ins w I , }}� li,^ 1/\L i ;� tI -'� .~ a/AC I,I 1�\ PART Of•$ECTIO1t 23 AND ALL OF SECTIONS 14,17,20 AND 21 ALL WF. • t , . , '-__,.__ - -i ,____ , x'f....i,a�.L_.__;� 7 t* T-12•S.,R-13-E.,G.4 S.R.B.4 M.PIMA COUNTY,ARIZONA jf kI / It ./i Ii �-��! i rw fr�• na'ny►1,iir. 11 • •I ..w '' ►«'\ ihti 4gSLN1�.An!t,`/: ' {� 1 Xav,..w, II / � ,' BOUNOEO DY TllORPIYnALE ROAD,LAMDERT LANE EXTENDED d I.•�.. wa• I• )/j/g_PO t, Pi. R.n ' I• /, T r.____ {__ J�_-__--_I�. Jr'?? ,rrI -r',```w ,1 • IU MESA YERDE ROAD AND lT5 50UTNERLY EXTENSION,AND THE� • / I I�et:tAtII rn 'I «w•♦ .• `-L- - i'I 1,4 ►• H EASTERLY EXTENSION OF CORTARO FARMS ROAD. Ta i J-._i ,�L•r•r � --',-'.,Ir;-T -,1--Jf hit-----^ J�--- _i - - - C i.�Tti�{C�.TF.7_a , A- i ✓ , 111Y if.:7:.,--..., L.. A 1 /-E •.• , 1.6,-67. LLLL..iiii ,: ....- '►, 11rt.�i►• I.N t•n I 1 wwr ;•/11 0. it r•Ii17� i1 1 •.7!. i° ' F'1.At+M NC �D�52t±iKr, -! �"►� ' _____I _1i wN 1 _ THIS IS TO CRTIFY TNAT THIS PLAN NA5 DEEN DULY' II • ;s"~ ;i IJ� , �,,1 '�4 1/, (� ' I r.., 11 I '�' MASTER PLAN or DIMA COUNTY. �I e ,, �- i 'lam r�l{ --- 1 _ I, r -- ----,- ----L-- -- , t +��--_.':�_ 4_J__ ___JL _.. i ►/ "--1,-, AST G ,/ ,/` a I I -'{it'-- s •.a►c-aJa.r•Ii,st /:ar- -- . j / 42. syV �.�7 wl''GY �02 t1 '�I Ar ttk P: '„.-,-t •1. �..4__,:jJ ": t I s� I ►a.11 -,I ►.11 b�-S ! -:a 1 ,`2 4•'- t {i---;�•.- '; B o., i �CzpRO of SUP�aY154R5 Ittil ' s j` /i•' ; ` ,0 i 1, .,• II i 4A i w.•• TW19 1L ( h �T� jib �'• ,• 's s a 11 sI ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE wtTN ARS-II U2S,A45-f1-i24 •_.) ,1 :a--•ice ro 3;a' ' t �,yy -•_ ,x;� r t1 I,t and ARTICLE:A: 94 OF TNL ZONING ORDINANCE AS PART Or i -'-'w' �""'-�Yam- ' is • •l0t• 1"tD THE MASSER PLAN Or PIMA COUNTY,I ,�'• • I TA Y{r• .,.1 R• It R► Aa I!3►.. I I., ,Yt•tlai•.L, 6.11.62 ••• ,..• y 1()," (�-_ ►• I p , uw4 f1Xf C.•rk.t 1tiw 6wwrd De-F- -,i I,y�,�.71L a---..-fit A•IIT I 1 I Y INN NOON CANADA N.P. (C-IY(.I•i)Ili��,NF Il�'f�I C !:>ti�.z�x:=1� 2a�1 Nora: E T:ATE,' p' 1t" .. • , • r ;ice '~ ,r /.ALL PKOPERTY D/Y16/0N6 ACCOKOLVG Il _-- _ -_� f'��3i°Or D US �a L t�l/C� 7or;,c%� cou.�'r'>✓.cs�Etition� KEcoro5 is T --- -"T'-- {- _____ A6 Or JULY 1941. t �• I I, Aa .I`• ; ^'• ; '" i • COMMEKCI.4L ------ r,f rEPrY 01V1610N10 ?Ne/GNboRNcbD 6ECO1/O4 Y CYaLLECTOR + r -- «o, r R1[ - t/fAN6/TIONAL•6eTl'Commercial •—' _ DEDICATED R/1.' Sr/l'EE7r,GO'1✓/DE.TO A°'LOCATED by ti l ..n /NULT/•I•AM/LY'.i11' ! PL ATTI/lG. f i• T PAM 1- /KMC• /-r Kteldrnce•Per Acre 3b r.X16T1NG 6rRUCTUKE6 P 3 All EX167/NG 1GvV/NG 6K• "` 2/S/AC r?1 A'asldenore Per Ac/ris w` r•, /��.• ;---; ^•' EX1671NG 6G'NcbLS , ii: 1'A I/ 1 1 d+ 8---,I It• O - -- I w l 1 I f J L :z:::.fi'�t r'4/'!ti`:/Sf. ".��7""ar �w w........ Ir011l6E0 6CNQ,LG • i1 x- Rw Ii w•I. w• - "►,jALruu•tl•awaw•wr•wwww•wN•1e�, ...- 1 � 'M //I�°I.IOR 5711'CET6 ` i! INA i7OAD - CANADA .N.P. (Gli-(rl-z) I .k 1,1E161L`JOKN�D P02MAKY 1 \ �' •� COLLECTOX 5r/CEEr6 _ (ALL TO OE 60.'14//DC) 200•- I 3 • , • 1 . • CHECKED LW.... , APP/(OVED by..... ; 1 CITY-COUNTY PLA/1IN/A'G DEPr. C/;5•G/1/ ,CICK G'?l•62 t • . .....,•••••,,••••••••••••••••• .. ,, . , . . ; . , 1 CO9-70-e.2 , 1 . i , , , 1 1 _ 1 I . ..._, , _,„.,_____, , ••(..M5A DC. 1 rv. . ... ejj,7. e $ ,+ ', ,o tt . t AusEtt i....i.;,,,p_..,. i_________7.,,.)...,...... ,,,___, _______1,,,,,r___,ms,,_.______,„____,,__il. ._.-3 i „„„„,„...,,,;.„.„.::,,,....k,,.....„.,. ., ,_ 9, r, ,, \_\ / \ I;I I; 5 i,. . c2 •.,• , of, v .., . r..„,.....„,,,,,L.,.,, .. . 1.;.1,/- ... „ --. ( \ , Pi • „.., .::.2. 101 1 \. j�PiI I I z 2, '�' 27 26 ; 'Es .•a 2... . ,iI _ L I MA.E! Pf1A J >ji le ./, _ 2 R/,,k . il ...,-.• SS if r• " �i • t v IO ,' I'!__Lice. . i I I I 5 - o lid ei:d;vi ..''� , �t,;.. v L O C A T I O N M A P A 'titgg � 4 l 4 r .. � Li /ice°"� V 0 0 �i i _*�•� W 1,-1. ' MARK .:,I v < •-. • .. ':�-'-•---_ ---r::0 AUe!O O, ✓ .v i.I r 0 '', ( 1 �• JA .. ..._ �� --L IN1 IFFY _� �7— / •-/ / iE—....................._______„.......... ..,.. ..... O TWO d00 1600 • V/ ...4'Y'''- k. " ;if te. . ‘11' 19 k T•• ,, � �1,1 11E.GHBORMOOD PLAN �11 • J-J .;i '.I 0 I II k' PART OF SEC.14,AND ALL Cl'SEC.15 t 22 "[:1 ,{ ' I _t__. --_.1; 1IIS-R15E.GESK.5..1A.PIMA CO.ARIZONA. �`..; i , f- ,',: - $ ri PLAN eotSMDARIES, L66444T LN,LA CAOLLA SLVD, 7! + 3.LINE OF SEC.ES,LA GANADA . f: J r �1 • i ••''.•-� :..::,rfrrr:f.:_; ! DRIVf.,3.LlNEA`SEC.fb., .. ;2 • �.'S\41A�. i GALIE LCMALINOA 1 t 'e • �' '�M � 11 \` '_....-Ikkp; i&i.Ii$! ,i•_A_I_.,I1?I....!,.:i!1;k,r,,,.,_i,.7.•t..i..,.,4.f.1... l .y.-1..?7r..I.,,.!E..I-_ID..•-4.:;,,....,.1._4..„..1.._":,Ii„...-..._---::!....-.......,...-.-.-•-.-1.0,.,„,,,— y} iII 7 • • . 7 `\,, I I� PLANNIN�NO ZONING COMMIgyION 1i1 1 1. __-_,_.e.._—^ 1 „ \''\ 1I,1 Itii6i OGEOI5YT!1A11H15f5ANI1AA • i: .....t_.._� ,,', 1 i DEE1 DULY ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE .• .• ..;i..--17r• WTH AP,S•!I•$2f, AR1LrLL 54Or1t1E " _ __ .. ZONING ORDINI.IE A5 PARTOt'TN,E II c- d V..,) —y-..... 1-..; ••1 .-.r7— a, r —J''i -z MANI£R TLPN OS PIMA COUNTY, $ i C-----3-,(••-•-,.9(-01(:_r_....___. I Eneeurtar eeie` y R • (THERMAL.SE-LT AREA PLAN• C13.5A-8) tiOAR0OYI�PERVl5�00�¢ THIS 15 to GER115Y 1iIA1 1t115 PLAN • HA5 BEEN DULY ADOPTED IN ACGORI WITH AR5-II•B25.AR5 11-824LdARTII LEGEND S4 OCTHE ZONING ORDINANCE AS P NOTES i_PROPOSE tJ5 5.-_ C'THE MASTERPLNMCr PIMI,COUM1Y PROPERTY DIVIStOH3 • I ALL.PK^'tRfl'DIVi51ON, !RiM..i'-fes.dence5Per acre __---_ SEDICATED R/W - --/�-.- `• 1L6GR!JItiG 0KE;:ORJDS ccux i/ln+Bo�i� �!.t,Sil-'/5 5 PIMA GO. L E/.e•7,euidences p.-,cre i EXISTING 514U0(URE5 .•.1 T'11.!4•11,3GI EXISTING SCHOOLS + s i A NEIGHC #Q^D t4-0NDARY PROPOSED SCHOOLS 9 COLLECOR es!RECT:1,CO V.M. r"1 — f0 ert:.''t:hIE0 6Y PLA1 I 1 N4 lt''I� E Y.!ST I NO ZONING MAJOR STREETS ........................-...... NEIGHSORI1OOD PRIMARY COLLECTOR STREETS 1 I' •' •".....:•::-.:,.'s.,:';•...•:-..,'.••••::.V...:•!...':';',,,',1.-:'-. ..',.',,,,.':.5:..,;.,-':iC';',q:A-'.it:gj:,:!!...::6•:Iiii'Ai.•,,,,i,g,•:..ii,ii..-:;:...a•ligiF'i'i..6,23:it.'.:.,'.Z•4:':',..q1‘ii.'7::':ii,:i....-?4iig.M.1"a,:' . • ,•.:::...': ••:'•-•i,...:-....'-.-.-----,,,':,..:::•:•:;...!.::.:*--..,..... ::',.:..:::'.,"..':':-..,;.:,..':;-•:'..,....:72,1,,,p. -',,,i,Yi,--,',:i4..Z414.f;,g--ilfV•4:FE(:-..::*-.:•-,-?.::::.:'...4i.g.iiiiti,:;',:-.41gf. . .. :'• ••::',....•'2•••••••...g,:g.•••::•••,••••:,,,,.::•••••:•:;•,::::-:::...,-;;.:::::•:,,,,,:::•::',:',...,3,-...•,.:,:•:::'..,::.„:,:',',...:?:,,,,;•,;•,,,g,..:',1•:1,:;.,k:';:irX.;.,,,...:..,, , . . •• :'.:::,:,:,;r ..:,:::,••••: :, :•::'.....::: :.,::,:,,...,...,,....,,,.:,:•:,,,,,,,,,,::::,,j,,,,,,,•,,,,:::: • . , . :.gi'.-,:'-.'...,:•:- •..::::' .:.'ig.g.•.:g,.:•...::::g',•••::', -• .. ' ;,.:• • .., :. • ..:..,..„'...., i 01 4,:-0d , '. .1 . • - ., ., ____---S-R _..... 1 P 4 , . ,/,..„....-• 5 -1 CO , . • .917'f.?7\ .. .,...3-3-3-.--,....'3,.....-,3•3•••••,..-.•.".....-,3',,,,:33,3,13;.:.;,-;:.:.:... ;,,,;,,,,,,,,,;.43,,,,:,...:3.,-....:-.....3:3,.......43.3;47,..-..3.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„.....,‘,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,•••:•••:,,,,,,,,:21,4.,F.erin: • • • . • ,1-,:-,:,:•.....:::..::•:;::;;'•:,;;::;.•!::%;:;':`,.',..,.:6;;;:',ti•'.,,,,f,,,,;,,,,fi,,,,,,,,,,;.:,..; ::•:;,:•1•;•,..,;•,..-;',.;.'..:,,••:•.:•:.:•:,,,,...:::i'4.:6;:.::::;',;',.,,,:•.In%:PX,",..;••;..4..,,,,,,,;,;;,,,,:i:::•::::;,;;..1•4,,:$,,,,,,,,,,,:Z.,S..;,:,:,....,,,,,,,:,:f:41'...... ,,• • Z-;•,:::`,'...0..,;.'''.:i.li:.:::::;;':,,;:;:;,••.:%:;::•,;: k•P:..'.k,;;;,.A.;!;;Ctigi,l';'.,:::: •:;,;,',Sik:li'47:;,?:',....':',:::::;',.;,•:,:t1, 14...Z.,S,,....:S•tit.15rtg,t_'`"*4',:•;;:c:f,••.:::;:,:E:.e.!:Xk;'•Wilitk;',ZZ,...tliki;g:' • • * •'• * •'•'• • • •'•r• • • •''',4:4;10','`,;•'''''''''''V'''',''''''''''K,,tii:••;,;-'4,4.4.4".:•1,.,,,-;„•;,;'.4.„,.;,;,11:-1.4,,:,•;;,,,,...,P': 14::: telf40;:,,t,i,,,,,..fr');,:gekk,,,Z4t, ,',.'•:,..Ti,iNi•A,,,,,et•-,,,,,,,:.:-.4 ' • • • • • • •.• • . • • • •._• • :-::'.:',1*,''''Se.'k`T-•••Ver,:• •/,'''''if;;;;:•11,!...,:41,:k,;,.•';,1,14*'4,:,,,...' .....A'r4/441,._gf.:4;i1:1,,e;i•.:";K:F4'4,.;.• •,,,,,,,4',4z,..a.,,, ,,,4, ,,,,,.- ,..;,$•,,,,:44,,.., '• tr,64,,A4,..,•'.' 4,..:,,,k...t • . . . . . •.., • . ''.4...t.t.,...*,,,ig.,4!7:1?-iig:r.',g,t§,,;41,..-xiimillAit.'AIt'.. '-,,;f2.`il$i=?•?,t1;,,,Vi..4tiKi...4ta:;;.ii,Ifttl't•-.7':,',4-4,. '';im•;', tAt's.:,,ls.,41 •.-1,T.;XfY ''''''O'•;'t.'7;ffig,'1.07,4'"!'5is,':''..t.ti:-'0,,i5.:i.,..;0'.:.,:k!;',.:: -....L-kAi:;t,KiietlaVit,,,P.•,...--z.. .3ktf-et-42te-s,-4,...4::..,,,kt.S4' ,...:k:'t•lit ,• ..;Y•iir•'..41 • • • . ... 4 • • • • :-;'+:,;;(kt.."1:11i4'...*O.Nt."9.',.:%•,.."...4.'e,•,:•<",• •1:41*,' :::..,,"14',...q,,...''7,9giti,;','•,;,•if.'.'2,,eil'S'...,,,,.T•14:"..'*;,,,_...'Sq„.•416,• '...'''.,t.:7.7';'..*.i.C.,.•' -;''',,: ....jet ...41,-,:•%;;;`,!:y , • • • •• • •iL•'• • • • • • • • • ...',:.:::::;:'§V•S":::f4",f'i4i'AVX?4,,iWW'14:''':1",.riaili';',"''',...t .(104`1,?.1,_b?0`..INT1*.:k4+,1,4''''''Alffi'irf‘. 4.. •...,..,P;', ::',':-.k;$;f.,i'•,0$4"i".:`1,? ,:ZRWI:,•;ki,IAC,1,Y:•t;1?-;'. ' ..f.....1 it4.4'4,4,` .' ...i'52'hP''':',.*;.!:e•4y",./....'k'l i '',AS•7;k4 r:. •,:•,..A.i..*, ., P 1 --I • . . .'J... . • . . . •-, ie-:.;•,.,..**„.11;,,,.:•:;-,,,,,'i'.1,121.,.. .4'st,,,,:$i*,,,,,,,g,,,,,f;.4ii.,..A',,,,It,''.4,...'i,*,4,;:t.,:l'..,.':-ic:::•. 8 • • • • • - • --'.....•,,-- -, • • • ::::,..,,,,,,, ,,,,,,........40.,,,t,,,,;,,,•,..1.,a,t,,,,,,,,k,-;f0,,,.., -'-'t't4:144R•;3,•::...x.,-;-;•:;-;:t&t:4•.;:Y4.-;*..••• ',...7.'•-4•,.,,31,1,44.4:.1t. ...i:A.P4, .•'''' .....*:434 , ••,-•-•',..,,;..4,...4,,,,:.,,,,,,,,,,1•3•.... :,:•,.....,44,,k,..,...-.3......,+,4-: -,,,,,,,,.....3.43,,..'3,,,,,..,,,f,,,,,,,,,,...,..t.3.,3,--,3..,,,,,,•-.,,...., .. ,..„/„..,„,,,.....N.,..,, +.., ,• ,,,,,,,,...(4 X " •''-'•' . •,•:'•••• •4:--- • • • • ::';',.....it .,:,,,....4,-.4,-"*"•,•.'-.4:.‘Nizt,eii.'43W-4•••:',-,:,.,,,,,';'•:•:;.V... ,.;',:tkz,f.1:4,..,-..:1,3•4it4,.14-..,•,.-1,4:4,,,,Ii 34,....:,*14:',: •••' •"-• ,t. r, ,3.4,..:,..., ••-..i,,‘..f....4.,`,N.,,, :4 0 . . . :-. ... . . . . • . .. . . . ...".,teci.:';;Ni:•'.4.ii-1.,:i: ,i..'53V,Vitt,...2..ficlt„I',.;`,,,,40,4*,,,,C:.*. ::'/e":i.;,srs,''.'-ift',',1,?,,tis.;';;‘,11-:"A-I',,•.:'§;',444:.>,,';,•3-.;•iI1-."',.‘..,..•,;':V7,5',•.',.,,. ...-3e. ...''' "•. .t,,,,,,,,, c.,,,,,,.:•., • • •‘..,• • '• • • . • ,••••-• • • •,. ,, ,.::?,,:,,,if.tf,s,,:t.,:,,,v•iiqi,•_:::.,i't7i,i,.:,,,,..!(e.,,,,,,,,,a1:,i,:, -1,,,,:.").,i,,,,,,,.:;,,ii_...,,,- .., .... ,,.,.., ,• • • ..•... . . . ..• • ,:..--• • • • ::',i-•viv_,e,:.:_z.•:,,,;t,,3*;;:i:Lyi.,$:isi:iei;?.,t.g.,A,I,;t,t,,,,c,y,. -...4:41,,,,,f.e,,,,,,,.....,:,....,.4*-„,,,,,,,,,,,,,ii,iti.,i,o,$,...-4,,,,L,.,,‘,13,1,., .:,...,qi . o. , ,;-,,„ .—.,„,,,,,,v 1 ,• • • .,.,.. . • • • • ,•.-,,.. • . . . iiiit4,44f.,,...,,,i,,,,,,,,,,,Ti,,....:1,..:: ,,,,,,,,,,,,i„,,,.0,44,4,,,,f, ,,,,.I• • • • •• • •-'• • • . • . . . . . .:1:.*,*-4§.*•:1$.:t4.,.-.k,;'ii,i,t'il-,'&0.,.',.sts1t1e0fTi..!:7,a,,,:4,„t1t4..4,•4T,z.,,M,".?:.:6.9s.,§4:011,44,..., ' ',,,-,„,ii,,wIt"r1.,,,o,,,,4,,,,re•,,i,,::.p45:..,ii,,,.ioil,..k,,,.„.i-.,:.,,.:chv..t•.',t,-'Ir,t...,'a.e$iikt.,):iko;-:::.:,.'.n*,''..'f,:o-.;•7.-,,,:•,..•:.,,,, ,,w?i..,g,f‘w..:..,, STATE # ,.., _., •::,,,tk:•,;,,,,,.:;',. .: A . , 6 . . . , . . p .,, ?:,.,..,,.,.- .,:::..::s,..,::,z,,,::: ,..,,!.:............f,;.• :!:Vtr.3,,VitZ,4,1,4:..:;:-Ifi...1,14 ...,,.:?...;;;.; V too r:•- •.-,s,;:::••..:: ' . . :I ." .. ....'''. ''.;'''1'1'1.1".''.' — f'.."41..1F'itiltfer::'''''.;,;1:iffik*Ireikiiit.:!;:i ... ...........,.,.,. . . ...;,,,,,,,I4:,.., ,,,,,,,,,,i,04..i.,,e&ttilfe,01,,,,,,,;,,,,,,,,,,,''•,,.....,-•,...,... ,!.../////////////,•(//////Is' ' ':.: ''.. " "-.1;:!, ' . ' :,,,i'e,,,,e7;,:k•Zii•*•,,;,,k4f7i;;NZ.4:1,,W.:.'0.441Z?Al.ft.::.Tett.L.1§ff10.,;,:' .• ' LAM . //// • • • • • . •,,• . .• . .-• • ..,, • '..,..i.;:•,,N.-4,_,•:,...1..,...,,,,,,,,I.,,,,,,,,,..,,N,.. . ..••..••...••••.•.— • //////4/////// . ., , ., .. . • ,.. ..:4' . •::t.,•KFAX•w--kkk,,,,,I,P,414/1....it7z4t:t.•: e/ /////////////4/////// ' • • '' 41'....",:' ' *, • • .3•:.-',..41.§VK,g;i1f.14.ttlt'43'iv''.f,:',..::,:•,?•.1.:•1:••.,:-.,;,..,•:..,••.•.....-,.,:-......,...;,...,.. • , 4, ,,,,,,,///,/,.0',////// • • . ......• • ••••••• .1,• '.',,',.• • • • 3:..,"!,•,.;,:t.,-.5,1;`,-,i'•4!zi',....: :$94t4i.,•'4:44,''''.1.'3,-;e•'.,'';''•-r',''',3iiii:3•,... . /1*i• /////////////>,/////// . . ..4 .4 . . ...••. .,. . . • • '.3..:'..'3":".:k.."'•,343..:(1' ',5•:;.;tt,•:$...„•;i:•It'3.•::1:',,,40,*."..b 44Z4 ee ///////////////////// '.:,-,,,i,;it:til,..2...,e*:,,,,k7v,-,4;f4:,,,,:.;til.',4, 0/ /e/////////////////// " '• • i• • •,* • • •:• • • • ' .....,,,,•••4•.4.4°•tei:ivw,•:,:,%,:.:'!-.;,..0,;..2,..-4.•••',...,!:••,:..-...,...,...,:::',-,.......!'..!5t::•-::::, , ///////////////////// . • • • ..•,• • •••• • • • • ••'e,• • i...Kir •,,t,..,.,;, ,,fok.,,,,,,g,-*:4:: 0....e ••••///•/•••••••••••• . . .,. . ,. . ..:. . • ,r...'.,. ,.. ../.. .,,,,,,,,,,I,vi.),,..t*:,i#)kft,,,,'+,41f.:,{k.'•,.:.';'.:',:-:.,',:;,..i;:'',....‘;.,..,..4.,..•:,,:'::::;',..,::-...,. . ..-;,,i: /i /////////•••••••••••• ..‘ '. . .' ,4:14424,,--,4•,:g,..ci,:,,we.,,,,r,...;:e.1,131,,, :sx,,,,„!-,,,,st...,44,,,, 4...k,,,,,,;. // •••/•••••/••••••/•••• • • •,.. • • • • •.• •,: • •:.• : :,,,:i.:,,,,44m4.1.5,4,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,,,,A A.R....e. ,-....-.4', ,..., ,k, f..iA. . ,...,...,,,....,,,-,,,,,,-,...,..,-,,,,.:.., #• ••/••••••••••••••fr/••• • . . . . • . . . .,. •:',.:• . • A 1 :::',1•'?43..20+,14,S't.,44;:t.',,ti4.4,:•;740:iit,,(r:s43.0;-;•yz:3• .,.., :i-,,,. — , • 3. ,,,,,,,,A,// ///0.01/////////////// .:. . . . . . ... . s: .... ,., . ..••,1 :!:.74",i',-.14,-;f,4=111,.; ,,,,,,, ,*,..P.VAt'eit) I./ ////////////,/////e,/' . • . ' e.4,041,10., . . ., ?I' I I//////4,4.0////////er, .• • • •-•,• ..• • • • •-• • •.;'••1 t.,,,T4•41,4.t:e4:34,‘,..;%:!.4,44iii ",;:.,,,,,w;;;;., • .. -,.' ... ..-3. ' - ki;,..,; .,..,e/ //..f///4.../.-,i',.?//////////., . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-..,..:...,.... .,;5,,,W70)..,4,V.,...,,t,;,,,,01.14. ;,....3.•::::•,,,,,:-...:;,,e,•.;::,:::-,-,,,..,,,,t-,:•.!:•...,-.....4:3!;t4-2-,:;,•;,,,,,,,,....;z5, ,, ,,..9.3:•,,:•,45,4N. ...•„,.. ,,......,,,,.. .3t, ,,,.!....1:1 e..', t, "',""14 el.,,''e e e e e el i: . ' .f,f.::::::*,-;:,!.:,,,,,:.:::::::•:::.:,, ,,,:I - ; ' i'f,N.:•:,,,:1'b,',.::-0::,=: *4,',.;tfi..:§ 1:,,,, ;41ix.,,,,Ag: I ! 1 I', e////),.eee.,,////i,,,,e//e • • • • • • • • 1 • •,••'" • • • ,..,'..,..,•:',3,..,.• • -• • • -.....,...,..y.3:3,........:•':•-v,-,./..3,::::•:•;t:,,,,f,f,;::::••.:1•4:;.;:f:7.,.:,...;::,....4•t•-•:,,c.,..x:tz,,.."4.4...,:5,,,,,,,....•43.•.7_,:,.. 4.0.-.3.44-31. ,..."::.:-..•-.3....:373,3:3,:,,,-:....3,,....;3,3•1/4,;...........,,,,,•,,,,,,..3-.N.,-3......c.,;,1,-,:,,,,,,:,...;-71-,,:-..,•,,,:•:,,,,,,.• 9 10 V 16 15 75' 75 . LAMBERT LANE o _..„, r T12S-R13E i ,' •• 1, i''' -•_____ .------ _ — MESA VERDE SITE 19 N. P P 2 R • P I C•P C013-60-29 C013-61-11 .. . 1 . . . t • .,,.• •4•,,•-:,.. - ..II,,,, 4 A_ ii-••Ai. .1. . •_• • ,• Area of proposed rezoning :i ,,,iii SR t„ „,,,,,,,,..,„•,.,,,,,,„,, „ CBI Area of original request -‘,-. ,-,,•:•-•.:::...,,,,,,i,,,-i-,,,,....,,,,:-...;:,,,,:,;,:,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,• ,-•' cR2 Notification area BASE MAP NO. 217 _ .. MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS .........____ • _ .. - • 1 , , _..._..... ...... ......................, PIMA COUNTY . 1)it1‘ A N 1-3`i' 4S T)N1'F., .578-7.0 FILE. . • ,,,---......—. • C09-70- . I : L AVIYERS__.:TITLE _.'.1-4PABgRT_...LANE_ ..' ..•-: PLANNING DEPT, JLL YUCS(IN AR 11()N A I ('-'111-.CKEI) 14\- 1 ._ . ..... '' . • PIMA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO PIMA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 22, 1970 P/Z Public Hearing RE: Co9-70-42 LAWYERS TITLE - LAMBERT LANE REZONING Rezone from SR to CB-1, TR, and CR-2 LOCATION: Northeast corner of Lambert Lane and La Cholla Boulevard. AREA OF PROPOSED CHANGE: • 80 acres. N O K T t-4 STATED REASON FOR REQUEST: So plans can be made for developing. ;) MASTER PLAN TO CONSIDER: Co13-61-11 Mesa Verde Community Plan (southwest LAM&ART- LAPit corner of Lambert Lane and La Cholla Boulevard) Location Sketch OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: Type of Development Allowed under Proposed Zoning CB-1 is the basic local business zone intended to provide for the shopping facilities needed by residential areas. Its application and intent have been to provide convenient shopping areas for each neighborhood. Under the zone, such uses as specifically named are permitted: Retail stores and shops, service businesses, including gasoline service stations, research facilities and restaurants. The zone accumulates the TR zone but discourages residential use through a large lot-size requirement. Transitional Zone (TR) was developed to provide a true buffer between residential and commercial uses . The zone provides for residential uses at twice the high density urban multiple unit residential density and allows transient housing and accessory uses as well as trailer courts under specific requirements. The zone accumulates CR-3, CR-4, and CR-S and further permits professional and semi-professional offices as well as research facilities under specific conditions. The zone discourages single family residential use through a large minimum lot size requirement. c • . 1 OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: Re: Co9-70-42 Type of Development Allowed under Proposed Zoning (Continued) CR-2 is intended to be a single family residential zone, a transition from urban to suburban intensities . It accumulates the uses permitted in CR-1 and lowers the lot size requirement thus doubling the density to basically two houses per commercial acre. General Character of Neighborhood at Present This area is generally undeveloped and is typical rolling foothill property. Effect on Surrounding Properties This would encourage further development along these same lines which conforms to the plan for the area to the southwest. Changing Conditions None. • COUNTY ENGINEER'S REPORT - "This area is crossed from north to south by two very large washes and several smaller ones. As a result, development of east-west streets might prove difficult, if not impossible. However, this would best be determined, along with drainage requirements, during the process of recording an acceptable plat. Therefore, rezoning of this property should be subject to that requirement." COUNTY SANITATION DEPARTMENT REPORT - "Sewers will be required if lots are developed into less than 42,560 square feet net area per residence." STANDARD AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS TO CONSIDER: (1) Recording an acceptable plat that will provide for any drainage problems as well as any necessary rights-of-way; (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. Alex R. Garcia Associate County Planning Director MFN/rdb • Ci0/ ii i J J J I r •.0 .JL UDaGJ 7iJ7 vuuu J J it.v ur 5tubbS & Schubart, P. C. Attorneys and Counsellors at Law 340 N. Main Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701 stubb,leazetarnet.corn Robert C. Stubbs G. Lawrence Schubart' I' O. 505.47 Thomas M. Parsons Tucson, Arizona$5703 Damian M. Fellows (520)623-5466 Fax(520)882-3909 August 31, 1999 -also acanied Pannarlvan. SENT BY FAX TRANSMISSION ONLY Bryant Nodine, AICP Planning&Zoning Administrator Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737-7016 Pe: Hallaq Properties-Public Hearing OV9-99-51 Dear Bryant: The purpose of this letter is to apprise you of the status of our efforts on behalf of the Halllags, to Present a joint request to the Mayor and Council to postpone the public hearing presently enternber 1, ita p esentl� set for 1999,and to have reset for the first regularly scheduled meeting in October. Pursuant to the directions nrnvided to Robert Stubbs and myself, we met with individuals representingthe proposed Town of el ortolita. While the meetingcordial, those was u�vSe individuals want to emphasize that in meeting with us, they do not endorse any proposal we are planning to --,, .. make, nor do they concede that Town of Oro Valley has authority to make any decision pending a final judicial resolution regarding their ability to incorporate as town 1 In regard to our efforts to find acceptable balance �. � , ind an between the rights and interests of the Hallaqs and the interests of the individuals of e Canada Hills subdivision to the north, La ��P rivacia, we had a very fine meeting with Richard Tracy, President of that Association. Together we formulated plan . a which he needs to present to his Association members for their approval. If such ^lan is approved, we can thereafter present a unified request to the Mayor and Council regardingthe iallaq property. Unfortunately, the Association will not be meeting until after raid-September. Terefore, we 'ointly Tequest a postponement of the Mayor& Council meeting until the first week in October. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, ,TL B BS&SCHUBART, P. C. b GL...� o r: 1 of�-jor`o Schubart Enclosure cc. Mr. & Mrs. I. Hallaq D. Volk We hereby join in the request for a postponement of the public hearing until the first week in October .omeowners As cleat. on by/bl/l JTJ lb:4b n1bb�il.�yby blUbbb 5LI-1UtiAK I PAGE 02 Stubbs & Schubart P. r C. Attorneys and Counsellors at Law 340 N. Main Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701 5t11bb51Wazstarnet.corn Robert C. Stubbs G. Lawrence Schubart` • p. O. Box 50547 Thomas M. Parsons Tucson,Arizona 85703 Damian M. Fellows (520)623-5466 Fax(520)882-3909 August 31, 1999 u«saa Pennsylvania SENT BY FAX TRANSMISSION ONLY Bryant Nodine,AICP Planning&Zoning Administrator Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737-7016 Re: Hallaq Properties-Public Hearing OV9-99-51 Dear Bryant The purpose of this letter is to apprise you of the status of our efforts present a joint request to the Mayor and Council to postpone the public on behalf of the Hallaqs,to Septemberp � P 1Jcc hearingpresently p 1, 1999,and to have it reset for the first regularly scheduled meetingin October. pp endy set for ctober. Pursuant to the directions provided to Robert Stubbs and myself, we met with representing the proposed Town of Tortolita. Y � individuals emphasize that in meeting While the meeting was cordial,those individuals want to concede that ting with us, they do not endorse any proposal we are planningto make,nor they Town of Oro Valley has authority to make any decision pending a �� judicial do resolution regarding their ability to incorporate as town. In regard to our efforts to find an acceptable balance between the rights Hallaqs and the interests of the individuals of the Canada Hills subdivision to and interests of the we had a veryfine withRichardaxon to the north, La Privada, aplan a hhe meeting ,Tracy, President of that Association. Together we formulated needs to present to his Association members for their approval. If such 'approved, we can thereafter present a unified request to the Mayor and Council plan 'q Unfortunately, � q Y regarding the HalXa property.. tunately,the Association will not be meetingg gg q .jointly �until after mid-Se te�mber. Therefore, request a postponement of the Mayor&Council meeting until the first week in October. we Thank you for your attention to this matter.. Very truly yours, TUBBS&SCHUBART, P. C. Lcuuts4.444. 24,6)6‹ OLS/brntrth G. Lawrence Schubart Enclosure cc: Mr. &Mrs. I. Hallaq D.Volk We hereby join in the request for a postponement of the public hearing until the first week in x October. Homeowners Association Stubbs & Schubart, P. C. Attorneys and Counsellors at Law 340 N. Main Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701 stubbsl@azstarnet.com Robert C. Stubbs P. O. Box 50547 G. Lawrence Schubart* Tucson, Arizona 85703 Thomas M. Parsons (520)623-5466 Damian M. Fellows Fax(520)882-3909 August 2, 1999 ''also licensed in Pennsylvania SENT BY FAX TRANSMISSION/1ST CLASS MAIL Bryant Nodine, AICP Planning & Zoning Administrator Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737-7016 Re: Hallaq Properties - Public Hearin;; OV9-99-51 Dear Bryant: The public hearing on the Translation Zoning for the Hallaq properties is presently set as Item 12 on the August 4, 1999, Mayor & Council agenda. As a result of recent meetings with council members, various requests have been made for g q us to meet with third parties and to analyze certain development related issues. These tasks cannot be completed by the time of the scheduled public hearing. On behalf of the Hallaqs we request that this matter to continued to the September agenda of the Mayor & Council. In speaking with v'p g y p t David Marsh last week, I believe that hearin isong September 1 1999. It is also myunderstandingh gtatthis request will be granted although anyone whoa ears on August 4 might still be provided an opportunity g ypp g g to speak. Nevertheless, the Hallaqs can maketheir pq t eir presentation at the continued date e in September. If I do not understand this correctly, please let me know at once. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, TUBBS & SCHUBART, P. C. 1,064A)LAAWLQuo/DAZC GLS/bmmh G. Lawrence Schubart Enclosure cc: Mr. & Mrs. I. Hallaq D. Volk hs k;ii., ,.,6_, Stubbs & Schubart, P. C. MAY 2. , Mi Attorneys and Counsellors at Law „_ ,a 340 N. Main Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701 stubbsl@azstarnet.com Robert C. Stubbs P. O. Box 50547 G. Lawrence Schubart* Tucson, Arizona 85703 Thomas M. Parsons (520)623-5466 Damian M. Fellows Fax(520)882-3909 *also licensed in Pennsylvania May 28, 1999 HAND DELIVERED Bryant Nodine, Zoning Administrator Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737-7016 Re: Hallaq Proposal for Translation Zoning Dear Bryant: I have included with this letter a number of copies of a memorandum prepared by this law firm in support of the forthcoming hearings on the translation zoningfor the Hallaq I am o optimistic that this proposal be viewed 1 will as a good faith effort P P P to balance individual property rights with issues raised by neighbors and objectives sought by the Town of Oro Valley. Thank you. Very truly yours, TUBBS &SCHUBART, P. C. LCUJAAA .. 0544/00‘ G. Lawrence Schubart GLS/bmmh Enclosure cc: Dan Dudley, Town Attorney (With Enclosures) LA PRIVADA ''"4" (199 • • Date: March 22n , 1999 Mr. Bryant Nodine, AICP Planning &Zoning Commission 11 000 N. La.Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 • CHD&E-/98 Subject: TRANSLATIONAL ZONING of HALLAQ PROPERTY Dear Mr. Nodine: • The Board of Directors of La Privada @ Canada Hills acknowledges receipt of the March 9th, 1999 mailing regarding the translational zoning of the Hallaq property immediately south of this community. The intent of this letter is to convey the sentiments •and concerns shared by many, of-the residents of La Privada. As a community we- are not opposed to growth and development*in this area. Our concerns, however, center upon the potentially harmful.impact upon the property values t0 the properties nearest • • this.parcel, should R-6 multi-family residential (apartments) be constructed there. Apartments typically• are geared towards. lease or rental applications, bringing a transience that creates further concerns, including increased traffic, noise and vandalism to the highly valued Canada Hills Community Association area. Prized mountain or city views would likely be lost, further de-valuing the appeal and marketability of those homes. In short, it is difficult to .envision apartments that will serve to uphold ambient market values of the single-family residences in this area. This association is very concerned, should multi-family units be planned for this parcel, that proper address of market considerations, an appropriate buffer zone area, design aesthetics, traffic flow, noise and other issues be taken into account Thank.you for your attention to this matter. If you should have any questions, or if I can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 544-4843. Our association • - manager, Christopher Street @ Cadde.n Parfrey.Services can be reached at 297-0797, or leave a detailed message on,his voice mail anytime at 408-8608. For the Association, . Mr. Richard Trac President La Privada HOA ' cc: Mr. David Marsh • • 7355 North Oracle Road, Suite 110 ❖ Tucson, Arizona 85704 ❖ (520) 297-0797 O O�P�t"EY qR/ � • o v TOWN OF ORO VALLEY r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT it IP • Building Safety • Parks and Recreation I1 ' , i» • Planning and Zoning • Transit Services 4' A AIL ,a;, �,. ,_.... --A PLANNING&ZONING DIVISION A. P it 11,000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley AZ 85737 OVN D EO'g Phone: 797-9797 Fax: 742-1022 March 9th, 1999 David Valk CBR Richard Ellis Tucson,AZ VIA FAX : (520)323-5156 let' rate-74 Subject: OV9-99-51 Hallaq Translational Zoning, from Pima County CB-1, CR-2, and TR to Oro Valley C-1,R1-10,and R-6 Mr. Valk, As per your request, attached are the sections of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised which apply to the C-1, R 1-10, and R-6 zoning designations. The CB-1 designation would be translated to C-1,the CR-2 to R 1-10,and the TR to R-6. I have taken the liberty of scheduling a meeting between yourself and Bryant Nodine, the Planning & Zoning Administrator, for Tuesday, March 16th at 11:00 AM at the Community Development Building. Should you wish to reschedule this meeting, or have any questions r ding this atter,please contact me at(520) 797-9797 ext. 311. 1.../1/1/4.-- D id Marsh Planner I, Current Planning \\OV PZD\PZ1\OV\OV9\1999\9-99-51\Valkrequest.doc in Sec. 6-101 CHAPTER 6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS ARTICLE 6-1. COMMON REGULATIONS OF R-1 DISTRICTS Sec. 6-101 Purpose The single family residential districts are intended to promote and preserve the residential development of single family detached homes. Lot sizes vary by district to maintain different densities. The principal land use is single family dwellings and uses incidental or accessory thereto. Sec. 6-102 Use Regulations • A. Permitted Uses Buildings, structures or premises shall be used and buildings and structures shall hereafter be erected, altered or enlarged only for the following uses: 1. Dwelling units, single family 2. Community residences shall be permitted provided that: a. No such residence is located on a lot with a property line within 1,000 feet, measured in a straight line in any direction, of the lot line of another such community residence; and b. Such residence contains no more than 6 residents, or 8 residents, including sta►f; and c. Such residence is registered with, and is approved by, the Planning and Zoning • Director as to compliance with the standards of this section; and d. Off-street parking is provided in accordance with Sec. 1 1-1 0=A. (Rev. 8-93) 3. Accessory buildings, private swimming pools, home occupations and other accessory uses (see Article 13-1 for additional criteria). 4. Parks, playgrounds and community-owned buildings other than hospitals. 3. Private tennis courts and sports courts, provided that the court is not lighted and is located within all yard setbacks and, further, that fencing around the court shall not exceed 12 feet (Rev. 1 1/17/93). Cro V]Iley Zoning Code Revised 6 - 1 (Rev.Z'9n Sec. 6-102 COMMON REGULATIONS OF R-1 DISTRICTS 6. Temporary real estate sales office provided the following conditions are met: a. The office shall be located within a model home built in accordance with the zoning where such office is located. b. Temporary real estate sales offices shall be permitted for a period not to exceed 2 years from the date of initial home sales. c. At his discretion, the Zoning Administrator may grant extensions of time at :he termination of the initial 2 year p.e.riod. d. At his discretion, the Zoning Administrator may grant permission for a temporary real estate sales office to be located in a portable structure. All such structures must be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to installation (see Sec. 2- 101, no. 73, for a definition of custom home subdivision). ✓. Antennas (including satellite dishes up to 1 meter in diameter), subject to requirements set forth in Article 13-7.. Satellite dish antennas exceeding 1 meter in diameter shall subject to ORB review and recommendation, and staff approval, per Sections 3-302 and 13-702.A.4. 3. Minor Communication Facilities, subject to requirements set forth in Sec. 13-703.3. B. Uses Subiect to Conditional Use Permit 1. Community buildings and recreational ►aciiities not publicly owned, such as atn�e::c fields and boys' clubs. 2. Lighted private tennis courts and sport courts (Rev. 1 1/93). 3. Coif course (except miniature golf course or commercial driving range). 4. Farms and ranches (these are a permitted use in R1-144). 3. Model homes. 6. Major Communication Facilities, subject to requirements set forth in Sec. 9-117. 7. New utility poles and above ground wires. Sec.. 6-103 Property Development Standards The following property development standards shali apply to all land and buildings in singie-far ,*; residential districts. Specific lot sizes, setbacks and criteria which vary among individual singie-famiiy residential districts are identified in Article 6-2 through 6-8 (Rev. 11/93). Cro Valley Zoning C;Ae Revise' 6 - 2 2.. 74 1 COMMON REGULATIONS OF R-1 DISTRICTS Sec. 6-103 A. Lighting 1. The height of any light fixture or illumination shall not exceed 15 feet. 2. The provisions of Section 13-105 shall apply. B. Walls and Fences . The yard setback requirements shall not apply to walls or fences less than 4 feet 6 inches in height when located in front yards, or less than 6 feet when located in side and rear yards (see Sec. 13-103 for special requirements regarding corner lots). C. Swimming Pools • . Swimming pools shall be screened from adjacent properties by a protective fence or permanent structure not less than 6 feet in height, except that such height may be reduced to not less than 2. feet in accordance with Sec. 3-109. D. Access All lots shall have vehicular access to a dedicated street unless a secondary means of permanen: vehicular access has been approved. Sec. 6-104 Off-Street Parking The provisions of Chapter 11 shall apply. Sec. 6-105 Signs The provisions of Chapter 12 shall apply. Sec. 6-106 Other Provisions The requirements and exceptions of Chapter 13 snail apply. • _. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised ;Rev 197 6 -2a Sec.6-201 ARTICLE 6-2. R1-144 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 6-201 Purpose This district is intended.to promote and preserve suburban-rural single-family residential development. The large lot size permits agricultural uses and promotes open space. Sec. 6-202 Use Regulations A. Permitted Uses • 1. The provisions of Sec. 6-102 shall apply. 2. In addition to the uses permitted in Sec. 6-102, the following are permitted uses in the R'- 144 district: a. Farms (see Definition no. 101) b. Marketing of products raised on the premises. A stand of not more than 200 square feet in area shall be cermited provided said stand is no closer than 10 feet to street line and no c:cser than 20 feet to any other lot line. B. Conditional Uses 1. Analogous uses per Sec. 5-20 2. Cemetery, including funeral chapel. Sec. 6-203 Property Development Standards The provisions of Sec. 6-103 shall apply. The following additional requirements shall apply in this district. A. Minimum Lot Area- 144,000 square feet B. Minimum Lot Width - 150 feet C. - Density 1. There shall be a minimum of 4,000 square feet of lot area for each single-family dwellin` 2. Should more than 1 single-family dwelling be erected upon any 1 lot, the following provisions shall apply: a. An unobstructed access way for ingress/egress shall be provided for each dwelling. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (Rev.6,9S1 • 6 -3 R1-10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Article 6-7. R1-10 Single-Family Residential District Sec. 6-701 Purpose This district provides for medium density detached single family residential development. Sec. 6-702 Use Regulations A. Permitted Uses Buildings, structures or premises shall be used and buildings and structures shall hereafter be erected, altered or enlarged only for the following uses: 1. Dwelling units, single family 2. Accessory buildings, ui dings,private swimming.pools, home occupations and other accessory uses (see Article 13-1 for additional criteria). 3. Parks, playgrounds and community--owned buildings other than hospitals. 4. Temporary real estate sales office provides the following conditions are met: a. The office shall be located within a model home built in accordance with the zoning where such office is Tecate . b. Temporary real estate sales offices shall be permitted for a period not to exceed 2 veers from the date of initial home sales. c. At his discretion, the Planning and Zoning Director may grant extensions of time at the termination of the initial 2 year period. B. Uses Subject to Conditional Use Permit 1. Community buildings and recreational facilities not publicly owned, such as athletic fields. t 2. ► odel homes. 3. Analogous uses per Sec. 3-201 C. Cro valley.ntng Cxe Revtsea 0 - 7 ..Rev.1/9;; R1-10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 6-703 Property Deve!ooment Standards The provisions of sec. 6-103 Shall apply. The following additional requi-;ecRents shall apply in this district. A. Minimum lot area - 10,000 square feet. B. Minimum lot width 1. 80 Feet 2. Cul-de-sac lots: minimum lot width shall be measured at the front lot line or the building setback line, whichever width is greater. Street frontage for cul-de-sac lots shall meet the minimum requirements of Oro Valley. 3. "Flag" lots: the driveway, or "pole," portion of any flag lot shall be excluded from minimum lot width measurement, using the flag portion of the lot to satisfy minimum lc: width requirements. C. Maximum density`✓ - a minimum of 1^,CC0 square feet per dwelling unit and a maximum of one dwelling per lot. D. Building height- not to exceed 2 stories and 25 feet. E. Yard setbacks 1. Front: 25 feet 2. Side : 10 feet 3. Rear : 25 feet 4. For multiple frontage lots, a minimum 20 foot yard setback must be maintained adjacent to any public or private street. The Town Engineer and Planning and Zoning Dire or may approve reduced side yards. S. For "flag' lots, the driveway, or 'pole," portion cf the lot shall not be used to satisfy front yard setback requirements. The front yard shall be measured within the area of the "flag' portion of the lot closest to any public or private street. F. Detached accessory buildinas 1. Permitted coverage: 1370 of total area of rear and side yard. 2. Minimum distance to main building: 10 feet. 3. Accessory buildings shall not exceed the height of the main building nor be any closer to the front lot line than the main building. Oro Valley Zoning Cxe Reviser 6 - 13 R-6 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 7-501 ARTICLE 7-5 R-6 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec.7-501 Purpose This district is intended to support multi-family residential development, to accommodate an increased density of population and to provide recreational and aesthetic amenities which enhance the residential character of a multi-family project and produce a high quality environment. This district also furnishes employment opportunities, by providing for business and professional office complexes on a residential scale, with low silhouettes, a variety of separate building masses and landscaped open space, to be compatible with surrounding residential uses. Sec.7-502 Approvals Required A development plan and/or preliminary and final piats shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 4. as applicable. No structure or building shall be built or remodeled upon land in the District un::i • V 1 development plan and/or preliminary and finai piat approval has been obtained as outlined in Chapter and, further, the Development Review Board ancicr Town Council approval of a native p:ant saivcoe plan. landscaping, architecture, a recreation area plan. signs, etc. as applicable must be obtained as cLt:inec :r, Article 3-3, 14-1, 14-2 and this Article. Sec. 7-503 Use Regulations A. Permitted Uses Buildings, structures or premises snal be used and buildings and structures sna:i hereafter ..e erected, altered or enlarged only for the following uses: 1. Dwellings, multi-family, in accordance with the development standards set forth .n Sec. - 504. 2. Dwellings, multi-family ancicr single-family detached. in accordance with :he development standards se:forth in Sec. 7-104. 3. Mature Adult Retirement Quarters (See c 9-105A and D for spoon c-ve..cp , er.: ♦ 1 1 Quarters v..... Sec. C..IIiV uC ....rLr^ standards). 4. Accessory buildings, swimm:nc pools. private and semi-public, home occupations aro other accessory uses (see Ar; :e 1 1 nor additional criteria. 5. Business and professional Scriices. a. Business and professional offices in which merchandise, wares or:cods are no: created, displayed, sc:d or exchanged. b. Medical or dental offices including laboratories. Orn Valley Zoning Code Revised !Rev._n - 15 Sec. 7-503 R-6 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT c. Studio for professional work or teaching of any form of commercial or fine arts such as photography. music, drama or dance. 6. Temporary real estate sales office provided the following conditions are met: a. The office shall be located within a model home built in accordance with the zoning where such once is located. b. Temporary real estate sales offices shall be permitted for a period not to exceed 2 years from the date of initial home sales. c. At his discretion, the Zoning Administrator may grant extensions of time at the termination of the initia 2 year per:col. d. At his discretion, the Zoning Administrator may grant permission for a temporarf real estate sales office to ce located in a portable structure. All such str Luc:ures must be approved by :..e Zcninc Administrator prior to installation (See Sec. 2- 101, for a definition of Custom Home Subdivision). 7. Antennas (including satellite cisnes up tc 1 meter in diameter), subject to requirements set forth in Article 13-7. Sato...:e dish antenna exceeding_ 1 meter in diameter srail be subject to ORB review and eccnnmenca::Cn. and acoreval per Se_..cn 02 : 13-7 02.A.4. 8. Minor Communication Faciiit:es. subject to requirements set forth in Sec. 12-7 03.E. B. Uses Subiect to Conditional Use Permit 1. Community buildings er recrea::cnai fields not publicly owned. 2. Day Nursery or preschool (see Sec. 9-104 for criteria). 3. Public swimming pools, tennis courts or sport courts. 4. Public buildings other than ncsp:tais. 5. Rehabilitative CareFacility (See Sec. 9-105B and D for specific develocment standards 6. Skilled Nursing Care Faciiir; (See Sec. 9-105C and D for spec:fo deve:cpmer: standards). 7. Model homes. 8. Boarding house or locking house arc short-term rental properties. subject o :. a definition set forth in Sec. 2-1 . 9. Parks, playground and commun;n: owned buildings. 10. Major Communication Facilit:es. subject to requirements set forth in Sec. = 17 11. Analogous uses per Sec. 5 C. 12. New utility poles and above ground wires. 13. Art Galleries (see Sec. 9-120 for specific development standards). Oro Vailev Zoning Code Revised (Rev.:..931 7 - 16 R-6 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 7-304 Sec. 7-504 Property Development Standards The following property development standards snail apply to all land and buildings in the R-6 District. A. Minimum Property Standards Any property for which R-6 zoning is requested shall contain a minimum of 5 acres, if the proposed use is residential, or 1 acre for business and professional offices or other permitted or conditional use. B. Ooen Space Recuirements Development of all R-6 zoned procerty shall provide a minimum of 35% of the net lot area as open space in the following proportions: 1. Each lot shall contain a minimum of ttivo hundred fifty (250) square feet of usable outdoor living space for each dwelling unit, exclusive of front yards. ?. Not less than fifty (50) percent of said required space shall be provided in a single common area, with a minimum dimension of twenty (20) feet at any point. a. Portions of yards (excluding the front yards) which are contiguous with and an integral part of the outdoor living space may be included in calculating the area and minimum dimensions of such space. b. Pools and paved recreation areas may be developed in :~e required common space. 3. A private outdoor living space shall be provided adjoining each dwelling unit equal to a minimum of 20% of the gross size of the dwelling unit, except that dwelling units above the first story shall provide such space equal to a minimum of 10% of the gross size of the dwelling unit. Outdoor living space on ground level may be included in the ocen space requirement. 4. a shall be reasonably ceG ib t dwelling g units c r, eed Outdoor living areas ►,ail ..asphalt;� accessible o Cave lines units e � �. 5. Driveways and landscaping within driveway areas shall not be included in calculations of outdoor space. 6. The remainder of the required open space shall be provided in landscaped or natural open space. C. Density The minimum gross land area per dwelling unit shall be 3,500 square feet. EXCEPT that: Oro Valley Zoning Cade Revised 7 - 17 CRei.:r97) Sec. 7-504 R-6 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT The minimum gross land area per dwelling unit may be,increased if it is determined by the Development Review Board or the Town Council that conditions peculiar to the site preclude such density. D. Building Height 1. No building shall exceed 2 stories in height with a maximum exterior height of 25 feet. 2. if the R-6 development abuts an R1-144, R 1-43, R1-36, or R1-20 single-family residential district the building height shall be limited to single story with maximum exterior height of 18 feet within 100 feet of these districts. 3. if the R-6 development abuts an R1-10, R1-7, R-4, R-S, R-4R, or another R-6 residential district, building height may be limited to single story, with maximum exterior building height of 18 feet, within 50 feet, if deemed appropriate by the Development Review Board or Town Council. Distance Between Buiidinas For all R-6 developments, the distance between two main buildings or a main building and an accessory building shall be as follows: a. between two single story structures 10 feet b. between a single story and a two-story structure 15 feet c. between two, two-story structures 20 feet F. Landscaoina That part of a lot not required for buildings, structures, loading and vehicular access ways, streets, parking and utility areas, pedestrian walks and hard-surfaced activity areas snail be landscaped in accordance with Article 14--2, Landscape, Irrigation and Buffer Yard Requirements, and, as applicable, Article 1 1-►, Off-Street Parking. G. Yards and setbacks For all buildings and accessory structures, setbacks shall be as follows (for exception, based on building height, see Sec. 7-504D): 1. Front: 30 feet 2. Side: 20 feet 3. Rear: 20 feet H. Wails. Fences and Required Screening 1. Walls and fences not to exceed 6 feet in height shall be permitted on the Oro valley Zoning code Revsed 7 - 13 ;Rem_:.9- �--- � R-6 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 7-504 property line except within the required front setback, where wall height is limited to 3 feet, unless otherwise approved by the Development Review Hoard. 2. Parking areas, mechanical structures and appurtenances, stqtazza..and refuse areas shall be screened according to the requirements of Set. 13-40-4 as approved by the Development Review Board. 3. Swimming pools shall be screened from adjacent properties by a protective fence or permanent structure not :ess than 6 feet in height. The swimming pool shall be protected by a protective enciosura.which shall be controlled by the use of self-closing gates with self-latching devices. 4. All areas between a building and a street frontage except for access drives and walks shall be open space. Where parking occurs ben,veen a building and the street, an area 33 feet in depth between the street and parking shall be ;maintained in a landscaped setting. This depth may be decreased to a minimum of 20 feet special circumstanceswarrant approval by use permit or Deveiccment Review Board approval, such circumstances being: a. depressed parking b. wall and berming Access All lots shall have fr and haveaccessec treat unless onia�,. on, n�.0 �aGv.. vehicular from, a cep;cat .. :,.�,_. a secondary means of permanent yenicie access has been approve by the 2eveiopment Review Board. Recreational Facilities 1. Wherever there is constructed on a lot, or contiguous lots, muitice dwellings which have fifty(50) or more dwelling units, an active outdoor recreational facility shall be provided for the occupants of said units. In addition to the acive outdoor recreation area, an indccr recreational facility shall also be prcviced for the Occupants or said aweiling Units. ;he recreational faciiiry may be used as the leasing, sales, managers office, but that use may not exceed thirty percent of the gross .floor area. The aiance of the facilities shad include group meeting facilities and facilities for exercise, table sports and games. 2. Wherever there is constructed, a multiple dwelling which has ~wen •_ ) ormore dwelling units, there shall be provided on the lot site of said multiple dwellings, a play are for children. Said play area shall be separated from any private access ways and public streets by a fence or wall. The tot lot requirement may Ice excluded from a senior citizens development. Ciro Valley Zoning abe,Revised 7 - 19 :Rev.:971 -� Sec. 7-505 R-6 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 7-505 Off-Street Parking , The provisions of Chapter 11 shall apply. Sec. 7-506 Signs The provisions of Chapter 12 shall apply. Sec. 7-507 General Provisions The provisions of Chapter 13 shall apply. Oro Valley Zoning Code Red /' - 20 (Rev.:,71 C-i COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Sec. 8-201 ARTICLE 8-2. C-i COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Sec. 8-201 Purpose This district is intended to permit commercial activities designed to serve the community. This distrct includes uses usually associated with the central business district and shopping facilities which are no: ordinarily compatible with residential development. Sec. 8-202 Approvals Required A Development Plan shall be submitted in accordance with Article 4-3. No structure or building shall built or remodeled upon land in the C-1 District until development plan approval has been cctainec outlined in Article 4-5 hereof and, further, :he Development Review Board approval of lancscap architecture, signs, etc. as applicable must be obtained as outlined in Article 3-3 hereof. Sec. 8-203 Use Regulations A. Permitted Uses Buildings, structures or premises shall be used and buildings and structures shall hereafter be erected, at_r_,:i or enlarged only for the following uses: Business and professional services. a. Business and professional offices b. Business schools c. Hospital for animals including boarding and lodging, provided that there are no kennels maintained, and provided ail activities will be conducted in soundproof builcHa_ d. Medical or dental offices inducing laboratory/ e. Museum f. Optician g. Parks, playgrounds and community buildings other than hospitals h. School, private, operated as a commercial enterprise i. Studio for professional work or teaching of any form of commercial or fine arts ?. Residential. a. Dwellings integrated within a commercial establishment shall be limited to 1 dwe:i7.7.g unit for each business establishment provided there is a minimum floor area of 520 square feet for each dwelling unit. Oco Valley Zoning Code Revisev a - 4 .cite,297 -' Sec. 8-203 C-1 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT b. Mature Adult Retirement Quarters (See Sec. 9-105A and D for specific development criteria). c. Rehabilitative Care Facility (See Sec. 9-105B and D for specific development standards). d. Skilled Nursing Care Facility(See Sec. 9-105C and D for specific development standards). 3. Retail sales. a. Antique store b. Appliance store c. Art gallery d. Automobile parts store •e. Bakery f. Bicycle store Book store, excluding adult book store h. Camera store i. Candy store j. Carpet and floor covering store k. Clothing store 1. Craft shop conducted in conjunction with retail business which may include ceram:cs. mosaics, fabrics, jewelry, leather goods, silk screening, dress designing, sculpturing end wood carving • m. Delicatessen n. Department store . o. Drug store p. Electronic equipment store q. Fabric store r. Florist s. Furniture store t. Gift shop u. Grocery store or supermarket within a shopping center v. Gun shop w. Hardware store x. Hobby or toy store y. Home improvement store z. Ice cream store aa. Import store bb. Music store cc. Pet shop dd. Restaurants, not including sale of alcoholic beverages or drive-in or drive-through ee. Sporting goods store • ff. Stationery store gg. Swimming pool supply store hh. Variety store Oro V y kq Zoning Code Revised 8 - 3 C-1 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Sec.8-203 4. Services a. Appliance repair b. Barber or beauty shop c. Broadcasting station and studio, radio or television, excluding transmitting, receiving, telecommunications or cellular telephone towers d. Clothes cleaning agencies and laundromats, excluding industrial cleaning and dyeing plants. e. Photograph studio f. Post office • g. Printing, lithography, publishing or photostating establishment h. Private clubs not including alcoholic beverages Shoe repair j. Telephone answering service 5. Other uses. a. Accessory buildings. 6. Antennas (including satellite dishes up to 1 meter in diameter), subject to requirements set fcrt in Article 13-7. Satellite dish antenna exceeding 1 meter in diameter shall be subject to DRB rev'ew and recommendation, and staff approval per Section 3-302 and 13-702.A.4. 7. Minor Communication Facilities, subject to requirements set forth in Sec. 13-703.B. B. Uses Subject to Conditional Use Permit 1. Day nursery or preschool (see Sec. 9-1 04 for criteria). 2. Dwelling units according to development standards of Sec. 7-104. • 3. Health studio. 4. Restaurant including entertainment and sale of alcoholic beverages. 5. Theater, excluding adult movies. 6. Utilities and utility poles, related buildings, structures and appurtenances thereto, either pubiiciy r privately owned. 7. Banks and financial institutions (See Sec. 9-102 For criteria). •8. Convenience Uses (See definition in Chapter 2 and Sec. 9-110 for criteria). 9. Police stations and publicly or privately owned fire stations and emergency rescue fac:;iss. including vehicular storage areas and housing for personnel (see Sec. 9-107 for criteria). 10. Churches (see Sec. 9-114 for criteria) 11. Major Communication Facilities, subject to requirements set forth in Sec. 9-11 7. 12. Car Washes (see Sec. 9-112 and 9-113 for criteria) 13. Car Rental Establishments (see Sec. 9-119 for criteria) 14. Funeral chapel 15. Analogous uses per Sec. 5-201C Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (Res6.93) 8 -6 Sec. 8-204 C-1 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Sec. 8-204 Property Development Standards The following property development standards shall apply to all land and buildings in the C-1 District. A. Minimum Property Size • ,Not applicable in this district B. Open Space Requirement and Areallolume Ratios 1. In no case shall the open space requirement be less than 15% of the net lot area for 1 foot to 12 feet of building height, plus 0.4% of the net lot for each foot of height above 12 feet. 2. The gross floor area of a structure shall not exceed the amount equal to .25 multiplied by the net lot area in square feet and the volume of any structure shall not exceed the product of the net lot area in square feet multiplied by 2.5. C. Density Dwelling units physically integrated within commercial establishments limited to 1 dwelling unit fcr each business establishment. D. Building Height • No building shall exceed 2 stories in height and the exterior height shall not exceed 25 feet. . - E. Distance Between Buildings There shall be not less than 10 feet between an accessory building and a main building or between 2 main 'buildings. F. Landscaping Those parts of a lot not required for buildings, structures, loading and vehicular access ways, streets, parking and utility areas, pedestrian walks and hard-surfaced activity areas shall be landscaped. The desert in its natural state may be used and may be enhanced with indigenous drought-tolerant plants. Landscaping shall be as specified in Article 13--4 and shall be approved by the Development Review Board and Town Council. G. Yards and Setbacks 1. Front yard. a. No front yard is required except as listed in the following 3 paragraphs unless adjacent to a residential district, in which event, the front yard regulations of the residential district snail apply. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised R,` 6,981 8 -7 C-1 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Sec. 8-'204 b. A minimum of 1/2 of the open space requirements shall be incorporated as frontage open space to provide a setting for the building and a streetscape containing a variety of spaces. In no case, shall the building be permitted closer than 20 feet to the front lot line. c. All areas between a building and a street frontage, except for access drives and walks, shall be open space. Where parking occurs between a building and the street, an area 35 feet in depth between the street and parking shall be maintained in a landscaped setting. This depth may be decreased to a minimum of 20 feet if special circumstances warrant approval by use permit or Development Review Board approval, _Len circumstances being: (1) Depressed parking (2) Wall and berming d. There shall be a landscaped area a minimum of 20 feet in depth between any par In area not described in sub-section C 1 of this section and any street frontage. All a i^ 1t:ng .r areas snail be screened from all abutting streets as provided in Article 13-4. 2. Side and rear yard. a. A yard of not less than Sc feet shallbe maintained _~ where :he lot abuts a single -a.:...,� residential district or abuts an alley which is adjacent to the single family resicentiai district. D. A yard of not less than 23 feet snail be maintained where the lot abuts a multiple residential Clstr ic: or abuts an alley which :s adjacent to the single family resicen.::a district. H. Walls, Fences and Reouired Screening All operations and storage snail be conducted within a completely enclosed building or ,wit-.:n an area contained by a wall or fence as determined by Development +Review Board abcrovai or use permit. ?. There shall be a 6 foot high masenry wail or approved landscape screen on the rear and property fines that are adjacent to any muiti-ramiiv residential district. The butter L.escr'%=_ sub-section 3 below may be used. 3. Wherever a C-1 District abuts an R-1 District, a landscape screen a minimum of 30 feet '.vice or a comparable natural desert purer snail be provided and maintained on the abutting let Such buffer shall provide a closed barrier between the C-1 and R-1 developments are :n.e Development Review Board may reouire a wail in addition to the landscape buffer in crcer :o earn out :he intent of this sub-section. Oro Valley Zoning code Revised 3 - 8 _c n Sec. 8-205 C-1 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Sec. 8-205 Off-Street Parking The provisions of Chapter 11 apply. Sec. 8-206 Signs The provisions of Chapter 12 shall apply. Sec. 8-207 General Provisions The provisions of Chapter 13 shall apply. OM v,itey Zoning Cooe R 8 - 8 a ,►.:97) Z i'- A? �o 04 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • Building Safety • Parks and Recreation • Planning and Zoning • Transit Services PLANNING&ZONING DIVISION PO 1g1� 11,000 N. La Canada Drive,Oro Valley AZ 85737 UN D ED Phone: 797-9797 Fax. 742-1022 March 9th, 1999 Subject: OV9-99-51 Hallaq Property, Translational Zoning from Pima County CB-1, CR-2 and TR to Oro Valley C-1, R1-10 and R-6 — Neighborhood Meeting Dear Oro Valley Citizen, In our continuing effort to keep the public informed and involved in the planning and development of our town,we wish to invite you to a meeting to be held between the owners of the Hallaq property , the neighboring property owners, and members of the Oro Valley Planning & Zoning Staff. This opportunity will allow you to express your views and / or concerns over the translational zoning for this property. The translational zoning for this property will be as follows: • 10 acres of County CB-1 Commercial to Oro Valley C-1 Commercial • 20 acres of County TR to Oro Valley R-6 Multifamily Residential(apartments) • 50 acres of County CR-2 to Oro Valley R1-10 Single Family Residential (10,000 square foot lots) The meeting will be held Monday, March 22nd, 1999 at 7:00 pm in the Town Council Chambers, Oro Valley Town Hall, located at 11,000 North La Canada Drive. Should you have any questions regarding this meeting,or the translational zoning of the Hallaq property in general, please contact the planner responsible for this case, David Marsh, at (520) 797-9797 ext. 311. Sincer= y, Bry. � .dine,AICP Plannin_ &Zoning Administrator Attachment: Location Map(see over) \\OV PZD\PZ1\OV\OV9\1999\9-99-51\neighbormtg.Itr.doc 1/1 Translational Zoning for the Hallaq Property: County CB-1 , TR, and CR-2 to Oro Valley C-I , R-6, and RI-I 0 \ 4• al A # 4 4 •*1 • 0* co APV • ' ib * , OA° 41 , la* I * * Ile 11I < 0 $ * al r i 1 b*• aa 4 R1-144 with Church Entitlements %fi * 4CnIP' IaPII4 N \ I ‘ VI. ** 0 *4 a •• Is • 0,4 i • , ok • , • r.r- PAD OS • R1 144 , , - 410 � um, • V AT! .1.�imp v `\ 0 • 4 mu at Walk Alk, 11111p 4# iti 4 P''' te rr4 ** Mb Nib . . Ib a ( ell ez4kko - 4P0r40 e2' _ Lambert I..ane # Ai I _ci IN /-- 7 1 : 1 _ _ 1a$ I, ii , R1-,36 _ CR-1 to R1-20 o SR to R1-144 U Alk 1 Jel N 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Feet + 3/9/99 c '••. ., PIMA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO PIMA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ..',' - ,L (Date staff report prepared) (CENTER) RE: Co9-10. 4 z 4.- :. L .:: ,:s. : ...,,-, ,.,• i,e - :Af, ., , Z ,diee- . _ . _ . ... .... _ . _ _ . _ (Name ot ezoning (CENTER) (Rezone from g- ) L. to CR -1' TA? , eilLZ___.. LOCATION: ---- ,.- . . . . Preliminary- Report / 7 P/Z Public Hearing A7B/S Public Hearing / / :-_ _:.. ._ AREA OF PROPOSED CHANGE: ___ _ i STATED REASON FOR REQUEST: ,,-, ,%, _ 4/ <--: v'-fldid — 2:14? Dia44 iv4-7-. MASTER PLAN(S) TO CONSIDER LOCATION SKETCH Co13-6/-// 27aate ae4de 4 44 ,, .„,, ,,,„,,,,, - _:-....--, ...t.,...., .--, Co13- 4440-0, 11 iitiree. 064,pioe. (Neighborhood Plan) Co7- --CG-e-nerai EiriEriFe7s PTan) 1 ,ar4,,I.HE:11PtLANNhe basic local Type of Development Allowed under Proposed Zonin2 : ::11jItiotipersonviedeededconbvyenrieesnitdenshtoipaplinazgrole°aar's f intended to provide for the shopping.: areas ,=1-7:application I ----- thp zone, such uses as specifically named are. permitted: Retail stores and 'shops, service businesses, including gasoline service stations, research facilities and restaurants. The zone accumulates the .TR zone but discourages - residential use through a large lot-size requirement, . • ', Transitional Zone (TR) was .develo—pedt-twto joelpi trahosve7agihiaerdtiruio:uirttlyDsuufunteDdraenbrivEllruernseiiqtdEset.iimdalen and commercial uses. 1r ''' Ttirhat en fi eo nn te hpor ou vs ii dn eg s af no dr r ae cs ci deesnstoi ar yl uusseess CR-3, CR-4 an aas we. d CR-5 and further permits p . 'fic conditions. The zone discourages sing rofessional and semi-professio eral density and allowsnal offices as well as re.sea t The zone acinciumum- k, le family residential use through a large m mu \ - facilities under speci lot size requirement. CR-2 is intended to be a single family resids ential zone, a.transituioirnemfreonmt uthrubsandtooubsulinbgurtbhaen dinetnesnitsyitit7.bldtIcyic mulaf - -uses permitted in CR-1 and lowers the lot size req 2 houses per commercial acre. ' OTHER, PIJ��JING Re: Co9- General. Character o� - dw F___lztl�e_ E±iect cz _ rd- �. ScbooIs b. Othe-w _ 2 - pp.r` Ir. COUNTY ENGINEER'S REPORT Re: Cog- , This area is crossed from north to south by two very large washes and several smaller ones. As a result, development of East--West streets might prove difficult, if not impossible. However, this would best be determined, along with drainage requirements, during the process of recording an acceptable plat. Therefore, rezoning of this property should be subject to that requirement. sewers will be required if lots are developed ,,,,,,,,, into less than 42,560 sq. ft. net area per residence. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT STANDARD AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS TO CONSIDER: (1) Vt, t f r ai. ':(a. .^Y ;,✓ ... ,.'isP ,re",/ ..'+�`,d ,i» ,'.o N,,,.. .r� _} r-'.- �+"., - 4 s (3) (4) (5) A suitable arrangement with the Pima County Department of Sanitation regarding sanitary facilities: (6) Recording a covenant holding Pima County harmless in event of flooding ARG/MFN/amb Alex R. Garcia Associate County Planning Director - 3 - PHONE 792-8131 ‘..A p1/4 COUN ,Q\ , 7 1 ) S7. \iiitoe= -17- -- 1,0 Z OF P1/4R\ DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION PIMA COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL CENTER TUCSON. ARIZONA 85701 May 22, 1970 Pima County Planning Department Pima County Governmental Center Tucson, Arizona 85701 Subject: Co 9-70-42 Lawyers Title - Lambert Lane Gentlemen: In answer to your request regarding availability of sewerage facilities for the subject area, the following information should be given consideration: Sewers will be required if lots are developed into less than 42,560 sq. ft. net area per residence. If we may be of any service, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours very truly, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION /4 Robert W. Hitchcock Engineering Department RWH:eb F --"Zz•-•.„._ $ I:- cc: Department of Sanitation Engineer 3.\_. - MAY 2 5 ; \\ ikal4 "A A'N , Stubbs & Schubart, P. C. Attorneys and Counsellors at Law 340 N. Main Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701 stubbsl@azstarnet.corn Robert C. Stubbs P. O. Box 50547 G. Lawrence Schubart* Tucson, Arizona 85703 Thomas M. Parsons (520)623-5466 Damian M. Fellows Fax(520)882-3909 *also licensed in Pennsylvania March 31, 1999 HAND DELIVERED Valerie B. Feuer, Senior Planner Town of Oro Valley 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Re: Dr. and Mrs. Hallaq-Oro Valley Translation Zoning Dear Valerie: When we met on March 18, 1999, together with Mrs. Hallaq and Mike Chapman and David Volk, the real estate licensees with CB Richard Ellis, Inc., we discussed in general terms the procedure for translating the existing Pima County zoning to the Town of Oro Valley zoning classifications. I have enclosed a copy of the relevant portions of the current Pima County Zoning Code which identify the allowed uses. (Attachment 1) As background, Dr. and Mrs. Hallaq have owned their 80-acre parcel of property for more than 0 years. Since 1970 the property has been zoned CB-1, TR, and CR- The entire parcel was rezoned at one timepto show that the commercial area (CB-1) would be buffered by the transitional (TR) uses, and then there were the ancillary residential areas. The various conditions which were imposed on the Hallaqs were met prior to the adoption of the current zoning designations. The development north of the Hallaq property occurred subsequent to the adoption of this plan. Based upon the efforts undertaken to obtain the existing Pima County zoning, the economics of reasonable development expectations, and the fact that zoning is to be applied in a uniform manner, I indicated to you that the mere zoningtranslation of Pima CountyCB-1 to Oro ValleyC-1 and especially the translation p y tion of Pima County TR to Oro Valley R-6 were each so much more restrictive that it was unfair and possibly inappropriate. I am familiar with a number of instances where similarly zoned property was annexed by Oro Valley and provided more appropriate translation zonings which were unanimously adopted by the Oro Valley Town Council. I have now researched several of those cases and I am enclosing various documents which support my comments and our current request. • Valerie B. Feuer, Senic anner March 31, 1999 Page 2 Town of Oro Valley Re: Dr. and Mrs. Hallaq-Oro Valley Translation Zoning Regarding the CB-1 zoning, Oro Valley addressed an identical situation in 1994 when the Peninsula Annexation added an additional 4.5 square miles to the Town. The Timan property, located along the south side of the CDO Wash, on the old First Avenue alignment, was zoned CB-1. There was no pre-annexation or development agreement that controlled the translation issues. During the hearings on the adoption of translation zoning, Oro Valleyacknowledged that the translation from CB-1 to Oro ValleyC-1 was not in fact th closest _o est equivalent zoning, but rather Oro ValleyC 2 included manyof the permitted uses in the - Pima CountyCB 1 zone. I have included the three-page staff report on this property (Attachment 2). Thus, for Timan, an agreement was reached that Oro Valley C-2 zoning, with restrictions, would be the translation. The restrictions involved the deletion of certain uses which were felt to be inappropriate for the property. This precedent should apply to the Hallaqs property. Their commercial area is buffered on the north and east sides by TR zoned land. At the recent neighborhood meeting there were no specific objections ob'� o to this commercial site and, thus, there is no valid reason to deviate from what has been done already under the same conditions. The Hallaqs should obtain C-2 restricted,just as reflected in Attachment 2. In regard to the translation of the Transitional (TR) zoning, once again the Halla s believe translation to R-6 would be unfair. Again, have precedent, from the q g we Peninsula Annexation involving the 12.5-acre Mastro parcel, which is south of Lambert Lane adjacent to the CDO Wash. The issue in Mastro was whether translation from Pima County CR-5 zoning to Oro Valley R-6 zoning was fair or not. CR-5 is more restrictive than TR zoning. Once again, to meet the issues of fairness and to apply a more uniform or appropriate translation zoning, Oro Valley agreed that the translation zoningshould be to a AD withTZ-5gr an underlying zoningdistrict which y g allowed up to 22 residences 'Der acre. The staff report, which I have also attached p p c ed (Attachment 3) acknowledged that CR-5 zoning allowed one residential unit per 2,000 square feet of land and thus, the R- 6 zone was an inappropriate translation. Conversely, the report made the following comment: "Planning Staff finds the translation of zoning on the Mastro parcel, to PAD with an underlying TZ-5 district to be consistent with Pima County's CR-5 zoningand in accordance yace with Arizona Revised Statutes. As such, we will recommend approval of this transnational zoning to Oro Valley PAD and all applicable development standards of a PAD zoningdistrictshall ap ply app y thereto. In light of the fact that the translation from CR-5 to Oro Valley zoning was intended to accommodate 22 residences per acre for an apartment development, it is painfully obviously that a translation from TR, which conceivablyallows one per1,000q residential unit square fee of land, to R-6 would be even moe unfair. To overcome this, and in an effort to be uniform, both in the Timan case (CB-1 incorporated the TR uses) and in the Mastro case it was agreed that the Oro Valley R-6 uses would be permitted, but that the allowable residential density would be 22 residences per acre. This is what the Hallaqs now request. Valerie B. Feuer, Senic fanner March 31, 1999 Page 3 Town of Oro Valley Re: Dr. and Mrs. Hallaq-Oro Valley Translation Zoning It is respectfully submitted that without this compatible treatment for intensity of use, it will be very hard for the Hallaqs to make accommodations to the existing residential neighborhood to the north. The Hallaqs are aware that in the development plan review process, they will be requested to submit to desired and reasonable set back requirements, and to height limitations for their project. Only by insuring adequate densityelsewhere on the property can these aesthetic be met.p p y objectives In summary, in light of the fact that the notice for public hearing has already identified the translation to C-1 zoning, the matter will need to be postponed. Ironically a postponement was also required in the Timan matter for the very same reasons. Thereafter, the Hallaqs respectfully request that they receive a more accurate translation of their existingrights to include -zoning C 2, restricted, as was done on the Timan parcel, and R-6, with the express designation that the translation allows a maximum residential density of 22 residences per acre, as was done in both the Timan and Mastro cases. With these changes, the Hallaqs agree to otherwise meet the development criteria ro osed bythe Tow n p of Oro Valley. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, TUBBS & SCHUBART, P. C. 91.... .Louvukt.c-4- 1,10-AA---- G. Lawrence Schubart GLS/bmmh Attachments 18.21.010 < i Chapter 13.21 Ord. 1985-153 § 1 (part), 1985; Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) CR-1 SINGLE RESIDENCE ZONE 13.21.020 Conditional uses. Sections: A. Uses conditionally permitted: 13.21.010 Permitted uses. 1. Club or lodge: In accordance with Section 13.21.020 Conditional uses. 18.17.030C2(SR Suburban Ranch Zone); 13.21.030 Development standard 2. Raising of ratites in accordance with Type 1 pro- General. cedure subject to the following restrictions and 13.21.040 Development standards-- requirements: Detached accessory buildings. a. Minimum lot area: One acre 13.21.050 Cluster develcpme it t option. b. No more than one ostrich over fourteen months 13.21.060 Lot reduction option. of age for each ten thousand square feet of site area, or more than one emu or other ratite over fourteen 18.21.010 Permitted uses. months of age for each five thousand square feet of A. Uses permitted: 1. All uses as permitted in Section 18.09.020A (General Residential and Rural Zoning Provisions); 2. Temporary trailer or manufactured home: In accordance with Section 18.17.020A2(SR Suburban Ranch Zone); 3. Agriculture or horticulture: a. Used only for the purpose of propagation and culture and not for retail sales,including any number of poultry,rabbits,and similar small animals, b. On lots of not less than thirty-six thousand square feet not more than one head of cattle, horses, sheep, goats, or other similar animals more than six months of age per ten thousand square feet of lot area, excluding swine; 4. College or governmental structure: In accor- dance with Section 18.17.03006 (SR Suburban Ranch Zone); 5. Community service agency: In accordance with Section 18.17.03007(SR Suburban Ranch Zone); 6. Library: In accordance with Section 18.17.030B 1 (SR Suburban Ranch Zone); 7. Playground or athletic field: In accordance with Section 18.17.030B2(SR Suburban Ranch Zone); 8. Temporary real estate office:In accordance with Section 18.17.020A8 (SR Suburban Ranch Zone); 9. Museum: In accordance with Section 18.17.030D2 (SR Suburban Ranch Zone). (Ord. 1998-36 § 8, 1998; Ord. 1986-125 § 1 (part), 1986; 18-50.9 (Pima County 7-98) 18.21.030 site area, or if more than one type of ratite is kept, a 13.21.040 'Development standards—Detached prorated combination of the area required for each accessory buildings. animal. Two ratites six to fourteen months of age A. Permitted coverage:One-third of the total area of may be substituted for each ratite over fourteen the rear and side yards. months of age, B. Maximum height: Twenty-four feet. c. Maximum lot coverage by ratite corrals and C. Minimum distance requirements: shelter structures within corrals: Thirty percent, 1. To main buildings: Seven feet; d. Animals shall be confined within minimum 2. To front lot line: Sixty feet; six-foot-high, stock-tight corrals. No material shall 3. To side and rear lot lines: be permitted that is not ordinarily used for a stock- a. Four feet if building is not used for poultry or tight fence. Ostrich corrals shall be surrounded by a animals, minimum six-foot-high, stock-tight fence or other b. Fifty feet if building is used for poultry or ani- restraint of sufficient strength and durability to pre- mals, vent ratites from roaming at large as provided in Sec- c. All horses,cattle,sheep,goats,or other similar tion 18.07.030B, animals must be confined within a stock-tight fence e. Minimum setbacks for ratite corrals and shelter (no material shall be permitted not ordinarily used structures within corrals: Thirty feet from the front for a stock-tight fence)in an area of no less than four property line and ten feet from side and rear property hundred square feet per animal. Such fenced-in area lines; but in no event shall a corral or shelter within shall be set back ten feet from the rear where it abuts a corral be closer than thirty feet to any residence or an IR,RH,GR-1,SR,SR-2,SH,CR-1,CR-2,or MU living quarters on an abutting property; zone and forty feet from the rear where it abuts a 3. Community stable: In accordance with Section zone other than GR-1,RH,IR, SR,SR-2,SH, CR-1, 18.17.030C4 (SR Suburban Ranch Zone). (Ord. CR-2, or MU, and forty feet from a side property 1994-146 § 6, 1994; Ord. 1986-125 § 1 (part), 1986; line. A setback of ten feet shall be permitted on the Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) side yard where the adjacent property owners have a written recorded agreement to this effect, but, in no 18.21.030 Development standards—General. event, shall a corral be closer than fifty feet to any A. Minimum lot area: Thirty-six thousand square residence or living quarters in an abutting property. feet. (Ord. 1994-147 § 6, 1994; Ord. 1985-187 § 1 (part), B. Minimum area per dwelling unit: Thirty-six 1985; Ord. 1985-82 (part), 1985) thousand square feet. C. Minimum lot width: One hundred feet. 18.21.050 Cluster development option. D. Minimum yard requirements: A. This option shall be permitted only for subdi- 1. Front: Thirty feet; vided residential lots as allowed in this chapter, and 2. Side: Ten feet each; their associated open space, in accordance with Sec- 3. Rear: Forty feet. tion 18.09.040 (General Residential and Rural Zon- E. Building height limitations: ing Provisions). (Ord. 1985-111 § 1 (part), 1985; 1. Maximum height: Thirty-four feet; Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) 2. Maximum stories: Two. F. Minimum distance between main buildings: 18.21.060 Lot reduction option. Twenty feet, except as required in Section A. Refer also to Section 18.09.050 (General Resi- 18.09.020D (General Residential and Rural Zoning dential and Rural Zoning Provisions) for the general Provisions)for a rear dwelling. (Ord. 1985-82(part), provisions of the lot reduction option. 1985) 18-51 (Pima County 8-96) 13.23.010 B. Minimum lot size requirements for lots in a CR- B. Minimum area per dwelling unit: Sixteen thou- 1 subdivision may be approved by the board of sand square 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 Section Cl!.-.2 SINGLE RESIDENCE ZONE 18.09.020D(General Residential and Rural Sections: 18.23.010 Permitted uses. 18.23.020 Conditional uses. 18.23.030 Development standards— General. 18.23.040 Development standards— Detached accessory buildings. 18.23.050 Cluster development option. 18.23.060 Lot reduction option. 18.23.070 Lot development option. 18.23.010 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) 18.23.030 fly evelopment st..,ndards--General. A. Minimum lot area: Sixteen thousand square feet. (Pima County 8-96) 18-52 13.23.040 Zoning Provisions) for a rear dwelling. (Ord. 1985- 18.23.060 Lot reduction option. 82 (part), 1985) A. Refer to Section 18.09.050 (General Residential and Rural Zoning Provisions) for the general provi- 1 °23.040 Development standards--Detached sions of the lot reduction option. accessory bu:,'zlings. B. Minimum lot size requirements 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), 1985) a. Four feet if building is not used for poultry or animals, 18.23.070 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 Chapter 18.25 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, RH, IR, SR, SH, CR-1, CR-2, or Sectio s s: MU, and forty feet from a side property line. A set- 18.25.010 Permitted uses. back of ten feet shall be permitted on the side yard 18.25.020 Conditional uses. where the adjacent property owners have a written 18.25.030 Development standards-- recorded agreement to this effect, but, in no event, Generafl° shall a corral be closer than fifty feet to any residence 18.25.040 Development standards or living quarters in an abutting property. (Ord. AccessorybailaiIlngs. 1985-187 § 1 (part), 1985; Ord. 1985-82 (part), 18.25.050 Cluster developme t option. 1985) 18.25.060 Lot reduction option. 18.25.070 Lot development option. 18.23.050 Cluster developme'u,t option. A. This option shall be permitted only for subdi- fl °25.010 Pe tied uses. vided residential lots as allowed in this chapter, and A. Uses permitted: their associated open space,in accordance with Sec- 1. All uses as permitted in Section 18.09.020A tion 18.09.040 (General Residential and Rural Zon- (General Residential and Rural Zoning Provisions); ing Provisions). (Ord. 1985-111 § 1 (part), 1985; 2. Temporary trailer or mobile or manufactured Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) home: In accordance with Section 18.17.020A2(SR Suburban Ranch Zone); 18-52.1 (Pima County 7-98) 3.25.020 3. Agriculture and horticulture,flower and vegeta- B. Minimum area per dwelling unit:Eight thousand ble gardening, nursery or greenhouse used only for square feet. propagation and culture and not for retail sales; C. Minimum lot width: Sixty feet. 4. The keeping of small animals, such as rabbits, D. Minimum yard requirements: chickens, but not cockerels, and not for commercial 1. Front: Twenty feet; purposes, provided not more than twenty-four such 2. Side:Eight feet each; animals per eight thousand square feet of lot area are 3. Rear: Twenty-five feet. kept; E. Building height limitations: 5. College or governmental structure: In accor- 1. Maximum height: Thirty-four feet; dance with Section 18.17.03006 (SR Suburban 2. Maximum stories: Two. Ranch Zone); F. Minimum distance between main buildings: Six- 6. Community service agency: In accordance with teen feet, except as required in Section 18.09.020D Section 18.17.03007(SR Suburban Ranch Zone); (General Residential and Rural Zoning Provisions) 7. Library: In accordance with Section for a rear dwelling. 18.17.030E 1 (SR Suburban Ranch Zone); G. Buildable area:Not to exceed forty percent of the 8. Playground or athletic field: In accordance with lot,including all structures,except swimming pools. Section 18.17.030B2(SR Suburban Ranch Zone); (Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) 9. Community storage garage,provided: a. Said garage is used for the storage of private 18.25.040 Development standards—Accessory passenger vehicles only, and buildings. b. The entrances and exits for said garage are on A. Permitted coverage: Maximum five percent of a public alley or directly abut a public street; lot area. 10. Temporary real estate office: In accordance B. Maximum height: Twelve feet. with Section 18.17.020A8 (SR Suburban Ranch C. Minimum distance requirements: Zone); 1. To main building when detached: Seven feet; 11. Transitional use where side of lot abuts a busi- 2. To front lot line when detached: Fifty feet; ness or industrial zone:Any residential use permitted 3. To side lot lines: Four feet, twenty feet if used in Section 18.27.010 (CR-4 Mixed-dwelling Type for small animals; Zone), including CR-4 area and yard requirements, 4. To rear lot line:Four feet,twenty feet if used for provided such use extends not more than one hun- small animals. (Ord. 1988-151 § 1 (part), 1988;Ord. dred twenty feet or two lots,whichever is the lesser, 1985-82(part), 1985) from the zone boundary; 12. Museum: In accordance with Section 18.25.050 Cluster development option. 18.17.030D2 (SR Suburban Ranch Zone). (Ord. A. This option shall be permitted only for subdi- 1998-36 § 9, 1998; Ord. 1986-125 § 1 (part), 1986; vided residential lots as allowed in this chapter, and Ord. 1985-153 § 1 (part), 1985;Ord. 1985-82(part), their associated open space, in accordance with Sec- 1985) tion 18.09.040 (General Residential and Rural Zon- ing Provisions). (Ord. 1985-111 § 1 (part), 1985: 18.25.020 Conditional uses. Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) Reserved. 13.25.060 Lot reduction optic a. 13.25.030 Development standards—General. A. Refer to Section 18.09.050 (General Residential A. Minimum lot area:Eight thousand square feet. and Rural Zoning Provisions) for the general provi- sions of the lot reduction option. (Pima County 7-98) 18-52.2 13.29.040 13.29.040 Development standarda-----Accesaury Dwelling Type Zone)and 18.29.010(CR-5 Multiple structures. Residence Zone). A. Permitted coverage: Maximum five percent of B. Additional uses permitted: the individual lot area. 1. College or governmental structure; B. Height limitation: Twelve feet. 2. Community service agency; C. Minimum setback requirements: 3. Library or museum; 1. From main building(s): Seven feet; 4. Playground or athletic field; 2. From property lines:In accordance with applica- 5. Hospital or sanatorium; ble Pima County building codes (Title 15). (Ord. 6. Clinic or dispensary; 1988-151§ 1 (part), 1988;Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) 7. Club; 8. Private club or lodge(nonprofit); 18.29.050 Small lot subdivision option. 9. Community storage garage; A. Refer to Section 18.09.080 (General Residential 10. Child care center; and Rural Zoning Provisions) for the general provi- 11. Professional or semi-professional office; sions of the small lot subdivision option. 12. Real estate office; B. Development standards: As provided in Section 13. Insurance adjuster's office,which may include 18.29.030,except that the average area per dwelling a drive-through facility; unit shall be a minimum of two thousand square feet. 14. Motel or hotel, together with the following (Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) accessory uses located on the premises and having no exterior entrance closer than one hundred feet to 18.29.060 Lot development option. a public street: A. Refer to Section 18.09.060 (General Residential a. Retail shops, and Rural Zoning Provisions) for the provisions of b. Personal services, the lot development option. (Ord. 1985-82 (part), c. Recreational facilities, 1985) d. Restaurant, e. Beverage service 15. Administrative, engineering, scientific re- Chapter 18.31 search, design or experimentation facility, and such processing and fabrication as may be necessary TR TRANSITIONAL ZONE thereto,provided: a. All such operations be completely housed Sections: within buildings located on a site of no less than ten 18.31.010 Permitted uses. thousand square feet, 18.31.020 Conditional uses. b. All such buildings shall set back not less than 18.31.030 Development standards— twenty-five feet from any property line abutting a #"esidential. residential zone, 18.31.040 Ievelopment standards— c. A dust-proofed off-street parking area be pro- Nonresidential. vided for all such vehicles incidental to said opera- 18.3L050 Development standards— tion, Detached accessory buih 7ngs. d. One additional such parking space be provided for each three persons regularly employed on said 18.31.010 Permitted uses. premises, A. Any use as permitted in Sections 18.25.010(CR- 3 Single Residence Zone), 18.27.010 (CR-4 Mixed- (Pima County 7-98) 18-54 18.31.020 e. Buffering and screening is provided in accor- a. Front: Twenty feet; dance with Chapter 18.73, Landscaping, Buffering b. Side: Seven feet each; and Screening Standards, c. Rear: Twenty-five feet. f. There is no manufacturing or warehousing of E. Building height limitations: goods for sale at wholesale or retail,and 1. Maximum height: Thirty-four feet; and g. Any activity conducted on said premises shall 2. In areas restricted by the hillside development be free of dust, noxious smoke, fumes, odors or zone (Chapter 18.61, HD Hillside Development unusual vibrations or noise; Zone),no building shall exceed two stories; and 16. Nonexpressed residential uses: All residential 3. In areas designated as historic zones (Chapter uses not expressly permitted in any other residential 18.63, Historic Zone)no buildings shall exceed two zone and which are not otherwise unlawful,injurious stories; and to the general health or welfare, or specifically ex- 4. For all conditionally approved rezonings that do cluded. (Ord. 1998-36 § 11, 1998; Ord. 1985-171, § not have an ordinance for TR, if a third story is 1 (part), 1985; Ord. 1985-153, § 1 (part), 1985; Ord. requested within the thirty-four-foot height limit, 1985-82(part), 1985) approval shall be requested at a noticed board of supervisors public hearing. 18.31.020 Conditional uses. F. Minimum distance between main buildings: Reserved. Fourteen feet. (Ord. 1995-42 § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1992-60§ 1, 1992; Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) 18.31.030 Development standards— Residential. 18.31.040 Development standards-- A. Minimum lot or site area: Nonresidential. 1. Single-family detached dwelling unit(lot): Four A. Minimum lot area: None. thousand five hundred square feet; B. Minimum lot width: Sixty feet. 2. Duplex or multiple dwelling unit (site): Ten C. Minimum yard requirements: thousand square feet. 1. Front: Twenty feet; B. Minimum area per dwelling unit: 2. Side: Seven feet each; 1. Single-family detached dwelling unit: Four 3. Rear: Twenty-five feet. thousand five hundred square feet; D. Building height limitations: 2. Duplex or multiple dwelling unit: One thousand 1. Maximum height: Thirty-four feet;and square feet. 2. In areas restricted by the hillside development C. Minimum lot or site width: zone (Chapter 18.61, HD Hillside Development 1. Single-family detached dwelling unit (lot): Zone),no building shall exceed two stories;and Forty feet; 3. In areas designated as historic zones (Chapter 2. Duplex or multiple dwelling unit (site): Sixty 18.63,Historic Zone) no buildings shall exceed two feet. stories; and D. Minimum lot or site yard requirements: 4. For all conditionally approved rezonings that do 1. Single-family detached dwelling unit(lot): not have an ordinance for TR, if a third story is a. Front: Twenty feet; requested within the thirty-four-foot height limit, b. Side: None. Zero lot-line siting of dwelling approval shall be requested at a noticed board of units on individual lots is permissible, subject to supervisors public hearing. Pima County Building Codes(Title 15); E. Minimum distance between main buildings: c. Rear: Ten feet. Fourteen feet. (Ord. 1995-42 § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 2. Duplex or multiple dwelling unit(site): 1985-82(part), 1985) 18-55 (Pima County 7-98) 18.31.050 13031.053 Devellopment standards—Detached 18.33.023 Permitted uses. accessary buildings. A. Uses permitted. A. Permitted coverage: Forty percent of the mini- 1. All uses as permitted in Section 18.09.020A mum rear yard area plus fifty percent of any addi- (General Residential and Rural Zoning Provisions), tional space in the rear of the principal building. except that the minimum site area for a church is five B. Maximum height: Twenty-four feet. gross acres. C. Minimum distance requirements: 2. Manufactured home park; 1. To main buildings: Seven feet; 3. College or governmental structure: In accor- 2. To front lot line: Sixty feet; dance with Section 18.17.03006 (SR Suburban 3. To side lot lines: Four feet; Ranch Zone); 4. To rear lot line: 4. Community service agency: In accordance with a. Four feet if building is not used for poultry or Section 18.17.03007(SR Suburban Ranch Zone); animals, 5. Library: In accordance with Section b. Fifteen feet if building is used for poultry or 18.17.030B1 (SR Suburban Ranch Zone); animals. (Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) 6. Playground or athletic field: In accordance with Section 18.17.030B2(SR Suburban Ranch Zone); 7. Temporary real estate office; Chapter 18.33 8. Museum: In accordance with Section 18.17.030D2(SR Suburban Ranch Zone); Cvill-1 COUNTY MANUFACTURED AND 9.Manufactured/mobile home park. (Ord. 1998-37 M$$ ALE H'SME—1 ZONE § 5 (part), 1998; Ord. 1998-36 § 12, 1998; Ord. 1997-1 § 2, 1997; Ord. 1986-125, § 1 (part), 1986; Sections: Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) 18.33.010 Purpose. 18.33.020 Permitted uses. 18.33.030 Conditional uses. 18.33.030 Conditional uses. A. Uses conditionally permitted: 18.33.040 Development standards— 1. Club or lodge: In accordance with Section General. 18.17.030C2 (SR Suburban Ranch Zone). (Ord. 18.33.050 Development standards— 1986-125, § 1 (part), 1986; Ord. 1985-82 (part), Detached accessory buildings. 1985) 18.33.055 Development standards— Manufactured/mobile home 18.33.040 Development standards—General. park. A. Minimum lot area:Eight thousand square feet. 18.33.060 Cl; star development option. B. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: Eight thou- sand square feet. 18.33.010 Purpose. C. Minimum lot width: Sixty feet. A. The purpose of this zone is to provide for needed D. Minimum yard requirements: and properly planned mobile home developments 1. Front: Twenty feet; with additional usable open space within reasonable 2. Sides: Eight feet each; walling distance, by permitting a wider latitude of 3. Rear: Twenty-five feet. design, without increasing existing densities. (Ord. E. Building height limitations: 1997-1 § 2, 1997; Ord. 1985-82 (part), 1985) 1. Maximum height: Thirty-four feet; 2. Maximum stories: Two. (Ord. 1985-82 (part), 1985) (Pima County 7-98) 18-56 18.41.050 13.41.050 Development standards--Gener:., o 18.43.050 Development standards— A. Area: Nonresidential. 1. The maximum area of each RVC zone shall not 13.43.060 Deveilopme t standards— exceed twenty acres. Residential. 2. This area shall be apportioned as evenly as con- 13.43.070 '1%evalopment standards— sideration of streets, topography and other unique 'i etached accessary buildings. factors affecting individual sites will permit. 18 43.030 Lot developm�aent option. B. Site coverage: All buildings within a site as shown on the development plan shall not cover more 18.43.010 Purpose. than twenty-five percent of the area of such site. Reserved. C. Yards: 1. No building shall be erected within one hundred 18.43.020 Performance standards. fifty feet of the centerline of scenic routes as desig- A. All Section 18.43.030B uses shall be conducted nated on the Major Streets and Scenic Routes Plan; wholly within a completely enclosed building unless 2. Buildings shall not be constructed within: otherwise specified and any use operating as a store, a. Twenty-five feet of any district zoned TR,nor shop, or business shall be a retail establishment. All b. Seventy-five feet of any residential district. products produced on the premises shall be sold at D. Building height limitations: retail on the premises. 1. Maximum height: Thirty-four feet; B. Performance standards: 2. Maximum stories: Two. 1. The following performance standards shall E. Screening: Refer to Section 18.73.100 (Land- apply to the uses of Section 18.43.030I: scaping Standards). a. Noise or vibration: No noise or vibration shall F. Parking and loading requirements: Refer to Sec- be permitted which is discernible beyond the lot line tion 18.75.050 (Off-Street Parking and Loading to the human sense of feeling for three minutes or Standards). more duration in any one hour of the day between the G. Signs: Refer to Section 18.79.050 (Sign Stan- hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m., or of thirty sec- dards). (Ord. 1996-58 §4(part), 1996;Ord. 1985-82 onds or more duration in any one hour during the (part), 1985) hours of seven p.m.to seven a.m.; b. Smoke: No emission of smoke from any 18.d1.060 Development standards—Detached source shall be permitted; accessory buildi:s gs. c. Odors: No emission of odorous gases or other Reserved. odorous matter shall be permitted in such quantities as to be offensive in such a manner as to create a nui- sance or hazard beyond the property lines; Chapter 18.43 d. Fly ash, dust, fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air pollution: No emission shall be permit- C3-1 LOCAL BUSINESS DINE ted which can cause any damage to health,to animals or vegetation, or other forms of property, which can Sections: cause any excessive soiling; and 13.43.010 imp®se° e. Liquids and solid waste: No wastes shall be 13.43.020 Perf®rma ce standards. discharged in the streets,drainageways or any prop- 18.43.030 Permitted uses• erty which is dangerous to the public health and 18.43.040 Conditional uses. safety,and no waste shall be discharged in the public (Pima County 7-98) 18-66 13.43.030 sewage system which endangers the normal opera- 13. Bank; tion of the public sewage system. 14. Barbershop; 2. Certifications: The zoning inspector shall not 15. Beauty shop; issue a permit for any use until the applicant has pro- 16. Bicycle shop: No sales or servicing of motor vided the required number of plans showing the cer- scooters or motorcycles; tificates of the department of transportation and 17. Billiard or poolhall; flood control district, traffic engineer, and health 18. Book,newspapers, or magazine store; department director certifying that said use complies 19. Burglar alarm service; with all laws and regulations under their jurisdiction, 20. Cafe or lunchroom: and the zoning inspector has determined that the use a. Provided no dancing is allowed and no alco- complies with this chapter. (Ord. 1989-96 § 1 (part), holic beverages sold except beer and wine, 1989; Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) b. The "patio" architectural design concept is allowed; 18.43.030 Permitted uses. 21. Catering service; A. Any use as permitted in Section 18.31.010 (TR 22. Church; Transitional Zone). 23. Cigar store; B. The following uses, as restricted in Section 24. Cleaning,dyeing,laundry collection agency; 18.43.020A: 25. Confectionery store; 1. Air conditioning, heating, and ventilating fix- 26. Custom dressmaking, millinery, hemstitching tures or supplies: Retail, all within enclosed build- or pleating; ing; 27. Custom weaving or mending; 2. Antique store; 28. Dealer in coins, stamps or similar collector's 3. Apparel store; items; 4. Art needlework or hand-weaving establishment; 29. Delicatessen; 5. Art gallery or store: The "patio" architectural 30. Dental laboratory; design concept is allowed; 31. Department store; 6. Art or drawing supply store; 32. Drugstore; 7. Auto mechanical repair: In conjunction with 33. Dry goods or notions store; service stations on state or federal highways only, 34. Electrical appliance store; provided there is no outside storage of autos or parts, 35. Feed store: No sales or storage of hay; and no body or fender work, painting or upholster- 36. Fix-it shop, small appliances; ing; 37. Florist shop; 8. Auto parking lot(within or without a building): 38. Frozen food locker; Subject to the provisions of Section 18.75.030B 39. Fruit or vegetable store; (Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards); 40. Furniture store; 9. Automobile accessories,parts and supplies;pro- 41. Garage:For public storage only; vided,that there is no installation,repair,rebuilding, 42. Gasoline service station (incidental repairing modification, or outside storage of parts on the pre- only); subject to: rises; a. The provisions of Section 18.07.030A (Gen- 10. Automobile lubrication and oil change opera- eral Regulations and Exceptions), tion; b. No gasoline or other flammables be stored 11. Automobile tires, batteries and accessories above ground level, except in legally accepted con- installation in conjunction with a department store; tainers of fifty-five gallons or less and no more than 12. Bakery; three such containers,and 18-67 (Pima County 7-98) 1 8.43.030 c. The dispensing of gasoline or any flammables 70. Plumbing fixtures and supplies: Retail, all into a fuel tank or into a legally accepted container, within enclosed building; using manually controlled nozzles only, shall be 71. Postal station; under the supervision of a competent attendant at all 72. Pressing establishment; times; 73. Reducing salon:Not to include massage estab- 43. Gift,curio,or novelty shop; Iishments; 44. Grocery store; 74. Refreshment stand; 45. Hardware store; 75. Religious rescue mission or temporary revival; 46. Hotel; 76. Safe depository; 47. House furnishing store; 77. School:Barber or beauty culture; 48. Ice cream store: The "patio" architectural 78. School:Business; design concept is allowed; 79. School:Dancing; 49. Ice station:For packaged sales only; 80. School: Dramatic; 50. Interior decorator; 81. School:Handicraft,painting or sculpture; 51. Jewelry and watch repair; 82. School: Music; 52. Jewelry store; 83. School, private, parochial and charter. As 53. Laundromat, laundry and dry cleaning units, required by state statute, A.R.S. § 15-189.01, an provided the same occupy no more than three thou- application for a charter school shall receive a final sand square feet of gross floor area; determination from the county within 90 days of the 54. Leather goods store; beginning of the process. 55. Library: Rental or public; 84. Self-service car wash; provided, that neither 56. Liquor store: For packaged sales only, includ- steam cleaning nor engine repair shall be allowed on ing wine tasting; the premises; 57. Locksmith; 85. Shoe repair shop; 58. Meat,fish or dressed poultry market,provided 86. Shoe store; no live poultry are kept on premises; 87. Sidewalk sales associated with existing retail 59. Mechanical and electronic games arcade: In business, lasting no longer than three days, in any districts containing a minimum of four commercial thirty-day period; acres and at least seven thousand eight hundred 88. Sporting goods,hunting and fishing equipment square feet of net leasable area; store; 60. Medical laboratory; 89. Station: Bus or stage; 61. Messenger office; 90. Stationery store; 62. Music,phonograph or radio store; 91. Tailor shop; 63. Office: Business, professional or semi-profes- 92. Taxicab stand; sional; 93. Taxidermist; 64. Orthopedic appliances (trusses, wheelchairs, 94. Theater: Except drive-in or outdoor theater; etc.); 95. Tire store: Including incidental repair of 65. Pet grooming; shocks and brakes with no outdoor storage or dis- 66. Pet shop; play; 67. Photograph studio; 96. Tool or cutlery sharpening; 68. Photographic supply store; 97. Toy or hobby shop; 69. Plant nursery: All landscape contractor's sup- 98. Trailer rental: In conjunction with service sta- plies, fertilizers and chemicals shall be stored Lions on state or federal highways only, provided indoors; (Pima County 7-98) 18-68 18.43.030 3 ,! there is no outside storage of autos or parts, and no F. Administrative, engineering, scientific research body or fender work,painting or upholstering; and development,design or experimentation facility, 99. Trust company; and such treatment, processing, and fabrication as 100. Upholstery shop and supplies; may be necessary thereto; provided, that: 101. Variety store; 1. All such operations be completely housed 102.Veterinary outpatient clinic for small animals: within buildings located on a site of not less than ten a. No boarding allowed; thousand square feet; b. Overnight confinement for clinic treatment 2. All such buildings shall be set back not less than permitted for a maximum of five animals; twenty-five feet from any property line abutting a 103. Wallpaper sales,paper hanging; residential zone; 104. Water, telephone or telegraph distribution 3. A dust-proofed, off-street parking area be pro- installation or electrical receiving or distribution sta- vided for all vehicles incidental to said operation; tion (within or without a building): Subject to the 4. One additional parking space be provided for provisions of Section 18.07.040B (General Regula- each three persons regularly employed on said pre- tions and Exceptions); mises; 105. Wholesale of oil: In conjunction with service 5. Buffering and screening provided in accordance stations on state or federal highways only, provided with Chapter 18.73, Landscaping, Buffering and there is no outside storage of autos or parts, and no Screening Standards; body or fender work,painting or upholstering; 6. Any activity conducted on said premises shall 106. Other similar enterprise or business of the be free of dust, noxious smoke, fumes, odors or same class, which in the opinion of the Board of unusual vibrations or noise discernible beyond the Supervisors, as evidenced by resolution of record,is property line; not more obnoxious or detrimental to the welfare of 7. The architecture of all structures shall be corn- the particular community than the enterprises or patible with the surrounding area; and businesses above enumerated. 8. All open areas of an improved lot shall be main- C. Retail sale,rental or display of: tained in a dust-free condition by landscaping with 1. Clothing or accessories; trees,shrubs,suitable ground cover,undisturbed nat- 2. Household appliances; ural growth, or by covering with material that will 3. Office equipment and business machines: provide an all-weather surface. Repair work permitted, but limited to no more than G. Restaurant, including a restaurant liquor license: twenty-five percent of gross floor area of the busi- 1. Upon condition that the cocktail lounge or bar ness; has no separate outside entrance; 4. Oxygen equipment for medical outpatient uses; 2. A dance floor with a maximum of two hundred 5. Painting equipment or supplies, including var- square feet is permitted for customer dancing only; nish; and 6. Secondhand goods: Personal, furniture, books, 3. The applicant shall provide the zoning inspector magazines;no secondhand auto parts; with an approved Type I conditional use permit. 7. Venetian blinds; H. Trailer or manufactured or mobile unit for tern- 8. Window shades. porary office use: Only during the construction of a D. Accessory building or use (not involving open permanent building not to exceed a period of twelve storage): When located on the same building site. months. E. Trailer or manufactured or mobile home for care- I. The following uses, as restricted in Section taker: In conjunction with a permitted use in a rural 18.43.020B: area, as determined by the zoning inspector. 1. Blueprinting; 18-69 (Pima County 7-98) 18.43.040 • 2. Photostating; ten notice of the conditional use application and of 3. Engraving,photo-engraving; all public hearings. (Ord. 1993-78 § 1, 1993) 4. Duplicating,mimeographing, multigraphing; 5. Addressographing; 18A30050 Development standards--- 6. Newspaper office; Nonfrasidentia1. 7. Printing or publishing. A. Minimum lot area:None. J. Self-storage facility: B. Minimum lot width: None. 1. The maximum site area shall not exceed three C. Minimum yard requirements: acres; 1. Front: Twenty feet, which may be used to meet 2.All access to the facility shall be from arterial or off-street parking requirements, or as part of an off- collector streets; street parking lot; 3. All access lanes within the facility shall be of a 2. Side: None; paved or concrete surface; 3. Rear: Twenty-five feet, except as provided in 4. There shall be a landscaped bufferyard with a Section 18.07.050G (General Regulations and minimum six-foot or maximum eight-foot decora- Exceptions) for a corner lot, which may be used to tive masonry wall; meet off-street parking requirements, or as a part of 5. There shall be no razor or barbed wire; an off-street parking lot. 6.The facility shall be single story with a maximum D. Maximum building height: Thirty-nine feet. height of nineteen feet; E. Minimum distance between main buildings: 7.The facility's exterior facade visible from adjoin- None. (Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) ing residential properties or the public street shall use earth tone colors and masonry or stucco materials or 18.43.060 it evelopment standards— materials with a similar appearance; Residential. 8. The light source of any outdoor security lighting A. Minimum lot area: Ten thousand square feet. shall not be visible from adjoining residential prop- B. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: One thou- erties; sand square feet. 9.All walls,doors,and roofs visible from adjoining C. Minimum lot width: Sixty feet. property shall have surfaces that have less than 80 D. Minimum yard requirements: percent reflectivity; 1. Front: Twenty feet, which may be used to meet 10.The maximum size of an individual storage unit off-street parking requirements, or as part of an off- shall not exceed 200 square feet; street parking lot; 11. All storage shall be in an enclosed building. 2. Side: Seven feet each; (Ord. 1998-36 § 15, 1998; Ord. 1997-28 § 2, 1997; 3. Rear: Twenty-five feet except as provided in Ord. 1993-55 § 1, 1993; Ord. 1989-96 § 1 (part), Section 18.07.050G (General Regulations and 1989; Ord. 1988-150 § 1, 1988; Ord. 1985-171 § 1 Exceptions) for a corner lot, which may be used to (part), 1985; Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) meet off-street parking requirements, or as a part of an off-street parking lot. 18a43.040 Condition uses. E. Building height limitations: A. Procedures. In accordance with Chapter 18.97 1. Maximum height: Thirty-four feet; and (Conditional Use Procedures). 2. In areas restricted by the Hillside Development B. Uses Conditionally Permitted (Type 1 Proce- Zone (Chapter 18.61, HD Hillside Development dure). Zone),no building shall exceed two stories; 1. Feed store: Including sales and outdoor storage of hay.The applicable fire district shall receive writ- (Pima County 7-98) 18-70 18.43.060 � K 3. In areas designated as historic zones (Chapter 18.63, Historic Zone)no buildings shall exceed two stories; and 4. For all conditionally approved rezonings that do not have an ordinance for CB-1,if a third stc ry is 18-70.1 (Puna County 7-98)