Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV139915 a MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING Tuesday February 9th, 1999 CALL TO ORDER: 6:10 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present Patti Jo Lewis, Chair Richard Underwood,Member Nancy Mager,Member Jim Vogelsberg,Member Verlin Smith,Member Glueck, Vice Chair Others Present: Valerie Feuer, Senior Planner Paul Nzomo, Civil Engineer Shirley Gay, Clerk MOTION: Moved, seconded (Smith/Mager) and carried by a 4-0 vote (Glueck abstained, Underwood absent) to approve the minutes of the January 12th and January 26th 1999 Development Review Board Meetings as written. CONSENT AGENDA A. OV13-99-13 CORBELL 2 STORY CUSTOM HOME,TANGERINE MEADOWS B. OV13-99-16 ARMBRUSTER SECOND STORY ADDITION, COPPER CREEK, LOT 66 C. OV13-98-10 HUGHES DEVELOPMENT, RANCHO VISTOSO 1ON RECREATION CENTER D. OV13-95-39 HUNTER DEVELOPMENT, NARANJA RANCH,MODEL 931 E. OV13-99-17 TABAJ RESIDENCE, NARANJA RANCH, LOT 17, US HOME MODEL 100 F. OV13-98-70 DOMINION HOMES,NARANJA RANCH,MODEL 1931 G. OV12-95-2A COYOTE RIDGE PHASE III LANDSCAPE PLANS H. OV12-98-10 RANCHO VISTOSO 11 AF ENTRY MONUMENTS Valerie Feuer informed the Board that on item H staff had a revision to condition 3 to add unless approved by Rancho Vistoso HOA as provided in the PAD document. • 02-09-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 MOTION: Moved, seconded (Vogelsberg/Smith) and carried by a 5-0 vote (Underwood absent) to recommend approval of Consent Agenda Items A thru H subject to staff conditions and stipulating adding revision to item H, unless approved by Rancho Vistoso HOA as provided in PAD document. Richard Underwood joined the meeting. REGULAR AGENDA Due to applicants not speaking into mike, their comments are brief. OV13-99-15 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY BOULEVARD BANNERS Mary Glueck excused herself due to conflict of interest. Valerie Feuer introduced the staff report into the record. She explained that the steering committee for the Town's 25th Anniversary Celebration has proposed using banners that are suspended from light poles to publicize this event. The hardware to support these banners might also be used to publicize other Town or Town supported events. The current sign ordinance does not address this type of signage, and therefore, a recommendation of the Development Review Board to the Town Council has been requested. Boulevard banners are signs printed on cloth or vinyl that are suspended from light poles so that they can be seen by passing motorists. The banners are suspended by means of two poles that are horizontal to the ground and perpendicular to the direction of travel. The Town maintains 15 light poles at intersections, including metal poles at La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane, Tangerine Road and Rancho Vistoso Blvd., and wooded poles on Oracle Road at Linda Vista and Hardy. The metal poles at intersections along Oracle Road belong to ADOT and would not be used. In addition, light poles along Rancho Vistoso Blvd. could be used, as well as light poles in retail parking lots, if allowed. The ideal for using these banners arose during the planning for the Town's 25th Anniversary, as a way to maintain a high level of public awareness throughout the year. Planning Staff does not support the idea of Town-wide boulevard banners. The Town is quite restrictive in the amount of similar signage allowed under OVZCR, and we believe that the Town should not diverge so significantly from the code. In addition, planning staff has spoken with staff from the Department of Public Works and Police regarding safety concerns. Banners on the four light poles at La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane at Rancho Vistoso Blvd. and Tangerine Road would be distracting to motorists. Dick Izen, 12356 N. Mt. Bigelow Road, Chairperson for 25th Anniversary Steering Committee, provided visuals and explained to the DRB the different locations the banners would be suspended. He provided an example of a banner to show the Board the kind of material it would be made of and told the Board the material holds up well and needs little maintenance. He explained the banners do not flap in the wind and are mounted to the light pole and will not block the view of oncoming traffic. He felt the idea of monuments and bill -board signs are not 02-09-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 successful ways of advertising but would like input from the DRB. Mr. ken commented that the newspaper would also be advertising these celebrations. Member Smith asked what the banners would say. Mr. ken replied they would let the public know what events were up-coming and reminders of the 25th anniversary. Member Smith asked would there be phone numbers listed or tickets to purchase. Mr. ken replied no phone numbers or tickets just events that were going on in the Town. Member Vogelsberg asked who would underwrite this. Mr. ken commented that it would be by vendor and community support. Member Underwood commented he is in support of the celebration and thinks it is a great idea. He felt citizens should be proud of the Town and the Town needs a sense of community. He felt the community would want to get involved and support purchasing these banners. Member Smith commented he supports a few banners but does not want to see them all year long. He also asked would there be restrictions on what colors the banners would be, as the Town has restrictions on such things. Member Mager agrees with Member Smith, she is in support of a few banners, she does not support using kiosk signs to advertise she felt it would be to much saturation. Her other concern was if the Town displays banners would other groups want to do the same thing or would they have to come before the DRB each time they are to be used. Charlie Hulsey, 11361 N. Twin Spur Ct., commented he is in support of the banners and feels the celebration is a good thing and the community should get involved and ask the Board to support it. Fran Lasala, Council Member, commented that the Town has a standard they hold the residents to. He feels the business should get involved in the advertising of events. There should be a limited amount of signs, put them in parking lots, ask the grocery stores to put them in their windows, as well as gas stations. He does not support the displaying of the signs on light poles, besides who would put them up and take them down furthermore who would maintain them. There was discussion among the Board members as to what colors could be displayed. Member Smith addressed the issue of what the Town code says regarding what colors could be displayed, as the Town is very restrictive and who would monitor that. Member Vogelsberg agreed. Member Underwood suggested approval from the Arts Committee and Staff regarding color and placement of these banners as well as phasing in the banners. Valerie suggested to the Board that if they decide to support the use of banners, because it will go to Council be sure to list any conditions and guidelines regarding color and placement of the signs as well as number of signs displayed. She also explained that this approval would be for the 25th Anniversary banners only. Any other use of the hardware would have to come before the DRB. MOTION: Moved and seconded (Underwood/Vogelsberg) and carried by a 3-2 vote (Smith/Mager opposed, Glueck excused) to recommend approval of OV13-99-15 Town of Oro Valley Boulevard Banners in celebration of the 25th anniversary, subject to the following conditions, 102 banners be phased in different areas of Town to emphasize 02-09-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 events as they might occur, 60 on the light poles and 40 in parking lots, these banners are to be reviewed with the Arts Committee, Town Staff for approval of placement and what theme the banner would be. OV13-97-49, ORO VALLEY RETAIL CENTER ARCHITECTURAL REVISIONS Valerie Feuer introduced the staff report into the record. Seaver-Franks, representing the Barclay Group, request DRB approval of architectural revisions to the elevations of the inline shops located on the southwest side of the Oro Valley Retail Center(AKA The Target Center). The DRB reviewed and approved the original architectural submittal for this project on October 27t'', 1997. The property is located on the west side of Oracle Road, south of N. First Avenue, and is designated "Town Commercial Center"use under the Rooney Ranch PAD. The property is abutted to the east by Oracle Road, to the north by N. First Avenue, to the south by Pusch View Lane, and to the west by the C.D.O. Seaver/Franks has presented plans for the architectural revision of the inline shop elevations. Both the previously approved plans and the proposed architectural revisions possess similar architectural features, including corbels, wainscoting, tile accents, arched entries, and columns, forming a pedestrian arcade along the front of the building. The changes proposed by Seaver Franks involve three main areas: the number of architectural `towers', the design of the `towers', and the provision of a covered pedestrian walkway on the southwest side of the structure (please see attached reductions of the proposed revisions and the previously approved architecture). The previously approved architecture featured a total of four towers, including a distinctive, southwestern 'flat topped' tower with a masonry cap, thus adding architectural variety to the commercial development. In addition, the previously approved architecture also included a covered pedestrian arcade which `wrapped' around the southwest elevation of the in-line shops. In contrast, the architectural revisions submitted before the DRB this evening feature only three towers of a more uniform design, and the covered pedestrian arcade terminates at the southwestern corner of the shops, which does not stretch along the southwest side of the building. The proposed revisions result in a architectural façade which is almost identical to that approved for the in-line shops in the Albertson's-Home Depot Center on the other side of North First Avenue. While unifying architectural elements and facades between the two commercial centers is desirable, Staff has requested that the distinctive 'flat topped' roof of the originally approved architecture be retained and utilized on the central tower of the current proposal as a means of retaining an architecturally `distinct' element between the two commercial centers. In addition, Staff has also requested that the pedestrian arcade be continued the full length of the building's southwest elevation, which was a feature of the originally approved architecture. The proposed architectural revisions will not result in any change to the total height of the building or tower elements. The maximum building height of the in-line stores will be 28', with the towers reaching a maximum height of 40'. For comparison, the towers above the existing Fry's are 44'6" high, and will be 45' on the Target building. Mike Soto, with Seaver Franks, representing the Barclay Group provided colored visuals to show the changes proposed. In working with tenants that are proposing to move into the building, the developer felt that the additional tower was a little to much in blocking the store 02-09-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 front of retail spaces. A proposal for the deleting of the tower in the middle and still having two towers and the arcade has been requested. Member Glueck advised she felt the square tower makes the building unique, she also commented how could moving one tower out and another tower in make a difference in the store front. Member Mager commented she likes the changes that have been made. Chair Lewis remarked she liked the tower at the end. Valerie recommended to the Board if DRB likes what has been presented the Board could recommend approval as presented. The other conditions are just reinforcing what has already been done. MOTION: Moved, seconded (Smith/Mager) and carried by a 5-1 vote(Glueck opposed)to recommend approval of OV13-97-49 Oro Valley Retail Center Architecture revision as presented by applicant. PLANNING STAFF CONDITIONS: 3. All roof or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully shielded from view by parapets, walls or other methods as approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Details shall be provided with the construction documents. 4. The rear elevation shall be constructed as per the original architectural approval. 5. Conditions 1 thru 4, listed above, and any additional DRB conditions, shall be incorporated into the architectural elevations of the construction documents, for staff verification OV12-97-14 SAN JOSE PLAZA DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVISION Richard Underwood excused himself due to conflict of interest Valerie Feuer introduced the staff report into the record. She explained on March 14, 1997, the Mayor and Council approved a conditional rezoning for a 13.4 acre parcel situated along the east side of Oracle Road, from R-6 to C-2. Proposed uses include a hotel, restaurants and small retail commercial. The tentative development plan sets aside approximately 5.3 acres of natural open, or landscaped open space. The San Jose Plaza project is to be built in two phases. The first phase includes the constructed drainage-way, natural and landscaped open space and three structures. The buildings will occupy the western portion of the site, closest to Oracle Road. The three buildings are proposed to be a two-story hotel and two restaurant sites, one on either side of the hotel, each designed to accommodate a 7,800 square foot building. A sidewalk along 02-09-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 Oracle Road was shown on the approved development plan. The Arizona Department of Transportation has informed the applicant that the sidewalk will not be allowed in the right of way. Paul Nzomo informed the DBB that he received a letter from ADOT stating they would not allow a sidewalk in the right-of-way along Oracle. Charles Hulsey, WLB Group, representing applicant commented ADOT does not like putting in sidewalks and the Town needs to put pressure on ADOT to put sidewalks in for the future. Member Vogelsberg commented that the Town Engineer and Planning Staff should express to ADOT the Town would like sidewalks in the future on Oracle Road. MOTION: Moved/seconded (Vogelsberg/Mager) and carried by a 5-0 vote (Underwood excused) to recommend approval of OV12-97-14 San Jose Plaza Development Plan Revision to delete the sidewalk along Oracle Road, stipulating as part of that deletion instruct the Town Engineer and Staff to open that dialog with ADOT on the topic and share the concerns of the Town regarding ROW improvements and sidewalks. OV12-99-3 PREVIEW: RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11 INN AT VISTOSO Valerie Feuer introduced the staff report into the record. A new resort hotel is planned in Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11, to be located at the northwest corner of Rancho Vistoso Blvd. and Vistoso Highlands Drive. A PAD amendment has been requested of the Town Council to allow an increase in height and a decrease in parking from the PAD development standards. Charles Hulsey, WLB Group, representing the applicant provided visuals and briefly reviewed the site plan and building architecture and asked for feedback from the DRB prior to submittal. Member Glueck asked Mr. Hulsey where would people park. Mr. Hulsey pointed out the parking area and replied there is more than ample parking for this project. Valerie Feuer commented she reviewed the parking issue and the Town requires much more parking spaces than other codes require. There will be a review of the Town's parking requirements and Staff will recommend a reduction in the amount of spaces that are required. OV12-98-22 STONE CANYON II PRELIMINARY PLAT, LOTS 134-240, COMMON AREAS A& B RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11 02-09-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 Valerie Feuer introduced the staff report into the record. The proposed subdivision will surround golf holes 12 to 17 of the Stone Canyon Golf Course. The project is located in the northwest corner of Rancho Vistoso, north and west of the existing Golf Club at Rancho Vistoso, and the property will be accessed via an extension of the existing Vistoso Highlands Drive. Stone Canyon II will feature a variety of custom homes to be built on one-acre lots. The existing zoning under the Rancho Vistoso PAD is Very Low Density Residential. There are 107 proposed lots within a 117.6 acre site. The setbacks for this subdivision are; front 30' side 20', and rear 40'. Lots that do intrude in the Golf Overlay Zone, are in violation. The DRB and Town Council may approve reduced setbacks, and Staff has included as a condition for approval (see Condition#32) that the rear 50'of these lots be set aside as a conservation buffer yard. This approach would permit the protection of property rights, while protecting future residents from the hazards of errant golf balls. Rock outcroppings is another wildlife habitat found in the Stone Canyon II development. Since the outcroppings are surrounded by deep soils, they support a unique and productive biological community. For this reason, all rock outcroppings that are within lots shall be designated as no build areas. These lots shall be specified on the general notes of the preliminary and final plats. The Stone Canyon II development will be a large lot custom home subdivision, and there are proposed grading restrictions placed on the lots in an effort to minimize impacts and preserve portions of the natural Sonoran desert. Refer to general note#35 for more details. Paul Nzozo introduced the staff report into the record. Vistoso Highlands Drive (a minor collector road) will be constructed from its existing terminus northward to the proposed intersection with Tortolita Mountain Drive. Several interior roads will intersect Tortolita Mountain Drive. Some of the interior roads exceeds the 600 feet maximum cul-de-sac length. Therefore turnaround area shall be provided along these street to satisfy emergency service providers' concerns for the excessive cul-de-sac length. This turnaround would be for use by emergency vehicles. The applicant shall provide any additional emergency access points or facilities deemed necessary by emergency service providers to compensate for the excessive cul- de-sac lengths. The projected traffic from Stone Canyon II will have no particular impact on the intersection of Rancho Vistoso Blvd and Vistoso Highlands Drive. This project is in a critical basin. Critical basin is one, which has been identified as already having severe flooding problems as a result of existing watershed conditions. Stormwater detention facilities are required to be incorporated within this development to the extent necessary to ensure a reduction in the existing 210 and 100 year peak discharges from the site. The amount of reduction shall be 5%. The developer is going to construct a detention basin at Moore Rd. and Kind Air Drive. No grading waiver is required for this project. Member Underwood asked if the rock outcroppings that are no-build, be incorporated into a waterfall or stairway if an owner wanted to do so. Valerie Feuer replied that would be reviewed as on a case by case basis. Charles Hulsey, WLB Group representing applicant, commented that item 33, the 100 year flood conservation easement would have to be post development as opposed to pre development. Mr. 02-09-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 Hulsey pointed out to the DRB Members the lots that encroached on the Golf Course and by how many feet. Changes are usually evaluated by a golf course architect followed by a letter stating his opinion. The lots in question are 183-185. Valerie Feuer commented she wanted to clarify that DRB cannot make a recommendation without the recommendation of a golf course architect. Code requires that a golf course architect who is consulted by the Town look at the lots in question and the architect then gives a letter to the Town with his recommendations. If DRB chooses not to accept what the applicant wants, this item would have to be continued and a golf course architect would have to be consulted, and then brought back before DRB. That is the way the Zoning Administrator has interpreted the code. Member Glueck asked Valerie Feuer to read exactly what the code says regarding setback reductions. Valerie Feuer proceeded to read the Town code, section 10-503 & 10-505. Member Glueck then explained the Board can either insist that the condition stay as written or if the DRB is interested in potential changes this item would have to be continued and a golf course architect be consulted to base the Boards decision on and then brought back to DRB. Member Glueck informed Mr. Hulsey that this plat could be approved with the conditions as is, or the Town can consult a golf course architect and this item would be continued. Mr. Hulsey stated he would leave lots 183-185 off of this preliminary plat and submit them at a latter date in order to get this plan approved. The Board was in agreement with that decision. MOTION: Moved, seconded (Glueck/Smith) and carried by a 6-0 vote to recommend approval of OV12-98-22 Stone Canyon II Preliminary Plat, Lots 134-240, Common Areas A & B, Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11 subject to Staffs Conditions and stipulating changes be made to conditions 28,32,33,34,36,37,41,and adding condition 42 regarding lots 183-185,to be deleted from this Preliminary Plat and added at a future date. PLANNING STAFF AND ENGINEER'S CONDITIONS: 1. Drainage structures at road crossings for interior subdivision streets shall be constructed and installed according to Town standards and paid for by the developer. All drainage structures must be designed to handle a Q100 flow by culvert deep section and culvert combination with a flow dept of 6" max. 2. Show the location of any proposed bank protection in this project. 3. Progress report for the detention basin at Moore Rd. and King Air Drive shall be provided prior to scheduling the project to the Town Council meeting. 4. That portion of SVTs lying outside the right-of-way shall be shown on the final plat as sight visibility easements. 5. One foot(1') no access easements for all double frontage lots shall be properly labeled on all the plat sheets. The 1' NAE's shall be labeled on all the plat sheets. 6. At grade or dip road crossings shall meet the Town of Oro Valley Subdivision Street Standards and Floodplain Management Code. However, no at grade or dip road 02-09-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 crossings shall be permitted over washes with a Q100 greater than 500 cfs. 7. A final geotechnical report along with a pavement design report shall be provided to P&Z staff. 8. General Note#29 shall be revised to reference the correct geotechnical report. 9. The applicant's engineer shall ensure that vertical and horizontal street design meets the Town of Oro Valley Subdivision Street Standards. 10. Elevations shall be provided at the end of all cul-de-sacs. 11. Complete survey information for the overall boundary of the plat shall be provided. It appears that portions of the boundary data are missing from some sheets. 12. Additional emergency access ways or facilities requested by emergency service providers shall be provided. 13. On the preliminary plat sheets,the 100-year discharge and it's respective drainage area for both pre- and post-developed flows with a Q100 value of 50 cfs or greater shall be shown. These shall be placed at upstream and down stream ends of the site. 14. Delineate all flows greater than 50 cfs as floodplain. 15. Post development HEC-2 cross-sections shall be shown and labeled the on the plat. The corresponding 100-year water surface elevation shall be clearly annotated. 16. Location, size, material and design discharge for each of the proposed drainage structures shall be provided in a revised drainage report. 17. Minimum FFE's on those lots adjacent to drainage floodplains shall be shown on the plat and a generate note shall be added stating that floodplain use permit may be required for these lots. 18. Erosion hazard setbacks, floodplain and riparian area limits must be shown in a surveyable manner in the final plat. 19. A revised drainage report shall be submitted to provide recommendations and details for the erosion protection at the upstream and downstream ends of the proposed culverts. The calculations shall address scour depths; abutment toe downs, and appropriates calculations for apron sizing. 20. Call out sheet matching numbers on all sheets. 21. All drainage structures shown on the drainage report exhibit shall be shown on the Preliminary Plat or provide a new drainage report. 22. Revise the data on the table of hydraulic structures to reflect the drainage structures shown on the plat. 23. Delineate floodplain limits within lots 144-146, and show the buildable area. 24. Demonstrate how all weather access will be provided to lots 145-146. 25. Dimension the drainage structure cross Tortolita Mountain Drive near lot 144. 26. Add the following lots 166, 201,212 and 242 to general note#44 for the lots affected by floodplain. 27. Each sheet shall bear the seal and signature of the registered professional engineer who prepared the plat. 28. . A mitigation and bank protection plan shall be submitted to Planning and Zoning Staff for review and approval. 29. The portion of Tortolita Mountain Drive which is outside Town limits needs a letter 02-09-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 from Pima County Transportation acknowledging and accepting. 30. Call out curb return radius at all streets intersection. Note if ribbon curbs are used 40'R min is required or 25'R if vertical curbs are used. 31. Turn around areas for all roads exceeding 600' long shall provide cul-de-sac. 32. A 50' conservation buffer yard shall be placed along the rear property lines of any lots 135, 136, 141 143, 183 185, and 226 228 within in the Golf Course Overlay District in the amount of the intrusion with the conservation buffer to be equal to the amount of the overlay encroachment. 33. All areas contained within the 100-year flood limits shall be recorded as conservation easements on the final plat. Refer to general note 44 for the lots affected by the 100- year flood limits. (Post Development) 34. For Lots 135 136 141 143, 183 185, and 226 228,any lots encroaching within the Golf � , ■i 1�✓ 1 V✓ 1 V Course Overlay District a patio wall shall be constructed at or within the grading limits. 35. A Mitigation Plan must be submitted which addresses the wash crossings. Any construction which encroaches into the riparian area, as identified in the Harris Environmental riparian study dated August 7th 1998, must be included in the mitigation plan. 36. All rock outcroppings that are within proposed lots shall be designated as conservation easements no build areas. These lots shall be specified on the preliminary and final plats. itt-Sectio„ 3 ZCR. The recreation area shall be noted in area and size: 38. The general notes shall designate the average lot size for this development. 39. Delete General Note#39. 40. Lots shall be specified in general note#45. 41. ' 42. Lots 183-185 are no longer a part of this preliminary plat and will be resubmitted at a later time Member Underwood expressed to the other members of the DRB and Mayor Loomis and others in the audience, his concern regarding sidewalks. He commented he found it ludicrous that pedestrian pathways were being eliminated on a major thoroughfare. He felt that Council should instruct staff to set up a major study session with DRB, Council representation, Deborah Sikes from ADOT right of way, State Senators and Representatives from our district letting ADOT know that this is a problem. We are never going to be a livable, sustainable community and get people out of their cars and on to public transit unless they can do it without breaking their leg. We need to develop a repeatable standard for sidewalks in ADOT right-of-way. 02-09-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 STAFF REPORT Valerie Feuer informed the Board there would be a site tour next month to see the Inn at Vistoso, March 4th at 5:30 p.m. MOTION: Moved, seconded (Underwood/Smith) and carried by a 6-0 vote to adjourn the February 9th, 1999 Development Review Board Meeting at 9:00 p.m. Shirley Gay DRB Clerk ORO VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD February 9, 1999 TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD FROM: Valerie Feuer, Senior Planner SUBJECT: OV13-99-15 Town of Oro Valley Boulevard Banners (REVISED) BACKGROUND: The steering committee for the Town's 25th Anniversary Celebration has proposed using banners that are suspended from light poles to publicize this event. The hardware to support these banners might also be used to publicize other Town or Town supported events. The current sign ordinance does not address this type of signage, and therefore, a recommendation of the Development Review Board to the Town Council has been requested. SUMMARY: Boulevard banners are signs printed on cloth or vinyl that are suspended from light poles so that they can be seen by passing motorists. The banners are suspended by means of two poles that are horizontal to the ground and perpendicular to the direction of travel. The Town maintains 15 light poles at intersections, including metal poles at La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane, Tangerine Road and Rancho Vistoso Blvd., and wooden poles on Oracle Road at Linda Vista and Hardy. The metal poles at intersections along Oracle Road belong to ADOT and would not be used. In addition, light poles along Rancho Vistoso Blvd. could be used, as well as light poles in retail parking lots, if allowed. The idea for using these banners arose during the planning for the Town's 25th Anniversary, as a way to maintain a high level of public awareness throughout the year. A sample banner layout is attached. If approved, the same concept could also be used to promote the Arts and Music Festival, Police Dept. public programs, and other uses. Planning staff does not support the idea of Town-wide boulevard banners. The Town is quite restrictive in the amount of similar signage allowed under OVZCR (see attachment), and we believe that the Town should not diverge so significantly from the code. In addition, planning staff has spoken with staff from the Department of Public Works and Police regarding safety concerns. Banners on the four light poles at La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane and at Rancho Vistoso Blvd. and Tangerine Road would be distracting to motorists. Boulevard banners would be a good approach in a more urbanized setting,where banners could be used on light poles along the side of the road. RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends a different approach to publicizing the Town's 25th anniversary: • Use the Town limits signs—replace the current sign with a 25th anniversary sign. • Use the two Town entry monument signs on Oracle. • Use the Town's kiosk sign system — add a 25th anniversary sign to any kiosks where space is available. • Use banners at Town Hall. If the Development Review Board does recommend approval of OV13-99-15, the concept of boulevard banners,to the Town Council, staff suggests that the DRB specify the number and location of banners. Attachments: 1. Excerpts from OVZCR Sign Code 13-99-15REVISED EXCERPTS FROM OVZCR SIGN CODE OVZCR Chapter 12 Signs Section 12-102.A.3. The Town of Oro Valley, upon a vote by a majority of the Town Council, at a duly noticed public hearing, may exempt itself from any or all provisions of this code. Article 12-6 Temporary Signs Development Sign, Additional • Flags or pennants at sales office or model home sales complex • Size: 15 square feet maximum per device • Height: Nineteen feet maximum above grade • Maximum of four devices per site Special Events Signs • Temporary signs advertising a special event, including civic, public, religious, philanthropic or educational events • Size: 16 square feet for freestanding; 24 square feet for wall sign • Height: 5 feet above grade for freestanding; no higher than roof line for wall sign • Duration: No longer than 30 days; 3 permits per year per business are allowed Grand Opening Signs • Grand opening, change of ownership, promote new business • Size: 32 square feet for freestanding; 64 square feet for wall sign • Height: 5 feet above grade for freestanding; 12 feet above grade, no higher than roof line for wall sign • Duration: No longer than 30 days Special Use Permit Consideration of • Compatibility with surrounding area • Protect public health, safety and general welfare ORO VALLEY PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD February 9, 1999 TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD FROM: Valerie Feuer,Senior Planner SUBJECT: OV 13-99-15 Town of Oro Valley Boulevard Banners BACKGROUND: The steering committee for the Town's 25th Anniversary Celebration has proposed using banners that are suspended from light poles to publicize this event. The hardware to support these banners might also be used to publicize other Town or Town supported events. The current sign ordinance does not address this type of signage, and therefore, a recommendation of the Development Review Board to the Town Council has been requested. SUMMARY: Boulevard banners are signs printed on cloth or vinyl that are suspended from light poles so that they can be seen by passing motorists. The banners are suspended by means of two poles that are horizontal to the ground and perpendicular to the direction of travel. The Town maintains 15 light poles at intersections, including metal poles at La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane,Tangerine Road and Rancho Vistoso Blvd., and wooden poles on Oracle Road at Linda Vista and Hardy. The metal poles at intersections along Oracle Road belong to ADOT and would not be used. In addition, light poles along Rancho Vistoso Blvd. could be used, as well as light poles in retail parking lots, if allowed. The idea for using these banners arose during the planning for the Town's 25th Anniversary, as a way to maintain a high level of public awareness throughout the year. A sample banner layout is attached. If approved, the same concept could also be used to promote the Arts and Music Festival,Police Dept.public programs,and other uses. Planning staff supports the idea of the boulevard banners, as long as the locations are limited to the most visible. We believe that allowing the banners at any and all permissible light poles would be less attractive and effective. Banners at the Town Hall complex should also be considered. Planning staff has spoken with staff from the Department of Public Works and Police regarding safety concerns. Their information and a map showing the 15 light poles will be provided at the DRB meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Planner staff supports OV13-99-15, the concept of boulevard banners and recommends that the Development Review Board recommends approval to the Town Council, with the condition that locations be selected to be the most effective,high traffic locations. Attachments: 1. Letter from Dick Izens 2. Concept Banner \data\wp\forms\rpt-drb.p&z Richard & Jeanne Izen 12356 North Mount Bigelow Road Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 January 22, 1999 Development Review Board Oro Valley Town Hall 11000 La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 To the Members of the Development Review Board; 1. Executive Summary This document is to ask the Development Review Board to review and approve both a concept and a specific application of that concept. The concept is called Boulevard Banners and the specific application is to use these banners as a means of promoting the Town's 25th Anniversary Celebration year. 2. What are Boulevard Banners Boulevard Banners are signs printed on cloth or vinyl which are suspended from light poles so that they can be seen by passing motorists. Generally they vary from 2'to 2.5' in width and can be almost any length. The shortest ones, which are the ones we propose to use, are about 5' long. Because they are designed to be taken in at a glance by passing motorists the print message is limited to a few words accompanied by a symbol or logo that conveys the message without requiring study. The banners are suspended by means of two poles which are horizontal to the ground and perpendicular to the direction of travel. The banners are hemmed at the top and bottom and simply slipped over the two poles. This keeps them relatively flat and fully visible. The support poles are attached to a fixture which straps to the light pole and may remain after the banners are removed or may be removed and stored for future use. 3. 25th Anniversary, the specific application The idea for using these banners arose during the planning for the Town's 25th Anniversary. As you may know, the town plans to extend the Anniversary Celebration for the entire year from April 17, 1999, through April 16, 2000. During this period many unique events are planned including an Anniversary Party at Dennis Weaver Park on April 17, an informal dance at CDO High School in the evening of April 17, the Oro Valley Arts and Music Festival (April 17 and 18), a Fourth of July celebration, a fall golf tournament, a fall Jazz Festival, a performance of Handel's Messiah (November), a mid December dinner dance, and a Family Day in April 2000. While many individual events are planned, we are concerned at maintaing a high level of public awareness throughout the year. To foster this we have taken several approaches. A publicity campaign has been developed with historical articles appearing in news papers throughout the year. In addition exhibits on Town history and services will be displayed in various bank, business and resort lobbies throughout the year. Finally many souvenirs (water bottles, coffee cups, ball point pens) bearing the unique 25th Anniversary logo will be distributed. In addition we would like to continually display that logo to motorists throughout the town by using boulevard banners. A sample layout is attached for your review. 4. Why an ongoing Program Although our initial concept was to use the boulevard banners for the 25th Anniversary year two other aspects have raised the possibility of this being an ongoing program. First the negative factor. While the banners themselves are expensive the fixtures, support poles, strapping and fasteners are even more costly. We are hard pressed to justify both the cost of the banners and the cost of the hardware for a single use. Secondly, and more importantly, the positive factor. In our discussions we have encountered enthusiastic interest by others in the use of banners for other programs. Without soliciting outside interest, members of the steering committee have expressed enthusiasm for creating similar banners for their own purposes. In particular, the Police department has indicated that they had difficulty in spreading the word for their G.A.I.N. program and that they would like to use Boulevard Banners for both that program and the D.A.R.E. campaign. The Greater Oro Valley Arts Council, although concerned at the costs, would like to create banners to promote the Arts and Music Festival each Spring and the Jazz Festival each Fall. Other members of the committee have suggested that the town might want to use the banners for year end holiday decorations. Members of the committee who have lived in other towns and cities have cited various positive examples and it doesn't take much imagination to see other uses. Both the Tour de Tucson and Senior Olympics might be examples. Since each banner would be uniquely designed, we would anticipate that proposed uses would have to be reviewed individually either by a board such as the DRB or by Town staff, perhaps the planning department. Use would be limited to Town or Town supported functions such as those listed above. 5. Where would banners be placed Obviously banners hung from light poles need light poles. The Town maintains 15 light poles at major intersections which would each accommodate two banners (perpendicular to both directions of travel). In addition there are light poles along Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and in several privately owned retail store parking areas. While cost would obviously be a factor, we would like to mount boulevard banners at all major intersections throughout the town. We would also like to use them on every fifth or eighth light pole along Rancho Vistoso Boulevard. Depending on our finances, we might also request permission to hang Boulevard Banners in retail parking lots such as Frys, Abco, Safeway, Target and Smiths. These last would, of course, also be subject to the property owner's approval. 6. Saftey Concerns Banners are hung high enough on the pole (generally with the bottom 12' above the ground) to ensure that they do not obscure the drivers view of oncoming traffic. They may create a shadow at night but, since the lights are mounted projecting into the intersection, the shadow falls on the road side rather than the roadway. 7. Legal Concerns The Town Attorney assures us that both the current and proposed ordinances are silent on this sort of signage. Having regard for the sensitivity of town residents to signage issues, however, we would not proceed without both DRB and Town Council approval. 7. Summary As you can see from the indefinite numbers in section 5 above we have not completed our investigation into costs. Before expending additional efforts on the program we would like to know if the Development Review Board approves of the concept. I will bring a larger version of the proposed layout for the 25th Anniversary Boulevard Banner and additional visuals to the February 9th meeting. Respectfully submitted; Richard lzen, Chairper on 25th Anniversary Steering Committee 1„01,041 1,11 4,1,,,1,70f1,0 14,, 1 ,D1,04.;,,,wei ,„rnol —i r‘' , 1 lil\ I\ , 0 ' 4111111 III 4011 r 111 1,,11,110 1„1,1 110'1' 111 S4fP4$14 7:1 41,111,, 1114(Pli.: id0 1 ark1000001,IV/la li, 01106111 , „A 140 „roll, VIII . , 1 , 10111' 0 , 0-1 ill 1 ,p 1 1! 11 It 1 • l' '1011, III Iv *111111# il: 11: 111' „„1, ,1011111 . 0 ' 1 , II 11 ,1,11141 111011 ,1,11111 1 " ,Il wilil l'SV" ,II ./ ,1111 'ill 1 II, 1 4 9 ''le AI, 1 II,1r ,11, , 6101'' 11111 di 1 A 1,1 „ , 111111,,,, 11,1,1 t ,01111 .. 111hrl , 01 ii, „Irilt , n, ilkIllif ,1, c ,v 1 T 1 , 1„11111111111,1111111„11 Iiiiollifigill fil ,1 11'11' At/ill 1 d 1,„ 1 111 , 11 „II 1 ,l 10 11111111 1,1 1 , IVIIII 11V111111'°11 1 1101 1,04',11, I Jo 1,10101 .• ,,,',,, ,,,,100 0 1"1,1000100001,10;01,0a , 0 '100 , 101 1, 00 , , , . • vilv1111,0111111111 1.r:,,,„F J10:11111111111,111viviv, 1111 v II' v 1 1, 001 i 11 lho111111 •••111 , • V 1 1 ... . ... , , , , - ' 1111 0 r . 1,,„ , „d , 1 „ , a 1 , 1 t,,,., ).' , 1 , wilipol000f.‘'llittle.trotElq:,,,,,,,:,L'4'L'1",: '11'',1;t1I'li,,:iawillihIliTIZilVirm" . . ill ! • . -. • • h 11000 N. La Canada Dr. • Oro Valley,Arizona 85737 WERNER S.WOLFF,Chief of Police s ► Phone (520) 742-5474 FAX(520) 797-2616 A• A. A a:f. °VNDEo�9� ORO VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT "INTEGRITY, PRIDE, EXCELLENCE" Memorandum Date: February 17, 1999 To: Valerie Feuer, Senior Planner From: Ofc. Chuck Trujillo, OVPD CC: Sgt. Jones RE: Town Banner Research/Traffic Safety Valerie, The Oro Valley Police Department has researched the proposal to place celebration banners at local intersections for any safety concerns that might arise. Based upon information provided by the University of Arizona Police Department,the Oro Valley Police Department has not found any evidence that this type of banner has been a contributing factor to traffic accidents within a decorated intersection. Therefore,the police department does support the plan to locate the banners through out the town in the manner that was described in the Developmental Review Board meeting on February 09, 1999. The Oro Valley Police Department also recommends that future banner proposals be subject to review by the police department on a case by case basis. - Sheetl Town Maintained Street Lights Proposed Alt#of Single Poles Banners Banners Oracle & Cortaro 2 1 Greenfield 2 1 Hardy 2 1 Calle Concordia 2 1 Linda Vista 2 1 Desert Sky 2 1 Greenock 2 1 First& Lambert 2 1 Naranja 2 1 Tangerine & La Canada 2 1 Four Poles La Canada & Lambert 4 4 Tangerine & First 4 4 Multiple (93 in Sun City) Sun City along Rancho Vistoso 10 8 sub total 38 26 Other Locations Town Hall 6 4 Dennis Weaver Park 10 6 sub total 54 36 Town or Vistoso Lights(277 lights) Southern End Rancho Vistoso 10 8 Northern End Rancho Vistoso 10 8 74 52 Potential Comercial Locations ABCO center 6 0 Fry's Center 6 0 Smiths Center 6 0 Safeway Center 6 0 Target Center 6 0 30 0 Grand Total 104 52 Page 1