Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV119805 ORO VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING DEPAK fMENT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: April 7, 1998 TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: Jim Copus,AICP,Planner II SUBJECT: REQUEST TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA KNOWN AS RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 10,PARCEL H BACKGROUND: The subject parcel is approximately 14 acres in size, bordered on the north by Moore Road, east by parcel N, west parcel G, and to the south by a parcel O. This area is commonly known as a portion of Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10. The current General Plan (see the attached map) is an approximation of the current PAD for the area. LANDOWNER'S REQUEST As indicated in the attached letter, the landowner, Vistoso Partners, L.L.C., is requesting General Plan amendments to: 1. Change land use from Medium Density residential (MDR — 2.1-5.0 Du/ac) to Resort designation to allow timeshare units at a density of 10.0 Du/ac within Neighborhood 10, Parcel H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission initiate the proposed amendments to the General Plan. Staff will evaluate the amendments and prepare the necessary background information for the May 5, 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to initiate an amendment to the Oro Valley General Plan, and direct staff to set the public hearing for the May 5, 1998 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission -OR- I move to not initiate an amendment to the Oro Valley General Plan. Attachments: 1. Letter of Request. 2. Current General Plan Land Uses and Map. F:\ov\ov9\1998\PROJECTS\GP\AMDTS\INITPZ.RPT .R\J - N. io , Fo-,/ H- VERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE CRI7 A LAND USE ELEMENT Conforms Doesn't Conform N/A Unknown Goal 1.1 Preserve Oro Valley's natural Sonoran Desert environment and scenic resources which are an important part of the community's quality of life. v N j� Policy 1.1B Promote clustering(average density)developments to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Clustering is a development design technique that permits a reduction in lot area and bulk requirements,provided there is no increase in the number of lots,and the remaining land area is devoted to open space. In large-lot or multi-family developments,clustering may also be accomplished by placing building pads close to each other as mechanisms are N in place to protect remaining open space. U 1(, Policy 1.1C Clusters should be encouraged for the preservation of significant,passive use,natural open space within residential neighborhoods. The integration of natural open space within clustered developments should promote openness within the housing development. UN f- Policy 1.1D The Hillside Development Overlay Zone(HDZ)grading and development standards shall be considered at the time iV /�► of rezoning and shall supersede when a conflict exists between the land use map and the HDZ standards. f-t Policy 1.1E View protection shall be an essential aspect of Oro Valley's community design review and project approval. Al A' Policy 1.1H Slopes 15% and greater shall be evaluated for development compatibility, safety,and preservation as natural open N� space. Policy 1.1I Oro Valley shall encourage the use of building envelopes in master planned communities,which encourages natural buffers between housing units. Building envelopes designate the specific area that can be disturbed in any way /C/A during or following construction. The area outside the building envelope must be maintained in a natural state. Policy 1.1K Consider development impacts on natural rolling terrain and emphasize low-density developments in these areas. Goal 1.2 Promote a compatible mix of land uses throughout the Oro Valley Planning Area. L Policy 1.2A Encourage the location of residential neighborhoods close to activity centers to minimize travel times. Policy 1.2F Locate higher density land uses and transportation-dependent uses near major transportation corridors. Policy 1.2H Strip commercial developments are discouraged and clustering of commercial developments at specific nodes or villages that are planned with strict aesthetic and design guidelines are encouraged. Free-standing pads are discouraged,except when expressly permitted in relation to overall gross leasable area and center design. Goal 1.3 To promote joint land use planning and the shared use of facilities. iVR Policy 1.3D An evaluation of the adequacy of school facilities shall be developed as a finding for all residential land use requests before the Planning and Zoning Commission at the time of rezoning. /(-1/} Policy 1.3E One elementary school site of at least 10 acres should be reserved within developments for every 500 elementary school level students forecasted to live within the development. /VA Policy 1.3I Ensure safe bike/pedestrian access to school sites from open space,parks,and neighborhoods. ,ti,k Goal 1.4 Through proper land use planning,the Town shall ensure that new development does not financially burden existing residents. Policy 1.4A The long-term fiscal impacts to the Town and its taxpayers relating to proposed new developments shall be evaluated as a criterion in deciding the approval or denial of land use rezoning proposals. ( . F:\...\W P\FORMS\POLORD.TAB VERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE CRIB A CIRCULATION/TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Conforms Doesn't Conform N/A Unknown Goal 2 1 To ensure the safe,convenient and e cient'vehicular and non-motorrized traffic circulation to serve both within°and through the community. C— Policy 2.1D Build sidewalks, sufficient outside lane width,and provide other specific provisions for safe and convenient use of arterials and collectors by bicyclists and pedestrians. N14 Goal 2.3 Design a transportation network that promotes the reduction of traffic voluumes and vehicle miles travelled. (L Policy 2.3B Bike paths should be constructed, where feasible,to separate bike and pedestrian traffic from motorized vehicles in order to provide safe access to schools and parks. Policy 2.3C All new or reconstructed collectors and arterials should include sidewalks. V N IC Goal 2 4 Provide for the efficient means of goods/services movement while preserving Oro Valley's neighborhoods and the Sonoran Desert environment, Policy 2.1D View protection should be an essential aspect of Oro Valley's transportation design process. Where possible, permanent protection of scenic vistas is to be encouraged, especially from the Oracle Road scenic corridor. Road construction on slopes should minimize the visual imp[act of the roadway. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT Goal 3.1 To ensure long-term financial.and economic sustainability for the Town of Ciro Valley. Policy 3.1F Maintain and enhance Oro Valley's residential/resort/recreation character. L Policy 3.1H Prepare economic development impact analysis for significant development proposals. ft/P Policy 3.1J Employment-related uses are encouraged to provide work places for a growing employment base. • Office,technical,and corporate employment facilities shall be compatible and consistent with the scale of the surrounding area. Campus-type employment centers that emphasize a unified architectural theme,pedestrian orientation, inward- transportation patterns,and a natural landscaping theme are encouraged. These employment centers do not include high-rise structures or heavy industrial uses. A/# Policy 3.1K Heavy industrial and outdoor commercial uses that require significant infrastructure,introduce greater truck traffic, and are visually and environmentally incompatible with the Town's vision are generally unacceptable. N14 Policy 3.1L Institutional uses, such as colleges or health care,are desired and will be actively pursued and supported when located in appropriate locations. Policy 3.1M Specialty commercial development, similar to St. Phillips Plaza in Tucson, is encouraged in appropriate locations. rj� HOUSING ELEMENT /� Goal 4.1 To promote high quality residential neighborhoods. Policy 4.1A Protect the integrity and aesthetic context of existing neighborhoods through the use of appropriate buffers. attk Policy 4.1C Apartment and condominium developments should have built-in recreational facilities and other amenities to serve fu residents. Goal 4.2 To ensure a jobs/housing balance within the greater Oro Valley region ��_ Policy 4.2A Encourage the provision of a variety of housing choices matched to employees within a reasonable proximity of employment sites. 144 F:\...\W P\FORMS\POLORD.TAB VERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE CRI A PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT Conforms Doesn't Conform N/A Unknown Goal 5.1 To ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided when needed.;' Policy 5.1C In cooperation with the school districts within the Oro Valley Planning Area,define both school service areas and associated school needs that can potentially be met through proactive implementation at the time of development review. Policy 5.1D Ensure that municipal services and facilities are or can be provided efficiently and cost-effectively prior to development occurring. ,f Policy 5.1E All new developments should be evaluated to determine impacts on all Town infrastructure, including but not limited to schools and roads. Such impacts shall be used as a criterion in deciding the approval or denial of land use rezoning proposals. fl/� PARKS,OPEN SPACE,AND RECREATION ELEMENT Goal 6.1 To develop a comprehensive and connected parks,open space,and trails system. U t k Policy 6.1A Plan for the connection of open space,natural areas,parks,trails,bike paths,and recreation areas to minimize conflicts with the environment. Policy 6.1B Encourage private dedications of land as permanent natural areas or open space. Policy 6.1D All developments should link their recreation facilities and natural areas to the community open space network where appropriate. Policy 6.1E Trails shall ultimately connect to public preserves and the regional trail network per the Eastern Pima County Trails System Master Plan, where possible. Policy 6.1I Protect existing and establish new trail access points to major washes and regional preserves. Policy 6.1J Develop a bike paths system that is separate from the roadways and serves to interconnect various public facilities such as schools,parks,trails,open space areas,etc. Goal 6.2 To protect the environmentally sensitive open space areas within the Planning Area. 04, Policy 6.2B Open space preservation shall be used as a criterion in deciding the approval or denial of land use rezoning proposals. Policy 6.2C Encourage natural open space connection to and the expansion of Tortolita Mountain Park. Policy 6.2G Preserve and enhance open space areas that protect the visual,natural,and cultural resources of the community. SAFETY ELEMENT Goal 7 4.1 s To promote high quality residential neighborhoods Policy 4.1A School site planning in regards to public safety shall be developed as a required finding for development review. UP6 NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION ELEMENT Goal 8.1 To protect the Planning Area's natural attributes,which have been designated as a key community value. uk,3 k tv il, Policy 8.1C Wash encroachment may be permitted where floodplains are broad and shallow in order to permit a reasonable utilization of property,unless such encroachment impedes natural groundwater recharge of the aquifer. /, Policy 8.1E For drainage basins designated as"balanced basins"and any future basins designated as such,Pima County (�,/`� Floodplain Management policies and regulations shall be adhered to. F:\...\W P\FORMS\POLORD.TAB • VERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE CRI A NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION ELEMENT-CONTINUED Conforms Doesn't Conform N/A Unknown Policy 8.1F Allow only floodplain-compatible uses in flood-prone areas. �J k Policy 8.1G Indigenous(native desert)vegetation and riparian habitats should be maintained and enhanced where possible. UN k Policy 8.1H Identify and protect light-sensitive uses and locations, i.e.Kitt Peak,Mt.Lemon,Mt.Bigelow,and the Pusch Ridge Wilderness area. NA- COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT Goal 9.1 To ensure that the built environment is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with the natural surroundings. t Policy 9.1D All development proposals should attempt to arrange buildings,massing of buildings,and/or arrangements of lots to preserve views from adjacent properties and streets while providing privacy for residents. Policy 9.1E All development proposals should show design strategies used to minimize changes to existing topography and the disturbance of existing vegetation. Policy 9.1F All sides of buildings may impact their surroundings and should be coherently designed and treated. Policy 9.1G In order to maximize integration of the built environment with the natural environment,and minimize distractions of the built environment, all new development proposals should incorporate means of reducing the apparent size and bulk of buildings. Policy 9.1I All new development proposals should consider existing landscaping within 400 feet of the project site to provide and maintain landscape continuity within the community. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES ELEMENT Goal 10.2 To preserve the unique cultural and historic resources within the Planning Area. /vfrt Policy 10.2A Require cultural resource surveys for all new developments where evidence of cultural/archaeological resources are found. /� r Policy 10.2B Ensure protection of cultural resources discovered during construction. iv Pt F:\...\W P\FORMS\POLORD.TAB Engineering • Planning Surveying•Urban Design Landscape Architecture 6roup Inc. ftiCLIVED March 24, 1998 Mr. Bryant Nodine Town of Oro Valley iMAR 2 51998 11000 North La Canada Drive Town Ot Oro Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Valley Subject: General Plan Amendment for Rancho Vistoso, Neighborhood 10, Parcel H WLB Job No. 185050-B-010-0000 Dear Mr. Nodine: As you know,Vistoso Partners wishes to change the allowable land use on the above parcel. Currently,the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development allows Medium Density Residential at 3 to 6 RAC. Focus 2020 allows Medium Density Residential at 2.1 to 5.0 RAC. We are proposing to develop the site for a time-share development at a density of 10.0 units per acre. As we have discussed,we are not quite sure what land use classification to ask for. We have at times discussed utilizing a commercial label and we have also discussed utilizing a resort label. Perhaps we need a new designation such as Commercial Residential. Obviously, the land use designation is something we will need to determine. It is my understanding that we can be on the April 7th Planning and Zoning Agenda. The parcel is wholly owned by Vistoso Partners, L.L.C. Their ownership documents are on file as well as a letter designating me as their agent. Adjoining ownership is limited to the Mirage Homes project to the north. A mailing label is included. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at(520) 881-7480. Sincerely, THE WLB%GROUP, INC. ',,q( Charles W. Hulsey, AICP Director of Planning and Landscape Architecture CWH:hg cc: Dick Maes Gary Martinson Bill Walker Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture Offices located in Tucson, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Victor Valley, California 4444 East Broadway • Tucson, Arizona 85711 • (520) 881-7480 • FAX (520) 881-7492 FROM : LLB ANNEX PHONE NO. : 520 3186170 Apr. 13 1998 02:31PM P1 Engineering • Planning Surveying•Urban Design roup Landscape Architecture April 13, 1998 Ms. Valerie Feuer Town of Oro Valley Planning Department 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Subject: Rancho Vistoso, Neighborhood 10, Parcel H PAD and General Plan Amendment WLB Job No. 185050-A-030-010) Dear Valerie: The Planning and Zoning Commission, in their r ieeting last week, heard arguments for initiation of amendments for the PAD and General Plan for Neighborhood 10, Parcel H at Rancho Vistoso- Because the Commission failed to initiate thess? amendments, we ask that these amendments be initiated through Mayor and Council at their nex7 meeting. if you have any questions on this issue, please don't hesitate to calf me at(520) 881-7480_ Sincerely, TI-E WI�B GROUP, INC. (z) (4,/ Charles W_ Hulsey, AICP Di-ector of Planning and Landscape Arc itecture CWH:hg cc: Richard Maes, RV Partners W:'DATA'WP NEIDr\I 85050\tlTTEkStv-feuer.kr wpd Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture Offices located in Tucson. Phoenix. _as Vegas. and Victor Valley, California 4444 East Broadway • Tucson, Arizona &.711 • (520) 881-7480 • FAX (520) 881-7492 111/ LAND USE 1ENT The Low-Density Residential (LDR) category is further delineated on the Land Use Map into three categories: LDR (0.5) - Represents low-density residential range of 0.3 to 0.5 dwelling units per acre. LDR (1.2) - Represents low-density residential range of 0.5 to 1.2 dwelling units per acre. LDR (2.0) - Represents low-density residential range of 1.2 to 2.0 dwelling units per acre. Medium-Density Residential (2.1-5.0 DU/AC) —This designation is where typical single-family detached, townhouse, or patio home development is suitable, ranging from 2.1 to 5.0 dwelling units per acre. These areas should be located with proximity to schools, shopping, and employment and will utilize a discontinuous street hierarchy to discourage through traffic. Medium-High Density Residential (5.1-10.0 DU/AC) —This land use designation denotes areas where single- family attached, townhouse, and patio home development is appropriate, ranging from 5.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre. Limited high-density residential, medium-density residential, and neighborhood commercial may also be acceptable in certain areas where deemed appropriate by the Town. High-Density Residential (10+ DU/AC) —This category denotes areas identified to be appropriate for apartments, condominiums, and townhouses. These areas should be located on the periphery of medium and medium-high density residential areas and should capitalize on arterial access and adjacent shopping and employment opportunities. High traffic volume impacts on local, lower density residential streets are discouraged. High-density residential designated areas may include ten or more dwelling units per acre. However, the density will depend on the orientation, landscaping, amenities provided, and open space preserved within the proposed development. Other uses permitted in this category may include all commercial categories and public/semi-public uses. Master Planned Community—This land use designation refers to areas where large multi-use developments should be planned and developed in a comprehensive manner. One area designated on the Land Use Map as Master Planned Community is the area that is primarily Arizona State land in the northern portion of the Planning Area. This is envisioned to be a large master planned community similar to Rancho Vistoso. However, the protection of major washes and sensitive environmental areas is expected, along with significant buffers for existing Rancho Vistoso residents. Density ranges will be determined at the time of rezoning by examining the development plan and development impact analysis. Neighborhood Commercial —This designation denotes commercial areas located at the intersections of arterial roadways or along Oracle Road with proximity to residential areas. Within these areas, uses, such as grocery stores and drugstores, tend to serve the surrounding neighborhoods and are integrated with those neighborhoods. (This designation, could include but is not limited to, uses allowed in the Town zoning category by the same name.) Community Commercial —This designation is for commercial areas at the intersections of principal arterials. Uses, such as variety stores and small department stores, at these areas tend to serve the surrounding community and they may not be compatible with residential uses, especially residential uses of a lower intensity. Typically, Community Commercial areas form the nucleus for more intense land uses such as those in a central business district. Regional Commercial —This designation is for areas located at the intersections of principal arterials where large scale commercial uses (such as major department stores) can be sited to serve regions of the metropolitan area. Regional Commercial sites are typically dispersed at least four miles apart. 4.1-8 Focus 2020: Oro Valley General Plan t ei 40, *1o,.-- �t S;., ': y W A"""°� f 444,4/00/1vOsoefit - " * tifilakr'1/4t,44140s , MIRAGE .HOMES April 13, 1998 APR 1 4 1996 Honorable Mayor and Town Council Town et Oro Valley Town of Oro Valley 11000 La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Dear Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members: Please accept this letter as my request for reconsideration to initiate a change in the PAD designation and a general plan amendment to allow the development of a resort condominium project to be located on Parcel H,Neighborhood Ten, Rancho Vistoso. The proposed project contains 111 condominium homes located on 18.8 gross acres. That density equates to 5.9 units per acre, which falls within the currently zoned medium density residential RAC of 3 to 6 units per acre. I respectfully request the Town Council to consider initiating the above request at its May 6th, 1998, meeting. The parcel is owned by Vistoso Partners, L.L.C., and is currently in escrow with Northstar Contractors, Inc./Mirage Homes for the development of the above resort condominium project. The project is being developed for Trendwest Resorts out of Bellview, Washington. The resort condominium development will then be conveyed to Worldmark The Club, which currently owns 22 resorts located along the west coast, Hawaii and Mexico. Trendwest Resorts offers resort credits or certificates that are used by individuals for various lengths of stay in any of the Worldmark resorts. 16927 East Saguaro Blvd., Fountain Hills,AZ 85268 (602) 837-8700 Fax: (602) 837-3043 Page -2- It is my understanding that if the Town Council initiates the above request, a public hearing on the above will be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 2nd, 1998, and by City Council on July 1 St, 1998. Additional information on Trendwest and Worldmark will be provided, and a representative of Trendwest will make a presentation, at future meetings. I appreciate your consideration of the above and am looking forward to developing another quality resort condominium project in the Town of Oro Valley. Sincerely, Gary artinson President VIST-MAYOR-4-13-98 J1-11 1 U l . U .L 1 OU 1 lJ 1( 1T1 1 It tUL 1 N1f1L O U._.V (7G 1 V G._ ft 1/ V 16927 B.SAGUARO BLVD.FOUNTAIN HILLS.AZ 85268 - (602)837.8700 Fax(602)837.3043 Fa)i MIRA.GE • HOMES TO: a e ; e. u Emmv G m a r n Fax: 0 y �► 1 0 Paeest (:::;• Phone: oats - J • 9 CC: ❑urgent C7 For Review 0 Please Comment ❑Please Reply 0 Please Recycle •Comments: QtJx JL1\1 D i . V 41 U V , 11..0.1U 1 1VI I U.JL I I TLL,J V L V 15 . 1 lJ L .,M 41 U • WatiAtliraiflf THE CLUB •• Oee (4 I 1 = t ,,►, . Dear WorldMark Owner, I , ' � . �' • ' - Congratulations and welcome to WorldMark,The Club.We are 4* ///' excited that you have joined our happy family of Vocation Owners and look forward to providingyou and your loved ones with ) memorable vacations for years to come. �� + Our goal is to make sure that your complete vacation experience is enjoyable.From the moment you leave your driveway on your way to + agreat WorldMark Resort,untilyou return home again,we are f g , dedicated to doing everything we can to make sure you have a wonderful and memorable experience. � following informationwill The fo low g w help you better understand your easy-to-use WorldMark vacation program.Reviewing this material will assure that you get the most out of your WorldMark Ownership_ The rest is up to our team of dedicated and enthusiastic managers and staff that you will meet along the way. .r. ►,; Whenever you have the opportunity,let us know how we are doing.Your comments and concerns will be token seriously.You can help us to continue to get even better_ Congratulations again and happy vacationing! (Ar William F.Peare President,WorldMark,The Club JL1 I I Li i . J c.1 VV • 1 v i V in a aI[avL. a ava u.J - vc.v r z. AU/L.'', vi v Wa, 4 THE CLUB . I C I \i ‘4(1- 4", Aii,„ (ai,,,„., ...:-- -,..:,N. LIIIIII‘ .,(, . ; By becoming a WorldMark,The Club Owner i ',/ ,: you hove: ,.- • •BEATEN VACATION INFLATION by determining that is it better I 1 L . .. to own your vocations rather than continuing to rent them. ..�•- • Diverted otherwise lost vacation dollars into a 1 �� PERMANENT USAGE RIGHT in the CONTINUALLY GROWING i WorldMork system of outstanding resorts. •GUARANTEED FUTURE VACATIONS,not only for yourself, "'I"4 .iw+; ;). but for your family os well. 'A, t '— • Become a partidpating Owner in a vacation dub that owns a major system of quality resorts. l; �: y I S. . like thousands of other people just like yourself,you have ?„,,•,.,, .Gii' looked into the future and had the courage and foresight to plan TODAY for a lifetime of great vacafions at outstanding locations. Even though you may have already forgotten some of the details of I e ; „ ,A IN iNs the vocation program you have just purchased,there is no need to be itconcerned!Simply jot down your questions and call your Developer i , Representative.He or she is there to answer your initial questions ' and help you through the first few weeks of your Ownership.We also 's -f . ! - provide owner education classes,o monthly newsletter,and a superb I service department. 1, .--• . _ ., 4 ..'`� Congratulations again!You are on your way to experiencing the vacations that you have deserved all your life.Now is the time to begin dreaming about your first WorldMark vacation! i JL111 U1• U 41 UV ' 1U•1aJ ' 1►11M.1UL IIVl►1LJ ' U .0 1 YG 1UL .'tr Y/ U Wap4 THE CLUB 411Ir 410. 4 i%/ • ef6(°,6* OiitI Quality Accommodations and Amenities... As a WorldMark Owner,you will stay in luxurious condominium accommodations many Owners refer to as their"home away from home!"Each unit is fully equipped with everything you will need for a relaxing vacation experience.All you need to do is pock your clothes and bring the groceries.Everything else you will need will be - - waiting for you when you arrive. Plus,each resort includes on amenity package that can include a pool,game area,sports courts, etc.,to help make your stay even - ' more enjoyable and fun_ Your Club is committed to keeping each resort looking and feeling "brand new"through its commitment to ongoing preventive maintenance and a multi-million dollar Reserve Account set aside to guarantee quality accommodations for years to come. With WorldMork,you'll be vacationing in accommodations you con be proud of. Confidence and Security... As a WorldMark Owner,you can vacation with confidence, 0, knowing that your WorldMork Vacation experience will continue next year and for years to come.That's because each and every WorldMark condominium is owned,DEBT FREE,by the Club,and is •. . "• dedicated, by recorded covenant,solely for the use and enjoyment of WorldMark Owners, Exchange and Owner guests. Service... As a WorldMark Owner, you will enjoy world-class service designed to meet all your vacation needs.From your first coil to book your WorldMark reservation,through check-in at your resort of choice _,-: ►A " ' to dealing with any issues that might prise along the way,every employee of the Club has your best interest in mind and will do everything they can to assure you a quality vocation experience. JLdNI DI • J—L1-0O , 10•4U , L111t UL. fW1L.3-' c7LU I4L IULL,g 7/ b 1 . WapArfir#(4 . THE CLUB 1 ( F Undliffrtalird(na g'''' (-11 ,� ,,, , /t y\'f', As a WorldMark Owner,instead of purchasing an individual ., r ' s ' vocation week at a particular resort,you have purchased a specific + �„ �` i 1,,,,,, `';`. r number of WorldMark Vacation Credits,giving you maximum '` vacation flexibility. A' f, ;�,; '� Your Club's Vacation Credit system works much like a traditional - , .'',‘ ,: ; , ,, `,' • .,z` savings account at your bank. ,; Il . 4 lt, l i' • When you become on Owner,the number of Vacation Credits you purchased are first deposited into your WorldMark account,ready for ( 45:4 your immediate use. r :: ' ' t. fi • When call to make�:�' , :� � � youyourreservation,these Vocation Credits N are automatically withdrawn depending on the location,size of ' ;'y. ,;; accommodations,season of the year,day of the week,and lengthof tf„,, ' ,.‘;' stay.Your enclosed Daily Vacation Value Sheet"tolls you all you need to know about how manycredits a articular vacation will r.. p Y`: . "cost"you.You con also: "sue ,, l ;r - i'• ' • SAVE your credits for up to two(2)years within the WorldMark .�' •' --g'�� ! . ►� system to extend your vacation time the following year. .'_:.., • BORROW from the upcoming year to extend your vacation in I the current year. Then,every year during your Anniversary Month,your J personal WorldMark Vacation Credit Account is again credited with the full number of credits you haveIF V �� purchased(unless you have borrowed from your next I k,„: year's account). , .� Your Vocation Credit"balance"is always just a phone • call away and can be found each month on the upper `'.-1\4,...., right-hand corner of your"Express"newsletter mailing label. ,e 02...i L LII• U-G1-OU / 1U•41i / MII'UtUL 1IV11'1LJ JGU (`fZ 1U1...:,f4- UI U 1 W4114C/41411 1 THE CLUB L• ° ,'-.� SLR r . . • . " : / 2.‘• ..._ :4.-44., r.., , .,-_,' :' '. : , '1;i- ".•:'. .....4.1K. ri Fat.,,fe .. _.- - ....-: . , .,:;.,„, ,.. „,,,,, • i _ ft!"-- WorldMark,The Club is a nonprofit corporation,developed and a,- - ..M. .- .`' managed by Trendwest Resorts, Inc.for the sole benefit of `"4`•= ";' �-` WorldMork Owners. ' !;S'' x . - � , 4. ��. • •.*' 1 WorldMark is an active member of the American Resort Development / ' 1. ' ; . • -.,. , - Association,ARDA,and local Better Business Bureaus-WorldMark is ,,, f also accountable to all state and countyregulatory agencies in which ' 9 rY 9 - �,k, . it is registered. , . ,.4'.: 4 , .F •'``i • . I Pink.......isikowEsT RESORTS INC ,e 1 Board of Director. 5 •Jerol Andres •Jeff Sites 1 •Doug Kintzinger •Rod Wendt •Paul Loberg •Richard Wendt .William Peore s Financial Relations * . •Bank of Americo , �;` �� •Wells Fargo Bank it •South Valley State Bank - -.. . , - J Legal Counsel t' _ - •Cairncross&Hempelmann - _ •Cox,Castle&Nicholson - '' '1 •Case,Myrdal, Bigelow&Lombardi 1 L'udi tor� - �'I 1 i ' •Molotore,Peugh&McDaniel - •�. - ORO VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: June 2, 1998 TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: Jim Copus,AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING—REQUEST TO AMEND THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA KNOWN AS RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 10, PARCEL H BACKGROUND: The subject parcel is approximately 18.8 acres in size, bordered on the north by Vistoso Highlands Drive Road, east by parcel N, west parcel G, and to the south by a parcel O. This area is commonly known as a portion of Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10. The current General Plan (see the attached map) is an approximation of the current PAD for the area. .Current PAD zoning is Medium Density Residential at 3-6 Du/ac. LANDOWNER'S REQUEST: As indicated in the attached letter, the landowner, Vistoso Partners, L.L.C., and their representative Northstar Contractors, Inc./Mirage Homes is requesting General Plan amendments to: 1. Change land use from Medium Density residential (MDR — 2.1-5.0 Du/ac) to Resort designation to allow 111 condominium homes at a density of 5.9 Du/ac within Neighborhood 10,Parcel H. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE: Staff has evaluated this proposal against the General Plan Land Use Plan Map and Policies and finds the following. Land Use Map The new proposal is comparable to the General Plan in terms of total numbers of units. It includes a slight increase in development as a result of the requested resort designation to allow 111 condominium units (approximately 21 dwelling units). At 5.9 Du/ac the proposed uses comply with the approved zoning and are at a slightly higher density than the uses designated by the General. Land Use Policies The proposal is in conformance with all policies that apply. In particular, it provides a potential for positive long-term fiscal impacts. Economic Development The proposal does not provide employment related to the Town's workforce, but does provide employment that is appropriate to maintain the Town's residential/resort/recreation character. Overall The plan meets the policies appropriate for this level of planning and does not preclude any future development plan from meeting the policies applicable to development plans. RECOMMENDATION: The basis of the proposal is to concentrate densities within a specified portion of the site by clustering development through the use of condominiums (resort designation). As noted above, this proposal meets the intent of the General Plan by reducing the overall level of development and by providing the potential for a project that has positive fiscal impacts to the Town. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward amendments to the General Plan to the Town Council recommending approval. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may wish to consider the following motions: I move to forward the proposed amendments to the General Plan to the Town Council recommending approval. -OR- I move to forward the proposed amendments to the General Plan to the Town Council recommending approval with the following stipulations: -OR- I move to forward the proposed amendments to the General Plan to the Town Council not recommending approval. Attachments: 1. Letter of Request. 2. Current General Plan Land Uses and Map. F:\OV\OV9\1998\PROJECTS\GP\AMDTS\RV1O_PZ.RPT 2 SPHERE OF (1 MILE) ' PINAL COUNTY '-+ -- -- -.3PLANNING AREA t • r ; rir',,d P'Ir ,140 k.s,,,ri wr.i, ti ,I{ n ;rj�P I, r- o f` ; �i '•olr rt r.m,.4{{Fl,o. la,,!.furl:r{{+ir`•, ij{ 'R r k`{ r ae,k,r'rl ,•,,,I r „ «{ f s. \: , a e ,f x ' '' . ' ��� OPEN •SPACE I'r..h ` ay4�n �� tr` r o , r0:t `�Itfi` �.... PRESERVE I ,,;P i �,` ' K. .} ` r NOTES ii+,dtititirtilM11-, 1.-i' li!'«ltl;r ;r"rn. , 01.r4 c , i.,iH 11 �� � � r',chic ! �;,i,'ItP- l•.A� g?' ,fi IE 44E 1VP.. d1 !.rur i 3 `- BACK UP DESIGNATIONS 'd .,.1.•a{ E~ 41, r,a`'ie i ' �: thi l' `'- c ...r5},C a 4! i .�,i'r. .' Vt" �.1. �; k �' h L The following land use designations are n-q GOVERNOR'S PRESERVE. s• INITIATIVE STUI)1'AREA , �t„y ram '_ ' p. recommended in the event that the use shown TOIL?OLlTA ,--rile:: r-1 �4 r g ; { may not be realized due to lack of funding or MOUNTAIN PARK ® z � �i� ,~, ,. other factors f�n,L�. 1 z t 01 Commerce Park �. �. ` > serf4 i ,' kh,c t r--- `;, ;€`_ Vhty,� f' '" f LDR 2.0 y.r..�- + s -�' f' ® P/OS or CommerciaV Elder Care I�,,-.-- ---.,._.� ,,.�� ,,trcI.� t . i :k,ilt'i1I ® P/OS orR-LDR -11 : Y.' 1 - • x t .}`� '4� 4 {,l'!:'!1 Y,'' 1 ® LDR 1.2 • _ /- r . r - :i © Commercial Q<< •' '♦ f-J +•�� TOWN :OUNDA: , -' • : • 0 �P,• I� ' �.. R LDR . I ' MDR A� CPS.. • 7 MDR SU L •eC � . R LOR ss 4�` ` • ® LDR 1.2 p t + ' e,le.1 • c ay, . �ar e l a`" - + LDR'`� CEly.? MDR • PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS ` •; �^, • _ The following Pre-Annexation Agreements have been 0.5 i, zr+ I: 73 in , • ,- rr entered into by the Town of Oro Valley. 4♦ �, '' MDR MQR •' o . ' r .•I �.' R-LDR I; MDR �' % �, , I OA PAD w/Commercial,MHDR,MDR&P/OS 3♦ ,' �!± ' ! �\ t '� I © PAD w/HDR&Commercial S, '� L�- NI, `lk�zi 2iiD• + ui:,,f I-__- I © PAD w/HDR I, 1.2 dr. .0.. NIDR `•, � . • CATALINA 0HDR •+ C STATE DE Commercial URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY I: IC los i S`<`Peas ,r, P • PARK 0 HDR MOORE ROAD �----/..-- ---- �;�__,. i! 'iI t'"�"r� 4 >"/ LA CHOLLA AIRPARK SPECIAL PLANNING AREA P/ ,,, ,k`�r • :' The Boundary for this planning area is the Conical LDR i R LDR _ 'OS rqr r 7 s, i r t 2 ' - 6] 0 , a s p�,:,. i Zone for airport traffic. rnb: ' :� , LDR ♦ 1 A nl i ' a 1` ' r MDR . R-LDR , r a lqr GI • j SPECIAL CONDITIONS '- 20 MDR, MDR ' • -r• � " '..,,. R LDR ! ,7 LDR:p -.,. 1.0, 'a•t s ri~,,,., I I , P/SP t .. r ♦'. ® Allowable uses limited to those in the TP Zoning District R-LDR t;2' R r`' � a �� �.\ ® Uses limited to chose in TP,TP Conditional, TANGERINE ROAD ■ . = ,' '•� and small scale retail r, LOR -.T"•" , ; ' , ; • ; c 52 DU/ac; <_8 DU/ac max; 33%open ace: minor resort R•LDR R LDR - '2 MDF LDR - -'MDR t- I,; �`� .'; O P P �_ + w/5150 rooms on 513 ac >� 2.0 LDR i t,Apc 4 ti + i;; i,• LD2.o _ 1.2 „{ _. ADR ; tr t:-; ADVISORY NOTICE R-LDR 0 yLDR D' MDR' DR 0 , - R- LDR LDR ` �•a. The land use designations on this map are policy recommendations only. R 1.2 R, LDR ' A 1 2 �.,,,. '! Designations may or may not represent actual zoning on properties. No NARANJA DRIVE LDR MDR MDR -- t 4 ,.,fir, decisions regarding land purchase or possible construction should be based _ •,'P i solely on these designations. For information about actual zoning �,• fvti MO- t PI - •> i; f entitlements,refer to the official Oro Valley Zoning Map,the Oro Valley Di ! Zoning Code Revised,and related information. R LDR r i MDR SSp LDR 1.2 , • d�irl�� ./' LDR ' D LDR MDR • 6 /O to ;u=`' 0.5 r oR . MDR 1.2 MHD��.' '- 'c 'kw.. LDR II LDR r / M• II - 1.2 P/SP � ,+ LDR,. i� '•'; 1.2 � R- Pam:.. M+R ;Di",� p 12 �.CP'LDRa , MDR roe-' •- , �. R-LDR II LAMBERT LANE LDR 2.0 ,z; "� ,: `�'r1 . �wll R LDR a', LDR LDR 2.0 z..` © p1L' �.� 1 2 '" s R- LDR DR --�1.2 , MDR ','2 �r I. G:. •■• � LDR, k u'''LDR LDR 1.2 R- ��LDR btti t LDR4i .� Df} Pros R• 1. �I1 MDR ® _ �LDR� •R LDR1oFi\2 i CDR) LDRc-��1.2 12 n PIS-�' AI t �V-n MDR i I lI I ( .,.'-'.....--if'. -- I_'=� iGr1t b�L^vn 1I(R i; I P4`� ''N/.> LDR R-LDR'' �0 \0 D1. lla ,. LINDAVISTA'BLVD DR Ll'': 1.2 ;� R-LDR�F•�'l!"," LDR MDR u ! O LDR 0.5 LD r RR �, w3 .- o.s= R LDR RORl •�e l �� OVERTON ROAD ,MDR I. MOP:`.I ;`i't=ros LDR LDR Q °,__ ,` 4t41/4-G),-, C�,�-'ti MDR" '' MDR it 1.2 1.2 l x MDR , • /' ' LDR ;"/ P�sP LDR o,M< ' CORONADO AWIIIVIIP��� _ Ak 1.2 1�2 `r' R-LDR MDR 1.2 1.2 NATIONAL .�_'- -MDR • MDR f HARDY IWAD--- MDR T + FOREST '.t_`MHDR � it I '� ���ii ‘MHDR �. ' F �D, MDR IR•LD rM p� �./ ', ;2.0 ■ara,a' LDR 1 FUNDED 19 ,' MDR ``;'; MDR LDR ,LDR , 1 •T .,' . 1.2 MHDR 1.2 VAN 1.2 I MDR R ERAtirD -q� �r trA 1D2 HDR t►S$ _M_- -' r p /•'11 MHDR MHDR-y 441'i if iF : ■- ,p HDn/ MDR MDR j W•3 � {, MAC EE ' + 1. z L MDR .... MDR lip LDR 4.11k 1 D u W. -MHDR LOP "' t R LDR R-LDR 0 �JO. 1 2 t LDR SECONDARY PLANNING AREA ® MDRligL o ; 1.2 ��t1� LDR Mi Z,� ,;.,. •r r fi i�n, Ik k 1.2 1 '� L 'r' rMD LOR • LDR + INA ROAD " �p�1� } t.2 C LD r^ t �,11� 1 - r 4 ' P/SP-U LDR `f' Q : SPHERE OF f ram® ,f LDR �� LDR 12 LDR HDR 1'2 INFLUENCE �i, LDR 7• z 1.2 1.2 1� 2F , y O ' ►• LDR 1.2 z I CC I 1.. �_J , i`' 1.2 HDR 1 1i° ; MDR i ''O'9/ . • "e `r-, ORANGE GROVE ROAD ( FiTR +:u , HDR Si lr P • J I o ..PLANNING REA ti, _.•�� �,,{,;.'lr ¢ cc • I O m o . a SG w Z t 2 Q 1 Z J 0 J J T I � cc a: , U } Z O z Q I z V I O (73 Z = U << cc + Q >- I z cc = rn J n I ORI can + N t •TOWN of ORO VALLEY GENER AL P L AN LAND USE R-LDR RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - h' MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITIES Pros (0-0.3 DU/ac) PARKS/OPEN SPACE LD R LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ' SCHOOLS (0.4-0.5 DU/ac) III REGIONAL COMMERCIAL " . LDR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IIIII COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ""''�~ I TRANSMISSION LINE 1.2 (0.6-1.2 DU/ac) LDR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 11111 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ; TOWN BOUNDARY ,2.o (1.3-2.0DU/ac) (21DI 5.0 DU/CITY RESIDENTIAL) y:� OFFICE E. RESORT NORTH smiMilli jj? MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ': (5.1-10.0 DU/ac) rW-i�r; COMMERCE PARK 0 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 SCALE IN MILES III HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ! tsP PUBLIC/SEMI PUBLIC (10+DU/ac) ,,I,�r,,,.., 95084L 8.23.96 AFFIDAVIT nF PUBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA) :ss. COUNTY OF PIMA I LORETTA OLGU IN being first NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING dulysworn, deposes and says that (he) (she) is the Legal AdvertisingManager BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY p Y 9 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Ini accordance with Chapter 4, of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a dailynewspaper and published in the Title 9,Arizona Revised Statutes, printed NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Planning and Zon- ing Commission will hold a public hearing on TUESDAY, June 2, County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tucson, 1998, COMMENCING AT OR AFTER 6:00 P.M. The subject of the public hearings will be prop- osed amendments to the Oro County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached Valley General Plan.The amend- ments to the General Plan,if ap- RANCHO V I ST030 y proved,would change the desig- nation of Rancho Vistoso, Neigh- NE:I GHI3ORHOOD 10 borhood 10, Parcel II from Medium Density residential(MDR P UBL.I C: NOT I C E - 2.1-5.0 Du/ac) to Resort desig- nation to allow timeshare units at a density of 10.0 Du/ac.The sub- ject parcel is approximately 14 acres in size, bordered on the north by Moore Road, east by parcel N west parcel G, and to the south by a parcel O. A hearing will be held at the Oro wasprinted andpublished correctlyin the regular and entire issue of said THE Valley Town hall, 11,000 N. La 9 Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Ar- izona. Members of the public and will ,be be to attend this meeting and will DAILY TERRITORIAL for issues; that the first was made given an opportunity to speak.An agenda for this meeting will be made available at least 24 hours prior to meeting time. on the day of 1 9 Bryant Nodine Bryant Nodine, .1.t h AICP Planning and Zoning Admi- nistrator and the lastpublication thereof was made on the dayof Pub: The Daily Territorial May 18, 1998 Req: Town of Oro Valley pnrancho 5/18/98 ss MAY 19 ;that said publication was made on each of the following dates,to-wit: OF/18/98 Request of TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Dail Territorial By r-- ,-- Attl-- (9- -Pt. t Subscribed and sworn to before me this ., _ „ day of y '...' r..._. 6 FICIi�L SSAL_rv` 19 ., STACEY STINSON Notary Public e , t PimaCounty,Arizona ..1 \,:'";c' �`y My Commission mission Expires f * I,, F„,3ria6.ty 6,2001 L. \JL.�(r� xrsrmmxw.ye Notary Public in and for the County of Pima, State of Arizona My Commission Expires: .G._.i(Q I D NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION In accordance with Chapter 4, Title 9,Arizona Revised Statutes, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on TUESDAY, June 2, 1998, COMMENCING AT OR AFTER 6:00 P.M. The subject of the public hearings will be proposed amendments to the Oro Valley General PlanThe amendments to the General Plan, if approved, would change the designation of Rancho Vistoso,Neighborhood 10, Parcel H from Medium Density residential (MDR—2.1-5.0 Du/ac) to Resort designation to allow timeshare units at a density of 10.0 Du/ac. The subject parcel is approximately 14 acres in size, bordered on the north by Moore Road, east by parcel N, west parcel G, and to the south by a parcel O. The hearing will be held at the Oro Valley Town Hall, 11,000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona. Members of the public are invited to attend this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. An agend..for this meeting will be made available at least 24 hours prior to meeting time. (10/ REQ: B ant Nodine,AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator Posted: Date : SIN111 Time : w TOWN OF ORO VALLEY • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: July 15, 1998 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Jim Copus,AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO.(0)98-25 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA KNOWN AS RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 10, PARCEL H BACKGROUND: The subject parcel is approximately 18.8 acres in size, bordered on the north by Vistoso Highlands Drive Road, east by parcel N, west parcel G, and to the south by parcel O. This area is commonly known as a portion of Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10. The current General Plan (see the attached map) is an approximation of the current PAD for the area. Current PAD zoning is Medium Density Residential at 3-6 Du/ac. . LAND OWNER'S REQUEST: _ As indicated in the attached letter, the landowner, Vistoso Partners, L.L.C., and their representative Northstar ----'' Contractors, Inc./Mirage Homes is requesting General Plan amendments to change land use from Medium Density residential (MDR—2.1-5.0 Du/ac) to Resort designation to allow 111 resort condominium units at a density of 5.9 Du/ac within Neighborhood 10,Parcel H. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE: Staff has evaluated this proposal against the General Plan Land Use Plan Map and Policies and finds the following. Land Use Map The new proposal is comparable to the General Plan in terms of total numbers of units. It includes a slight increase in development of approximately 17 dwelling units. Thus, at 5.9 Du/ac, the proposed uses comply with the approved zoning and are at a slightly higher density than the uses designated by the General Plan. Land Use • The proposal encourages the location of residential neighborhoods close to activity centers (The Golf Club at Vistoso)to minimize travel times. Additionally, it locates higher density land uses and transportation- dependent uses near major transportation corridors. Economic Development The proposal does not provide employment related to the Town's workforce, but does provide employment that is appropriate to maintain the Town's residential/resort/recreation character. The Town is not expected to receive any direct room-rental revenues from the property unless the management company enters into TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 3 an agreement to voluntarily provide them. However, the applicant indicates that their typical guest spends S137 per day for an expected annual benefit to the Town of$4 million. Overall In accordance with the General Plan, the granting of a general plan amendment will be based on the following findings of fact: • 1. That the amendment constitutes an overall improvement to the general plan and is not solely for the benefit of a particular land owner or owners at a particular point in time. Staff finds that the proposed request does constitute an overall improvement to the general plan in that it: 1) would support the business base of the Town; 2) the in-lieu bed tax that the resort is willing to provide is positive to the community; and 3) the integration of natural open space within the clustered development should promote openness within the housing development, as well as encouraging the preservation of significant, passive use, natural open space within the neighborhood. 2. That the amendment is consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the general plan. The plan meets the policies appropriate for this level of planning and does not preclude any future development plan from meeting the policies applicable to development plans. 3. That the general plan land use map does not provide appropriate optional sites for the use proposed in the amendment. • Other areas within Rancho Vistoso,.such as Parcel AL in Neighborhood 11 to the northwest or Parcel J a commercial parcel on Ranch Vistoso, provide the requested land use and densities for this project. 4. That the amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole or a portion of the community without an acceptable means of mitigating these impacts through the subsequent zoning and development processes. There is a potential that adjacent parcels could be affected through the different type of housing product—clustered, attached units versus detached, single-family units—and the different use—a resort complex in a designated residential area. Staff believes that at least some of the latter concern could be addressed by providing appropriate buffers during the development process. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 5, 1998, moved, seconded (Wiant/Partridge) and carried by a 6-0 vote to recommend denial of the request to amend the Town of Oro Valley General Plan for the area known as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel H: Along with the concern for maintenance (addressed as a condition in the PAD amendment that follows),the Commission was TOWN OF ORO VALLEY • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 3 most concerned about difference between the proposed use and the surrounding residential areas. RECOMMENDATION: This proposal does meet the majority of the findings of fact to grant a general plan amendment. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the request to amend Oro Valley General Plan for the area known as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel H. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to adopt the proposed amendments to the Oro Valley General Plan for the area known as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel H. -OR- I move to adopt the proposed amendments to the Oro Valley General Plan for the area known as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel H with the following stipulations: -OR- I move to deny the proposed amendments to the Oro Valley General Plan for the area known as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel H. ATTACIEVIENTS: 1. Ordinance No.(0)98-25 2. Letter of Request. 3. Current General Plan Land Uses and Map. 4. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes dated 5/5/98. F:PROJECTS\GP\AMDTS\Rv 10TC.RPT 41 4A -L . . ' g an oning As IS *stator • i 11 , / , '_ _,__!0. Community Do- o ment Dir ctor (%IILL Town M. ager ORDINANCE NO. (0)98-25 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THAT DOCUMENT KNOWN AS "FOCUS 2020: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN, JULY 1996"; FIXING THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF; AND REPEALING ANY OTHER ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley adopted a document known as the "Focus 2020: Town Of Oro Valley General Plan, July 1996"; and WHEREAS, it has become necessary to revise, amend and update this document due to a request for an alternate land use for that parcel known as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel H; said property being 18..8 acres in size, bordered on the north by Vistoso Highlands Drive, east by parcel N, west parcel G, and to the south by parcel 0; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, having considered an amendment to the Land Use Map of the Town of Oro Valley General Plan relative to the appropriate land use designation for that property known as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel H; and having held a public hearing on said map amendment; and having made its recommendations to the Town Council that the land use designation be changed from Medium Density Residential to Resort, as shown in Exhibits A and B; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: SECTION 1. The Council hereby adopts a revised Land Use Map as a part of that certain document known as " Focus 2020: Town of Oro Valley General Plan, July 1996". Said map revision shall reflect a land use designation on that parcel known as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel H, as described in Exhibits A and B. Three copies of the revised Land Use Map of said document are on file in the office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona. SECTION 2. The.effective date of the revised Land Use Map shall be thirty days after the adoption of this ordinance by the Town Council. • SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of the ordinance or any part of the Land Use Map amendment adopted herein is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. SECTION 4. That all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be repealed to the extent of such conflict. PASSED AND ADOPTEE he Mayor and Council of the Town - -to Valley, Arizona this 15th day of July , 1998. Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Tobin Sidles, Town Attorney • • • • • • PLQ c-1 )t)sc. • ORDINANCE NO. (0)98-25 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THAT DOCUMENT KNOWN AS "FOCUS 2020: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN, JULY 1996"; FIXING THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF; AND REPEALING ANY OTHER ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley adopted a document known as the "Focus 2020: Town Of Oro Valley General Plan, July 1996"; and WHEREAS, it has become necessary to revise, amend and update this document due to a request for an alternate land use for that parcel known as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel H; said property being 18..8 acres in size, bordered on the north by Vistoso Highlands Drive, east by parcel N, west parcel G, and to the south by parcel 0; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, having considered an amendment to the Land Use Map of the Town of Oro Valley General Plan relative to the appropriate land use designation for that property known as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel H; and having held a public hearing on said map amendment; and having made its recommendations to the Town Council that the land use designation be changed from Medium Density Residential to Resort, as shown in Exhibits A and B; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: SECTION 1. The Council hereby adopts a revised Land Use Map as a part of that certain document known as " Focus 2020: Town of Oro Valley General Plan, July 1996". Said map revision shall reflect a land use designation on that parcel known as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel H, as described in Exhibits A and B. Three copies of the revised Land Use Map of said document are on file in the office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona. SECTION 2. The.effective date of the revised Land Use Map shall be thirty days after the adoption of this ordinance by the Town Council. • SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of the ordinance or any part of the Land Use Map amendment adopted herein is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. SECTION 4. That all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be repealed to the extent of such conflict. Ord. 98-25 p.2 PASSED AND ADOPTED he Mayor and Council of the Town )ro Valley, Arizona this 5th day of August , 1998. Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: . ._. _ ...= ,._ , .. d‘Led_cif„: Kathryn velier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO F Tom . Sidles, Town Attorney PUBLISH: Daily Territorial Aug. 13, 14, 17, 18, 1998 POSTED: Aug. 11-Sept. 10, 1998 rg Ord. 98-25 Exhibit A Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10 Parcel H \__._\'- - , - , .-:-.-. - ---,7--,/ / . / /'. . • \ -\ \\./ . i , 4(i . 1 (0,:„...AT\----,.....: ,46eir „ )_111-,:‘ 17 . 'iii.;:..,,ii.:1, ! earl • p ¢x O : \� 1 - l �,L \____‘, ,o �.L(---1 Co / / , ,,c \)_____ N . W --'- E 7 iikk, - "oad -----\• , / N ).---- 1 S -- -- --- Oro Valle GIS Services 0 9000 18000 27000 Feet July 8, 1998 • Ord. 98-25 • EXHIBIT B RANCtiu VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 10 LRCELH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT General Change current Medium-Density Residential designation to Resort designation. • • • • • • F:PROJECTS\GP\AMDTS\RV 1 OHORD.TC 05/06/98 Minutes, Council Regular Session 22 Mayor Johnson - yes Council Member Kautenburger - yes (16 Council Member Butrico - yes Motion carried, 5 - 0. 17. APPEAL FOR RECONSIDERATION TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA KNOWN AS RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 10, PARCEL H Community Development Director Don Chatfield stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on April 7, 1998, regarding a request to amend the General Plan for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel H. The Commission voted to deny the initiation of the amendment. He explained that the Zoning Code provides for an appeal by the applicant to Council; therefore, the applicant and consultant have requested that Council reconsider the request to initiate the change to the General Plan. Mr. Chatfield explained that the parcel is 14 acres in size. The landowner is requesting a change from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Resort designation to allow a resort to be built on the parcel. He stated that if the Mayor and Council elect to initiate the proposed amendments, staff will evaluate the amendments and prepare necessary background materials. He explained that one issue that raised concerns for the Commission was that the consultant represented that these would be timeshare units, but the applicant has since clarified that it is a full resort. Gary Martinson, 3531 E. Hermosa Vista Drive, Mesa, developer and owner of Mirage Homes, referenced an aerial site map and topography map. He stated that his company would be the designers and builders of the project and Trend West World Mark the Club will be the owners of the development. He explained that the resort area would be developed with five different model types that range from studios to three bedrooms units. The project will provide ample open space and many amenities. Dick Maes, Vistoso Partners, stated that the Partners have reviewed the project and are 100% behind it. He stated that it would fit in with the area and is a good use for the property. In answer to a concern from Council Member Butrico, Mr. Maes stated that he has good experiences with timeshare units, and good management and maintenance will maintain the quality of the property. • MOTION: Council Member Skalsky MOVED to initiate an amendment to the Oro Valley General Plan, and direct staff to set the public hearing for the June 2, 1998 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Vice Mayor Parisi SECONDED the motion. 05/06/98 Minutes, Council Regular Session 23 ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Skalsky - yes Vice Mayor Parisi - yes Mayor Johnson yes p), Council Member Kautenburger - yes vi Council Member Butrico - yes Motion carried, 5 - 0. 18. LINDA VISTA ROAD/ORACLE ROAD SIGNAL INSTALLATION Town Engineer David Hook stated that the Town in conjunction with Amphitheater School District and the Arizona Department of Transportation are ready to move forward with a traffic signal at the intersection of Linda Vista Road and Oracle Road. He stated that staff recommends award of the design contract to Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas. MOTION: Council Member Skalsky MOVED to enter into the contract with Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. for preparation of construction drawings for the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Linda Vista Road and Oracle Road. Vice Mayor Parisi SECONDED the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Skalsky - yes Vice Mayor Parisi - yes Mayor Johnson - yes Council Member Kautenburger - yes Council Member Butrico - yes Motion carried, 5 - 0. 19. MENDIBLES VS. ORO VALLEY LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL Town Attorney Tobin Sidles explained that Council was briefed during Executive Session on the Medibles case which was an accident involving a Town vehicle. He stated that the Town is covered by its insurance company. MOTION: Vice Mayor Parisi MOVED to deny the settlement agreement. Council Member Skalsky SECONDED the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Skalsky - yes 118e. ODERN REAL ESTATE PRACTICE MMO Ckl shareholders, generally in the form of monthly fees similar to - e charged , .. a homeowners' association in a condominium. • g Unlik- a condominium association, wh ich has the thority to impose k a lien o the title owned by someone who def 'Its on maintenance �� pa yments,, .- burden of any defaulted paymen a cooperative falls on the remaining areholders. Each shareholde,''s affected by the financial .. sk, ability of the o ` . s. For this reason, appr- 'al of prospective tenants by the board of dire >1rs frequently invo '-s financial evaluation. If the corporation is unable o make mort:, :e and tax payments because of shareholder defaults, th.: .roperty ight be sold by court order in a foreclosure suit. This wou , des •y the interests of all shareh 1kolders, including those who have pai : eir assessments. • �,�1 Advantages. Cooperative • ershi despite its risks, has become more ' `�j desirable in recent years . several re -ens. Lending institutions view the V , y shares of stock as acc- .table collateral . financing. The availability of � financing expands the ransferability of share- •eyond wealthy cash buyers. , A \� As a tenant-owner 'ather than a tenant who . s rent to a landlord, the shareholder has .ome control over the property. enants in cooperatives - * also enjoy ce;''n income tax advantages from th IN.ayment of property taxes. Final;•, owners enjoy freedom from maintenan A , In Practice e laws in some states may prohibit real estate licensees from listin. ,,r selling *operative interests because the owners own only personal property. Ina , who participate in these transactions may need a securities license appropriate als the type of cooperative interest involved. Time-Share Time sharing permits multiple purchasers to buy interests in real estate, Ownership usually a resort property. Each purchaser receives the right to use the facilities for a certain period of time. A time-share estate includes a real property interest in condominium ownership; a time-share use is a contract right under which the developer owns the real estate. A time-share estate.is a fee simple interest. The owner's occupancy and use of the property are limited to the contractual period purchased—for instance, the 17th complete week, Sunday through Saturday, of each calendar year. The owner is assessed for maintenance and common area expenses based on the ratio of the ownership period to the total number of ownership periods in the property.Time-share estates theoretically never end because they are real property interests. However, the physical life of the improvements is limited and must be looked at carefully when considering such a purchase. rOR EXAMPLE Glengarry Estates offers 50 one-week time-shares in its six exclusive seaside residences. This totals 300 possible time-share estates. The maintenance and common area expenses are$52,500 per year. If all the time-shares are taken by owners who buy only a single share, each owner must pay $175. If one owner buys a three- week share, he or she must pay $525. Finally, if Glengarry's developers manage to sell only six shares, those unfortunate owners might have to pay $8,750 each year to maintain their one-week vacation, homes. (In practice, however, developers usually absorb the additional costs in such circumstances.) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA) :ss. COUNTY OF PIMA 1 LORETTA O •..GU I N being first NOTICE OF duly sworn, deposes and says that (he) (she) is the Legal Advertising Manager PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL In accordance with Chapter 4, of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the Title 9,Arizona Revised Statutes, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Town Council will hold a public hearing on WED- County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tucson, NESDAY, July 15, 1998, COM- MENCING AT OR AFTER 7:00 P.M. The subject of the public hearings will be proposed amendments to the Oro Valley County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached General Plan. Tne amendments to the General Plan, if approved, GENERAL PLAN would change the designation of Rancho Vistoso, Neighborhood F'(ANC.HU V I S'TO,S".ef:..i 10, Parcel II from Medium Den- F'LlE.L I>W. 1,1i iT.I C:EY sity residential (MDR - 2.1-5.0 Du/ac) to Resort designation to allow timeshare units at a density of 10.0 Du/ac.The subject parcel is approximately 14 acres in size, bordered on the north by Vistoso Highlands Drive, east by parcel N, west parcel G, and to the south by parcel O. The hearing will be held at the was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE Oro Valley Town Hall, 11,000 N. La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,Ar- izona. Members of the public are invited DAILY TERRITORIAL for issues; that the first was made to attend this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak.An 1. agenda for this meeting will be made available at least 24 hours on the day of 19 prior to meeting time.Bryant No- dine Bryant Nadine, AICP Plan- U(•..-Y 9'a;_ ring and Zoning Administrator Pub: The Daily Territorial and the last publication thereof was made on the <- day of July 1, 1998 Reg: Town of Oro Valley pngenera 7/1/98 tie 19 ;that said publication was made on each of the following dates,to-wit: 0 rf01/98 { ,. 1 . , A Request of TOWN OF ORO VAL.I_..EY Daily Territorial , , / , _, By 7.7 ? /4 77-( k 0 Subscribed and sworn to before me this . day of JULY Y 19 i. �.., OirFICIAL SmAL '� STACEY STINSON r+,7,) Notary Public Pima County,Arizona ,,,,,,,,,S,.....\,a‘.. v 9, iN�", .-t..pf3if�R.0 fsi)l�Y e�F t `. SLQJx . m Notary Public in and for the County of Pima,State of Arizona w My Commission Expires: , .. 1 LC ! 0 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL In accordance with Chapter 4, Title 9,Arizona Revised Statutes, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Town Council will hold a public hearing on WEDNESDAY, July 15, 1998, COMMENCING AT OR AFTER 7:00 P.M. The subject of the public hearings will be proposed amendments to the Oro Valley General Plan. The amendments to the General Plan, if approved, would change the designation of Rancho Vistoso, Neighborhood 10, Parcel H from Medium Density residential (MDR— 2.1-5.0 Du/ac) to Resort designation to allow timeshare units at a density of 10.0 Du/ac. The subject parcel is approximately 14 acres in size, bordered on the north by Vistoso Highlands Drive, east by parcel N, west parcel G, and to the south by a parcel O. The hearing will be held at the Oro Valley Town Hall, 11,000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona. Members of the public are invited to attend this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. An age',i a for this meeting will be made available at least 24 hours prior to meeting time. beLpi 40 . REQ: ryant Nodine,AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator �— �+• r 1(.� tit) , Ili•YU • 1y1 I MAUL. 11V1i1LJ JZ U 14Z 1 U Z•4 2/ I I y"a li IIRL ;r,,iohilt"�� i " k "{t�v, +Y"*:; "<",��. , � 4 & q �. , "n .,R9y � e Is' k M1,>i. ,.�ti rM IUI ' u July 13, 1998 VIA FACSIMILE (F: 520-742-1022) Ms. Kathy Cuvelier Town Clerk Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 ICI: II Re: Trendwest Resort at Rancho Vistoso General Plan Amendment and PAD Amendment s!. Ordinance Nos. 98-25 and 98-26 !� ,d'b Dear Ms. Cuvelier: II, ; As you know, the above-referenced agenda items are scheduled to be heard at the July 15 regular session of the Oro Valley Town Council. On behalf of Northstar Contractors, Inc., we respectfully request a continuance of the above-referenced agenda items until the next meeting on August 5. This will enable us to better prepare a response to questions that have been asked about the marketing plan for the project. If you have any question, please don't hesitate to contact me. `+ Sin rely, S Ciatu Vice President Copy to: Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator Valerie Feuer, Senior Planner Bob Klein, Trendwest Resorts John Beerling, Vistoso Partners, L.L.C. 16927 East Saguaro Iloulevard • Fountain fills,Arizona 85268 Office(602)837-8700 • Fax(602)837-30=i3 www.miragel onnes.com MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION JULY 15, 1998 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION—AT OR AFTER 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PRESENT - EXECUTIVE SESSION — AT OR AFTER 6:00 P.M. -EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS CANCELLED Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3) for consultation with the attorney for the Town for legal advice regarding Oro Valley Retail Center Comprehensive Sign Package (Rooney Ranch Planned Area Development) RESUME REGULAR SESSION—AT OR AFTER 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT— Paul Loomis, Mayor Dick Johnson, Council Member Cheryl Skalsky, Council Member Francis LaSala, Council Member EXCUSED: Paul Parisi, Vice Mayor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Loomis led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Town Manager Chuck Sweet announced the meetings for the upcoming week. He also reported that there would be a dedication ceremony for the new Bike/Bus Shelter located on Oracle Road and First Avenue on Monday, July 20th, at 9:00 a.m. CALL TO AUDIENCE No speakers. 07/15/98 tes,Town Council Regular Session 2 1. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A— L, as presented. Council Member Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4—O. A. Minutes—June 15, 16, 17, 18, 22 & July 1, 6, 1998 B. Finance Report—May 1998 C. Resolution No. ®98-41 Renewal of Intergovernmental Agreement with Pima County Animal Control D. Resolution No. ®98-42 Entering in an Agreement with Lueck & Associates for development of a Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for Oro Valley E. Resolution No. ®98-43 Approval of adjustment to contract for Frank Cassidy for Outside Legal Services F. Resolution No. ®98-44 Approval of Contract with Tucson/Pima Arts Council for administration of the Oro Valley Summer Youth Arts Project G. Resolution No. ®98-45 Authorizing and approving a Line Extension Agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and Robert W. Lewis providing for Water Service by the Town of Oro Valley to Sunridge II, Lots 1-65 H. Resolution No. ®98-46 Authorizing and approving a Line Extension agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and Fazio By Design providing for Water Service by the Town of Oro Valley to Shadows of the Ridge, Lots 1-23 I. Resolution No. ®98-47 Authorizing and approving a Line Extension Agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and Canada Hills Land Development LLC providing for Water Service by the Town of Oro Valley to Canada Hills Estates III-A, Lots 48-54 and 79-89 J. Resolution No. ®98-48 Authorizing the acceptance and grant award in the amount of $20,000 from the Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund (CJEF) DPS Contract No. 98- 814 for funding of officer overtime K. OV13-98-58 Approval of Catalina Shadows Revised Landscape Plan L. Approval of License Agreement with La Reserve Community Association for the installation and maintenance of landscaping in the public right-of-way of La Reserve Drive 2. APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT OF CITIZENS TO THE PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD EFFECTIVE JULY 15, 1998 TO MAY 31,2000 Planning and Zoning Director Bryant Nodine reported that interviews were held on July 7, 1998. Members of the interview panel were Council Member LaSala, Community Development Director Don Chatfield and Parks and Recreation Chair Karen Baker. He stated that the interview panel has recommended that Gary Chandler be reappointed to serve on the Parks Board and that Diane Milton and John Russell be appointed to serve with terms effective July 15 through May 31, 2000. Mr. Nodine further explained that there would still be one vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. 07/15/98 M tes,Town Council Regular Session 3 Council Member Skalsky stated that she would like to see the Town advertise for volunteer positions. She also stated that volunteers should be required to attend the Citizens Planning Institute as offered by the Town's Planning and Zoning Department. MOTION: Council Member Skalsky MOVED to reappoint Mr. Gary Chandler and to appoint Ms. Diane Milton and Mr. John Russell to the Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. These appointments shall be effective July 15, 1998 and shall run through May 31, 2000 and are contingent upon attendance at the Citizens Planning Institute at the first available time slot. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried,4—0. 3. APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT OF CITIZENS TO THE WATER UTILITY COMMISSION EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 1998 TO JULY 31,2000 Town Manager Chuck Sweet stated that the Water Utility Commission (WUC) has three terms that require either reappointments or new appointments. He explained that only two interviews have been completed with two others scheduled. Mr. Sweet recommended that Council continue consideration of the WUC appointments until the August 5th Council meeting. MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to CONTINUE the appointments of the Water Utility Commission until the August 5, 1998 Council meeting. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried,4—0. 4. ORO VALLEY RETAIL CENTER COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PACKAGE (ROONEY RANCH PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT)(CONTINUED FROM JUNE 3, 1998) Planning and Zoning Director Bryant Nodine reported that several Study and Review Sessions have been held to discuss the Sign Package for the Oro Valley Retail Center. The main topics of discussion were; 1) Size, 2)Color for the in-line stores, 3) Request for revised guidelines for the pad stores to address the Wells Fargo Bank Signage and 4) Monument Signs. He stated that the Barclay Group, applicant for the majority of the development,requested a continuance to the August 5, 1998 Council meeting but Wells Fargo Bank requested that Council consider their proposal. Mr. Nodine stated that staff recommends that Council consider all the pads at one time. This would help create a consistent product. Council Member Skalsky stated that Vice Mayor Parisi had worked on signage for the Town but is absent from the meeting. She felt it would be in the best interest of the Town to have the full Council consider the sign package. Council Member Johnson stated that he supported the continuance of the other aspects of the Barclay Group's submission, but he felt that Wells Fargo Bank's proposal should be considered on it's own merits. MOTION: Council Member Skalsky MOVED to consider the Wells Fargo Bank Sign proposal but to CONTINUE consideration of the remainder of the Sign Package to the August 5, 1998 Council meeting. Council Member Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4—O. 07/15/98 1Vi..1utes, Town Council Regular Session 4 Mr.Nodine presented an overview of Wells Fargo Banks sign package request verses staffs and the Development Review Board's(DRB)recommendations. He stated that Wells Fargo is proposing signage to be 1 square foot per building façade on two sides. Wells Fargo is requesting that on Oracle Road the logo would be non-illuminated with copper patina text and on the south side the logo and text would be internally illuminated with copper patina text. He stated that staff and DRB also addressed maximum character height and recommend that the height be 36 inches for single line and 24 inches for two lines. Mr. Nodine stated that Wells Fargo and staff and DRB agree on the illumination being halo- illuminated text with internally illuminated logos. However, Wells Fargo has requested a 31 square foot logo size and staff recommends 20 square feet not to exceed the maximum character height. Mr.Nodine stated that Wells Fargo is requesting a maximum height of 1.5 feet(15 square feet total) for their ATM machines which would essentially be all logo. He stated that DRB did not address the ATM proposal, but staff recommends approval as it is an approved use for the PAD. He also stated that staff recommends that the ATM logos be non-illuminated. Mr. Nodine explained that the Directional Signs size were not addressed by Wells Fargo but DRB and staff recommend a maximum height of 3 feet for a total of 4 square feet with up to a 1 square foot logo. DRB and staff recommended that the Directional Signs be halo-illuminated or internal illuminated with only the characters emitting light. Staff recommends that the directional sign construction be pan channel,cabinet or ground mounted depending on the use or location. David Jones, One Arizona Center, Phoenix, Arizona, representing Wells Fargo Bank, stated that he was representing the Wells Fargo PAD and not any of the other locations within the Retail Center. He clarified that Wells Fargo is requesting to fully illuminate the sign on the south side of the building, but he was under the belief that staff did not support the illumination. Mr. Jones stated that Wells Fargo has made a number of concessions to comply with the community's wishes. He stated that they would use the copper patina lettering on both sides of the building. He explained that they are proposing no illumination of the Oracle Road cabinet logo sign but full illumination of the logo sign on the south side of the building. Mr. Jones presented Council pictures depicting the proposed signage. He further explained that DRB has recommended 20 square feet for the signs, but Wells Fargo is limited to 16 foot or 31 square foot molded signs. They do not have a 20 square foot molded sign. He stated that the 16 square foot sign would not allow for sufficient visibility from the roadway. Mr. Jones explained that they felt the 31 square foot sign was appropriate for the area. He stated that they are proposing a 20%reduction in overall sign area and are not using up all their sign area allowed by the Zoning Code. Mr. Jones stated that the small directional signs do not require a permit, but the Code states that there could not be advertising included on the directional signs. He stated that their directional signs include a small block with the Wells Fargo logo on them. Wells Fargo did not consider them as advertising, but felt the appropriate course of action would be to include the directional signs in the complete sign package for Council's consideration. 07/15/98 Nlill{ites,Town Council Regular Session 5 Mr. Jones stated that the Wells Fargo sign package as proposed is consistent with the existing and proposed signs within the Oro Valley Retail Center. Don Hinkel, 935 W. Landoran Lane, stated that he was a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission at the time Oro Valley's Sign Package Ordinance went into place. He stated that a lot of"give and take" went into the consideration of the sign package. He stated that he supported the DRB's recommendations and he felt that the bank could afford to place signs in the size as recommended by the DRB. Richard Feinberg, 1451 E. Triton Place, stated that he was one of the invited artists that sat on the Community Artists Focus Group that reviewed the Retail Center signage. Mr. Feinberg displayed his rendition of the Wells Fargo logo in colors that he proposed would "work" in the Center. Dick Eggerding, 10352 Fox Croft Lane, stated that he supported the DRB's recommendations for a copper patina sign without illumination on Oracle Road. He stated that the critical issue was the sign on the south side of the building and it should adhere to the 20 foot sign code requirements. He stated that the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor should be protected and there was merit to consistency. In answer to a question from Council Member Johnson, Mr. Jones explained that the existing temporary signs were 56 square feet in size. Their proposal was for just a little over one half that size. Council Member Johnson stated that square footage should be based on the final appearance of the sign on the building. He stated that he felt the Town wants something that looks good, is high class and sets high standards throughout the community. In answer to questions from Council Member Skalsky, Mr. Jones explained that the two differences between Wells Fargo requests and the staff's and DRB's recommendations are: 1) Size of the logo cabinet-20 square feet verses 31 square feet, and 2) the illumination of the logo signs (staff recommends only the characters emit light and Wells Fargo is proposing no illumination on the Oracle Road sign and full illumination of the sign on the south side of the building.) He also explained that the letters will be halo-illuminated and appear black at night. The logo cabinet which is separate from the lettering,would be illuminated on the south side of the building. In answer to a question from Council Member Skalsky, Mr. Nodine explained that staff supports the directional signs as presented. He explained that the current PAD allows for logos on directional signs, but the Zoning Code does not. In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis, Mr. Jones explained that the directional signs could be internally illuminated, but Wells Fargo's signs are not illuminated. Mr. Nodine explained that the directional signs could be internally illuminated, but only the characters could emit light and if they have raised letters,they could be halo-illuminated. 07/15/98 M_____es,Town Council Regular Session 6 In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala,Mr.Nodine explained that staff and DRB are recommending two 20 square foot signs, one on the east side and one on the south side of the building. He stated that this would be consistent with the other pads. Mr. Jones explained that it would not be feasible or cost effective to make a 20 square foot sign. He stated that if they had to place the 20 square foot signs,they would probably opt to install 16 square foot signs which would compromise their sign package even more than staff has suggested. In answer to a question from Council Member Skalsky, Mr. Nodine explained that staff could not support the larger sign because of the approved existing signage on the other surrounding businesses. The pads are all treated as equals and the anchor store is the major tenant(Target). MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to approve Oro Valley Retail Center Sign Package for Wells Fargo building as submitted with 31 square foot signs with illumination allowed on the south side of the building. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: Council Member LaSala stated that he felt that Wells Fargo has submitted a classy package. He stated that Wells Fargo has made serious concessions. He said that he felt the signing would look very nice. Mayor Loomis stated that he felt the 31 square foot sign was too large. He suggested a compromise of only illuminating the south side sign as recommended by the DRB rather that the full red background illumination. ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Johnson—aye Council Member Skalsky—aye Council Member LaSala—aye Mayor Loomis—nay Motion carried, 3— 1. 5. PUBLIC HEARING — RESOLUTION NO. ®98-49 ADOPTION OF THE TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998/99 AND SETTING THE LOCAL ALTERNATIVE EXPENDITURE LIMITATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998/99 Finance Director David Andrews stated that Council's approval of Resolution No. ®98-49 would adopt the tentative budget for fiscal year 1998-99 and set the Town's local expenditure limitation. The final budget, scheduled for adoption on August 5, 1998 cannot exceed the tentative budget amount. Mr. Andrews reported that the tentative budget is in the amount of $38,823,040 and includes those modifications directed by the Council during the Budget Review Sessions. The budget is balanced with the following revenues and other financial resources: Revenues $19,789,346, Lease-Purchase Financing $219,000, Long Term Debt Financing $2,915,030, and Cash Carry Forwards$15,899,664. 07/15/98 Mi____2s,Town Council Regular Session 7 Mr. Andrews stated that the tentative budget contains several significant items related to staffing, employee compensation and employee benefits. Council Member Skalsky asked if there were enough monies in the budget (approximately $40,000 to $50,000)to support the possible hiring of a Natural Resource Volunteer Coordinator and to act on some of the items that were discussed during the Budget Study Sessions. Mr. Andrews stated that the Town's Budgetary Policy states that recurring revenues should be equal to recurring expenditures. He stated that they have met that policy, but he felt there was probably $50,000 that could be transferred from Contingency to a particular line item if Council so chooses. Council Member Johnson stated that he participated in the Capital Improvement Projects sessions and there were significant items included for the community (CDO Riverfront Park, preliminary design for a library, traffic signals and safety improvements and the development of bicycle paths on Lambert Lane.) He stated that these would positively impact the quality of life in Oro Valley. He stated that the budget reflects a lot of hard work by staff and the people of the community. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. Richard Izen, 12356 N. Mt. Bigelow, stated that this next year marks the 25th anniversary of the Town of Oro Valley. He stated that he reviewed the budget and did not see any funds allocated to commemorate the anniversary. He asked that Council consider providing some funding for allowing an appropriate celebration. He stated that a celebration would be good for the Town and its citizens. Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. Council Member Skalsky stated that the Town is well run and an excellent job has been done on little money. She stated that she supports monies in the Contingency Fund to provide for such activities as suggested by Mr. Izen. Mr. Andrews stated that they can look at making some adjustments to the budget before submitting the Final Budget for Council's approval. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to approve Resolution ®98-49, Adopting the Tentative Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 and setting the Local Alternative Expenditure Limitation for Fiscal Year 1998-99. Council Member Skalsky SECONDED the motion. Mayor Loomis thanked everyone for all their hard work on the budget. He stated the Tentative Budget sets the maximum that the Town would be allowed to spend. The Final Budget will be discussed on August 5, 1998. CALL FOR THE QUESTION: Motion carried,4—0. 07/15/98 1 tes, Town Council Regular Session 8 Council Member Skalsky asked Mr. Izen to volunteer to work on a committee for planning a 25th Anniversary Celebration for the Town. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was resumed at 8:40 p.m. 6. PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCE NO. (0)98-22 AMENDMENTS TO THE 1996 GENERAL PLAN FOR 36 ACRES IN PIMA COUNTY, WEST OF THE TOWN BOUNDARY, KNOWN AS CHURCH OF THE APOSTLES (PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF TANGERINE ROAD AND LA CHOLLA BLVD.) Planning and Zoning Director Bryant Nodine stated that the applicant has requested the Town change its General Plan Land Use designation for the property from R-LDR, Rural Low-Density Residential to Public/Semi-Public designation to allow a proposed church and church school. Mr. Nodine explained that the property is located in Pima County, but the Town's planning boundary extends to this site. He stated that the request is for a change in the General Plan Land Use designation and is not part of a request for annexation. He stated that the property is situated on the northwest intersection of Tangerine Road and La Cholla Boulevard. Mr. Nodine explained that the General Plan designated this area as acceptable for rural low-density residential uses and established an Urban Growth Boundary along the northern edge of the planning area. Mr.Nodine stated that the request to change the Land Use Map designation to Public/Semi Public is to accommodate the proposed use of the 36 acres for both a church and church school. He explained that staff has concerns regarding the change because the intensity and density of the proposed use is not known at this time, and the Urban Growth Boundary clearly defines the limits of density increases. Mr. Nodine stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommend approval of the proposed amendments with the stipulation that the intensity be limited to that comparable to the R- LDR designation. In answer to a question from Council Member Johnson, Mr. Nodine explained that the south corner is zoned SR in the county with commercial and medium density and low density on the other corners. Tangerine Road was considered a major highway by the General Plan Sector Boards and created a"convenient" line for creating the Urban Growth Boundary. Kathleen Nyhuis, 10990 N. Guava, representing the applicants, stated that the property was considered because the church respects the desert and lower density. She stated that they are sensitive to the environment and are good neighbors. She stated that the property is well suited for a church and asked that Council approve the Public/Semi Public designation. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. 07/15/98 Min ;, Town Council Regular Session 9 The following people spoke in favor of the amendment to the General Plan Land Use designation: Gale Richards, 620 W. Valle del Oro James Conrad, 8080 Ocotillo Drive Stuart Popp,224 E. Horizon Circle Joan Cowles, 1475 E. Charouleau John Frank, 1246 E. Camino Diestro John Metcalf, 609 W. Pomegranate Bill Gardner, 1035 E. Camino Diestro Nancy Henry,4240 W. Oasis Drive The following people spoke against the amendment to the General Plan Land Use designation: Joan Eerkes, 12651 N. Como Drive Dorita Brady, 1885 W. Limewood Louis Benson,2590 W. Tortolita Hills Trail Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. Council Member Skalsky stated that she understood that under the current zoning, the church could be built. She stated that the General Plan Sector Boards worked very hard on the Plan. She stated that she saw no reason to change the General Plan. She stated that until it is definitely decided that the Town of Tortolita does not exist as an incorporated Town, she did not want to consider changes to the area. Council Member LaSala stated that he had no problem with the church but he did not want to step on the Town of Tortolita. He stated that he did not want to enforce Oro Valley's zoning on Tortolita until such time the decision is made on whether it is a town. In answer to a question by Council Member LaSala regarding General Plan amendments, Mr. Nodine explained that the next window for submittal is in August/September,but if an application is denied,then the applicant must wait for one full year to resubmit. In answer to a question by Council Member LaSala, Town Attorney Tobin Sidles explained that if the issue is continued until September when the Arizona Supreme Court will be considering Tortolita's case, the applicant would not have to reapply for a General Plan amendment because they would still be in the time window of which they originally applied. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to CONTINUE the item until such time that the Arizona Supreme Court decides the status of the Town of Tortolita. Council Member Johnson SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: Council Member Johnson stated that the Arizona Superior Court and the Court of Appeals have stated that Tortolita does not exist as a town. He stated that he believes that the Town of Tortolita does not exist and the actions of the Town of Oro Valley should continue their actions without regards to the boundaries of Tortolita. 07/15/98 Mil s, Town Council Regular Session 10 Mayor Loomis stated that his concerns are that the Church is asking for a change before an annexation has taken place. He stated that he is opposed to pre-annexation agreements and changes before actual annexation takes place. Council Member Skalsky stated that the Council needs to provide closure on issues. She stated that she was against a continuation and the issue should be resolved. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Council Member LaSala AMENDED the motion by moving that the request by the Church of the Apostles be CONTINUED until after annexation of the property becomes effective if and when it ever does become effective. Council Member Johnson SECONDED the amendment. DISCUSSION: Council Member Skalsky stated that the Council either wants to change the General Plan or they don't. She stated that the Church bought the land knowing what it was zoned. In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis, Mr. Nodine explained that if the property was in Oro Valley and the Town did a straight translational zoning on the property with no additional changes, the Church would have to ask for a rezoning of the property. However, sometimes the Town accepts the county zoning "as is" so the Oro Valley zoning is modified to fit the county zoning to give the owner some of the entitlements that they had with the county. He explained in that case, the church would not have to go through a rezoning process. ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Johnson—aye Council Member Skalsky—nay Council Member LaSala—aye Mayor Loomis—aye Motion to continue carried, 3 — 1. 7. PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCE NO. (0)98-23 OV8-98-1 MIRAGE HOMES REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A LODGING HOUSE FOR LONG AND SHORT TERM RENTALS I THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT — BUILDINGS 1-13 AND COMMON ELEMENTS OF VISTOSO GOLF CASITAS, A PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF VISTOSO HIGHLANDS DRIVE, WEST OF RANCHO VISTOSO BLVD.) Planning and Zoning Director Bryant Nodine stated that Mirage Homes has requested a conditional use permit for the proposed Vistoso Golf Casitas to provide for long term and short term rental of condominium homes. He explained that the casitas will be 13 two-story buildings with four units each, located in Rancho Vistoso High Density Residential. 07/15/98 Mi !s, Town Council Regular Session 11 Mr.Nodine stated that the preliminary plat is currently under review,and the applicant is requesting the use permit prior to construction of the buildings. He stated that the use of units as rentals is categorized as boarding house or lodging house and is an allowable use in the R-6 zone with approval of a conditional use permit. He stated that the property for the Vistoso Golf Casitas is separated from other properties by either golf course, open space areas, or roadways. Mr. Nodine further explained that an identical use permit was approved by Council in November, 1997 for the Vistoso Resort Casitas. Mr. Nodine explained that use permits may be granted when the determination has been made that the granting of such conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. He explained that the proposal does maintain and enhance Oro Valley's residential/resort/recreation character and also supports the economic development of the Town. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommend approval of the conditional use permit with conditions as listed in Exhibit 'A". Mike Duffy, 16927 Saguaro Boulevard, Fountain Hills, representing Mirage Homes, reviewed an aerial photo and site plan of the property. He stated that there would be a total of 52 units with a garage for each unit. He stated that the request for a conditional use permit is to allow the units to be rented. He said that an advantage to renting was that it would allow them to increase the management for the property which provides for a better overall project. In answer to questions from Council Member LaSala, Mr. Duffy stated that they had no problems with the conditions as listed in Exhibit"A". Mr. Nodine confirmed that any non-compliance would place the project in a zoning violation. In answer to questions from Council Member Johnson, Mr. Duffy stated that they are currently renting properties at the Vistoso Resort Casitas. Finance Director David Andrews confirmed that the bed tax applies if the rentals are less than 30 days and Town Attorney Tobin Sidles stated that the Town is currently collecting bed tax from those rentals. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. There being no speakers,the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Council Member Skalsky MOVED to approve OV8-98-1, the lodging house conditional use permit with the staff conditions in Exhibit"A". A) 1. Complete disclosure of current and future rentals must be released, in writing,to all prospective home buyers. 2. The minimum length of rental time shall be limited to three (3) nights, and overnight rentals shall be prohibited. 3. A complete on-site, full-time management company shall be involved with the rental units, ensuring maintenance, not eliminating the owners' rights to contract elsewhere, if they so desire. 4. Future timeshare of units shall be prohibited. 5. Rental signage will only be allowed on site and must conform to the Oro Valley Sign Code. 07/15/98 Mi] s,Town Council Regular Session 12 Council Member Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried,4—0. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 9:32 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:43 p.m. 8. PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCE NO. (0)98-24 AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED, CHAPTERS 2, 7, & 9, USE REGULATIONS IN THE R-6,MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Planning and Zoning Director Bryant Nodine reported that the Town has received a request to amend Chapter 7 of the Zoning Code, Section 7-503, to allow art galleries as a permitted use. He stated that studios are currently allowed in the R-6 district, and this amendment would allow art galleries to be connected to those studios. The art galleries would allow for the sale of international fine arts and crafts, along with the art studio and teaching capabilities. Mr. Nodine stated that in reviewing the request, staff considered that an art gallery could be complimentary to and in keeping with the scale and purpose of a professional art studio, as long as the activities are concurrent and related. Staff recommends that an art gallery be permitted as a conditional use in association with an existing or proposed art studio, that the gallery be located in close proximity to the studio on the same site, and that the studio be in operation at least 50 percent of the hours that the gallery is open. Mr. Nodine explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommend approval of the amendment to Chapters 2,7,and 9 of the Zoning Code Revised to include art galleries as a use in the R-6 zoning district,with a conditional use permit. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. There being no speakers,the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Council Member Skalsky MOVED to approve Ordinance No. (o)98-24, adopting amendments to Chapters 2, 7, and 9, relating to art galleries, as presented. Council Member Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried,4—0. 9. PUBLIC HEARING—ORDINANCE NO. (0)98-25 AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THAT DOCUMENT KNOWN AS "FOCUS 2020: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN, JULY 1996" — RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 10, PARCEL H, FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION TO RESORT DESIGNATION (PROPERTY BORDERED ON THE NORTH OF VISTOSO HIGHLANDS DRIVE) Planning and Zoning Director Bryant Nodine stated that the applicant has requested a continuance of this item until August 5, 1998. MOTION: Council Member Skalsky MOVED to CONTINUE Item#9, Ordinance No. (0)98-25, until the August 5, 1998 Council meeting. Council Member Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried,4—0. 10. PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCE NO. (0)98-26 AMENDING THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT LAND USE MAP FOR 07/15/98 Mi Town Council Regular Session 13 • NEIGHBORHOOD 10,PARCEL H,CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (PROPERTY BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY VISTOSO HIGHLANDS DRIVE) Planning and Zoning Director Bryant Nodine stated that Item 10 follows along with Item 9, and staff would recommend continuance. He stated that this item had been discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission but was not voted on, so Legal Counsel recommended that the item be referred back to the Commission. MOTION: Council Member Skalsky MOVED that this item be referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission with the request that it be addressed at their next regularly scheduled meeting (August 4, 1998), a recommendation sent to Council, and that this agenda item, Ordinance (0)98-26 be continued to the September 2, 1998 Regular Council meeting in order to allow this to occur. Council Member Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried,4-0. 11. PUBLIC HEARING—ORDINANCE NO. (0)98-27 AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THAT DOCUMENT KNOWN AS "FOCUS 2020: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN,JULY 1996"—HORIZON HEIGHTS PROPERTY FROM MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (PROPERTY BORDERED ON THE EAST BY ORACLE ROAD, NORTH OF EL CONQUISTADOR WAY,SOUTH OF GREENOCK DRIVE) Planning and Zoning Director Bryant Nodine stated that the applicant has requested his application be withdrawn. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. There being no speakers,the public hearing was closed. NO ACTION REQUIRED. 12. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO.(0)98-28 AMENDING THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE BY ADDING ARTICLE 15-12-4 CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENTS — PROTECTED FACILITIES Town Engineer David Hook stated that Ordinance No. (0)98-28 proposes allowing developers to install oversized water facilities that benefit other developments beside their own. It would enlist the help of the Town to obtain reimbursement from the developers who would use the facilities in the future. Town staff would facilitate collecting fees from those future developers and refunding them to the original developer. He explained that staff is in support of the Ordinance and feels it is a fair allocation of development costs. Mr. Hook stated that the Water Utility Commission also supports the ordinance. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. There being no speakers,the public hearing was closed. 07/15/98 Mii ;s,Town Council Regular Session 14 MOTION: Council Member Skalsky MOVED to approve Ordinance No. (0)98-28,amending the Oro Valley Town Code by Adding Article 15-12-4 Construction Agreements — Protected Facilities. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried,4—0. 13. OV12-98-06 MOONRIDGE, LOTS 1-48 AND COMMON AREA "A", PRELIMINARY PLAT — REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE TO AUGUST 5, 1998 (PROPERTY LOCATED ONE HALF MILE NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD, ON QUARTER MILE WEST OF THE RANCHO VISTOSO PAD BOUNDARY, IMMEDIATELY WEST AND ADJACENT TO SUNRIDGE II, AND DIRECTLY NORTH OF WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION) Town Clerk Kathryn Cuvelier stated that the applicant has requested a continuance of this item to the August 5, 1998. MOTION: Council Member Skalsky MOVED to CONTINUE OV12-98-06 to the August 5, 1998 Council meeting. Council Member Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4 — 0. 14. OV12-98-3 THE OVERLOOK AT RANCHO VISTOSO, RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 7 PARCEL F, FINAL PLAT, LOTS 1-179 AND COMMON AREAS "A" AND "B" (PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF WOODBURNE AVENUE AND NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND THE TEP SUBSTATION) Planning and Zoning Director Bryant Nodine reported that all conditions from the preliminary plat have been met by the applicant for the Overlook at Rancho Vistoso. Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat with conditions in Exhibit"A"with deletion of conditions 1 and 2, and Exhibit`B". MOTION: Council Member Skalsky MOVED to approve OV12-98-03, The Overlook at Rancho Vistoso, Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 7, Parcel F, Final Plat, effective on the date of satisfaction of the conditions in Exhibits"A"as amended and`B". A) *1. The conditions for approval from Tucson Electric Power and the Oro Valley Water Utility shall be met prior to recordation. *2. Letters of approval from Golder Ranch Fire Department, Pima County Waste Water Management, Pima County Development Services, Oro Valley Water Utility and Tucson Electric Power must be received prior to recordation. (* New numbering) B) 1. The applicant shall continue to work with the Town's water utility personnel concerning domestic and fire flow water issues. The applicant shall satisfy water utility requirements. 2. A revised preliminary plat with the corrections/revisions requested in the conditions of Town Council approval shall be submitted prior to recordation 3. Centerline data and revised (as needed) lot closure data shall be submitted prior to recordation. 4. Curb transitioning (for catch basins)along lots 71 and 78 does not leave enough room for driveways. Therefore, lots 72 and 35-38 shall be reconfigured to allow enough room for 07/15/98 Mi; :s,Town Council Regular Session 15 access to lot 71 without the driveway going over the transition. Lots 76 and 77 shall be reconfigured to provide adequate driveway width for lot 78. The same consideration shall be given for lot 73. 5. The 1 foot No Access Easement must extend 20 feet beyond the curb ECR/BCR. General Note 28 and keynote 5 shall be revised to meet this requirement. 6. The applicant shall address the setback necessary to transition inadequate driveway width at the property line to standard driveway width and provide two parking spaces (9 ft. x 20 ft. each). 7. Survey monuments for street knuckles shall be provided per City of Tucson standards. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried,4—0. 15. TOWN COUNCIL POLICY NO. 7—FOOD FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS Council Member Skalsky stated that she would like to continue the Food Policy to a Study Session. She stated that many items enter into the consideration of such a policy such as food for volunteers and exceptions to the policy. She stated that she feels discussion should be held in Study Session. MOTION: Council Member Skalsky MOVED to continue the Food Policy to a Study Session. Council Member Johnson SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: Mayor Loomis stated that draft copies were sent to the Council Members and Board Chairs who would be affected with no comments being received back. He stated the policy discusses exceptions and allows the responsibility for any exceptions to be considered by the Board Chairs and the Agenda Committee. He stated that he felt it was time for the Town to set requirements. Mayor Loomis stated that the next Study Session is scheduled for July 20, 1998. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to amend the motion to state that the item would be CONTINUED until July 20, 1998 Study Session. Council Member Skalsky agreed to the amendment. ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Johnson—aye Council Member Skalsky—aye Council Member LaSala—nay Mayor Loomis—nay Motion failed due to tie vote of 2—2. Discussion followed regarding the purpose of the Food Policy, average charges, and establishing requirements. 07/15/98 Mi____,s, Town Council Regular Session 16 MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to CONTINUE the Food Policy to the Study Session of July 20, 1998. Council Member Skalsky SECONDED the motion. Motion carried,4—O. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT No report. ENGINEER'S REPORT Town Engineer David Hook reported that the La Canada Drive reconstruction is about 8 months ahead of schedule and the project should be completed in August. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report. POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT No report. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council Member LaSala reported that there are openings on the Water Utility Commission and urged citizens to turn in their applications. CALL TO AUDIENCE No speakers. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion to adjourn carried,4—0. Respectfully submitted, \ o.�� �Clu•.n.� Roxana Garrity,Deputy Town C rk 07/15/98 Mi !s, Town Council Regular Session 17 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 thel5th day of July, 1998. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this ‘ day of , 1998. / 1:1-.'..,(-.--,C-at-LL--4Lc Kathryn d Cuvelier, CMC Town Clerk