HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Stormwater Utillity Commission (99)AGENDA
ORO VALLEY STORMWATER UTILITY COMMISSION
WORK STUDY SESSION
SEPTEMBER 3, 2015
680 W CALLE CONCORDIA
CONFERENCE ROOM
WORK STUDY SESSION AT OR AFTER 3 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. Review and discuss the Your Voice, Our Future Committee
2. Review and discuss the current and proposed fee structure
ADJOURNMENT
POSTED: 8/27/15 at 5:00 p.m. by mrs
When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public
inspection at least 24 hours prior to the Stormwater Utility Commission meeting in the
Town Clerk's Office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any
person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the T own
Clerk’s Office at least five days prior to the Commission meeting at 229-4700.
INSTRUCTION TO SPEAKERS
Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted public hearing.
However, those items not listed as a public hearing are for consideration and
action by the Stormwater Utility Commission during the course of their business
meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the
discretion of the Chair.
If you wish to address the Commission on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete
a blue speaker card and give it to the Recording Secretary. Please indicate on the
speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on, or if you wish to speak
during “Call to Audience,” please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the
blue speaker card.
“Notice of Possible Quorum of the Oro Valley Town Council, Boards, Commissions,
and Committees: In accordance with Chapter 3, Title 38, Arizona Revised Statutes and
Section 2-4-2 of the Oro Valley Town Code, a majority of the Town Council, Board of
Adjustment, Conceptual Design Review Board, Historic Preservation Commission,
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, and Water
Utility Commission may attend the above referenced meeting as a member of the
audience only.”
Development and Infrastructure Services Department
Operations - Stormwater Utility
Planning Permitting Inspection & Compliance Engineering Operations Transit
(520) 229-4832 (520) 229-4815 (520) 229-4815 (520) 229-4894 (520) 229-5070 (520) 229-4990
Caring for our heritage, our community, our future.
11000 N. La Cañada Drive • Oro Valley, Arizona 85737
fax: (520) 742-1022 • www.orovalleyaz.gov
September 2, 2015
Re: Determining the basic ERU value
This memo describes the steps taken to date in the determination of an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU)
which will be applied to the determination of a revised Stormwater Utility fee structure. The use of
available GIS data files in the determination of a revised ERU are discussed. Two GIS data files were used in
the process, the first of which is a residential structure footprints file. The footprints file is a GIS data layer
with file name [sde.SDE.Residentialfootprint] (footprints) which is located in the Town GIS repository. This
file was generated by the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) using existing aerial photograph raster
data. The footprint data is in the form of polygons which show the approximate footprint of nearly all the
residential and some commercial structures in the Town. Any missing residential data would mostly be
structures that did not exist at the time the data was prepared. The footprint data is intended to loosely
represent the impervious areas within residential parcels. While the data contains essentially a complete
set of all the residential structures, the actual impervious areas of each parcel are larger than what is
indicated by the areas measured for the footprints file since the footprints file does not always include
pavement areas, outside concrete areas etc… within each residential parcel. The data does, however,
provide a consistent and complete source of information to use for our purposes. The second GIS data file
used in this process represents the zoning in the Town with file name [sde.SDE.Zoning]. This data is also in
the form of polygons with each polygon representing the specific zoning within its area.
Statistics for each zoning category were extracted by first overlaying the footprints file with the zoning file
therefore isolating footprint sizes for each zoning district. The critical statistics were: 1) number of
footprints within a particular zoning district and 2) the mean size of the footprints in that district. Footprint
data for twelve zoning categories were observed (see Table 1). Please see the attached (Figure 1) for a
distribution of Oro Valley zoning overlaid on the residential footprints within the Town.
Table 1. Oro Valley Zoning Districts with Selected Statistics
Zoning
Category
Description Count Mean Footprint Size
(sq-ft)
PAD Planned Area Development 10,977 2752
R-4 Townhouse Residential 2,048 2461
R-6 Multi-Family Residential 198 1949
R1-300 Single Family Residential 0.15 RAC 99 5292
R1-144 Single Family Residential 0.30 RAC 416 3826
R1-43 Single Family Residential 1.00 RAC 449 3808
R1-36 Single Family Residential 1.20 RAC 1,563 3494
R1-20 Single Family Residential 2.00 RAC 350 4400
R1-7 Single Family Residential 5.00 RAC 645 3183
SDH-6 Site Delivered Housing District 281 1861
T-P Technology Park 84 2181
C-1 Commercial 31 26,103
Note: The above data does not represent a complete list of all zoning districts and the Count values may be slightly higher for the
districts that are shown. This calculation is a “first pass” intended to get a reasonable approximation of the statistics.
From the data identified in Table 1 all statistics for single family residential were used in the determination
of an ERU value. Single family residential was used since it comprised the majority of the overall residential
structures within the Town and it is typically used in the available literature when using ERU as a method of
calculating stormwater fees. The ERU was calculated as the Count weighted average of the mean footprint
sizes. The formula for calculating the ERU was as follows:
(Mean Footprint SizeR1-300 X CountR1-300) + (Mean Footprint SizeR1-144 X CountR1-144) + …
(CountR1-300 + CountR1-144 + …)
The result for this calculation is 3701.218 indicating a rounded ERU value of 3700. The current ERU for the
Town is 5000. This method provides a consistent and measurable way to calculate the basic ERU.
PAD
PAD
R1-144
PAD
R1-300
R-4
R1-144
PAD R1-144
PAD
R1-144
R1-36
PAD
R1-36
PAD
R1-43
R1-36
R1-36
R-4
PAD
PAD
R1-36
R1-36
R1-43
R-4R
R1-144
R1-20
R1-20
R1-36
R1-36
R1-20
R1-36
R-4
R1-36
R1-144
R1-144
R1-144
PSC
R1-7
C-2
R1-144 PAD
R1-43
R1-43
PAD
R1-7
R1-144
R-6
R-S
R1-10
R1-20
C-1
R1-20
C-1
R1-36
PAD
R1-7
R1-7
R1-20
R1-10
R-6
SDH-6
R1-10
R1-144
PAD
R-S
R1-10
C-1
C-2
R-6
R1-10R1-10
R1-144
R-4
R-4
C-2
R-4
R1-36
C-N
R-4
R1-144
C-2
R-6
R-6
C-N
C-2
T-P
PSC
R1-7
C-2
R1-144
C-2
C-N
T-P
C-2 R-6
R-6
R-6
R-4 C-1
C-1
R-4R1-7
R1-36T-P
R1-144
R1-7
R1-36
C-1
R1-20
PAD
R1-36
R-4
R1-36
R1-36
R1-144
C-2
PSC
R-4
C-1
R1-36
C-1
R1-144
R1-144
R-6
C-1
R1-144
R-S
R-S
R1-144
R-S
C-2
R1-144
R1-7
R-6
R1-144
R1-144
C-2
C-2
T-P
R1-36
R-S
PSC
R1-36
C-1
R1-72
R-6
R1-43
C-2
R1-144
R1-7
R1-72
R1-144
R-4
R-6
PAD
R-S
R1-36
R-S
R-S
R1-144
R-S
R1-144
PAD
C-1
R-S N ORACLE RDN LA CHOLLA BLN LA CANADA DRW INA R D
W MOORE RD
W LAMBERT LN
N SHANNON RDW TAN GER IN E R D
W NA RANJA DR N 1ST AVW OVE RTON RD
W MAGEE RD
E INA R D
E TANGERINE RD
N R
A
N
C
H
O VIST
O
S
O BL E RANCHO VI
STOSO BLW HARDY RD E LAMBERT LNE NARANJA DR
E SK
YLIN
E D
R
W CORTARO FARMS RD
N 1ST AVW MAGEE RD
N SHANNON RDLegend
ZONE
C-1
C-2
C-N
PAD
PSC
R-4
R-4R
R-6
R-S
R1-10
R1-144
R1-20
R1-300
R1-36
R1-43
R1-7
R1-72
SDH-6
T-P
µ
0 1 20.5
Miles
Figure 1Residential Structure Footprintsoverlaid on Oro Valey Zoning Districts
1:52,800 By: FFLDate: 09/01/15
Document Path: F:\2 DIV OPERATIONS\STORMWATER\FRITZ'S DIRECTORIES\FFL Regional Floodplain\Maps\Imprvs_srfcs\Imprvs_srfcs.mxd
This map displays mainly residential structure footprints and selected businesses within the Town of Oro Valley.Residential footprints were obtained using existing aerial photos from Pima County GIS database.The Legend here is mainly to demonstratethe actual number of zoning districts it beingdifficult color mappping one-to-one on the map.
Typical
1:9,600
1:9,600
What’s Next?
Over the next few weeks, planning project staff will take all the committee directions and incorporate
them into the plan. The result will be the Recommended Draft (90% Completion). This draft will be
presented at the following meetings:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Study Session
September 15; 6:00 pm
Town Hall, Council Chambers
Planning and Zoning Commission
Public Hearing #1
October 6; 6:00 pm
Church of the Nazarene, 500 W Calle Concordia
Planning and Zoning Commission
Public Hearing #2
October 20; 6:00 pm
Town Hall, Council Chambers
Town Council
Public Hearing
November 4; 6:00 pm
Town Hall, Council Chambers
Your Voice Committees
All Committee Meeting 2 Summary Notes 1
SUMMARY NOTES
All-Committee Meeting #2
August 18, 2015
6:00 – 8:30PM
We’re in the RECOMMENDATION STAGE
Our purpose is to provide FEEDBACK AND REVISIONS, and offer a recommendation or ENDORSEMENT
Attendance
Present:
Community Committee
Hannah Arellano
Don Bristow
Marilyn Lane
Doug McKee
David Perry
Brianne Spaeth
Joseph Winfield
Environment Committee
Robyn Basken
Rick Davis
Michael DeSantis
Tim Falter
Ellen Guyer
Robert Milkey
Robert Swope
Frederick Wayand
Development Committee
Bill Adler
Anne Breen
Diane Bristow
Mary Caswell
Stephen Roach
Bill Rodman (sub for Bill Leedy)
Michael Schoeppach
Mike Stankiewicz
Staff:
Nora Campbell
Danielle Driscoll
Elisa Hamblin
Bayer Vella
Absent:
Community Committee
Dick Eggerding
Thomas Gribb
Charles Huang
Pete Schwarz
Laura Wheelwright
Cathy Workman
Environment Committee
Helen Dankwerth
Jack Evert
John Scheuring
Pat Spoerl
Casey Streuber
Development Committee
Don Cox
Kit Donley
Barry Gillaspie
Steve Huffman
ShoYoung Shin
Brooke Trentlage
John Spiker
Bill Leedy
Your Voice Committees
All Committee Meeting 2 Summary Notes 2
Welcome and Introductions
Bayer Vella welcomed everyone back for the second All-committee meeting.
He explained that while committees were away, staff has:
o Engaged the community
o Received over 1,000 comments!
o Reviewed internally, sorted all comments into four categories, and designated an
“action/response” depending on the nature of the comment
He thanked committees for:
o Staying true to the community’s voice and honoring the V ision & Guiding Principles
o Valuing the committee process
o Diligently attending and participating in meetings
Meeting Business
Bayer then explained how the meeting would be handled
o Large Group Discussions, “Continue to…” actions, Distinguish policies and actions,
Arroyo Grande update, Importance of addressing finance
o Break-out committee discussions
o Follow-up edits
o Final issues/concerns
o And finishing with any public comments
According to comment, committees got a lot of things right, should feel good about that
Committee responsibility and future
o Sift through the comments
o After considering the comments, the facilitators will pose a question “Can you support?”
Project Schedule
o Phase 3
o On Sept 15th the 90% draft will “go live”
Planning and Zoning Commission study session
Festive – All new for all to see (Hopi Room)
o Planning & Zoning Study Session (September 15)
o Planning & Zoning Commission Hearings (October 6 and 20)
o Town Council Hearing (November 4)
o Public Outreach (January 2016 – Fall 2016)
Your Voice Committees
All Committee Meeting 2 Summary Notes 3
o Final Revisions & Town Council Review (Fall 2016)
The staff will be on hand to describe the difference between 60% and 90%
versions
o 2 Hearings: Planning and Zoning and Town Council
Bayer asked each committee to choose one to two people from each committee
to represent their committee as a whole and give the high points of the process
o Bayer asked for volunteers to help staff at meetings to talk to folks about what
committees have done
o Voter Ratification (Nov 2016)
Bayer then turned the meeting over to Nora Campbell who reviewed the collected comments
Public Comments on 60% Draft Plan – Nora Campbell
Overview of committee comments
o 1080 comments received, 6 Government Agencies, 7 Boards and Commissions, 2
Stakeholder Groups, 7 Committee members, Over 100 residents
o Broken into categories:
o Committee discussion required
o Internal review
o No action requested
o No action
o Nora explained that approximately 36% of these comments are going to committees for
review
Large Discussion Issues – Bayer Vella
¾ of issues to discuss
Many policies and actions will be first time readers
Comments are “should be doing,” but Town has been doing already
If doing something already – say so, but how?
Point of view: style – Just state the value, don’t get into score carding it
Agenda Item #1 (Action #64) – “continue to…” actions
The Town is already implementing many policies and actions of the document.
Action 64: Develop strategies, including potential zoning code revisions; to protect human life and
property from natural hazards including steep and unstable slopes and soils, floods and erosion
hazards.
Thoughts/concerns:
o If ordinance is in place, no need to have an action
o If covering in implementation – why highlight it? (BVella)
Your Voice Committees
All Committee Meeting 2 Summary Notes 4
o Is implementation going to be included in the plan? – Bayer responded: General Plan
includes actions.
o New techniques come along, don’t want to be static
o Do not really know how residents are going to read document; if you omit info, it would
cause issues with how info came to be
o Leaving it in, simplest approach
o Should it read “continue to develop” or “develop strategies”
Conclusion: keep it there, “up-linkage” and make clear, not static, it’s valued
Agenda Item #2 – Distinguish policies and actions
Some actions sound like policies
Action 49: Explore opportunities to integrate family-friendly amenities into the trail system, such as
areas for play, rest and learning.
Thoughts/concerns:
o Going to see a big changes
o What sort of things are committees putting in there?
Conclusion: if feels more like a policy, should go more specific, drill down
Agenda Item #3 – Arroyo Grande update
o Huge land mass 9000 acres
o Potential huge add to the Town of Oro Valley
o Acknowledge work back in 2009
o This General Plan is to respect what was done back then
o Will need to take further when they (State Land) are ready to sit down (in future)
o State Land doesn’t agree, parties not ready to negotiate yet
o Both parties know it will not move forward
o State mandates to get most money or as much as possible
Conclusion: wait to raise zoning
Agenda Item #4 – Importance of addressing finance
Concern over funding
Foreword: Most of the General Plan policies and actions will mov e forward by focusing planning efforts
using existing resources. Others will best move forward once a funding source is identified. The
community supports these policies and actions and encourages the Town to have a straight -forward
community conversation on funding. This dialogue will help to ensure implementation of the priorities
of the community, which were identified through this robust planning process.
Ideas:
-Explain roll of funding in implementation of Plan
-Reference in multiple chapters
Elephant in the room
o Many items in the plan depend on the Town to pay for it
o Comment over and over is that committees got it right, but having statement just in
forward is not enough
Your Voice Committees
All Committee Meeting 2 Summary Notes 5
Bayer asks permission to amplify statement about finance
o How often can the community ask about this? Annually?
o Include a list of possible funding sources?
o Different ways of taxing? Bayer would be very cautious about this, advises not to turn
General Plan into a financial document
o He respects the committees’ discussion. Bayer warns to be cautious about this. Don’t
want to turn the General Plan into a “how to fund this” document
o Looking to show there is a focus, has to be balanced – don’t want to turn people off by
thinking “how can we get anything done?”
Conclusion: Incorporate both ideas, focus wording, don’t limit, add disclaimer more frequently,
and a minimum of discussing annually
Group Discussion Issues – Break-Out Committee Discussions
Each committee will follow-up edits/address “laundry list” of comments and address any final
issues/concerns
Community Committee – Facilitated by Elisa Hamblin
Comment Discussion (table) – Pages 2-7 in agenda packet, see all committee review table.
The committee reached consensus or a reasonable level of comfort with all decisions made by
the group
The committee nominated Joe Winfield to serve as the group’s representative at the upcoming
Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council meetings.
Environment Committee – Facilitated by Nora Campbell
Comment Discussion (table) – Pages 8-13 in agenda packet, see all committee review table.
The committee reached consensus or a reasonable level of comfort with all decisions made by
the group.
The committee nominated Robert Milkey and Robert Swope to serve as the group’s
representatives at the upcoming Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council meetings.
The group expressed enthusiasm in attending these meetings.
Development Committee – Facilitated by Bayer Vella
Bayer expressed how there were many items to cover, need to focus and push through
End of day, committees need to walk away feeling like they did the work, not the staff
Need committees to help present the plan, help at meetings and talking to folks about what
committees have done
Amendment Update - Page 14 in agenda packet, page 89 in 60% Draft Plan
o 7.3.1, 2.a – Motion: change language in 2.a to reflect 40 acres (Page 89)
20 acres – 3 votes
40 acres – 4 votes
Land Use Map comments - Pages 15-16 in agenda packet (4 different land use proposals)
Your Voice Committees
All Committee Meeting 2 Summary Notes 6
o 1) Oracle @ El Conquistador
Turnout was low at neighborhood meeting, did not get opposition
Staff Recommendation: Support NCO proposal.
Committee Decision: Support staff recommendation, change land use
designation to NCO
o 2) Tangerine
40-50 people at neighborhood meeting, no positive comments, use regular
neighborhood meeting criteria
Staff recommendation: Remove MDR proposal, potentially address in future.
Committee Decision: Support staff recommendation, keep existing land
use designation
o 3) Oracle at Linda Vista
30-35 people at neighborhood meeting, no positive comments, office is softer than retail
Staff Recommendation: Remove NCO/CRC proposal, potentially address in future.
Committee Decision: Support staff recommendation, keep existing land
use designation
o 4) New Proposal – #1 on Page 16 in agenda packet
New land use proposal, WLB Group, Paul Oland
2008 Town Council denied amendment
Committee Decision: No change, keep existing land use designation
Comment Discussion (table) – Pages 17-21 in agenda packet, see all committee review table.
Final issues/concern
o Suggestion that the Vision and Guiding Principles should be on the inside front cover.
o Committee agreed that they can support this body of work
o Would you like to appoint one to two people to represent committee: Bill Adler and Bill
Leedy were suggested
o After going an extra half hour, the Development Committee completed all items on the
agenda
Public Comment Period, Next Steps and Adjourn
The meeting ran late (approx. 9pm) so the committees were dismissed once their section was
complete.
There were no public comments
Your Voice Committees
1 of 22
Group Discussion Issues - OUTCOME
AGENDA ITEM #2
Follow-up edits
COMMUNITY COMMITTEE
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting? Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
1 20 B. Diane Bristow,
Residents
Define “high-quality growth” No
2 20 D. Residents Larger variety of stores and development.
Not more Oro Valley Marketplace development.
Need quality place for youth to spend time.
No
3 20 H. Residents
SAHBA/MPA
Questions effectiveness of goal.
Does this add additional hurdles to new development? Provide
context to goal.
No
4 20 New Goals Doug McKee
Youth Advisory
Council
New goal to support safety and low crime guiding principle.
Oro Valley can create professional opportunities that would
encourage families to reside in Oro Valley
Yes –
new goal
No
5 21
68
E.3.
and
Action 15
Diane Bristow,
Dev
Bill Adler, Dev
Sports tourism:
Question community desire for sports tourism.
Can parks “serving community needs” include sports tourism?
Tournaments must be conditional upon limited interruption of
resident use of space
Sports tournaments for teams within Oro Valley only
Define sports tourism
Yes
Yes – add
glossary
term
6 21 E.4. Bill Adler, Dev Town should not support private workforce or provide workforce
education/training.
Yes Yes -
rephrase
7 21 General –
Economic
SAHBA/MPA Lack of emphasis on broader economic development, specifically the
role of new home construction. Language of the document should
No
Your Voice Committees
2 of 22
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting? Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
Developme
nt
demonstrate Oro Valley’s commitment to assisting businesses and
continued economic growth.
Needs greater responsiveness to the real-estate market and
encouragement of new development.
No
8 22 CC.2. SAHBA, MPA
Residents, PZC
Bill Adler, Dev
“Equitable” is subjective and could lead to unrealistic requirements
on new development.
Cost is an important factor in “equitable” recreation. Add “low cost.”
Parks are not big enough for active families. Eliminate pocket parks
or “tot” lots (small surfaced playgrounds) from acceptable
recreation.
Yes –
remove
phrase
No
No
9 22 CC.3. Bill Adler, Dev
AZ Game &
Fish
AZ Game &
Fish
Linking open space can result in abusive, damaging use.
AZ Game and Fish supports policy and draws attention on
“connected” trails for residents and wildlife.
Link parks and open spaces to each other with movement corridors
for wildlife (co-located trails to protect humans)
Yes
No
10 22 CC.6. Bill Adler, Dev Residents, not Town, need to provide support for more activities No
11 22 CC.7. Doug McKee,
Com
Residents
Can be interpreted as high-density residential:
Controversial topic
Some comments against high-density residential
No
12 22 New action
Bill Adler, Dev
SAHBA/MPA
Youth Advisory
Council
Pima County
Development Services
Youth Advisory
Council
Encourage diversity:
Encourage or offer affordable/low cost housing to increase diversity
and housing for retail employees.
Lack of emphasis on home ownership and affordable housing
Provide special price membership at Community Center or Aquatic
Center
Options for multigenerational housing
OV should be known for high standard of living while remaining a
welcoming community.
No
Your Voice Committees
3 of 22
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting? Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
13 22 CC.8. SAHBA, MPA May not be applicable in every new development in suburban OV. No
14 22 CC.14. Resident Lately, growth has been ugly and poorly planned No
15 22 CC.16 Doug McKee,
Com
Support “high quality” education Yes
17 26 TS.3. Pima County
Development
Define “protect vulnerable populations”. In regard to public safety, low
income, poverty?
Yes –
examples
18 New policy Pima County
Development
Explore agreements with HOA’s to participate in maintenance of multi-
use trails along adjacent minor or major streets.
No
19 66 Action 2 Bill Adler, Dev
Doug McKee,
Com
Uses and businesses cannot “diversify the tax base”. Only more
populations diversify via property tax.
Add car sales to increase sales tax revenue or call out businesses that
generate high sales tax revenue
Yes Yes –
adjust
wording
No
20 66 Action 3 Bill Adler, Dev
Don Bristow,
Com
Bullet 1: “Support” has been interpreted waiving sign code provisions.
Further define.
Bullet 2: Tourism is not currently a core industry. Remove.
No
21 66 Action 4
Bill Adler, Dev
Bullet 1: Transition is the barrier to development. Need better transition
spaces between incompatible uses.
Bullet 2: Disagrees, zoning code restricts development to protect
neighbors, neighborhoods, appearance and lifestyle.
Bullet 3: Zoning doesn’t “encourage” or provide “equity”. Must treat all
properties the same.
Yes
No
22 66 New
actions
Don Bristow,
Com
Pima County
Development
Services
Excluding weather and mountain views, identify and evaluate what
significant assets the Town has that will attract large numbers of
tourists on a seasonal and annual basis.
Encourage private companies and industries to provide exercise areas
for employees.
Yes –
adjust
wording
No
Your Voice Committees
4 of 22
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting? Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
“Continue to work collaboratively and regionally with the Office of the
Governor, the Arizona Commerce Authority, Tucson Regional
Economic Opportunities, and all local jurisdictions to coordinate
economic development strategies.”
No
23 67 Action 14 Parks and Rec
Advisory Board
Bill Adler, Dev
“… interactions and enhance the pedestrian and bicycle experience…”
Neighborhoods are private spaces, public spaces should not be
integrated into neighborhoods.
Yes –
“and
bicycle”
No
24 67 New action Don Bristow,
Com
Compile an inventory of existing walking paths, trails, etc. while
identifying disconnects, safety issues and maintenance needs, etc.
Develop an implementation program to complete, update and
improve existing facilities
No
25 68 Action 15 Bill Adler,
Diane Bristow,
Dev
Bullet 2: Town and residents need to provide more financial support to
local arts council that plans events.
Bullet 4: Opposes “streamlining the planning and approval process”
No
26 68 Action 17 Doug McKee Define “age friendly”. No
27 68 Action 19 Doug McKee Define “healthy food”. Controversial subject, should be deleted. Yes Yes –
remove
28 68 Action 20 Pima County
Development
Vague action. Further define. No
29 68 New action Pima County
Development
Services
Explore more areas where financial contributions to support regional
services are beneficial to Oro Valley residents (e.g. libraries, Pima Animal
Care Center, public health programs, affordable housing).
No
30 68 Action 25,
New action
Doug McKee,
Com
Public Library is important to the community. New action should relate to
the Town taking a more active role with the County in the management
of the Library, including funding and construction of a second library if
Arroyo Grande becomes a reality.
Yes –
new
bullet
Your Voice Committees
5 of 22
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting? Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
31 69 Action 29 Bill Adler, Dev Question need for this
Senior advisory board is inadvisable, would not propose work that is
practical or consistent with guiding principles
No
No
32 69 Action 32,
35, 36
Bill Adler, Dev Funding for public art (1%) should be increased to dedicate funds to
events, concerts, fairs, exhibits or educational presentations.
No
33 69 Action 34 Bill Adler, Dev Require public to pay affordable admission fees to support more frequent
artistic events.
No
34 69 Action 38 Don Bristow,
Com
“… after it has been determined the residents support through a
statistically valid survey.”
Yes Yes –
adjust
wording
35 69 Action 40 Don Bristow,
Com
Diane Bristow,
Dev
“… after it has been determined the residents support and willingness
to fund it through a statistically valid survey.”
No need to duplicate numerous performing arts venues in the Greater
Tucson area
Yes
Yes –
adjust
wording
36 69 New action
items
Conceptual
Design Review
Board,
residents
Diversify art portfolio
Engage opinion and suggestions from youth
Ensure public art is placed in highly visible areas on commercial sites
No
No
No
37 70 Action 45
Resident
Resident
Resident
PZ Commission
Resident
Resident
Add:
Free splash pad
Indoor pickleball court
Boule court
More provisions for youth recreation, specific programs
Recreation services for youth – sports and leagues
Dedicate spaces (i.e. within Community Center) for teens and/or
children
No
No
No
No
No
No
Your Voice Committees
6 of 22
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting? Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
38 70 Action 46 Parks and Rec
Advisory Board
Add: Review opportunities to repurpose land for small and neighborhood
parks by acquiring land or partnering with local stakeholders and
agencies.
Yes – add
39 70 Action 49 Parks and Rec
Advisory Board
Add “water and shade.” Yes – add
40 70 New
actions
AZ Game &
Fish
AZ Game &
Fish
Pima County
Development
Services
Hunting and angling opportunities (stock community waters) and
shooting sports facilities
Wildlife-related recreation contributes to state economy, promote
conservation, citizen engagement. Wildlife viewing opportunities, fit
bridges with bat roosts, etc.
All single and multi-family residential development of medium to
high density residential to have mini-parks and at least one
recreation area.
No
No
No
41 72 Action 57 SAHBA/MPA Does not support Crime Prevention through Environmental Design where
it would lead to new requirements on residential development.
No
42 73 Action 64 SAHBA/MPA Why are zoning code revisions needed to protect human life and property
from steep and unstable slope and soils?
Yes –
adjust
wording
43 New
actions
Pima County
Office of
Sustainability
Address urban heat island effects on health
Promote regulations for shaded landscaped walkways instead of
isolated tree islands in parking lots
Encourage commercial buildings with covered walkaways
No
Yes – add
Yes – add
Your Voice Committees
7 of 22
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
The following items are higher level comments for clarification or changes. Please review and note what action you would like to take. We will
only take time to discuss those identified as needing discussion by the committee.
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting? Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
1 35 J. SAHBA/MPA How will these costs be balanced against the increase in cost it would
impose on new development and the corresponding decrease in housing
affordability?
No
2 35 K. Water Utility
Commission
“A high-quality, safe and reliable water supply that meets long-term
needs for humans and our community while considering the natural
environment” and comment opposed to suggestion.
Yes –
adjust
wording
3 35 M. Pima Floodplain
Management
SAHBA/MPA
Reference FEMA National Flood Insurance
How will these costs be balanced against the increase in cost it
would pose on new development and the corresponding decrease
in housing affordability?
No
No
4 35 N. SAHBA/MPA How is “balanced” defined? Yes –
remove
phrase
5 35 O. Resident Including stormwater? Effluent? No
6 35 New goal
Bill Adler, Dev
“Support climate mitigation and adaption strategies that benefit the
public health, economy and the environment to build resilience”
No
7 36 SD.1. Pima County
Office of
Sustainability
“… that protects Oro Valley’s natural resource and ecosystem service
functions, and provides…”
Yes –
adjust
wording
8 36 SD.6. Bill Adler, Dev Add Lambert Lane, Naranja, La Canada, Moore, and 1st Avenue as Scenic
Corridors or receive protection in ESL zoning code
No
9 36 SD.1. - 10. SAHBA/MPA Unwelcoming of new development No
Your Voice Committees
8 of 22
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting? Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
10 36 General PC Office of
Sustainability
Cultural resources should be included in open space discussion. No
11 36 First
paragraph
SAHBA/MPA “… to acquire additional open space areas.” How will this cost be
balanced against increased costs of new development and decrease in
housing affordability?
No
12 36 New
policies
Pima County
Development
Services
Additional ideas:
Preparing for climate change
Reuse of abandoned golf courses
No
No
13 39 WR.1. Resident “And conservation” is redundant. Clarify? Yes -
adjust
wording
14 39 WR.3. Resident Define “alternatives”
“… and reduce eliminate groundwater level declines.”
Yes –
adjust
wording
No
15 39 General Residents Have water plan in place to plan for continued drought and
population increase.
The lack of water supply may require stopping development in
order to stop reducing groundwater supply. Should be discussed
here.
No
No
16 41 CR.3. Historic
Preservation
Commission
Remove “rehabilitate” to avoid precluding ability to restore,
reconstruct, etc.
Replace “preserve” with “protect”
Yes –
adjust
wording
17 42 CE.1. Bill Adler, Dev Remove “leading by example”. Town should provide guidance. No
18 42 CE.3. SAHBA/MPA How does Oro Valley plan to lead efforts which contribute to a regional
reduction in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions? SAHBA and
MPA do not support any new requirements for residential development.
No
Your Voice Committees
9 of 22
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting? Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
19 42 CE.4. SAHBA/MPA Strike phrase “including solar”. SAHBA and MPA do not support
application to residential construction.
Yes -
remove
20
21 73 Action 66
Don Bristow,
Com
Remove “homeowners associations” and replace with resident-
members of HOA, not HOA doucments
Create public use agreement for natural resource areas with
homeowners associations, represented by home owners, residents,
and property owners.
Yes –
adjust
wording
22 73 Action 67 Pima County
Development
Training to do what? Clarify. No
23 74 Action 69 Diane Bristow,
Dev
SAHBA/MPA
Delete “and buffer”
Is buffering an effective use of limited land?
No
No
24 74 Action 70 SAHBA/MPA Change “require” to “encourage” No
25 74 ACTION 71 Residents Gradually introduce changes with the ESLO so that established
neighborhoods are respected and have compatible, comparable
land use and density.
Compromise between cluster and existing large-lot
Ensure back and side yards are retained in cluster development
through means such as floor-area-ratio.
No
No
No
Your Voice Committees
10 of 22
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting? Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
26 74 Action 72
General
Pima Floodplain
Management
Bill Adler, Dev
Residents
Residents,
Diane Bristow,
Doug McKee
Introduction: add “elevations, floodplains and riparian habitat and
ridgelines, by:”
Bullet 2: Change “discourage” to “deny”
Define “unnecessary spread of development”
Bullet 3: Eliminate clustering
Residents prefer open space between housing.
Limits diversity of housing.
People feel clustering creates high-density
Controversial
Will this infill lead to urban sprawl-type community?
Yes –
adjust
wording
Yes –
remove
No
No
27 75 Action 73 SAHBA/MPA
Bill Adler, Dev
Bullet 2: How is this possible? How can this be done without knowing
exactly where/how these parks will be?
Protect residents from views of the parks
No
28 75 Action 75 Town of
Marana
SAHBA/MPA
Add bullet: “Ensure that any recreational trail density is appropriate
to wildlife needs in natural areas.”
How will this cost be balanced against the increased cost these
measures impose on new development and affordability?
Yes – new
bullet
No
29 75 Action 80 SAHBA/MPA Replace “require” with “encourage” No
30 76 Action 81 Bill Adler, Dev
Pima Floodplain
Management
Add desalinization
Add “including Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure
(LID/GI)”
No
Yes – add
31 76 Action 85 Youth Advisory
Council
Town should take steps to use reclaimed water on all golf courses. No
32 76 Action 86 Pima County
Dev. Services
SAHBA/MPA
Does this apply to public or private projects or both?
Remove “greywater” requirement
No
No
Your Voice Committees
11 of 22
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting? Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
33 76 New action Pima County
Office of
Sustainability
Identify zoning and other code barriers that inhibit grey water reuse and
rainwater harvesting and storage
No
34 76 Action 87 Resident
“Create, implement and monitor programs…”
Replace “create” with “expand”, as programs exist
No
35 76 Action 89 SAHBA/MPA Address the implications and impact for the development community
and the purpose of water impact fees.
No
36 77 New action Pima Floodplain
Management
“Update design standards in existing code and policy to align with
County policies and maps including but not limited to; Design Standards
for Detention and Retention and Riparian Habit Protection and
Mitigation regulations.”
Yes –
under staff
review
37 78
79
Action 105
and
Action 110
Historic
Preservation
Commission
Bill Adler, Dev
Develop local professional Historic Preservation Commission
resources to identify, protect and celebrate culturally significant
structures, records and places within Oro Valley.
Community will not financially support maintaining history of Oro
Valley.
No
38 78 Action 106 Historic
Preservation
Commission
Bullet 4: Replace with action to adopt a preference for acquisition of
historic properties suitable for adaptive rehabilitation when acquiring
new Town properties.
No
39 79 Action 111 AZ Game &
Fish
More specific action which measures and meets demand for hazardous
waste disposal, “Establish continuous hazardous waste collection and
storage facilities at Mountain Vista and Golder Ranch fire stations.
Monitor and evaluate community need for fewer or more facilities.”
Yes –
adjust
wording
40 79 Action 113 SAHBA/MPA
Pima County
Office of
Sustainability
Define “best practices”
“Encourage overall reduction in energy consumption through the
application of technology instillation of low energy fixtures, storage
and use of a range of renewable energy sources such as solar,
No
Your Voice Committees
12 of 22
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting? Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
biofuels and wind power to meet current and future energy
demands and decrease reliance on fossil fuels.”
41 80 Action 116 Pima County
Dev. Services
Bullet 1: add “reduce barriers” Yes –
adjust
wording
42 80 New
actions
Pima County
Office of
Sustainability
Identify zoning and other code barriers that inhibit the latest energy
technologies
Coordinate with local power utilities that are developing utility-scale
renewable resources or participating in purchase agreements from
renewable energy producers
Conserve water resources through alternative energy sources
No
No
No
43 80 Action 117 Resident Require Oro Valley Police to drive all electric cars. No
44 80 Action 118 Bill Adler, Dev Public won’t support increasing awareness. Increase efficiencies within
energy, water and electrical uses instead.
No
45 80 Action 120
Conceptual
Design Review
Board
SAHBA/MPA
Landscaping – emphasize use of larger, mature vegetation for new
development
Reconsider approval and technology to timing of plant nursery
establishment and transplanting of vegetation. Too many trees are
lost.
Emphasize use of passive water harvesting in development.
Remove “consider view conservation”
No
No
No
No
46 81 Action 121 Doug McKee,
Com
SAHBA/MPA
Prohibiting uses that create air pollution is too vague. Instead, set limits
and review work of other agencies.
Yes –
remove
47 81 Action 122 SAHBA/MPA Development industry does not support action No
48 81 Action 123 Town DIS,
Permitting
SAHBA/MPA
Highly reflective roofs provide high energy efficiency. They do not
blend with environment aesthetically.
Yes
Yes –
adjust
wording
Your Voice Committees
13 of 22
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting? Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
SAHBA/MPA “Encourage”, not “require”
Development industry does not support
No
No
49 81 Action 124 SAHBA/MPA
Removing regulatory barriers has not worked before in promoting green
building
No
50 81 Action 125 SAHBA/MPA
SAHBA/MPA
Resident
Pima County
Office of
Sustainability
Bullet 1: Remove requiring solar orientation, as it reduces lot-yield,
drives up cost and drives down affordability of new
development.
Bullet 4: This isn’t possible or realistic.
New Bullets
Require solar for all new construction to provide 80% of their energy
use
Require residential and nonresidential development to be solar
ready
Yes –
adjust
wording
No
No
51 81 New
actions
Pima County
Office of
Sustainability
Encourage the use of alternative pavement, pervious paving
materials for water harvesting
More funding for landscape maintenance.
No
No
Your Voice Committees
14 of 22
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
General Plan Amendments – Sub-Committee Update
Purpose: Information and discussion
Background:
In the past, general plan amendments have typically only impacted changes for land use designations on specific
properties. For this reason, the Development Committee worked on the drafting of section 6.3 (pgs. 58-62).
Summary of committee comments: Comments received from Planning and Zoning Commission, one resident,
Development Committee members and the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association and Metropolitan Pima
Alliance. (See list of all comments received during 60-day Stakeholder Review Period)
Development Sub-Committee changes:
General:
o Formatting changes
Thresholds:
o Amendment threshold criteria at 40 acres.
Evaluation criteria:
o Introduction adjusted to tighten future interpretation of purpose and process of amendment
evaluation criteria.
o Remove reference to adverse community impact, as this is accounted for more clearly
elsewhere in criteria.
o Remove references to development impact on traffic and drainage, as “infrastructure” is more
inclusive.
Action? Yes, No Discuss: Accept Sub-Committee decisions
Your Voice Committees
15 of 22
Land Use Proposal Open Houses:
Oracle at El Conquistador
Existing: Commercial/Office Park
Proposed: Neighborhood Commercial Office
Reason for proposal: Matches adjacent properties.
Meeting result: Few attendants, no opposition
Staff Recommendation: Support NCO proposal
Action? Yes, No Discuss: Change designation to Neighborhood Commercial Office (NCO)
Tangerine and La Cholla
Existing: Low Density Residential
Proposed: Medium Density Residential
Reason for proposal: Buffer existing rural development, in commercial corridor, matches development
across Tangerine
Meeting Result: Many attendants, primarily opposed, against changing rural character, possible harm to
wells, reduced privacy, increased foot traffic. Preference for General Plan Amendment process.
Staff Recommendation: Remove MDR proposal, potentially address in future.
Action? Yes, No Discuss: No change, keep existing Low Density Residential designation
Oracle at Linda Vista
Existing: Commercial/Office Park
Proposed: Neighborhood Commercial Office in south, Community Regional Commercial in north
Reason for proposal: On Oracle Road, provide neighborhood services, align with surrounding
commercial/
Meeting Result: Many attendants, primarily opposed, against change to neighborhood, prefer existing
Commercial/Office Park, concerned of noise, pedestrian safety, increased traffic on Linda Vista,
children’s safety. Preference for General Plan Amendment process.
Staff Recommendation: Remove NCO/CRC proposal, potentially address in future.
Action? Yes, No Discuss: No change, keep existing Commercial/Office Park designation
Your Voice Committees
16 of 22
The following items are higher level comments for clarification or changes. Please review and note what action you would like to take. We will
only take time to discuss those identified as needing discussion by the committee. All new text additions or changes are in blue.
Land Use Map
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting? Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
1 53 New Land
Use Proposal
WLB Group,
Paul Oland
New Land Use proposal
Southeast corner of Oracle
and Hardy
Existing: LDR1
Proposed: NCO
See Attachments:
1. Land Use Request
2. 2008 Town Council Report,
submitted to Town Council for the original General Plan Amendment of
the property. The Amendment was denied.
No
2 53 Planning
Area
Town of
Marana
Marana does not support overlapping Planning Area Boundaries. Move
Planning Area Boundary to Shannon.
Yes –
adjust PA
3 53 Urban
Services
Boundary
Town of
Marana
USB should reflect area that is actually serviceable by the Town of Oro
Valley utilities. Area north of Moore Road and west of La Cholla
Boulevard extending into Tortolita Mountain Park is not feasible.
No
4 53,
57
Tier I Growth
Area
Diane
Bristow
Doesn’t want development on Oracle from Ina to Innovation Park to look
like that of Oracle/Orange Grove.
No
5 53 Tier II
Growth Area
Resident Tangerine Growth Areas don’t seem to provide reasonable buffering to
existing neighborhoods.
No
6 57 All Growth
Areas,
second bullet
Diane
Bristow
Pima County
Dev. Services
“Conserve significant natural resources and open space in the growth
area. and coordinate their relocation, as needed, to similar areas
outside the growth area’s boundaries.”
Locate growth area away from natural resources
Yes –
remove
Your Voice Committees
17 of 22
General Plan Goals, Policies and Actions
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
7 46 P. Pima County
Office of
Sustainability
SAHBA/MPA
“… and conservation elements to increase community interaction,
enjoyment and sense of place. Incorporate courtyards, plazas, pocket
parks, shade trees and public art to promote healthy community
principles and safety by design.”
This is not cost effective, which reduces development and affordable
housing.
Yes –
adjust
wording
No
8 46 Q. Pima County
Office of
Sustainability
“Support multi-modal transportation and transit-oriented development
to improve mobility, reduce pollution and reduce traffic congestion.
Integrate pedestrian oriented features and bicycle facilities to discourage
automobile dependence and support healthy lifestyles.”
No
9 46 T. Historic
Preservation
Commission
Pima Floodplain
Management
Resident
“Conservation of natural and cultural resources through effective
land use and transportation planning, design, construction and
management.”
Add “floodplain management”
Including attending to natural recharge for water in Oro Valley
aquifer?
Yes – add
Yes
No
10 46
47
U., W.
LU.5.
Bill Alder
Conceptual
Design Review
Board
What is an “easy transition”? “Effective transition”?
Transitions are respective of the surrounding properties
Encourage transitions to consider all elements of site design within
and outside of development.
Yes –
“effective
”, adjust
wording
11 46 U. Diane Bristow,
Dev
Not all neighborhoods need to be supported by shopping and services
which meet daily needs
No
12 46 V. Resident Define “full recovery” No
Your Voice Committees
18 of 22
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
13 46 X. Pima County
Office of
Sustainability
“Balance growth management strategies and economic development
with open space conservation, energy production, transportation
networks and available water and environmental resources.”
Yes –
adjust
wording
14 47 LU.4. Diane Bristow,
Dev
“… while minimizing or eliminating impacts to adjacent properties…” No
15 47 LU.4. Don Bristow,
Com
“Promote private and government outdoor lighting that enhances…” No
16 47 LU.7. PC Office of
Sustainability
Add incentivize compact, energy efficient development No
17 47 LU.8. PC Office of
Sustainability
Bill Adler, Dev
Add support multigenerational housing and neighborhoods
Master planning should not be encourage. It does not contain
sufficient land use information and is consistently amended.
No
Yes – edit
definition
18 47 LU.9. PC Office of
Sustainability
Add incorporate, where feasible and cost effective, complete streets
principles and best practices.
No
19 47 New policy Pima County
Development
Services
Call for revitalization/redevelopment
Utilize infill development to strengthen existing neighborhoods,
create the higher density necessary to support desirable services,
increase the tax base and make our communities more efficient
without being disruptive to existing neighborhoods.
No
No
20 55 Intro Resident “Needs of developers and residents” gives too strong of value to the
development community.
No
21 56 DG.2. SAHBA/MPA What will additional revenue sources for infrastructure look like?
Examples?
No
22 63 I.5. Resident This statement is very weak. Broadband highly effective in attracting
economic development. Needs a planning commission just for
broadband to lay out an incremental strategy for achieving it.
No
Your Voice Committees
19 of 22
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
23 63 I.6. Pima County
Office of
Sustainability
“Provide for safety, efficiency and environmentally sensitive design in
stormwater systems with an emphasis on water harvesting and recharge
benefits.”
No
24 63 I.11. SAHBA/MPA Can Oro Valley financially afford to develop a comprehensive transit
system?
Yes –
“promote
”
25 63 I.13. PC Office of
Sustainability
“… that supports electric, biofuel and CNG vehicles and hybrid vehicles
and level-3 charging stations.”
No
26 63 New policy Parks and Rec
Advisory Board
Ensure that bicycle path design is safe, integrated with road design and
that paths are connected.
Yes –
adjust I.9.
27 General
PC Dev Services
Residents and
Committee
Members
With so little land left in Oro Valley, it is more critical than ever to
critically evaluate what development is best for each area left.
Focus on infill of vacant properties
Needs to fit in with what has been established.
Not rezone and develop with high densities that are incompatible
with small town feel and preserving our scenic beauty
Better planning needs to be done so the future construction is more
aesthetic (views and wildlife).
Against rapid growth. It does not benefit residents
No
No
No
No
No
28 General Resident Property taxes are too high. Why not move OV to Pinal County? No
29 General Resident Require a developer to build at least 60% of development within 1 year,
give or take, of project approval to assure developments are truly in
demand at time of request.
No
30 82 Action 127 Conceptual
Design Review
Board
Bullet 1: Signs are for advertising, identification and wayfinding. These
elements overlap and excessive advertising should not be
accommodated.
“Signage is intended for identification and direction”
Yes –
adjust
wording
Your Voice Committees
20 of 22
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
Don Bristow,
Com
Conceptual
Design Review
Board
Bullet 2: “Changes to signage codes must be justified with evidence that
the change will result in a measurable significant benefit for the
residents.”
Additional bullets:
Emphasize consistency in sign size and placement
More pro-active sign enforcement
No
No
No
31 82 New action Don Bristow,
Com
“Except for emergencies and infrastructure construction and repairs, the
Town and quasigovernmental entities must comply with Town codes and
ordinances for signage.”
No
32 82 Action 128 SAHBA/MPA Replace “require” with “encourage” No
33 82 Action 131 SAHBA/MPA Where are proposed locations for transit-oriented development and
walkable neighborhoods?
No
34 82 New action Conceptual
Design Review
Board
Currently, development is rather vanilla due to over-emphasis on
similarity and desert pallet. Enable variety of architectural colors and
textures that integrate with the community and don’t emphasize
sameness.
Yes – add
35 82 Action 132 Bill Adler, Dev
Conceptual
Design Review
Board
Bill Adler, Dev
Incorporate land uses consistent with surrounding development and
residential acceptance.
Respect Planned Area Development standards and seek to
harmonize differentiating design requirements in the Town and
between existing and new development.
Discontinue Master Planning
Yes –
adjust
definition
Yes – add
No
36 82 Action 134 Bill Adler, Dev
Regain identity of low-density, hospitality-oriented community
through annexations of State Lands
No
Your Voice Committees
21 of 22
# Page Item Comment
source
Comment Last All-Com meeting Action?
Yes, No,
Discuss
Doug McKee,
Com
Diane Bristow
Include “water planning to avoid any further depletion of the water
aquifer”
Include public participation
No
No
37 83 Action 137 Bill Adler, Dev Bullet 1: Inventory of existing housing does not indicate future needs No
38 83 Action 139 Bill Adler, Dev The public is not concerned with this issue. This is a staff issue. No
39 83 Action 142 SAHBA/MPA Define “desirable economic development” No
40 84 Action 146 Parks and Rec
Advisory Board
Bill Adler, Dev
Bicycle lanes should be required, safe and connective.
The public is not concerned with this issue. This is a staff issue.
No
No
41 84 Action 148 SAHBA/MPA Why will Oro Valley be re-examining zoning code parking ratios? No
42 85 Action 150 Bill Adler, Dev Town is 85-95% built out. Long-range planning is not a priority for future
design.
No
43 85 Action 151 Doug McKee,
Com
“Define measures, identify and assign a high priority on available funding
to provide for the continued proactive maintenance of a high-quality
pothole-free street system.
Yes No
44 85 Action 153 SAHBA/MPA
Pima County
Office of
Sustainability
Roadway public art, landscaping and light poles will significantly
increase maintenance costs.
Landscape along collector streets for pleasant walking and biking
connections to bus stops and for multi-use trails along major and
minor streets.
No
No
45 85 Action 154 Bill Adler, Dev This action is not reasonable for a rural community. Yes –
remove
46 86 Action 162 Doug Mckee,
Com
Parks and Rec
Advisory Board
Oracle/1st Ave should be noted for high priority in pedestrian access
improvement.
Last bullet, “Evaluating Town programs and creating opportunities
with community organization and local agencies to increase walking
opportunities for school children.”
No
Yes –
adjust
wording
Your Voice All Committee Meeting 5/7/15
1
www.YourVoiceOV.com
All Committee Review Meeting
August 18, 2015
www.YourVoiceOV.com
Purpose of Tonight’s Meeting
From 60% to 90% draft
Your Voice All Committee Meeting 5/7/15
2
www.YourVoiceOV.com
Welcome Back!
•While you’ve been away, we’ve
–Engaged the community
–Received over 1,000 comments!
–Reviewed internally
•Thank you, Committees, for
–Staying true to the community’s voice
and honoring the V&GP
–Valuing the committee process
–Diligently attending and participating
in meetings (just this last one!)
•Thank you!
www.YourVoiceOV.com
Meeting Overview
•Welcome & Introductions
•Meeting Business
•Large Group Discussions
•“Continue to…” actions
•Distinguish policies and actions
•Arroyo Grande update
•Importance of addressing finance
•Break‐Out Committee Discussions
•Follow‐up edits
•Final issues/concerns
•Public Comment
•Next Steps and Adjourn
Your Voice All Committee Meeting 5/7/15
3
www.YourVoiceOV.com
Project Schedule: Phase 3
•Publish “Recommended Draft” (90% Completion)
Planning & Zoning Study Session (September 15)
•Planning & Zoning Commission Hearings
(October 6 and 20)
•Town Council Hearing (November 4)
•Public Outreach (January 2016 –Fall 2016)
•Final Revisions & Town Council Review
(Fall 2016)
•Voter Ratification (Nov 2016)
Assign a Committee
member to represent
your work!
Pick up the
90% Draft!
Get
involved!
www.YourVoiceOV.com
Comments
1080 comments!
•6 Government
Agencies
•7 Boards and
Commissions
•2 Stakeholder
Groups
•7 Committee
members
•Over 100 residents
Residents
32%
Government
Agencies
18%
Town Boards and
Commissions
9%
Stakeholder
Groups
6%
Committee Members
35%
COMMENTS
Your Voice All Committee Meeting 5/7/15
4
www.YourVoiceOV.com
Comments
Broken into categories:
•Committee discussion
required
•Internal review
–Clarity, accuracy,
grammar
•No action requested
•No action
–Questions
–Topic elsewhere in Plan
–Topic not part of Plan
Committee
discussion required
36%
Internal review
41%
No action
requested
11%
No action
12%
COMMENTS
www.YourVoiceOV.com
Large Discussion Issues
Your Voice All Committee Meeting 5/7/15
5
www.YourVoiceOV.com
“Continue to…” Actions
Summary of comments:
•The Town is already implementing many policies and
actions of the document.
Action 64: Develop strategies, including potential zoning
code revisions; to protect human life and property from
natural hazards including steep and unstable slopes and
soils, floods and erosion hazards.
www.YourVoiceOV.com
Policy vs. Action
Summary of comments:
•Some actions sound like policies
Action 49: Explore opportunities to integrate family‐
friendly amenities into the trail system, such as areas for
play, rest and learning.
Your Voice All Committee Meeting 5/7/15
6
www.YourVoiceOV.com
Arroyo Grande Update
PINAL COUNTY
PIMA COUNTY
TOWN LIMITS
Arroyo Grande
9,106 Acres
www.YourVoiceOV.com
Addressing Finance
Summary of comments:
•Concern over funding
Foreword: Most of the General Plan policies and actions will
move forward by focusing planning efforts using existing
resources. Others will best move forward once a funding source
is identified. The community supports these policies and actions
and encourages the Town to have a straight‐forward
community conversation on funding. This dialogue will help to
ensure implementation of the priorities of the community,
which were identified through this robust planning process.
Ideas:
•Explain roll of funding in implementation of Plan
•Reference in multiple chapters
Your Voice All Committee Meeting 5/7/15
7
www.YourVoiceOV.com
Break‐Out Committee Discussions
This is your plan!
Honor your
collective work
Be true to the
process
www.YourVoiceOV.com
Next Steps
STAGE TASKS DATE
RECOMMENDED
DRAFT WORK
(90% draft version)
Staff Revisions and Document Production 8/20 – 9/14
Publish Recommended Draft (90% draft) 9/15
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning and Zoning Study Session 9/15
Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing #1 10/6
Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing #2 10/20
Town Council Briefing 10/21
Town Council Hearing 11/4
PHASE 3
Outreach to community –Did we get it right?
Community surveys
Final Revisions
Jan 2016 –
Oct 2016
Public Vote Nov 2016
Your Voice All Committee Meeting 5/7/15
8
www.YourVoiceOV.com