May 4, 2011

CALL TO ORDER - 5:00 p.m.


Satish Hiremath, Mayor
Mary Snider, Vice Mayor
Joe Hornat, Councilmember
Lou Waters, Councilmember
Steve Solomon, Councilmember

ABSENT: Bill Garner, Councilmember
Barry Gillaspie, Councilmember


MOTION: A motion was made by and seconded by to

MOTION carried, 5-0.

Mayor Hiremath requested the Town Manager Jerene Watson, Assistant Town Manager Greg Caton, Town Attorney Tobin Rosen, Finance Director Stacey Lemos, Economic Development Manager Amanda Jacobs, Assistant to the Town Manager Kevin Burke, and Financial Analyst Art Cuaron all attend the Executive Session.


CALL TO ORDER - At 6:03 p.m.


Satish Hiremath, Mayor
Mary Snider, Vice Mayor
Bill Garner, Councilmember
Barry Gillaspie, Councilmember
Joe Hornat, Councilmember
Lou Waters, Councilmember
Steve Solomon, Councilmember

Councilmember Garner attended the meeting via teleconference call.


Mayor Hiremath led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.


Assistant Town Manager Greg Caton reviewed the upcoming Council meetings and Board and Commission meetings for May. 


Councilmember Waters spent three days at Arizona Town Hall which focused on the capitalization of arts and culture to stimulate economic development.  He commented that quality of life was important to the town’s future economic strategy.

Councilmember Solomon commented on letters of appreciation that the Town received:
 - Vistoso Village Homeowners Association thanked Sgt. Amy Sloane for attending their meetings and commended the Police Department for their support of the Neighborhood Watch Program
 - U.S. Department of Justice thanked Officer Soto for assisting the Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force
 - A resident thanked Storm Water Engineer David Parker for his assistance with a floodplain situation 



Mayor Hiremath announced that he would move item (4) before item (1).



Police Department Appreciation Letters

Appreciation Letter 041211

Appreciation Letter 041311


DIS Letter of Appreciation

Dave Parker Appreciation


Mayor Hiremath requested that the audience hold their applause during the meeting out of respect to the speakers.

Oro Valley resident John Musolf commented on the FY 2011/12 recommended budget that had just been released and pointed out accounts that had increased.  He stated that travel and training and membership and subscription items should not have been included in the budget.

Councilmember Solomon remarked that a majority of the training budget was required by the Town for positions that needed to be trained or recertified on a continuing basis.  He also noted that a majority of the subscriptions were for the League of Arizona Cities and Towns and other memberships that the Mayor belonged to.

Oro Valley resident Conny Culver commented on the Council’s decision to eliminate Coyote Run transit services and requested that the Council focus on funding essential programs instead of just reductions. 

Councilmember Waters noted that transit services had been discussed for over a year before the decision was made to cut Coyote Run and that the entire Oro Valley community and users were looked at when cuts were made.  

Vice Mayor Snider noted that Oro Valley did not eliminate Coyote Run as had been reported in the media but rather Council had eliminated the town funding of Coyote Run.  She also stated that other transit services would fill in the service gaps. 

Mayor Hiremath added that there was not an alternative to Coyote Run a year ago and that was why the Council had funded it.  He said the mission was to make sure that the services that the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) provided would be equal to the services that Coyote Run provided.  The Mayor reported that the RTA would utilize Coyote Run drivers.    

Oro Valley resident Donald Bristow suggested that the Council should welcome an open dialogue with the citizens of the town about the budget.

Councilmember Solomon replied that the recommended budget was an open, published document and nothing was hidden from the public.  He stated that the sign code ordinance was open to all citizens and that everyone was given an opportunity to participate.

Erin Collier, a resident and business owner in Oro Valley, answered the question Mayor Hiremath posed in the April 27, 2011 article of the Explorer Newspaper which asked, "Is Oro Valley Still A Community of Excellence?"  She encouraged citizens not to allow the loudest voices to set the course for Oro Valley and stated that a revenue discussion should be part of the dialogue.

Oro Valley resident Kevin Hearing spoke on the budget and stated that additional revenue sources had to be looked at in addition to cuts.  He also stated that a business-friendly climate would be necessary in order to create a community of excellence.

Vice Mayor Snider stated that core services had to be identified in order for the community to move forward.  She added that great discussions took place at both Oro Valley Economic Summits and that the Development and Infrastructure Services Department had refined their processes with the intent to be business friendly.



Presentation by the Oro Valley Optimist Club Regarding the Dispose A Med Program

Sgt. Amy Sloane with the Oro Valley Police Department Community Resource Unit presented the history of the Dispose A Med Program which started in December, 2009.  She identified the three main concerns:

 - Student overdoses and pharmaceutical abuse related crimes
 - Flushed medications and residual affects in the ground water system
 - The community’s health and welfare

Sgt. Sloane stated that people showed up two hours early to drop off their medications, and that volunteers consisted of the Oro Valley Police Department (OVPD) Assistance Program members, OVPD Explorer Post members, Oro Valley Optimists Club members and Oro Valley Community and Resource Unit personnel.

Oro Valley Optimist member Don Cox stated that 51 pounds of medication were collected at each event or about 42,000 pills.  He reviewed the assembly line process for how the medications were received from the public, removed from the packaging and disposed of.  He noted that empty bottles were donated to the Humane Society or to the Pima Animal Care Center.  Some individuals brought unusually large quantities of medications to the event, including inhalers, pet medications and needles and sharps for disposal.  

Sgt. Sloane said the Dispose A Med partners were Drug Enforcement Agency, Oro Valley Police Department, Golder Ranch Fire Department, Pima County Waste Water Management, University of Arizona College of Pharmacy, Critical Path Institute, Oro Valley Optimist Club, Oro Valley Hospital and Target.

Sgt. Sloane commented that the Drug Enforcement Agency, in conjunction with state and local law enforcement agencies throughout the United States, conducted the first national Prescription Drug Take Back Day on September 25, 2010 and that Oro Valley held theirs in August, 2009.  The second Take Back Day was held on April 30, 2011, and Oro Valley took in 182 pounds of prescription and over-the-counter medications.  Sgt. Sloane stated that the program had collected 1,503 pounds of medication to date.

Mr. Cox reported that the Oro Valley Optimists Club had been invited to speak about the Dispose A Med program at the 93rd Optimist International Convention on July 3-5, 2011.  The program would also be presented to the Optimists Activities Committee in October, 2011 and expected to have the program adopted internationally.  

Vice Mayor Snider was also a member of the Oro Valley Optimist Club. The amount of pills that had been collected was during a short 4-hour time frame.  She reported that Dr. Woosley from the Critical Path Institute used the monthly collection periods to demonstrate to people how to chart their medication intake.  Vice Mayor Snider said that prescription medication deaths by teenagers had surpassed deaths by automobiles.  She thanked Sgt. Sloane and Mr. Cox for their work in the promotion of the program and for the disposal of the medications.

Councilmember Waters congratulated Sgt. Sloane, Officer Benjamin and Don Cox and stated that their work was another reason why the Town was proud of the Police Department and volunteers.


Presentation of Quarterly Gold Star Recipients for the Period of October through December 2010

Town Clerk Julie Bower announced the Gold Star recipients and Mayor Hiremath presented them with certificates.

The Gold Star recipients for the period of October - December 2010 were:

Jeff Kane, Water
Cat Strong, Library
Phil O’Connor, Development & Infrastructure Services
Bob Easton, Human Resources 
Paul Keesler, Development & Infrastructure Services (2)
Louis Valencia, Water
Group Award - Iris Chaparro, Arinda Asper, Kelsie Hanson, Kevin Burke, Shirley Seng, David Ruiz
Suzy Molinar
Karn Boyce
Cassidy Sumpter
Catherine Hendrix
Jason Rivas
Steve Moore
Danielle Tanner
Group Award - Aimee Ramsey, Lynanne Dellerman, Kara Sickelbower and Barb Harnisch
Development & Infrastructure Services Department, Bob Greer and Kevin Verville 


Presentation of Life Saving Award at the Request of Northwest Fire Chief Jeff Piechura, Related to the January 8, 2011 Life Saving Incident by Oro Valley Police Officers

Northwest Fire District Chief Jeff Piechura and Assistant Chief Albert Pisqueira presented an award to the following Oro Valley Police Department members:

Lead Police Officer Jeffrey Moore
Sgt. Steve Hammons
Officer Daniel Hoyos
Officer Manny Guerrero
Officer Jeff Thomas
Officer Tim Brown

Chief Piechura explained that on January 8, 2011 there was a tragic event that pulled many of the community agencies together.  He stated that the officers were recognized for their on-scene security assistance and for tending to the wounded and the Chief thanked them for their efforts that day.  

Councilmember Waters added that Officer Brown could not be reached on his radio during the accident and it was later learned that it was because he had been stopping blood flow on two different victims.


Proclamation - Building Safety Month - May, 2011

Mayor Hiremath presented a proclamation proclaiming May, 2011 as Building Safety Month.

Councilmember Solomon added that homebuilders relied heavily on licensed building inspectors to inspect every stage of development to find corrections that needed to be made.  He also noted that citizens should have confidence in homes that had been approved by Town staff.


MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Solomon and seconded by Vice Mayor Snider to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Item (J). 

MOTION carried, 7-0.


Minutes - March 16, 2011

3-16-11 Minutes


Procurement Division Quarterly Report - January 1, 2011 through March 31, 2011

Q1 2011 Report


Transit Services Monthly Report - March 2011

Transit March 2011 Report


Economic Development Division Quarterly Report: January 1, 2011 - March 31, 2011

EcDev Quarterly Report January - March 2011


Development & Infrastructure Services, Permitting Division - March 2011 Reports

Activity Report

Customer Chart

Permit Activity

Plan Review Chart

Inspection Activity

Revenue chart


Notice to Mayor and Council of the Police Department’s project proposals, requesting grant funding under the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety 2012 opportunity, as well as the Arizona Department of Homeland Security


Amending the Town Council Liaison Assignments by appointing Councilmember Lou Waters as liaison to the Oro Valley Business Club


Resolution No. (R)11-25 Authorizing and Approving a Master Intergovernmental Agreement between Pima County and the Town of Oro Valley for the Inter-Connection of Data Networks

Resolution 11-25


IT Exhibit A


Resolution No. (R)11-26 Requesting the Transfer of the remaining 2004 Pima County Voter Approved Bond Funds Approximating $1.5 Million from the Kelly Ranch Project to the Acquisition of Property in the Arroyo Grande Area for Urban Open Space Conservation

Resolution 11-26

Council Communication 9.16.09

Resolution No. (R) 09-61


Resolution No. (R)11-27 Amending the Existing Parks and Recreation Fee Schedule to Increase the Parks and Recreation Facility Usage Fees

Resolution 11-27

Attachment B - Proposed Fees

Ord. No. (O) 02-32

Revenue and Fee Structure

Councilmember Solomon requested a more detailed breakdown of the proposed fees and the rationale for the increases.

Parks, Recreation, Cultural Resources & Library Director Ainsley Legner presented an overview of the proposed fee increases.

Fee increases were recommended for:

-Ball field rentals
-Ramada rentals
-Open/lap swim
-Pool lane rentals
-Pool season passes

The recommended fee increases were derived by balancing fee increases with potential loss of patrons.  She noted that it would be difficult to raise fees significantly since recreational swimming fees had historically been low in Arizona. 

Ms. Legner noted a typo under pool lane projected FY 2012 revenue.  Originally, the chart showed $127,000.  The correct amount was $106,000.  

Councilmember Waters asked if a cost/recovery analysis had been calculated. 

Ms. Legner stated that for the current fiscal year, the pool was projected to have a 26% cost recovery.  With the implementation of the proposed fees, there would be a 39% cost recovery.

Councilmember Solomon asked if the swim team rental fees had been included in the proposed fee increases.

Ms. Legner responded that the swim team rental fees had been included in the proposed fees and that the increase amounted to an extra $1 an hour per lane for short lanes.

Councilmember Solomon asked if a larger increase had been considered to help offset the costs.

Ms. Legner felt that the market couldn’t bear a larger increase right now but that incremental increases would be brought back before Council every year.

Councilmember Solomon asked what percentage of non-residents represented pool users.

Ms. Legner said that for annual pool passes, there had been a 50/50 split between residents and non-residents.

Councilmember Hornat asked if any thought had been given to having just one pass for the whole year instead of the current need of four passes to cover an entire year.

Aquatics Manager Catherine Atalla said that there were many users who only purchased summer passes.
Councilmember Hornat asked staff to look into the viability of having just one pass that would cover the entire calendar year. 

Councilmember Waters asked if the pool lost money.

Ms. Legner stated that the pool did lose money.

Assistant Town Manager Greg Caton stated that the pool produced a 61% loss with only a 39% cost recovery.  The total projected expenditure for FY 11/12 was approximately $432,000.

MOTION:  A motion was made by Councilmember Solomon and seconded by Councilmember Gillaspie to approve Resolution (R)11-27 amending the existing Parks and Recreation fee schedule to increase the Parks and Recreation facility usage fees with rate increases effective July 1, 2011.

MOTION carried, 7-0.




Ordinance 11-14

Attachment A-Ord.(O)06-23

Attachment B-March 4 2009 CC and Min

Attachment C-Tax Rate Matrix

Finance Director Stacey Lemos gave an overview of the proposed Utility Tax increase from 2% to 4%.

Ms. Lemos stated that the Town had seen major revenue declines over the last several years in both one-time revenues and recurring revenues.  State shared revenues had declined by approximately three million dollars over the last four years.  Local sales taxes which included construction sales taxes had declined by approximately three million dollars over the last four years and building permit revenues had declined by approximately 1.5 million dollars over the last four years as well.

Ms. Lemos said that the Town had cut expenditures each year to balance the budget with efforts made to preserve core services to the community and impact as few residents as possible.

The proposed FY 11/12 General Fund budget had been set at 25.5 million dollars which was approximately the same amount budgeted for FY 05/06.

Ms. Lemos outlined the four-pronged approach for closing the FY 11/12 deficit which included:

-Enhanced operational efficiencies
-Adoption of Town Council policies to support local businesses
-Reduced expenditures
-Increased revenues

Ms. Lemos presented background information regarding the Utility Tax which was first enacted in 2007.

-Recommended at 4%, adopted at 2%
-Included 2-year sunset clause
-Extended in 2009 when General Fund faced a $5.2 million dollar deficit

Ms. Lemos discussed the fiscal impact of a 2% utility sales tax increase and stated that the 2% increase would apply to electricity, natural gas, and water and would generate approximately $1.3 million dollars for FY 11/12.

The estimated monthly cost per household would be approximately $6.00 which was based on a $300 dollar total average combined bill.

Ms. Lemos compared the tax rates from surrounding jurisdictions and summarized the contingency reserve balances.  The Town’s financial policies required a 25% minimum balance based on the Town’s adopted expenditures within that fund.  She noted that the 25% threshold amounted to $6.6 million dollars for the General Fund.  The Town’s current General Fund contingency fund balance was approximately $9.4 million dollars.

Ms. Lemos stated that if the utility tax was approved, the Town would work with the utility companies to provide them with the proper information regarding the increase and allow them sufficient time to implement and collect the utility tax increase starting in August, 2011.

Discussion ensued regarding the Bed Tax fund and what it could be used for.

Councilmember Gillaspie noted that within the budget, the index of servability on highways had been reduced with the reductions that were borrowed from the fund to cover expenses. 

Councilmember Garner asked what the alternative plan would be if the $1.3 million was not funded.

Town Manager Jerene Watson stated that an alternative plan would be crafted depending upon the direction that Council would take.

Councilmember Garner felt that he didn’t have all of the information necessary to make a decision.

MOTION:  A motion was made by Councilmember Garner to continue item number four (4) to the May 18 regular meeting.

Mayor Hiremath disallowed the motion since the Public Hearing had not yet been held.
MOTION failed.

Councilmember Hornat stated that revenue enhancements would be needed in order to close the $1.3 million dollar budget deficit so as to not affect core services.  He felt that reserves could be used to balance the budget but at some point in time, the reserve funds would be depleted if additional revenues were not created.

Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing.

Oro Valley resident John Musolf stated that the primary reason for the increase of the 2006 utility tax was to support 18.5 new positions and capital improvement programs.  The utility tax was extended on March 4, 2009 for additional revenue.  Mr. Musolf recommended that Council look at an alternate plan before implementing the utility tax increase.

Councilmember Gillaspie stated that it would be a faulty premise to say that the budget would be balanced with the $1.3 million dollars.  The Town borrowed from other funds within the budget and significant capital expenditures had been deferred in order to balance the budget.

Oro Valley resident Lynne St. Angelo stated that ten years ago, the Oro Valley General Plan made a mistake by planning for higher residential densities than had been achieved which eventually led to higher taxes.  In 2006, the Council instituted a 2% utility tax that increased Town employee staffing by 18.5 positions.  The tax was supposed to sunset in two years but it had not.  She felt that the Council should have reduced taxes to help citizens and businesses from declaring bankruptcy.  She asked the Council to go back to 2001 staffing levels and then justify each additional person that was added. 

Mayor Hiremath clarified that the Census was a 10 year Census.  Half way through, the Census projected what the increase would be from the middle of the benchmark to the end and that only increased by approximately 1,100 people.  The total population from 2000 to 2010 went from roughly 29,700 to 41,000 which was a 38% increase.  Services and personnel had to increase because there was no company, private or municipal, that could absorb such a large increase of people without increased staffing levels.

Councilmember Solomon stated that current revenue levels were well below 2006 revenue levels and staffing levels had been reduced along with budget reductions.

Councilmember Garner pointed out that fiscal year 04-05 budget projections were based on a population of approximately 41,000.  These population projections were used to staff the Town appropriately.  He was concerned that over the years, the Town had grown fat with personnel and programs.

Oro Valley resident Sal Giapetta congratulated the Town on the recent installation of solar panels at Town Hall.  He said that if taxes would be raised, there would be no growth.  Businesses were closing and people didn't shop in Oro Valley anymore.  He felt that raising taxes would not be the answer.  Mr. Giapetta thanked the Oro Valley Police Department for their services but wondered why the PD’s budget was so large.

Oro Valley resident Paul Parisi thanked Council for prioritizing the budget and providing more funding to the Police Department.  He said a 2% utility tax would not be considered a selective tax because all businesses paid it.  The gas tax would be considered a selective tax.  All taxes for Oro Valley businesses should be the same and not more than competing jurisdictions.  The unintended consequence of a utility tax increase would hurt the Town by not being able to recruit businesses and it would hurt the Town in annexations.  He urged the Council to have faith in the American business.

Oro Valley resident Al Cook felt that Oro Valley was a wonderful place to live and he wanted to maintain the current quality of life.  It was important to maintain high standards and also to trust Town staff to do their jobs.  Mr. Cook said that the utility tax increase wouldn’t be too expensive and that it would give more time to find longer lasting solutions.  He urged the Council to adopt the 2% utility tax increase.

Oro Valley resident Geri Ottoboni stated that if the utility tax were to be increased by 2%, it would put further stress on school budgets, thus depriving the school children of Oro Valley from a good education.  She felt that Town employees should pay their fair share of health benefits and that the savings would offset the need for an increase to the utility tax.

Oro Valley resident Bill Kemp opposed any tax or fee increases.  He felt that government in general had grown too large and that programs and even some core services needed to be cut back.

Oro Valley resident Mike Zinkin felt that expenses should have been considered first before looking at additional revenue to balance the budget.  He felt that the town should look at cutting expenses such as school resource officers (SRO), motorcycle officers, take home vehicles and employee health benefits.  He wanted the Council to consider outsourcing certain jobs and utilizing part-time workers.  He urged Council to study the budget and ask questions.

Oro Valley resident Kevin Herring said that the Town should be comparing itself to Catalina, Tortalina, and Marana in order to understand and compare the whole tax picture.  He felt that the utility tax was a can that kept getting kicked down the road.  He urged Council to take a hard look at non-core and even some core services to see what was really needed.  Mr. Herring cautioned Council about the potential loss of business due to an increase of the utility tax.  

Oro Valley resident Bill Adler said that when he moved here, he signed up for a community of excellence.  He believed that cost increases happened in the private and public sectors and that those costs needed to be covered in order to maintain services.  He emphasized that citizens benefited from arts & culture programs, education, social and economic values, lighted streets, convenient shopping, enhanced open space etc.  Mr. Adler stated that not all services were necessarily important to him but as a whole, those services made the quality of life expected in Oro Valley.  He felt that good people, facilities and services would be expensive but those costs would need to be covered in order to maintain a community of excellence.

Oro Valley resident Bill Rodman was confused regarding the possibility of increasing a particular tax on revenues of which the Town did not know what they would be spent on.  He agreed that the Town needed to take a closer look at services.  Businesses would pay a lot more than $6 per month with the increase to the utility tax.  He stated that businesses needed to be attracted to Oro Valley and then allowed to grow without increased taxes in order to build a stable revenue.

Oro Valley resident Jeremy Christopher felt that the Town needed to focus on cutting the Police Department budget in order to make meaningful cuts to the budget.  He said that the Police Department needed to be studied in order to see where efficiencies could be made.  He urged Council to look at all the facts before a decision was made and felt that a utility tax increase of 2% would be significant to businesses.

Oro Valley resident Conny Culver respectfully asked Council to tone down their comments made to the citizens.  She felt that Council was trying to discourage people from talking to the Council.  She had voted against the utility tax in 2006 because she thought that government had to live within its means.  Ms. Culver stated that a lot of towns in the country had gone bankrupt and were forced to unincorporate.  Spending had to be controlled and she pointed out that the 2004 fiscal year budget had been crafted upon the population numbers of today.  She urged Council to look at essential and non-essential services.

Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing.

MOTION:  A motion was made by Councilmember Hornat and seconded by Vice Mayor Snider to approve Ordinance No. (O)11-14, amending the Tax Code of the Town of Oro Valley, Article IV, Chapter 8A, Section 480, relating to the utility services tax rate.

Vice Mayor Mary Snider commented that Council had been studying the budget since January in order to look for savings.  Department heads were tasked with cutting as much as possible from their budgets. With the decline of sales tax revenues, state shared revenues and construction revenues, a more stable revenue stream would be important to the long term quality of life that the citizens desired. 

Councilmember Gillaspie stated that in the long run, the Town would need to increase revenues.  He felt that fundamentally, the Council would need to establish a level of trust with the citizens that would substantiate the case of why revenues would need to be increased.

Councilmember Garner felt that the budget was never balanced from the beginning.  He would have liked to see the budget presented with his recommended cuts instead of it presented with the utility tax increase incorporated within it.  He also felt that a community of excellence was a community that was fiscally responsible and kept taxes to a reasonable level.

Councilmember Waters stated that citizens did not want to cut the Police Department budget.  He felt that it was important to encourage small business development within the community and annexation opportunities should also be looked into in order to increase sales tax revenue.  He felt that there needed to be a significant plan for stabilizatioin during the down times.

Councilmember Solomon felt that a community of excellence should have quality roads and safe schools.  He also believed that a community of excellence would foster economic development and attract businesses to the Town.

Mayor Hiremath said that the main concerns that were voiced at the last Economic Summit were public safety, infrastructure and arts & culture.  He felt that the Town would need to band together and find an equitable solution in order to fix the budget deficit problem.  The $1.3 million dollars that would be generated from the utility tax would allow some time for the Council to figure out sustainable practices that would make Oro Valley less dependant on the federal and state government.

Mayor Hiremath called the question and requested a roll call vote.

Mayor Hiremath: Aye
Vice Mayor Snider: Aye
Councilmember Garner: Nay
Councilmember Gillaspie: Nay
Councilmember Hornat: Aye
Councilmember Solomon: Aye
Councilmember Waters: Aye

MOTION carried, 5-2 with Councilmembers Garner and Gillaspie opposed.

Mayor Hiremath recessed the meeting at 9:24 p.m.

Mayor Hiremath reconvened the meeting at 9:33 p.m.



Ordinance 11-12 w/ Site Plan

Att 2 Site Analysis Booklet

Att 3 PZC Report Dated March 1, 2011

Att 4 PZC Draft Minutes Dated March 1, 2011

Att 5 Neighbor Issues Summary Table

Planning Manager David Williams gave an overview of the rezoning request by St. Mark Church.  The rezoning proposal would be for a new sanctuary, religious education and social hall buildings and central courtyard.  The building heights would range from 16’ to 35’ with tower elements up to 45’.  The existing wash would be preserved in accordance with the general plan. 

Mr. Williams stated that the focus of the review consisted of:

-General Plan conformance
-Tangerine Road Corridor Overlay District compatibility
-Site uses & compatibility
-Building heights
-Buffers & setbacks

Mr. Williams noted that the requested rezoning location was originally planned for a public school or church.  The rezoning to private schools was consistent with the general plan.  25% of the site would be preserved as open space and would have a relatively low intensity of development (.12% Floor Area Ratio).
The Tangerine Road Corridor Overlay District (TRCOD) required:

-50’ frontage tract
-4:1 building height to setback ratio

A view shed analysis had been completed and it was determined that there would be minor view impacts.

There were a number of neighborhood concerns which consisted of:

-Wall construction along the south buffer
-Restriction on school uses
-Lighting (height of building and parking lot lights)
-View shed (height of buildings)
-South side landscape buffer
-Density (building mass on site)

These concerns were mitigated by the following:

-5’ high screen wall; alignment to be curved.
-Restrict 1st-12th grade but allow day care & kindergarten
-Provided restriction on height of lights
-Reduced social hall building height.  No buildings on western portion of site
-Buffer yard width was 22’-58’
-Floor area ratio of .12% was proposed below maximum of .50%
-25% open space would need to be provided 

Councilmember Solomon asked why the site would be restricted to just pre-school and kindergarten when the General Plan called for a school site.

Planning Manager David Williams responded that the restriction was due to neighborhood concerns. 

Councilmember Waters asked if there were any outstanding or significant disagreements from neighbors.

Mr. Williams stated that building height and the amount of building on site were the main concerns amongst the neighbors.

Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing.

Oro Valley resident Bill Rodman was concerned with the increased traffic that the development would bring and felt that the proposed height of the church would effect his view and the view from Tangerine Road. 

Oro Valley resident Melissa Miller opposed the height of the church and would like the church to blend in with the natural environment.  She felt that not enough people were noticed about the public hearing and was also concerned about elevated traffic levels.

Oro Valley resident Melode Devenport opposed the additional height and urged the Council to limit the height to 25 feet.

Oro Valley resident Buzz Braun felt that the proposed church building height was inappropriate for the surroundings and urged the Council to limit the building height to 25 feet.

Dennis Devonport was concerned about the proposed height of the church and the proposed sewage treatment facility.  He felt that the height would dominate the site.  He urged Council to incorporate the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance standards into the building requirements and restrict the height to something more appropriate for the area.

Oro Valley resident Steven Steuer favored the St. Mark Church rezoning.  He felt that the Church had taken the proper steps to create an aesthetically pleasing building on the outside as well as on the inside.  He urged the Council to approve the rezoning. 

Oro Valley resident Sandy Martinez felt that the proposed church height was too high and urged the Council to restrict the height.

Oro Valley resident Leanne Reese, Parrish Administrator for St. Marks Church, felt that the rezoning request was absolutely necessary in order to be able to provide for a quality and functional church.  She stated that the conditions of their current church were too cramped and would like to allow for more people to attend services.  The proposed height would allow for proper acoustics and a good feeling inside the church.  She also stated that Oro Valley off-duty officers would be utilized during busy times such as Christmas and Easter in order to control the increased traffic.

Discussion ensued regarding the proposed building height, the amount of residents whose views would be obstructed, traffic mitigation, and alternative site layouts.

Mitch Lorenz, project manager for St. Mark Church, gave an overview of the proposed building height and dimensions.

-In compliance with the General Plan and the Tangerine Corridor Overlay District
-Unanimous recommendation for approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission
-Staff recommendations & neighbor concerns had been addressed

Mr. Lorenz gave an overview of the site plan and site analysis report.  He also discussed the south buffer yard variations and screen wall design.

Mr. Lorenz outlined the staff conditions and neighborhood concerns.

Staff conditions had been incorporated into design
-Site re-designed at west end
-Septic disposal coordinated w/staff
-Parking re-worked
-Wash areas protected/defined
-Natural detention areas designed

Neighbor concerns had been addressed.
-Traffic study would define Tangerine Road improvements
-View corridors saved some mountain views
-Height was within Braun family request at 35 feet & 24 feet
-Site lighting reduced in allowable height
-South buffer increased
-Landscape enhanced along buffer
-1st through 12th grade school restricted

Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing.

Discussion ensued regarding the proposed building height and rezoning request.

MOTION:  A motion was made by Councilmember Solomon and seconded by Councilmember Hornat to approve the rezoning with the condition of a 28 foot height limit and a 35 foot architectural element height limit as well as the conditions listed in exhibit "A".

                                                        EXHIBIT A

                                        CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OV910-02 ST. MARK CHURCH               Planning

1.       Provide the following as general notes on the cover sheet of the Tentative Development Plan (TDP):

·   Along the south buffer yard, screen walls shall be 5’ high constructed of stucco with pier offsets and shall be located no closer than to south property line than shown on the TDP.  All walls shall be contoured (not straight line)

·   The treatment of the detention basins must contain natural materials such as rock, decomposed granite and shall not be constructed of concrete.

·   On the southwest corner of property multiple smaller detention basins must be constructed.  The detention basin associated with Phase 1 must be constructed similar in design.

·   All building lighting will be shielded in accordance with Town lighting code to achieve dark sky lighting.

·   The refuse container located on the southwest corner of building #4 must be enclosed as part of the loading zone area.

2.       Revise general note #13 on the TDP as follows:

·   Existing site: Remove existing pole lights and replace with 15’ tall shielded lights or at a lesser height consistent with zoning code requirements.  All other building lights shall not exceed 9’ and shall be shielded. Additional lights may be installed as required by Town lighting code, provided pole heights do not exceed 10’ if located south of the buildings or 8’ if located along the south drive lane.

3.       A mitigation/restoration plan must be submitted for the proposed septic system and associated leach area, encroaching within the natural open space area on the western portion of the site.  Adequate screening of all mechanical equipment must be provided to minimize any impacts on the adjacent properties. Minimal disturbance must be achieved. 

Oro Valley Water

4.       The following are conditions of approval of this rezoning and must be acknowledged in writing.

·         The applicant must sign an exempt well draw down waiver. The form will be supplied by Oro Valley Water (condition has been met).

No new wells shall be drilled on the site

·         No expansion of what the existing well serves.

·         If the owner has Grandfathered water rights, they cannot sell or transfer them to any individual or entity within the Oro Valley Water service area.

·         A 12 inch main shall be extended west from the connection point at Tangerine and Vista Del Sol within a 15 foot wide easement that has as its northern boundary line the future southern right of way line of Tangerine Road. It shall be constructed to the western most entrance of the property with a Modified Drain Valve Assembly to the west.

·         An internal looped system will be required for the fully developed site and will include a modified Drain Valve Assembly in Shannon Road from the southern most Shannon Road entrance/exit of the site.


Planning & Zoning Commission Conditions:

1.      Revise the Phase 1 plan to match the tentative development plan, specifically the south buffer yard walls.

2.      Revise the riparian boundaries delineated on the tentative development plan to reflect the correct adopted riparian boundaries.

3.      In Exhibit 23, clarify what areas will be landscaped and what areas will remain as preserved and/or natural open space.  Remove the term re-vegetated.

4.      Provide a riparian mitigation plan for the roadway crossings. Correctly label the required 15’ protective apron on the outer edges of the riparian boundaries.

5.      The open space area west of building 5 must remain as “natural” open space.

6.      The parking area that loops around the western portion of the property must be located closer to the building areas to minimize site disturbance.  Revise the TDP accordingly.

7.      Revise the TDP to distribute the parking to the sides and rear of building. No more than 50% of parking may be located in the front yard.

8.      First through twelfth grade education is not a permitted use.

9.      On the south buffer yard, replace the straight line walls with contoured walls similar to the section west of the wash, with the exception of the wall on the southwest corner of property (south of detention basin).

10.  Existing site: Remove existing pole lights and replace with 15’ tall shielded lights. All other building lights shall not exceed 9’ and shall be shielded. Additional lights may be installed as required by Town lighting code, provided pole heights do not exceed 10’ if located south of the buildings or 8’ if located along the south drive lane.

11.  New Development: Parking lot lights along the south drive lane shall be no taller than 8’ and shall be fully shielded. All other building lights shall not exceed 9’ in height and shall be shielded. Additional lights may be installed as required per the Town lighting code, provided pole heights do not exceed 10’ if located south of the buildings or 8’ if located along the south drive lane.

12.  Screen walls shall be 5’ high constructed of stucco with pier offsets and shall be located no closer than to south property line than shown on the TDP.

13.  The treatment of the detention basins must contain natural materials such as rock, decomposed granite and shall not be constructed of concrete.

14.  On the southwest corner of property multiple smaller detention basins must be used.  The detention basin associated with Phase 1 must be constructed similar in design.

15.  All building lighting will be shielded in accordance with Town lighting code to achieve dark sky lighting.

16.  Relocate the refuse container away from the southern portion of the property, specifically within an enclosed area as part of the loading zone on the southwest corner of building #4.

17.  Dedication of the northern 100’ of the subject parcel to the Town for the purposes of Tangerine Road right of way.

18.  A full Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be required as part of any future Development/Site plan submittal. This development shall be responsible to design and pay for any improvements to Tangerine Road as determined to be required by the TIA.

19.  A full Drainage Report shall be required as part of any future Development Plan submittal. All post development flow shall be mitigated and released in the same manner and quantity as the existing condition.

20.  Shannon Road shall provide a minimum of three lanes at the intersection of Tangerine road. These three lanes shall consist of:

a.One Southbound Thru Lane

b.One Westbound Left Turn Lane

c.   One Eastbound Right Turn Lane

      Shannon Road shall be constructed as a requirement for the Phase 2 expansion of the Development or as determined by the project TIA. This development shall be responsible for all construction costs associated with Shannon Road.

21.  The construction of Shannon Road shall not occur until the sight distance safety issues and drainage mitigation have been rectified on Tangerine Road for this intersection. If this development requires the Shannon road connection to be constructed prior to the RTA expansion of Tangerine Road, the developer will be responsible for all associated design and construction costs.

22.  This development must construct a 10’ wide asphalt multiuse pedestrian path in the new ROW dedication and locate said path as far south as to accommodate the future expansion of Tangerine Road.

23.  The tentative development plan (TDP) is conditionally accepted regarding driveway locations until a variance for said features is formally accepted and approved by the Town.

24.  Update the TDP to map schematic hydrologic watershed boundary delineation, concentration points and general flow patterns for the developed condition on the TDP. This information need not be detailed any more than concept level.

For the Canada Agua 1 watershed, delineate the limits of the 100 year floodplain.

MOTION carried, 7-0.



Ordinance 11-13

Attachment #2 - Exhibit A

Attachment #3 - Exhibit "B"

MOTION:  A motion was made by Councilmember Hornat and seconded by Councilmember Garner to adjourn the meeting.

MOTION failed 1-3 with Councilmember Gillaspie, Councilmember Hornat, and Councilmember Solomon opposed and Mayor Hiremath, Vice Mayor Snider and Councilmember Waters abstained.

MOTION:  A motion was made by Councilmember Solomon and seconded by Councilmember Waters to adopt Ordinance No. (O)11-13 amending the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Section 21.4, Planning and Zoning Department and Section 21.6, Board of Adjustment requiring interpretations issued by the Planning and Zoning Administrator to be published on the Town’s website and providing for an appeal to the Board of Adjustment.

Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing.

No comments were received.

Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing.

MOTION carried, 7-0.



Attachment 1 - Liquor Fee Comparison

Attachment 2 - Processing Costs

MOTION:  A motion was made by Councilmember Solomon and seconded by Councilmember Gillaspie to direct staff to prepare a resolution increasing the liquor license application processing fee to $500.

MOTION carried, 7-0.


Oro Valley resident Don Bristow was displeased with the comments from Council when responding to residents during the call to the public.


Councilmember Waters requested a future agenda item regarding Arts and Culture and its place in economic development, seconded by Vice Mayor Snider.


MOTION:  A motion was made by Vice Mayor Snider and seconded by Councilmember Waters to adjourn the meeting at 11:09 p.m.

MOTION carried, 7-0.