Police Chief Danny Sharp gave an overview of the Police Department response criteria and statistical reports.
Chief Sharp stated that the Police Department adopted the 90% standard for response criteria which was the nationally recognized standard for fire services. The response criteria were used for the strategic deployment of resources and to forecast future needs.
Councilmember Garner said that he would like to see a more detailed breakdown of the Police Department statistics. He would like to see the reports include: Employee involved vehicle collisions; Employee involved property damage; Pursuits; Use of force and 911 dispatch calls.
Police Chief Sharp stated that all of the requested response criteria and statistical reports were tracked by the Police Department and were available upon request.
Councilmember Gillaspie clarified that the intent of this item was to generate discussion in order to develop useful standards.
Chief Sharp said that the bar was set high regarding response times in order to maintain the community of excellence that the residents expected. He stated that a balance needed to be achieved between meeting standards vs. meeting operational needs.
Vice Mayor Snider thanked Police Chief Sharp for previously educating the five new Councilmembers regarding Police Department reporting standards. She found that the current reports were quite informative and felt that response times were great.
Police Chief Sharp stated that the reports could be updated upon the request of Council.
Councilmember Solomon stated that the overall results mattered more than the numbers. He pointed out that the response times for the Oro Valley Police Department were three to four times better than the national average.
Planning Manager David Williams gave an overview of the item and stated that the intent of the item was to create uniform standards for outdoor displays and to maintain safe access and reduce cluttered areas. The key proposed provisions included:
-Outdoor displays permitted as ancillary use
-Maintain 4' unobstructed walkway and ADA clearance
-Not to interfere with landscaping, bicycle parking etc.
-Limitations on % of facade
-Limited to merchandise sold inside the building
-Administrative review and approval
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-1 to approve the proposed outdoor displays criteria, subject to displays being limited to 50% of facade length.
A community meeting was held on August 22 and most participants favored moderate amounts of display with good access.
Mr. Williams discussed the fee and processing options.
Councilmember Hornat asked what Planned Area Developments (PAD) would be affected by the Code change.
Mr. Williams stated that the rules would apply to a PAD that was silent on outdoor displays. If a particular PAD prohibited outdoor displays, then outdoor displays would continue to be prohibited.
Councilmember Solomon asked if the access restrictions would pose any kind of safety issues.
Fire Chief Karrer felt that the proposed amendments would not restrict access or pose any safety issues.
Councilmember Solomon recommended a streamlined approach that would consist of a simple, no fee, one page application or notice of intent that the business could fill out and then submit to staff.
Councilmember Gillaspie asked what the Town liability would be for not having a formal permitting process in place.
Town Attorney Tobin Rosen stated that the Town’s liability would stay the same whether or not there was a formal permitting process. Liability would rest on the business to comply with local and federal regulations.
Mayor Hiremath said that the Code was good the way it was but he wanted to add additional tools to the temporary relief strategies for businesses during this difficult economic time. He preferred a simple application with no permitting requirements or fees.
Mr. Williams outlined the administrative review process.
Councilmember Garner said that the process should be streamlined but was in favor of keeping some type of a permitting fee to cover the costs.
Planning Manager David Williams estimated that the review and inspections process would cost an average of $360.
Councilmember Solomon recommended a no fee application with no required staff reviews in order to save time and money for businesses and town staff.
Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing.
Oro Valley resident Donald Bristow was concerned about public safety issues. He said that many stores were not built to accommodate the outdoor displays. He recommended that strict enforcement and inspections would be needed. He believed that small business owners were at a disadvantage compared to the big box stores because they would have limited space and/or staff.
Oro Valley resident Dave Perry, President of the Northern Pima County Chamber of Commerce, supported the use of outdoor displays for a trial period of one year. Mr. Perry favored a quick and easy application process. If permits would be required, he suggested that the permit should be good for one year.
John Piccoli, owner of Ace Hardware, stated that business owners would make sure that the outdoor display areas were safe because they would be liable for any injuries on their property. He said that the permit should be good for one year.
Tom Mulhall, representative for Play it Again Sports, was in favor of the outdoor displays. He would like to be able to capture as many sales as possible but not all of the merchandise could fit in the store. The use of outdoor displays would allow his business to compete with Tucson stores down the road that allowed outdoor displays.
Oro Valley resident Bill Adler said that the Town should review the facts before making any kind of a decision so that the change would be justified. He favored waiving a formal application, fees and administrative reviews.
Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Gillaspie opposed amending the Code but was in favor of offering temporary relief to businesses.
MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Gillaspie and seconded by Councilmember Solomon to approve Ordinance No. (O)11-22, amending the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised relative to the outdoor display of merchandise for business as shown in Attachment #1 for a period of one year and adopting Chapter 25, Use Regulation amendments as defined in Exhibit "A" for a period of one year and enforced by the Zoning Administrator and furthermore; permits, fees and administrative reviews would not be required.
Councilmember Hornat felt that a permit should be required.
Permitting Manager Paul Keesler recommended a permit for tracking purposes.
Councilmember Hornat amended the motion to require a permit application as part of the application process. This amendment was agreed to by Councilmember Gillaspie and Councilmember Solomon.
Compliance Manager Chuck King outlined the Code enforcement process.
Vice Mayor Snider recommended an effective date of October 15, 2011 through March 1, 2013 in order to cover two holiday seasons.
Councilmember Gillaspie amended the original motion to include an ending date of February 1, 2013. This amendment was agreed to by Councilmember Solomon.
Councilmember Gillaspie amended the original motion to state that at the time of permit application, a copy of Ordinance No. (O)11-22 shall be furnished to the applicant. This amendment was agreed to by Councilmember Solomon.
MOTION AS AMENDED carried, 6-0.
Mayor Hiremath recessed the meeting at 7:48 p.m.
Mayor Hiremath reconvened the meeting at 7:54 p.m.
Planning Manager David Williams gave an overview of A-frame signs.
On June 15, 2010, the Sign Code Task Force recommended that A-frame signs should remain prohibited.
Mr. Williams recommended that the purpose of A-frame signs should be to direct pedestrian traffic to a specific business and that no A-frames should be placed along public roadways. The proposed Code amendments included:
-3 ft. of building frontage or entry to ground floor business; or
-Within 10 ft. of stairway or elevator for businesses on upper floors
-6 ft. wide clear pathway must be maintained
-Up to 3 ft. 6 inches, with maximum sign area of 6 sq. ft.
-4 permits per year, for a period of 30 days
Councilmember Solomon recommended that the permit should be good for one year and that the permit fee should be nominal. He would like to see a future discussion regarding A-frames in the Right-of-Way.
Permitting Manager Paul Keesler recommended conducting a staff analysis on the placement, scale, copy size and height/size requirements before the item would return for Council consideration.
Mayor Hiremath preferred to maintain the strict sign Code but favored allowing the temporary use of A-frame signs as a temporary relief strategy.
Vice Mayor Snider said that she would like to see A-frames allowed only during business hours and brought in at night. She recommended that A-frame standards should be established i.e. look, height, materials etc. Vice Mayor Snider requested input from Town Engineer Craig Civalier regarding A-frame standards.
Councilmember Garner stated that the previous temporary sign waiver data suggested that the temporary use of A-frames was ineffective.
Vice Mayor Snider would not favor a permanent Code change but would like to extend some type of temporary relief for businesses during these tough economic times.
Mr. Keesler stated that no sign guidelines were in place during the temporary Sign Code waiver program but that staff worked with the businesses to safely place the A-frame signs.
Councilmember Garner said that there was no concrete information available that proved that A-frames were beneficial.
Tony Johnson, representative of California Design Center - Studio C, said that the A-frame sign had been extremely helpful for his business. The store saw an approximately 14% increase in traffic while using their A-frame.
Oro Valley resident Dave Perry, President of the Northern Pima County Chamber of Commerce, believed that A-frames should be allowed for a period of one year as a temporary economic relief strategy. He recommended a one-year permit and said that the business owner should be allowed the discretion to use the sign as he/she saw fit. Mr. Perry said that the Code needed to be evenly and consistently applied to everyone. He encouraged Council to allow businesses to use A-frames within their developments.
Oro Valley resident Micah Salminen, Manager for Picazzo’s Organic Italian Kitchen, said that they offered a 97% gluten free menu. She believed that a small A-frame sign would help draw the public to their restaurant.
Oro Valley resident Gina Izzo, representative for Picazzo’s Organic Italian Kitchen, stated that A-frame signs would let people know where the business was located. She felt that banner displays were ineffective because they were too difficult for people to see when driving on Oracle Road. She urged Council to approve the use of A-frame signs.
Diane Snedden, owner and operator of Aim Mail Center located at 12112 W Rancho Vistoso Blvd #150, said that her address and signage were not visible from the road. She said that A-frame signs would help direct traffic to her store inside of the plaza. She urged Council to help small businesses because they were struggling.
Oro Valley resident Jenny Ritchie, owner of Trouvaille Salon and Spa, said that she had used A-frame signs for approximately a year and a half and averaged five to ten walk-ins daily. She estimated that the signage generated one to two thousand dollars in services per month and felt that they were extremely helpful.
Albert Delgado, owner of Ace Hardware, said that any allowed use of A-frames would be extremely helpful to businesses. He said that he had been in business for three and a half years and most people didn't know where he was located. He urged Council to allow additional signage.
Oro Valley resident Bill Adler said that he had talked to business owners who had utilized A-frames and he believed that the A-frame signage helped the businesses. The business owners who submitted data proved that A-frames worked. He said that A-frames should be used as a promotional tool, not as a permanent advertising tool. He felt that A-frames should be allowed internal to the project and they should also be allowed in the public Right-of-Way if they were designed for a promotional purpose. He urged the Council to allow the business community some flexibility during the current economic times.
Oro Valley resident Terry Ahearn, owner of Toscana Studio and Gallery, said that the signage to his business on Oracle Road was blocked by trees and was difficult for drivers to see. He stated that A-frame signs helped his business when they were used in the past. He supported the use of standardized A-frames that would only be utilized during business hours.
John Piccoli, owner of Ace Hardware, recommended changes to the Sign Code criteria. He said that the standard banner size was 18 sq. feet but the current Sign Code only allowed 16 sq. feet. He said that the Town and business owners should all follow the same Sign Code standards and urged Council to revisit the Sign Code criteria.
Vice Mayor Snider read a letter into the record from Paul Evens, representative for the Keg restaurant. Mr. Evens stated that A-frame signs would be most helpful on Friday’s. He said that the sign would be used to draw customers into the dining area when they were below capacity. He encouraged the use of standardized and professional A-frame signs.
: A motion was made by Councilmember Solomon and seconded by Vice Mayor Snider to direct staff to allow the use of A-frames as outlined in Attachment #3 as a temporary relief strategy for a period of one year with the following modifications and directing staff to bring back recommendations regarding allowing A-frame signs in the Right-of-Way at the October 5, 2011 Council meeting. Attachment #3 Section 28.6 Temporary Signs B.1. A-FRAME
a. DESCRIPTION: A SIGN THAT IDENTIFIES A BUSINESS AND/OR SERVICE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DIRECTING PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC TO THE BUSINESS LOCATION.
b. QUANTITY: ONE PER PERMIT PER BUSINESS PER THIRTY (30) DAY PERIOD. MAXIMUM OF FOUR (4) PERMITS A YEAR.
c. AREA OF SIGN: SIX (6) SQUARE FEET.
d. HEIGHT: THREE (3’) FEET, SIX (6”) INCHES IN HEIGHT, INCLUDING SIGN LEGS.
i. ON PRIVATE PROPERTY: SHALL NOT BE DISPLAYED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO CONSTITUTE A
HAZARD TO PUBLIC SAFETY.
iii.SIGNS MUST ALLOW FOR A MINIMUM
SIX (6) FOUR (4) FOOT WIDE CLEAR PATHWAY.
iiii SIGNS FOR INDIVIDUAL GROUND FLOOR BUSINESSES SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN THREE (3)
FEET OF THE BUILDING FRONTAGE AND WITHIN TEN (10) FEET OF THE BUSINESS ENTRY.
v. BUSINESSES ABOVE THE GROUND FLOOR SHALL LOCATE SIGNS WITHIN TEN(10) FEET OF A
STAIRWAY OR ELEVATOR. ALTERNATE LOCATIONS MAY BE ACCEPTED WITHIN DESIGNATED
v.i. SIGNS FOR COURTYARD ENTRIES SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE (1) SIGN FOR ALL BUSINESSES
LOCATED WITHIN THE COURTYARD, UTILIZING THE SAME COMMON ENTRY.
vii. SIGNS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN TEN (10) FEET OF THE COURTYARD ENTRANCE.
viii. SHALL NOT BE GENERALLY VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
f. SETBACK: NONE UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED.
g. DURATION: FOR A PERIOD OF
THIRTY (30) DAYS ONE (1) YEAR. SIGNS SHALL BE DISPLAYED DURING
NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS ONLY.
h. DESIGN STANDARDS:
i. ALL COLORS EXCEPT FLUORESCENT AND IRIDESCENT COLORS ARE NOT ALLOWED.
i. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
i. PERMIT IS REQUIRED AT A FEE OF FIFTY $50.00 DOLLARS PER YEAR.
ii. A-FRAME SIGNS SHALL NOT BE COUNTED TOWARDS TOTAL AGGREGATE ALLOWABLE SIGN
AREA FOR THE BUSINESS.
iii. NO ILLUMINATION.
iiii. NO NOISE OR FLASHING, ROTATING, OR MOVING ELEMENTS.
v. SIGNS MUST BE PROFESSIONALLY DESIGNED GRAPHICS.
Councilmember Gillaspie supported the temporary use of A-frames.
Councilmember Hornat proposed an amendment to change the ending date of the temporary sign relief to February 1, 2013. This amendment was accepted by Councilmember Solomon and Vice Mayor Snider.
Councilmember Garner asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission would have to get involved with this item.
Town Attorney Tobin Rosen clarified that this matter would not have to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission since it was not a permanent Code change.
Councilmember Garner asked how the sturdiness of the sign would be enforced.
Permitting Division Manager Paul Keesler said that signage interior to shopping centers etc. was of a lower concern due to an already heightened awareness by drivers. Signage in the Right-of-Way must be set back 10' along collector and arterial streets to allow them enough room to fall over and not create a safety issue.
MOTION AS AMENDED carried, 6-0.