MINUTES
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR SESSION
October 5, 2011
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
 
REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Hiremath called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

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

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mayor Hiremath led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.

UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS

Communications Administrator Misti Nowak announced the upcoming Town meetings.

COUNCIL REPORTS

Councilmember Solomon reported that the first Coyote Run open house should be scheduled by the end of the month.  The town should receive a significant seizure fund due to a large drug investigation which was coordinated with the Drug Enforcement Agency.

Vice Mayor Snider agreed to join the United Way Board of Directors.  She thanked Oro Valley staff for making the National Night Out event a success.

DEPARTMENT REPORTS

Parks, Recreation, Library & Cultural Resources Director Ainsley Legner said that the Town received notification that they would be receiving a $19,000 grant from the Tohono O'odham Nation.  The grant would be used to support the Heritage Garden at Steam Pump Ranch.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mayor Hiremath stated that the order would stand as posted.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

1.

Town Council Trip Report


Town Council Trip Report

2.

Library Customer Feedback Forms


Library Feedback Forms

3.

Police Department Appreciation Letters


Apprecation Letters 092011

CALL TO AUDIENCE

Director of Tucson Sports, Vince Trinidad, updated Council regarding the 2012 IronKids and Duathlon National Championship events and discussed the possibility of consolidating the two major events along with the Arizona Distance Classic.

Oro Valley resident Donald Bristow inquired as to when the proposed future agenda item regarding the formation of the Mayor's Ambassador program would be placed on a Council agenda.

CONSENT AGENDA

A.

Minutes - May 11, 2011


5 11 11

B.

Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities, Inc. Quarterly Report: April 1, 2011 - June 30, 2011


TREO 4th Quarter Report

4th Quarter Back-Up Material

FY2010-11 TREO Financial Participation Agreement

C.

Appointments to the Corrections Officers Retirement Plan (CORP) Local Board


MOTION:  A motion was made by Vice Mayor Snider and seconded by Councilmember Waters to approve items (A)-(C).

MOTION carried, 7-0.

REGULAR AGENDA

1.

PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)11-24, AMENDING CHAPTER 28, SIGNS, SECTION 28.6, TEMPORARY SIGNS, OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED, TO INCREASE ON-SITE REAL ESTATE SIGNS TO A MAXIMUM OF SIX FEET IN HEIGHT


Ord 11-24

Attachment #2-Exhibit A

Attachment #3-Coldwell Banker Letter

Attachment #4-Tucson Association of Realtors Letter

Attachment #5-Real Estate Sign Heights Table

Attachment #6-9-6-11 PZC Report

Planning Manager David Williams gave an overview of the on-site real estate signs amendment.  He stated that the real estate industry requested a Code amendment that would allow six foot on-site real estate signs.  This change would reflect current industry standards.

Councilmember Waters asked if there had been any real estate sign violations. 

Inspections and Code Compliance Manager Chuck King replied that there had been a couple previous violations.

Mr. Williams clarified that riders/hangers would count against the sign height requirements.

Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing.

Oro Valley resident and Director for Government Affairs for the Tucson Association of Realtors, Steve Huffman, stated that a six (6) foot height was an acceptable height for many jurisdictions.  He said that the uniformity around the valley would be helpful for the real estate industry because agents would only have to purchase one sign for use in all communities. 

Oro Valley resident Donald Bristow said that the existing signs under the current Code had fared well for years.  The taller signs would pose visibility issues within the community.  He opposed the on-site real estate sign height increase.

Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing.

MOTION:  A motion was made by Councilmember Solomon and seconded by Councilmember Hornat to adopt Ordinance No. (O)11-24, amending Chapter 28, Signs, Section 28.6, Temporary Signs, of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, to increase on-site real estate signs to a maximum of six feet in height.

MOTION carried, 7-0.

2.

REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURE FOR CASA DE LA LUZ, A PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE USE LOCATED AT 7740 AND 7750 N. ORACLE ROAD


Attachment 1 - Conditions of Approval

Attachment 2 - CDRB Staff Report

Attachment 3 - Site Plan Narrative

Attachment 4 - Conceptual Site Plan

Attachment 5 - Materials Palette

Attachment 6 - Color Renderings and Elevations

Attachment 7 - Site Sections Plan

Attachment 8 - Vignettes

Attachment 9 - Site Photos, Existing Buildings

Planning Manager David Williams gave an overview of the conceptual site plan and architecture for Casa de la Luz.  He noted that the conceptual site design met the conceptual site design principles and generally met the design standards when the conditions were applied.

Overall, the CDRB supported the project design.  Their main concerns consisted of the location of the refuse container and covered/screened pedestrian walkways.  Staff added a condition to minimize lighting trespass at the eastern edge.

Staff recommended the following modifications to the Conditions:
     -1.a. - delete
     -1.c. - Replace with "Two shaded seating areas in the courtyard."
     -2. - Replace with "Provide updated parking information and layout."

Discussion ensued regarding the preferred location of the refuse container.

Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing.

Oro Valley resident John Bellingham said that the garbage was usually picked up by 6:00 a.m. and that the dumpster location made it difficult to get in and out of.

Oro Valley resident Jennifer Becker said that there had been a long standing history of complaints from residents regarding early trash pick-up.  She urged Council to place the refuse container as far away from residential homes as possible to mitigate the noise.

Builder and Developer Rob Caylor stated that he planned on creating a one way drive around the property which should help alleviate the noise from refuse pick-up.  He agreed to hire a private trash service to pick up the refuse during normal business hours.  Mr. Caylor clarified that note number three in Attachment #1 in the planning standards, regarding covered parking, should be deleted. 

Mr. Williams clarified that the aforementioned note had been deleted.

Oro Valley resident Gil Alexander said that the trash collection enclosure was actually four sided.

Mr. Williams gave an overview of the proposed conceptual architecture.  He noted that there were two single-story medical office buildings with approximate heights of 18 feet.  The CDRB recommended approval with conditions listed in Attachment #1.  He clarified that staff and the applicant agreed upon the following modifications to the conditions:
     -7. - Delete "such as piers or archways"
     -11. - Provide shade structures at project entries

Mr. Caylor clarified that condition #11 stated that in lieu of covered walkways as discussed by CDRB, shade shall be provided in the courtyard areas.  He opposed metal architecture shade structures because it would take away from the courtyard.  He was concerned with condition #7 as it related to architectural elements at the entryway because a large monument would hide and take away from the openness of the entryway.  Mr. Caylor requested the deletion of condition #7.

Councilmember Waters asked if there was any architectural common ground regarding condition #7.

Mr. Williams said that staff was trying to implement required standards regarding shade structures.  Once a proposal was submitted, staff would work with the applicant to look at different shading options.

Discussion ensued amongst Council regarding shade structure locations and requirements.

MOTION:  A motion was made by Councilmember Hornat and seconded by Councilmember Waters to approve, subject to conditions in Attachment #1, the conceptual site plan for Casa de la Luz and approve, subject to conditions in Attachment #1, the conceptual architecture for Casa de la Luz with the following exceptions:  Conceptual Architecture condition #7 shall read - Architectural elements shall be added to help direct visitors toward the project entryways and shall enhance the public entryways of the new buildings.

Attachment 1
Conditions of Approval
Casa de la Luz
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN: OV1211-02 Engineering:

1. Address all redlined comments within the Conceptual Site Plan and Water Harvesting Plan.

2. Conceptual Site Plan, Sheet 2: The access drive along the north side of the site has been modified as a one-way access lane from the previous submittal. This creates a dead-end parking lot on the west end of the site for motorists entering from the south. As a result, please provide a turn-around area for motorists. This can be accomplished by striping out the last parking space.

3. Conceptual Site Plan, Sheet 2: Indicate that “ONE-WAY, DO NOT ENTER” signage will be provided at the west end of the one-way access drive. Furthermore, it is recommended that the drive be narrowed to 20’-wide at this location to make it more obvious to motorists that the drive is for exiting one-way traffic only.

4. Rainwater Harvesting Plan: Verify the total volume of rainwater harvesting provided for this project. Sheet one indicates 536 cubic feet of volume will be provided but sheet 2 and the Drainage Report indicate that 500 cubic feet will be provided. Revise as necessary.

Planning:

1. Conceptual Site Plan, Sheet 2, must be revised to show:

a. Final location of public artwork; a portion of public artwork shall be located in a high visibility and use area such as the courtyard (Design Standard 2.1.G.1.)

b. Graphically define and label the required 959 square foot courtyard area.

c. Two benches and an architecturally integrated shade structure in the courtyard.

2. Conceptual Site Plan, Sheet 1: Revise parking information to reflect the loss of one parking space in the front lot.

3. Conceptual Site Plan, Sheet 1: Revise to indicate 40 foot building setback and 30 foot parking shade structure setback at rear; 30 foot building setback at front; and delete 10 foot side yard setback. Add that a minimum 10 foot distance is required between buildings.

4. Any lighting proposed along the eastern edge of the parking area of northern parcel will be lowered to prevent light trespass onto to residential properties to the east.

5. The comments in Pima County Addressing letter dated June 22, 2011 must be addressed.

6. Conceptual Site Plan must be revised to include changes indicated on Planning redlines (minor comments).

CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE: OV1311-13

1. Revise S.1 Site Sections to indicate building heights so that parapet height of new buildings is varied, while also allowing for adequate parapet height to screen mechanical.

2. Clearly indicate proposed building heights around roofline on the elevations and sections.

3. Revise the architectural plans and site sections so that the building height information is consistent.

4. Provide scaled section drawings that show the sight line from residences to east and Oracle Road. Include mechanical equipment and show that the parapet height is sufficient to conceal the mechanical equipment and appurtenances from public streets and neighbors.

5. The final architectural plans shall include details for screening for refuse areas with a 6-foot opaque screen of materials and colors that match the buildings.

6. Revise the columns of the new buildings to match the columns on existing building.

7. Architectural elements such as piers or archways shall be added to help direct visitors toward the project entry ways, and massing elements shall be used enhance the public entryways of the new buildings.

8. Massing elements and a third substantially different material shall be added to the western elevation of Building #1.

9. Color specifications must indicate light reflectivity value of rooftop material or color.

10. Final architectural plans shall indicate that each element of the architectural elevations has been identified with the colors and materials that are used.

11. In lieu of covered walkways as discussed by the CDRB, provide an architecturally integrated shaded structure at the project entries and the courtyard area (shade structure in courtyard area required under Conceptual Site Plan, Condition #1.c.)

12. Shade devices shall be incorporated above the windows on the western and southern elevations, and are recommended on the eastern elevations, of both buildings.

An amendment was made by Councilmember Gillaspie and agreed to by Councilmember Hornat and Councilmember Waters to strike Planning condition #3 on Attachment #1.

An amendment was made by Vice Mayor Snider and agreed to by Councilmember Hornat and Councilmember Waters to include the condition that refuse shall be picked up between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. as indicated by the applicant through a contract arrangement with a refuse company.

An amendment was made by Councilmember Solomon and agreed to by Councilmember Hornat and Councilmember Waters to clarify that Conceptual Architecture condition #11 shall specify that there be one shaded structure at the west project entryway and courtyard area.

MOTION AS AMENDED carried, 7-0.

3.

PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)11-25, AMENDING THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED TO INCLUDE NEW PUBLIC ART CRITERIA BY AMENDING CHAPTER 22, REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES, SECTION 22.9, DESIGN REVIEW AND CHAPTER 27, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SECTION 27.3, PUBLIC ARTWORK PROVISIONS


Attachment 1 - Commission Recommendation

Ord 11-25

Attachment 3 - PZC Minutes

Planning Manager David Williams gave an overview of proposed Ordinance No. (O)11-25.  The goal of the amendment was to expand principles beyond safety and location criteria and to address art composition and its relation to the proposed project and larger community context.

The components of the new art principles consisted of:
     -The preamble statement had been expanded to better define the overarching purpose of public art
     -New principle #1 stated that public art should be designed as an integral and distinctive element of project design
     -New principle #2 stated that public art should relate to the context and character of the project
     -New principle #3 stated that public art should relate to the historical, cultural and natural context of the project area, neighborhood or Town
     -New principle #4 would prohibit corporate advertising elements (symbols, logos, graphics and colors) as public art
     -Existing principle relative to viewing area was removed, as it was duplicative of an existing Design Standard

The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended unanimous approval on July 5, 2011.

Councilmember Waters said that this item would expand the design standards to allow for more creativity for developers and artists as it related to public artwork.

Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing.

No comments were received.

Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing.

MOTION:  A motion was made by Councilmember Solomon and seconded by Vice Mayor Snider to adopt Ordinance No. (O)11-25, Amending the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised to include new public art criteria as shown in Exhibit "A".

EXHIBIT "A"
ATTACHMENT 1
OV 711-008
AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 27.3.H, PUBLIC ART REVIEW CRITERIA

Amendments to original text as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission are shown in upper case and strike through.
H. REVIEW CRITERIA PUBLIC ART IS AN INTEGRAL ELEMENT OF PROJECT DESIGN AND CONTRIBUTES TO THE OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ORO VALLEY RESIDENTS AND VISITORS. ART ALSO CONTRIBUTES TO A SENSE OF PLACE AND COMMUNITY, DEFINES AND REINFORCES COMMUNITY IDENTITY AND REFLECTS THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF THE TOWN.

APPROPRIATELY DESIGNED AND DISPLAYED PUBLIC ART CAN AND SHOULD SERVE AS A UNIFYING ELEMENT IN THE OVERALL DESIGN OF A PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT. THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC ART PRINCIPLES ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE DIRECTION AND DESIGN GUIDANCE FOR PUBLIC ART AND ITS INTEGRATION INTO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT.

In reviewing applications for conceptual public artwork, the Conceptual Design Review Board shall consider, but is not limited to the criteria described below and the Design Principles and Design Standards established in Section 22.9 of this code and the adopted design standards in Addendum A of the Zoning Code. The Board shall determine acceptability of individual applications based on their interpretation and judgment of fulfillment of these criteria.

1. PUBLIC ART SHALL REFLECT THE CONTEXT AND CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT. WHERE APPROPRIATE, ART AND ARTISTIC ELEMENTS SHOULD UTILIZE THEMES ASSOCIATED WITH THE FUNCTIONS OF THE BUSINESS.

2. PUBLIC ART SHOULD MORE GENERALLY REFLECT THE HISTORICAL, AND CULTURAL CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT AREA, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE TOWN.

3. PUBLIC ART SHALL NOT REFLECT CORPORATE ADVERTISING ELEMENTS OF A BUSINESS INCLUDING COLORS, GRAPHICS, SYMBOLS OR OTHER REPRESENTATIONS OF CORPORATE IDENTITY.

4. Location: Public artwork locations shall be integrated with the layout and hardscape components of the site. To the extent feasible, public artwork shall be placed in a highly visible and publicly accessible location.

5. Material and Safety: Proposed artworks shall be designed to prevent hazards to the public. Durability and safety of materials shall be considered including potential areas of excessive wear or damage, which shall be mitigated.

6. Obstructions: Potential future obstructions, including landscape materials at maturity or future construction, shall be considered when locating public art.

7. Viewing Area: Locations for artwork should include nearby accessible seating, when appropriate, from which the artwork can be easily viewed.

8. Original Work: The artwork shall be original and not duplicate existing artwork in the Town and shall conform to community standards.

AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.9.D.5, CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW

5. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW PRINCIPLES AND TOWN ACTION

     C.  CONCEPTUAL PUBLIC ART DESIGN

SEE SECTION 27.3 FOR PUBLIC ART DESIGN CRITERIA AND REQUIREMENTS.

C. D. The Conceptual Design Review Board (CDRB) shall forward recommendations to the Town Council for conceptual design applications as provided in Subsection 4.a.  The CDRB shall utilize the design principles in Section 22.9.d.5 and the Design Standards within the zoning code in evaluating conceptual design review applications.

D.E. In accordance with Section 21.5.b. the CDRB may approve, with or without conditions, sign criteria, conceptual model home architecture, and tier ii minor communications facilities.

MOTION carried, 7-0.


4.

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE PLACEMENT OF A-FRAME SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY


Interim Development and Infrastructure Services Director Paul Keesler gave an overview of A-frame signs in the public Right-of-Way.

Mr. Keesler discussed the following proposed sign copy criteria:
     -Sign copy criteria would follow the manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
     -Sign copy must be easily readable by the passing driver to minimize driver
      distraction
     -Two separate criteria based on street posted speed
          -45 mph and greater
          -Less than 45mph

Mr. Keesler discussed the following placement criteria:
     -Sign placement must not interfere with or mimic any official traffic control devices/signage
     -Signs must be spaced adequately to minimize driver distraction
     -Town Engineer to determine minimum spacing requirements based on site specific parameters and posted speed limits

Mr. Keesler recommended optional cluster sign zones which would allow multiple businesses to place their signs near the driveway of their establishments.  He noted that every situation posed its own unique challenges and therefore, the Town Engineer would have the ultimate say in where and how many signs could be placed at a specific location.

Mr. Keesler discussed the proposed street setbacks and said that placement of signs along arterial and collector streets would have a ten (10) foot setback and placement along local streets (25 mph & under) would require a five (5) foot minimum setback from the edge of the pavement.

Councilmember Waters inquired as to who would be allowed to use A-frames.

Mr. Keesler said that anyone who submitted an application would be allowed to place A-frames in the Right-of-Way.

Councilmember Waters was concerned that the town would become cluttered with signs.

Councilmember Solomon felt that a permit fee would be necessary to cover some of the expenses.

Mr. Keesler said that there would be a two-stage process.  The first stage would consist of the sign review and the second stage would consist of placing the sign in the field.  In total, it was estimated to cost the town $180 per year.

Councilmember Garner recommended that weighting standards (sand and/or water) should be added to the sign criteria.

Mr. Keesler said that weight standards would not be needed if the proposed set backs were utilized.

Councilmember Garner was concerned with high winds blowing signs over and potentially endangering residents.

Vice Mayor Snider recommended that A-frame signs should be weighted down for safety. 

Councilmember Garner said that the A-frame fee schedule should not be altered since there already was a Right-of-Way permit for $1,000 a year.

Councilmember Waters asked if there would be aesthetic standards for A-frames.

Mr. Keesler said that there were proposed standards which required signs to be professionally designed and legible.

Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing.

Oro Valley resident and President of the Northern Pima County Chamber of Commerce, Dave Perry, said that the business community would like to see signs in the Right-of-Way because it would help them in their ability to do business but he recognized the community concerns as well.  He urged Council to approve the use of A-frames in Rights-of-way if they were comfortable with the decision but encouraged Council to continue with the process of public outreach if they were not ready to approve the use of A-frames in the Rights-of-Way.

Oro Valley resident Donald Bristow strongly opposed the placement of A-frame signs in the Right-of-Way.  He said that all Right-of-Way signs created driver distractions regardless of size or content.  He urged Council to consider the safety of all residents before making a decision.

Oro Valley resident Bill Adler opposed the use of A-frames in the Right-of-Way.  He said that the management of temporary signs needed to be a partnership with the merchants and the Town.  He recommended that the merchants should form merchant associations to manage the temporary sign locations, timing, enforcement, etc.

Oro Valley resident Gil Alexander recommended that A-frames should be weighted in order to prevent them from blowing into roadways but he preferred the use of monument signs instead of temporary A-frame signs.

Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing.

Councilmember Solomon said that the use of A-frames in the Right-of-Way would create a burden on town staff.  He recommended that local businesses should work with the Northern Pima County Chamber of Commerce to develop a proposal which could then be brought before Council for consideration and possible action.

Councilmember Hornat said that A-frames in the Right-of-Way were dangerous and added clutter to the community.  He strongly opposed the use of A-frames in the Right-of-Way.

Councilmember Waters opposed the use of A-frames in the Right-of-Way.

Vice Mayor Snider supported the temporary use of A-frame signs inside of shopping centers but opposed the use of A-frames in the Right-of-Way.

Councilmember Garner opposed the use of A-frames in the Right-of-Way but supported the idea of merchants creating merchant associations to develop A-frame standards for shopping plazas.

Councilmember Gillaspie opposed the use of A-frames in the Right-of-Way.

No action was taken by Council.

Mayor Hiremath recessed the meeting at 8:01 p.m.

Mayor Hiremath reconvened the meeting at 8:14 p.m.

5.

AMENDMENT OF ORO VALLEY TOWN CENTRE AT ROONEY RANCH PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT


a.

RESOLUTION NO. (R)11-66, DECLARING AS A PUBLIC RECORD THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT ENTITLED ORO VALLEY TOWN CENTRE AT ROONEY RANCH PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT, ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT “A” AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK


Attachment #1 - Resolution (R)11-66

Attachment #2 - Exhibit A

MOTION:  A motion was made by Vice Mayor Snider and seconded by Councilmember Waters to approve Resolution No. (R)11-66.

MOTION carried, 7-0.

b.

PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)11-26, AMENDMENT OF ORO VALLEY TOWN CENTRE AT ROONEY RANCH PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT


Attachment #1 - Ordinance (O)11-26

Attachment #2-Exhibit "A"

Attachment #3-P&Z Commission Recommended Conditions of Approval

Attachment #4 Additional Conditions of Approval

Planning Manager David Williams gave an overview of the proposed amendment.  The three main issues consisted of:
     -Multi-Family Residential
     -Convenience Uses (quantity)
     -Main Street/Urban Design

Mr. Williams outlined the fifteen additional conditions that had been negotiated with the applicant.  He noted that the applicant requested the PAD amendment to allow them more flexibility to develop now rather than continuing to hold the property for a possible main street design.

Councilmember Solomon asked how the density of the proposed apartment complex compared to typical apartment densities.

Mr. Williams responded that the density was right in the middle.

Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing.

Oro Valley resident Donald Bristow was concerned with the quantity of proposed convenience stores and gas stations. He urged Council to consider the long-term implications of short-term development decisions.

Oro Valley resident Lloyd Johnson was concerned with the current demand for commercial buildings.  He opposed gas stations and fast food restaurants.  He recommended holding off on any new development at this time.

Oro Valley resident Fred Pfarrius was concerned with building heights reaching approximately sixty feet and obstructing the mountain views.

Oro Valley resident Bill Adler said that market demand was not a tool for zoning.  He stated that by the time any project was designed, built and occupied, the market would have changed.  He recommended that the convenience uses should be developed along Oracle Road at either side of the entrance, thus leaving the interior of the project for the development of the Main Street concept.

Oro Valley resident Ethel Grayson settled in Oro Valley because of the beautiful environment but felt that it was on the verge of destruction with the proposed amendment.  She preferred the idea of pedestrian shopping but opposed convenience uses such as gas stations and fast food restaurants.

Oro Valley resident Kurt Weirich was concerned with the proposed development of 275 apartment units.  He stated that it would damage the quality of life in Oro Valley.  He opposed convenience stores and gas stations but preferred high-quality, non-convenience use development.

Oro Valley resident Barbara Mostoff was concerned with losing the view of the mountains due to the development of tall buildings.  She stated that people moved to Oro Valley to enjoy the mountains.  She urged Council to protect the natural beauty of Oro Valley and plan carefully for future generations.

Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing.

Keri Silvyn, representing the owners of the property, gave an overview of the proposed PAD amendment and stated that the owners were in full agreement of the proposed conditions.  Ms. Silvyn covered the following main topics:
     -Pedestrian Amenities
     -Civic Use Area
     -Proposed Height in PAD
     -Convenience Uses
     -Multi-Family Residential

Councilmember Solomon clarified that unless there was a guarantee or condition on the type of apartments that could be built, there was no guarantee that high-end apartments would ultimately be built.

Councilmember Solomon asked if the construction of the apartments was linked to the commercial development.

Ms. Silvyn replied "no".

Vice Mayor Snider asked if any consideration had been given to the possible market demand if other apartments would be built in Oro Valley.

Ms. Silvyn replied that had been taken into consideration and that there was an enormous demand for apartments in the area.

Councilmember Garner suggested that the garages on the lower level could be replaced with convenience uses.

Councilmember Hornat preferred to see the apartments spread out instead of clumped together and that more streetscape items needed to be added in order to make it unique and inviting.

Councilmember Waters questioned why gas stations, car washes and fast food restaurants were included in the proposed development since these types of convenience uses already existed within close proximity of the development.

Ms. Silvyn said that the development plan was still unfinished and that it was difficult to market the site with the current entitlements.  She said that they were looking for some flexibility but were willing to include additional language that would require specific amenities.  Ms. Silvyn clarified that the intent had always been to create a space on the site that would include cafes and amenities while capitalizing on a pedestrian connection with the wash.  The site would also include convenience uses off of Oracle Road.

Mayor Hiremath said that it was important to take a logical look at how society had changed because people were more transient in nature since the world operated in a global environment.  He clarified that the height of the development wouldn’t exceed the height of the homes at Rams Pass.

Mayor Hiremath stated that society today preferred conveniences.  The demographics of Oro Valley had drastically changed from 1990 to present.  In 1990, approximately 85% of residents were retired.  Now, there were approximately 8,000 school kids, 45% of residents were middle-aged and another 45% were seniors.

MOTION:  A motion was made by Mayor Hiremath to adopt Ordinance (O)11-26, amendment of Oro Valley Town Centre at Rooney Ranch Planned Area Development as shown in Exhibit A and subject to the conditions in Attachments #3 & #4.

MOTION failed due to lack of a second.

Councilmember Solomon was concerned with the use regarding the multi-family section and that the commercial section wouldn’t develop the way it was envisioned.

MOTION:  A motion was made by Councilmember Solomon and seconded by Councilmember Garner to deny Ordinance No. (O)11-26.

Councilmember Solomon made a motion to amend the original motion to continue Ordinance No. (O)11-26.  This amendment was agreed to by Councilmember Garner.

MOTION AS AMENDED carried 6-1, with Councilmember Gillaspie opposed.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

No agenda items were requested.

CALL TO AUDIENCE

Oro Valley resident Dick Johnson said that the University of Arizona woman's golf team invitational would be held in Oro Valley at Vistoso on February 5, 6 and 7th.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:  A motion was made by Vice Mayor Snider and seconded by Councilmember Garner to adjourn the meeting at 9:36 p.m.

MOTION carried, 7-0.