PRESENT: Paul Loomis, Mayor
K.C. Carter, Vice Mayor
Al Kunisch, Council Member
Salette Latas, Council Member
EXCUSED: Paula Abbott, Council Member
Bill Garner, Council Member
Barry Gillaspie, Council Member
Mayor Loomis led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Communications Administrator Mary Davis reviewed the upcoming meetings and events.
Water Utility Director Philip Saletta reported that his Department had recently closed on the Arizona Water Infrastructure Finance Authority loan. He explained that this was a 3.17% low interest rate loan and the funds would be used for system improvements. He also thanked Finance Director Stacey Lemos, Town Attorney Tobin Rosen and Water Administrator Shirley Seng for all of their work.
Communications Administrator Mary Davis reminded everyone about the Capitol Tree that is making its first Southern Arizona stop in Oro Valley at the Oro Valley Marketplace. Ms. Davis announced that the 85 foot Blue Spruce tree will be the tallest tree in the history of the People’s Tree.
Mayor Loomis moved Items 4 and 5 ahead of the Consent Agenda. He explained that there were only four Council members in attendance and a super-majority was needed to take action on these items. The Mayor indicated these items would probably be continued to another meeting.
Lane Davidson, a representative for Foundation for Animals In Risk (FAIR), presented Kaylee and Kipton, two 3-month old kittens. She stated that FAIR had cats 7 days a week at the PetsMart in Oro Valley. They also have a foster-based program where most of their animals get to go home during the week. They are always in need of more foster parents, food and supplies.
Ruth Ryman, Transportation Demand Manager for the Pima Association of Governments, presented the newest in technology with the Sun Rideshare Interactive Matching System. Ms. Ryman reviewed their new homepage designed for easy navigation so Oro Valley residents have basic access to commute options. She completed a carpool match demonstration showing how residents can be matched up with potential carpool partners by using route demographics and email communication. SunTran’s bus routes are also linked into the trip planning software. Based on the information provided in their profile, a resident can also gather information on vanpool options, Park and Ride lots, bike buddies, as well as create a commute calendar. As residents submit their mileage and commutes logged each day, they can receive a report of their pollution and cost savings, as well as their greenhouse gas reductions.
Councilmember Latas asked if any employers offered incentives to their employees to submit this information. Ms. Ryman commented that currently city employees mainly in the UA Science and Tech Park area around Rita Road utilized the program and that Sun Rideshare has implemented a contest as of November 1. In the last 4 days, they have had 100 people sign up for the program.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. (R)08 - 82 OV11-08-04 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PORTIONS OF RANCHO VISTOSO, NEIGHBORHOOD 5, GENERALLY BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD, ON THE EAST BY BIG WASH, ON THE SOUTH BY TANGERINE ROAD, AND ON THE WEST BY THE RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD (Continued from October 7, 2009)
Town Attorney Tobin Rosen explained that State statute required 2/3 of the governing members of a municipality’s approval to be adopted. He noted that because only 4 members were present at the meeting, no action could be taken on this item, or item 5.
MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Carter and seconded by Council Member Kunisch to continue Resolution (R)08-82 and Ordinance (O)09-19 to December 2, 2009.
MOTION carried, 4-0.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (O)09 - 19 OV9-09-01 AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT FOR PORTIONS OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD FIVE, GENERALLY BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD, ON THE EAST BY BIG WASH, ON THE SOUTH BY TANGERINE ROAD, AND ON THE WEST BY RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD Explanation: WLB Group on behalf of Vistoso Partners is requesting approval of a Planned Area Development (PAD) amendment.
(Motion for continuance under Item 4.)
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Kunisch and seconded by Vice Mayor Carter to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
MOTION carried, 4-0.
Coyote Run Transit Monthly Operations Report - September 2009
Magistrate Court Periodic Report - October 16, 2009
Police Report - September 2009
Resolution No. (R)09 - 72 Authorizing and approving a Subgrantee Agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and the Arizona Department of Homeland Security for the Urban Area Security Initiative Regional Planning Cooperative
Approval of request for sponsorship of use of Council Chambers for Oro Valley Parade visit from Santa Claus on December 12, 2009 from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Council Trip Reports
RESOLUTION NO. (R)09 - 65 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND PIMA COUNTY FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES TO SET ASIDE INCREMENTAL LICENSE FEE INCREASES TO FUND FREE SPAY/NEUTER CLINICS IN PIMA COUNTY (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 7, 2009)
Oro Valley Police Chief Sharp explained that this item was continued from October 7, 2009 due to Council asking for more information from Kim Janes, Pima County Animal Care Center (PACC) Manager as well as an updated Intergovernmental Agreeement.
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Kunisch to approve Resolution (R)09-65. Motion failed due to lack of second.
Discussion followed regarding the proposed Resolution and the $7000 that is currently collected by Pima County Animal Control as part of the licensing fees.
MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Carter and seconded by Council Member Latas to table Resolution (R)09-65.
MOTION carried, 4-0.
Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed.
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Latas and seconded by Vice Mayor Carter to recommend approval of the issuance of the series 12 liquor license to the Arizona State Liquor Board for a Mr. Carl H. James at El Burrito Patio Restaurant located at 10420 N. La Canada Drive #180.
MOTION carried, 4-0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (O)09-17 OV7-09-06 AMENDING THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED, APPROVING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 22, TO ADD SECTION 22.15, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Continued from August 19, 2009)
Acting Planning and Zoning Director Paul Popelka explained that this item was continued from August 19, 2009 with direction to make changes from the original draft. Matt Michels, Senior Planner, reviewed changes, focusing on ways to streamline the process to save time and money and granting direction to the Planning and Zoning Director (where appropriate) on a particular project, as requested by the Council.
Discussion followed regarding development plans, neighborhood meetings and education and the legal constraints of the Town. Mr. Michels commented that both the the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association (SAHBA) and the Metropolitan Pima Alliance (MPA) had expressed concerns over the Town adding undue costs and time to the process. He also said that having a consistent and clear solution-oriented process brings a reduction in time and resources, if not keeping it at the same level.
Mr. Popelka stated that the intent was to work out issues at the tentative development plan level, and if those things get resolved then when it comes time for the technical plans to be submitted, no meeting may be required. He stated that it was up to the discretion of the staff at any time to let the applicant know there are problems that need to be resolved prior to going to Council. Mr. Popelka also stated that an applicant’s tentative plans should have all the necessary details that staff needs to make decisions.
Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing.
Oro Valley resident Bill Adler spoke about initiating this effort last year, and he was stunned that citizens would not want to be educated about this effort. He stated that former Planning and Zoning Director Sarah More recognized that educating neighbors in advance of meeting with an applicant serves to reduce delay, not increase it. The focus should be on the quality of how the amendment is delivered and if done properly, will reduce controversy and expedite the approval process which will result in a more content and satisfied neighborhood.
Oro Valley resident Joe Hornat spoke about moving to the town and educating himself about changes happening around his residence. He stated that he recently participated in the Neighborhood 5 site visit and felt there was animosity and nervousness on the part of the neighbors. He noted that he favors this amendment but has concerns regarding the citizen volunteer, and would like to see an elected official at the kickoff meeting along with staff.
Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing.
MOTION: A motion was made by and seconded by to
Section 22.15: Public Participation
This section provides requirements for neighborhood meetings for proposed development projects. The purpose of promoting public participation in the development review process is to:
- Build trust through effective public outreach and communication.
- Promote fair and open dialogue between stakeholders, applicants, staff, board and commission members, and the Town Council.
- Inform and educate stakeholders regarding the development process, review criteria, and planning and zoning regulations.
- Provide stakeholders with opportunities to ask questions, identify issues, and forge solutions early in the development process.
- Promote transparent conveyance of agreed upon solutions to staff, boards and commissions, and Town Council.
- Promote consistent implementation of agreed upon solutions through the development review process.
Neighborhood meetings are required for the following development applications:
a. Major and minor general plan amendments.
c. Conditional use permits.
d. Preliminary plats.
e. Development and landscape plans, excluding landscape plans not associated with a development plan or plat.
f. Any other proposed action that results in significant change in the development intensity or compatibility with existing development as determined by the Planning and Zoning Director.
If a project entails more than one of the aforementioned development applications, a single public participation process may be followed, unless substantial changes have occurred to the proposal or significant issues are identified. When the neighborhood meeting requirements are met for major and minor General Plan amendments or a rezoning, further meetings may not be required if the following conditions are met:
· No substantial changes to the approved concept or Tentative Development Plan
· There are no unresolved issues related to the application, as defined in Section 22.15.b.3
3. Exemption from Neighborhood Meeting Requirements
The Planning and Zoning Director may determine that a neighborhood meeting is not required in accordance with the following criteria:
a. There are no residential uses or zones within six hundred (600’) feet of the subject property, excluding areas designated as right-of-way, open space or drainage easement.
b. If it is determined that the project/proposal is:
I. Consistent with similarly situated property, or
II. Not substantially affecting adjacent land use, streetscape, or views
III. Substantially conforms to an approved Tentative Development Plan
c. Any project exempted under this section found to have unresolved neighborhood issues or concerns at any point in the development review process may be required to adhere to the neighborhood meeting requirements.
Neighborhood meetings shall be organized by Town Planning and Zoning Department staff in the manner specified in the Public Participation and Notification Policy maintained by the Planning and Zoning Director.
D. Public Outreach Plan (
1. The applicant must submit a
POPthat meets the requirements established by the Planning and Zoning Director.
2. The POP must be submitted after pre-application review and before neighborhood meetings are scheduled.
a. A description of the project.
b. Identification of interested stakeholders, including homeowners associations that are affected by the proposal.
c. A proposed neighborhood meeting process.
POPmust incorporate the Neighborhood Meeting Requirements noted in Oro Valley Zoning Code Section 22.2.F. The applicant may propose an alternative process if it is designed to include key stakeholders in a meaningful way, and is consistent with Section 22.2.A. Purpose and the Public Participation and Notification Policy. Any alternative proposal will be subject to Planning and Zoning Director approval. At a minimum, the POPmust contain educational and issue identification and resolution elements, as defined in the Public Participation and Notification Policy.
POPis subject to Communications Administrator review.
E. Public Outreach Report
1. The applicant must submit a Public Outreach Report as part of the application.
2. At a minimum, the Public Outreach Report must include:
a. A list of neighborhood meetings, noting when and where they were held; the number of people that attended; and copies of sign-in sheets.
b. A list of meeting notification methods used
c. Copies of comment letters, petitions, and other pertinent information received from residents and other interested parties.
d. A summary of the issues and concerns that were raised.
e. A list of solutions that were agreed upon.
f. A list of issues that were not resolved, with an explanation of why solutions were not achieved.
F. Neighborhood Meeting Requirements
1. Number of meetings
a. A minimum of two neighborhood meeting elements are required in the following sequence. One meeting may be sufficient if the project is of very limited scope as determined by the Planning and Zoning Director.
i. The first meeting is an educational session with neighbors, other stakeholders and the project planner to review and discuss the process and applicable planning and zoning regulations.
ii. The second meeting is an opportunity for the applicant to present the project, solicit feedback, and address issues and concerns.
iii. It should be determined at the meeting if additional time or information is needed to develop solutions. The decision about whether to hold an additional meeting should be made at this meeting.
b. If the project type, layout, or previously agreed upon mitigation solutions are substantially changed after meeting with neighbors, an additional meeting may be required as determined by the Planning and Zoning Director.
2. Meeting Location
Neighborhood meetings must be held in a facility that:
a. Is accessible to the general public, such as a Town-owned facility, school, house of worship, or community recreation center, and
b. Provides access for persons with disabilities.
a. Neighborhood meetings should typically be scheduled on a weekday evening so that working residents may attend, but may be adapted to neighborhood needs, as appropriate.
b. The educational session and applicant presentation meeting must be scheduled prior to formal submittal of the application.
4. Meeting Notification
a. Notice shall include all persons and entities identified in the Public Outreach Plan.
b. Neighborhood meeting notifications must be:
i. Prepared by the applicant using a Town-approved letter format. The letter must include a description and tentative timeline for the review and public meeting/hearing process.
ii. Submitted to the project planner for review and verification one week prior to mailing.
c. If any portion of a subdivision falls within the required notification area, the entire subdivision (as defined by subdivision name or unit number) may be required to be notified if the impacts of the proposal would have impacts affecting the entire subdivision or neighborhood, as determined by the Planning and Zoning Director.
d. In addition to the aforementioned, other meeting notification methods may be utilized for projects of broad scope.
a. A Town-approved facilitator may be utilized to assist with neighborhood meetings, as defined in the Public Participation and Notification Policy.
b. If professional facilitation services are required as determined by the Planning and Zoning Director, the applicant is responsible for the fees incurred for such services.
Policy: This SOP establishes policy and protocol for conducting neighborhood meetings, as further defined in Section 22.2 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR).
Roles and Procedures for Neighborhood Meeting Facilitation
I. Neighborhood Meeting Facilitation
Facilitators serve an important role in neighborhood meetings for development projects.
A facilitator may be defined as:
· “Someone who helps a group of people understand their common objectives and assists them to plan to achieve them without taking a particular position in the discussion.” (Source: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Facilitator)
· "One who contributes structure and process to interactions so groups are able to function effectively and make high-quality decisions.” (Source: Ingrid Bens)
It is appropriate for Planning and Zoning staff (P&Z staff) or volunteer or professional facilitators to facilitate various neighborhood meetings. The Planning and Zoning Director will determine the most appropriate facilitation for a particular project. Three different tiers have been defined for facilitation approach. This assessment may be revised as the neighborhood meeting process evolves. The three tiers are:
Tier 1: Facilitator is a Planning and Zoning staff member
· The list of issues is relatively short, and it appears that they can be fairly easily resolved
· The project does not involve a change in land use or development of a project with a land use that is significantly different in intensity or character relative to adjacent uses
· A low level of neighborhood interest is anticipated
Tier 2: Facilitator is a Town-approved volunteer or Town staff (including Planning and Zoning, Communications, and Constituent Services) with specific facilitation experience
· The development project is more complex, with greater potential to impact neighbors
· The project may involve more than one change in use from the land use map or current zoning, or a new use requiring a Conditional Use Permit that will have significant effects on adjacent properties
· The project involves a change in land use or development of a project with a land use that is significantly different in intensity or character
· A Tier 2 project may be designated as a Tier 3 at any point in the process if deemed necessary by the Planning and Zoning Director
There would be no facilitation costs incurred by the Applicant in Tier 2.
Tier 3: Facilitator is a credentialed professional who is engaged for exceptional circumstances in highly complex projects
· The project is very complex and generates a very high level of neighborhood interest
· The project involves a change in land use or development of a project with a land use that is significantly different in intensity or character relative to adjacent uses over a significant area of land
· The project would significantly impact residents beyond the immediate neighborhood
· Involves a General Plan Amendment as well as rezoning.
· The applicant is responsible for the fees incurred for facilitation services under Tier 3
Town-approved, volunteer facilitators must meet the following requirements:
· Demonstrate the ability and willingness to serve as a neutral third party to assist participants in identifying, discussing, and working toward resolution of issues and concerns that are raised through the public participation process
· Agree to follow defined facilitation principles, as defined by the International Association of Facilitators (www.iaf-world.org)
· Attend a facilitator briefing conducted by Town staff. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate skill and knowledge of group process techniques. Experience or formal training and accreditation in group facilitation from a recognized training source is required
· Participate in an interview with a selection panel
· Participate in periodic review and sharing sessions with Town staff. The sessions are intended to help facilitators and staff keep their skills current, discuss challenges and identify ways for improving the process, and address other relevant issues
II. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PROCESS
The Public Outreach Plan (
POP), referenced in OVZCR, Section 22.2.D, outlines the neighborhood meeting sequence and format. In general, most development projects will require two or more neighborhood meetings. However, the two required meeting elements described below may be combined for projects that are smaller in scope or which have a low level controversy or issues related to them. The determination shall be at the sole discretion of the Planning and Zoning Director. The neighborhood meeting sequence and goals are described below.
1. Educational Session
The first meeting is an educational session, conducted by the project planner, to assist the neighbors in developing a solid understanding of the applicable planning process and regulations. This meeting should be conducted prior to formal submittal, where possible, so that Planning and Zoning requirements are understood. The goals of this meeting are to:
· Provide information to interested parties regarding:
o Existing site conditions, including a map and tentative development plan
o Existing zoning and entitlement conditions for the subject property
o Oro Valley Zoning Code requirements that relate to the project, including a chart of permitted uses and district descriptions, development regulations, applicable overlay districts, and any environmental overlays or regulations applicable to the property
o Review and approval process
o Pertinent General Plan goals and policies
o Board and commission evaluation criteria
o Other relevant information
· Provide an opportunity for interested parties to ask questions, request clarification, and enhance their understanding of the review and approval process; and to clarify which issues are discretionary and may be negotiated through the public participation process, and which are not.
Neighbors are asked to keep discussion about issues and concerns regarding the specific proposal for the next meeting. The applicant may be present at the meeting to observe. The focus on this session is education rather than detailed description of the proposal and issue identification.
The planner must provide the applicant with copies of any handouts that were distributed and a summary of the meeting. If a facilitator is needed for future meetings, they should be invited to attend to observe this meeting. The date and time of the Issues Identification Meeting should be announced to the group.
2. Applicant Presentation Meeting
This next meeting includes neighbors, staff and the applicant and is facilitated according to the Tier guidelines noted under Section II. The goals of this meeting are to:
· Lay the groundwork for good communication between the neighbors and applicant
· Demonstrate how the project design conforms to applicable codes and General Plan criteria
· Present the proposed development project or conceptual plan
· Identify any issues related to the proposal
· Discuss possible alternatives, solutions, and mitigation strategies
· Strive to reach mutually agreeable solutions
If issues and concerns are resolved between all or some neighbors and the applicant, the solutions may be recorded in writing to become possible conditions of approval. If the applicant or neighbors need additional time to consider the issues or develop solutions, a follow-up meeting should be proposed.
III. GUIDELINES FOR FACILITATORS, STAFF,
1. Planner’s role and function:
· Define the meeting agenda
· Explain, reiterate and clarify public review process, P&Z requirements, general plan policies and evaluation criteria, as needed, throughout the process
· Suggest appropriate design or mitigation techniques
· Inform the group of limitations on proposed solutions and conditions, for instance, if they are not consistent with P&Z regulations
· Develop an evaluation form to distribute at the meeting
· Collect the evaluation forms and draft a brief meeting summary
2. Applicant’s role and function:
- Fully explain the proposed project, including land use, site layout, function and daily operations and target market
- Listen to neighbor’s issues and concerns and propose possible solutions
- Be prepared to respond to questions about how the project meets specific general plan policies and review criteria
- Include project team members with decision making authority
3. Facilitator’s role and function:
· Assist the planner to define the meeting agenda
· Clarify participants’ roles
· Establish his or her responsibility as the meeting leader, including:
MOTION carried, 4-0.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (O)09 - 20 OV7-09-09 REQUEST BY PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT TO REVISE, RENUMBER AND CONSOLIDATE SECTION 22.11, NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLANS, AND SECTION 27.4, NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS INTO REVISED SECTION 27.6, LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION, OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED; AND TO REVISE ADDENDUM C, APPROVED NATIVE PLANT LIST, ADDENDUM D, APPROVED REVEGETATION SEED MIX AND ADDENDUM E, PROHIBITED PLANT LIST OF THE APPENDIXES TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED, EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 2010
Principal Planner Bayer Vella explained that this Ordinance focuses on eliminating water waste as it applies to landscaping. He stated that this item surfaced in 2005 when it was added to the Planning and Zoning Commission’s workplan and at that time, before the Green movement took place nationally, Oro Valley was on that path.
Mr. Vella explained that the sustainable yield of water for Oro Valley is 5,500ac/ft per year. 2005 was almost double that number, and Oro Valley has now come down considerably due to receiving reclaimed water. By the year 2015/2020 the Town will also receive Central Arizona Project (CAP) water, and the sustainable yield number would change due to the population in the area, possibly due to the Arroyo Grande annexation. In the year 2030, he expects that all users of CAP would be using water and they may look at potential reallocations.
Mr. Vella illustrated how water use in Oro Valley is over 2 billion gallons residentially, with roughly 50% of that being used for landscaping. Commercial use is much less because most commercial properties have separate irrigation meters that can be checked more accurately. Currently that number is at about 250 million gallons.
Mr. Vella reviewed the four solutions directly supported in the Town's General Plan regarding plant type, water plan, irrigation requirements and water harvesting.
Discussion followed regarding:
~No grass allowed in front yards
~Citrus trees not allowed in front yards
~Ocotillo trees are not considered a tree, but qualifies as a cactus under the Code
~The Zoning Code is not retroactive to current residents or subdivisions unless they redo a substantial area of their landscaping or buffer yards
~Enforcement will be done using existing processes like the grading plan which will show the depressions for every single lot. When a developer comes before the Development Review Board (DRB) with a landscape plan or comes before Council with a preliminary plat, they will show all their buffers yards and all the different landscape options for each front yard illustrating drought-tolerant plants, tree wells, etc.
~ The 5-year time period for growth regarding water shut-off and consideration for plants dying and insects
~ Water features are not permitted townwide for new development in the front yard for residential, and not at all for commercial development
~ The Water Utility Department will be assisting in enforcement of commercial properties who exceed their usage, and the water budgeting requirement does not apply to residents at all, only to common areas in residential subdivisions and commercial areas.
Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing.
Oro Valley resident Bill Adler spoke to making the Code retroactive to the greatest users in the community, the existing residents and commercial establishments. He also stated the community should be educated on the benefits of saving money and water.
David Williams, a local consultant, urged adoption of the proposed ordinance. He stated that he was here on personal time because he was involved in the research, text-writing and meeting facilitation of this process for the past year and a half and he felt that this was a model code with excellent provisions.
Oro Valley resident Doug McKee said that one of the things not discussed was the affect conservation may have on future water rates. He commented that Green Valley’s water utility is running in the red and they will have to raise their rates. He questioned the amount of cost, effort and bureaucracy to adopt this change, and stated that he believes it will make government intrude even further into people’s lives.
Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Latas commented that there are non-profit organizations in the area that are currently doing water audits, and are encouraging that water-harvesting components be built in retroactively. She also stated that proposals for retrofitted water-harvesting projects could be submitted for $5000 mini-grants to PRO Neighborhoods. Councilmember Latas commented that Green Valley was not incorporated like Oro Valley, and did not have a public water utility. She stated that there was also a huge water drain there due to agricultural use.
Oro Valley Water Utility (OVWU) Director Philip Saletta spoke about their willingness to support this ordinance and provide whatever services are necessary. He also commented that 90-95% of the local commercial sites have separate irrigation meters for their outdoor use because it reduced their sanitary sewer bills. He stated that their Conservation Specialist Karn Boyce could use this to track and monitor and support the efforts of the town in this area.
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Latas and seconded by Council Member Kunisch to adopt Ordinance No. (O)09-20, OV7-09-09, proposed "Landscape Conservation" code revisions, to be effective on June 1, 2010.
MOTION carried, 3-1 with Vice Mayor Carter opposed.
Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 7:35 PM and resumed the meeting at 7:45 PM.
OV12-07-18 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A NEW RESTAURANT AT ROONEY RANCH PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT PARCEL B, PROXIMATE TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND FIRST AVENUE Explanation: Norman Engineering on behalf of the McDonald’s Corporation is requesting approval of a development plan.
Senior Planner Karen Berchtold provided background and staff analysis on the proposal. She explained The site is located within the Rooney Ranch shopping area Planned Area Development (PAD). The request is for a 4,100 sq. foot convenience restaurant with a drive-thru.
She reviewed the key elements of the project as follows:
~ the arcaded seating area located outside with a screening wall that tapers from the center down so that it’s lower on the ends
~ landscaping for screening
~ the site for public art
~ a pedestrian walkway that crosses the parking area and creates a new pedestrian connection to the Eastern part of the site that did not exist before
~ landscaping at the front of the area to enhance an existing buffer that’s under code requirements at present
~ vehicular access has a right turn in from Oracle Road with the proposed median to prevent immediate left-hand turns which could cause congestion very close to Oracle Road, basically forcing an entrance up at this less congested area with an exit out from the drive-thru area
The Development Review Board (DRB) recommended approval of this plan with the conditions in Exhibit A.
The applicant, Dan Filuk of KDF Architectural Group spoke on behalf of McDonald’s Restaurant. He stated that he is working closely with Norman Engineering as the architect half of the development project. He reviewed the operational context for this franchise store as locally-owned, employing 7-9 individuals, with dining hours of operation from 5 AM to 11 PM daily and a 24-hour drive-thru.
Mayor Loomis opened the floor for public comment.
Paul Parisi, Oro Valley resident, spoke on behalf of the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, concurred with the DRB recommendation to approve this development plan. He also commended the applicant and the Town Council for contributing to continued Economic Development.
MOTION: A motion was made by and seconded by to
MOTION carried, 4-0.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (O)09 - 21 OV3-09-01A TO EXEMPT McDONALD’S CORPORATION, LOCATED IN ROONEY RANCH ON PARCEL B, IN PROXIMITY TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND FIRST AVENUE, PARCEL NO. 220-09-0260, FROM THE ROONEY RANCH PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT SIGN GUIDELINES AND TO HAVE THE McDONALD’S CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT BE REGULATED UNDER THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED, CHAPTER 28, SIGNS Explanation: Fluoresco Lighting and Signs on behalf of the McDonald’s Corporation is requesting an exemption.
Jonathan Lew, Planning Technician in the Planning and Zoning Department, presented the Planned Area Development (PAD) exemption portion of this submittal. He reviewed other wall signage in the area, as well as other singular drive-thru’s. Mr. Lew stated that McDonald’s will be using a double drive-thru.
Rooney Ranch Parcel B currently allows the use of red color wall signage for tenant spaces over 60,000 square feet. A major tenant over 40,000 sq. feet is allowed to use the white, orange or blue colors, and white halo illumination is allowed for all wall signs with the exception of logos and also directional signs a maximum of 3’ high and 4 sq. feet.
The deviations that the applicant is requesting are as follows:
~ A white color versus copper patina. The white lettering will be a halo illumination rather than an internal illumination so there will be no illumination change from the PAD. (The anchor tenant, Sports Authority, is also using this color).
~ The number of elevations that may contain a wall signs is no more than two and the applicant is requesting three. However this overlaps with the next item on the agenda which is the master sign program.
~ The applicant is requesting to use signs that are not specifically stated within the PAD.
Vice-Mayor Carter asked what the exact deviations are regarding this item and Mr. Lew reviewed the items above.
Applicant Mark Jones, from Fluoresco Lighting & Signs, reviewed the sign submittal package that will be unique to Oro Valley. He explained that this white lettering color is a recognized trademark of the McDonald’s brand. He is also requesting two menu boards for their double drive thru set-up to exceed the square feet allowed by 3 sq. feet to move traffic in and out in a more efficient manner for public safety. Lastly, he is requesting to exceed the number of elevations signage can be placed by one, to give McDonald's identification to the public driving within the shopping center. This sign would be less than 8 sq. feet.
Mayor discussed request to exempt McDonald’s from PAD sign code and that this sign package was more for Item 10 if Council approved Item 9.
Mayor Loomis opened the floor for public comment.
Paul Parisi, Oro Valley resident representing the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce concurred with the Development Review Board’s unanimous decision to approve this item and stated that proper signage benefits the residents of the Town of Oro Valley, the viability of the business and the sales tax base to the Town. Mr. Parisi also noted that this proposal is an excellent example of signage, and that the Rooney Ranch PAD is over 10 years old and minor changes such as this one are appropriate.
MOTION: A motion was made by and seconded by to
MOTION carried, 4-0.
Jonathan Lew, Planning Technician, turned his focus to how the applicant’s sign package relates to the zoning code.
He reviewed the request for the locations of the signs, one 7-1/2 sq. foot sign on the west elevation plus two additional elevations.
The deviations requested are as follows:
~ wall signs on three elevations (the Code allows only two)
~ use of two menu signs (the Code only allows one per business) due to the unique fact that this McDonald’s has a double drive thru
~ menu signs are 35 square feet (Code permits a maximum size of 32 sq. feet)
The Development Review Board (DRB) has unanimously recommended approval of this Master Sign Program. There is mitigation in the fact that the applicant is using a smaller size of wall signs compared to what they would be allowed in the Code.
Discussion followed regarding the McDonald’s at Oracle and Magee and its double drive thru set-up.
The applicant, Mark Jones of Fluoresco Lighting & Signs, did not have anything to add.
Mayor Loomis opened the floor to public comment.
Paul Parisi, Oro Valley resident representing the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce commended the staff, the DRB and the applicant for working together on this item. He stated this was a perfect example of what you can get when you have cooperation between all parties. He also thanked the Council for taking a serious look at this request and passing it.
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Kunisch and seconded by Vice Mayor Carter to approve OV3-09-01, Master Sign Program subject to the condition specified in Exhibit A:
Conditions of Recommendation
1. During the permitting process, the applicant is required to show how all ground mounted signs will be placed outside of the sight-visibility triangles.
MOTION carried, 4-0.
Communications Administrator Mary Davis addressed Council regarding the possibility of video streaming other Town Hall meetings on the Granicus system of the Town’s website.
An analysis conducted in March 2009, showed that visitors to the live Granicus website average 40-50 per regular Council session, although there was a peak of nearly 250 visitors during one live broadcast and another 100 visitors of that same meeting the next day viewing the archives.
Ms. Davis stated that budget limitations prohibit the Town from broadcasting all meetings live. Remington, a part-time college student currently manages the cameras and the Toastmaster equipment during the meetings at $10.15 per hour. This comes out to between $60-$80 per month, depending on the length of the meetings. If those hours doubled beginning in 2010, the additional costs would be an extra $730-$970 for just Council meetings, (not including Board and Commission meetings).
Discussion followed regarding the cost to video all meetings held each month in the Chamber’s, which is approximately 7-8 at the current time. Ms. Davis stated that another part-time employee would need to be hired at roughly $25,000/yr. with no benefits.
Discussion also centered on whether there would be an open meeting law violation if it was put into policy to have additional meetings in the Council Chambers streamed live, and later the equipment broke down or the town did not have the resources to continue streaming. Town Attorney Tobin Rosen stated that the open meeting law does not require that meetings be broadcast in any particular form, and providing Granicus online is a service to our residents and not a requirement.
Finally, Remington Trewern came out and introduced himself to the Mayor and Council Members.
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Latas and seconded by Vice Mayor Carter to direct staff to broadcast all Council meetings held in the Council Chambers on Granicus video streaming, effective with the first meeting of January, 2010, based on the costs outlined and subject to availability of resources.
MOTION carried, 4-0.
Council Member Kunisch/seconded by Vice-Mayor Carter requested to have staff take a look at the permits and fees for right-of-way signs for churches and realtors. Currently, there is a $1000 fee and Council Member Kunisch would like to look at having a sliding scale fee for churches for directional signs on the weekend for a one day event. It is also expensive for realtors for open houses for one day events, mom and pop operations, and smaller real estate firms. He requested action on a report on what other areas are doing and a different sliding scale for sign fees. Mayor Loomis asked for a brief update to this during the 11/18/09 Council meeting when Planning and Zoning is scheduled to give their signage report, outlining what the issues and solutions are if possible.
MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Carter and seconded by Council Member Kunisch to adjourn at 8:25 p.m.
MOTION carried, 4-0.
For the record, please state your name and whether or not you are a Town resident.
Speak only on the issue currently being discussed by Council. Please organize your speech, you will only be allowed to address the Council once regarding the topic being discussed.
Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.
During "Call to Audience" you may address the Council on any issue you wish.
Any member of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present.