PRESENT:
Chair Teree Bergman
Vice Chair Clark Reddin
Commissioner Bill Adler
Commissioner Joe Hornat
Commissioner Scott Merry
Commissioner Doug McKee
Commissioner James Loughney (via phone conference call)

Also present: 
K. C. Carter, Council Member
Salette Latas, Council Member
Barry Gillaspie, Council Member
Paula Abbott, Council Member
Bob Baughman, HPC Chair
Dan Zwiener, HPC Vice Chair
Valerie Pullara, HPC Member
Lois Nagy, HPC Member
Sarah More, Planning and Zoning Director
Philip Saletta, Water Utility Director
Paul Keesler, PW Development Review Manager

The public hearing was actually closed at the previous meeting.  There is a new set of policies, so Chair Bergman reopened the public hearing only for the purpose of considering questions and comments on the revised policies from staff.

Sarah More, Planning and Zoning Director, gave the staff report.  Three handouts were distributed: (1) A letter from County Administrator’s office, (2) Recommended changes to policies from the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Preservation, and (3) Comments from Carl and Patty which were forwarded from Mr. Adler regarding special area plan policies.  The intent this evening is to recommend some revised policies. 

Questions and comments from Commissioners:
- How is the open space property to be sold?
Response:  Per a policy statement in the General Plan (GP), staff is working together with Pima County and the State to achieve the sale of the property. It is up to Pima County and the State Land Department to work outside of the GP amendment to facilitate that process.

- Will the Environmentally Sensitive Land (ESL) ordinance contain adequate definitions of clustering?
Response:  Yes, those provisions will be part of that project.

- Regarding Village Center (VC) regulations, in the GP implementation program, land use #8 directive says that a mixed use neighborhood zoning ordinance will be created.  Is that what you had in mind in developing the VC regulations?
Response:  What is anticipated is we may develop something in a Planned Area Development (PAD) that will apply to this area only, that may be used as a model for a future townwide ordinance.

- Should an ordinance for VC component be created now?
Response:  Not at this time.

- How does the Commission get design standards and development standards for the core of this project?
Response:  That will be in the Planned Area Development (PAD) that will be worked on together.  It is not in the work plan to do this townwide, and it confuses the matter when trying to apply to the entire town.  It is our task to get the GP and zoning in place for this project to meet the needs of the land owner and the Town. 

- Regarding the Master Plan (MP) for the conservation preserve in the northern area believed to have archaeological values, it would be appropriate to have a special area policy to insure public access and how to protect that property to secure the values. 
Response:  With regard to the archaeological preserve, the 100% open space (OS) area at the northern end of this property, staff worked with Pima County and their cultural resources staff on delineation of that area and policies.  There are several elements missing before it becomes a policy: Is the intent to purchase that area as well as the wildlife linkage? Does the County want to manage it and what are their goals? When or will public access be allowed?  Once protected and there is a management plan, there will probably be public access. 
Response:  At this point in time Ms. More is not prepared to support a policy for public access.
 
- What about the bottleneck at Oracle Road regarding the wildlife corridor?  What policy or language would alleviate a bottleneck?
Response:  The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) has funding to improve wildlife crossings along the state route.  They have looked at current plans for the future to improve wildlife crossings, either under or over roads.  ADOT is interested in this kind of project.  Our GP policies don’t affect policies that apply to the state route.  Should the Council choose they can indicate their support for Pima County moving forward with additional measures beyond the wildlife linkage corridor to address the issues on the east side of Oracle Road.

- Expand on #8, phasing, and how it would be enforceable.
Response:  These are special area plan policies that are applied.  The next step is writing a PAD zoning document that has elements for the phasing plan.  Jobs and services may not match residential right away. 

- Have you (Ms. More) seen a PAD that has phasing requirements?
Response:  Yes.

- Is 400 Commercial Office Park (COP) acres enough to achieve 1 job per 3 du?  600 acres would be better. 

-On item 6, floating resorts, is there one or two?
Response:  These policies will result in a revised map which will have one.

- On the resort issue, a statement should be put in that says a golf course will be allowed.

- Is there a plan to put a wastewater treatment plant in that area?
Response:  That is a regional question.  Wastewater treatment is a County issue.

- Can a statement be added that irrigation for HOAs plants should be with effluent water rather than good water?
Response:  That is an element in LEED. 

- Regarding the wildlife corridor, how can we effectively say there must be something done at Oracle and on the east side? 
Response:  The Commission might want to consider a motion, separate from anything on the GP, that indicates the Commission recommends to TC that they communicate with Pima County and ADOT regarding this.  Those recommendations are in Dr. Beier’s study. 

- Would it be possible to identify the 68.4 % that is OS as Sensitive Resource Area (SRA) due to wildlife requirements?
Response: That is staff’s recommendation to identify the natural OS as SRA and to recommend that the Urban Services Boundary be expanded to include the Arroyo Grande area.  The SRA designation should be applied to those areas identified in the GP as 100% natural open space.

- Item #3 financial sustainability policies, prior to development approval an economic impact study has to be performed.  Does that mean the development approval occurs when the PAD is approved?
Response:  There are several levels where Town does economic impact studies. At every step of the process the Town looks at what is necessary to serve the area and make sure it is provided.  Infrastructure is typically provided by the developer.  Regarding the jobs/housing balance, the MPC designation will include both residential and commercial uses.  Even at the PAD stage, we won’t know how much commercial development will go in verses residential.

- Is this development approval study in addition to other studies that will occur at the annexation step?
Response:  It may be the annexation study or additional studies.  Infrastructure studies are separate.

- In the sustainability section, paragraph 1, identifying water harvesting, etc., are there certain things being eliminated, i.e. solar?
Response:  That wording is "may include, such as".  Renewable energy production includes solar. 

- Are we making a commitment to commercial or residential standards consistent with LEED?
Response:  Sustainability and Energy Conservation #2, is not the same as the LEED standard.

- Is one easier to deal with?
Response:  That may be the case. The LEED standard is a national standard.  In the desert southwest, we need to focus more on solar and water conservation practices.  In putting these policies all together, both design of neighborhoods and buildings, as well as water conservation and solar make a package.

- Why does it make sense to get so specific at this point on items 2, 3, and 5?  They belong in a code or maybe zoning at a much later date. 
Response:  Ms. More agreed.  We have tried to address community concerns that go beyond what is normally applicable at a GP level.  She will not recommend that they be taken out, but that is the Commission’s decision. 

- It is important to have that level of detail and this is the place to do it.

PUBLIC HEARING opened at 6:55 p.m., for the purpose only of commenting on the proposed policies from staff. 

Carolyn Campbell, Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, stated the Coalition was pleased with changes that have been made by staff and would like the following additional changes to be incorporated:
1.  Land use and zoning section policy #9, should read:  "Residential development densities in MPC will transition from rural low (.3 r/ac) to high (over 5 r/ac) moving away from the wildlife linkage open space corridor."
 
2. OS and natural resources policy #1, remove "electrical substations".  Add "No disturbances will be allowed unless approved by the Oro Valley Town Council." 

3.  OS policy #11 includes development and adoption of an assured funding source for management.

4.  Transportation and Circulation policy #7, last bullet,  strike "No roads will cross the wildlife corridor unless approved by the Oro Valley Town Council.

The Oracle Road bottleneck refers to the development between north and south ends, not the road itself. 

Patty Estes, Oro Valley (OV) resident, said citizens are skeptical of this GP amendment.  OV should show that they can do what is mentioned in the special area policies as exists today.  OV has not been able to provide adequate mass transit, control its own effluent or build a sewage treatment plan, insure the water table is not drawn down, control invasive plants, prevent property owners from removing native plants, enact property taxes to pay for amenities and infrastructure, provide access to Tortolita Mountain Park, require energy efficient building and solar and graywater utilization, require developers to build parks and provide usable land for schools, require that new development pays for itself.  If OV were not able to achieve the goals in special area policies, would you still support this development?

Michele Muench, Arizona State Land Department (ASLD).  We just received these policies on Friday so we have not had an opportunity to fully review them or comment on them. State statutes state you are to cooperate and work with the Land Department in integrating their conceptual plan. Ms. Muench expressed some concern that word smithing would be required to make the policies acceptable.

PUBLIC HEARING closed at 7:05 p.m.

Staff response to questions raised during the public hearing: 
Regarding some suggestions from Ms. Campbell, staff would have to get together with ASLD to review before making a recommendation.  The purpose of the electrical substation is to primarily serve existing Town residents.  While it may be possible to carve out an area for the substation, we don’t know what the impact would be on the overall development.  Staff is not comfortable identifying transitional density at such a low rate.  In addition to other wording changes that we may have to discuss with ASLD, we would like to have one month when nothing changes so we have time to review.  Ms. More is comfortable making the recommendation to move forward with the substance of the policies as recommended. 

Ms. More did not feel it was necessary to continue this item again to get the exact wording. It is within the Commission’s pervue to recommend these conditions as written or modified.  The Council can also modify before final adoption.

Questions from Commissioners:
- Regarding Ms. Campbell’s suggestion on transitional densities, if we began at .4 units per acre, we are talking about a compromise to roughly 2 acre lots.  Would that change be okay?
Response:  That recommendation was out of the range of low density which is .4 to 1.2 DU per acre.  Low density in the GP is in that range and Ms. More would support that. 

- Item #6 in the water section talks about first come-first serve basis. There are annexations and GPA that will increase the current service area.  The word "currently" becomes important as to other expansions of service that might occur later and how they would be interpreted. 
Response:  Item #6 might need to be revised because we have a plan that identified the ability to serve a greater area than our current water service area.

Response from Philip Saletta, Water Utility Director:  First come-first serve policies are important to communities that are growing.  If there are other annexations developed prior to AG being developed, then the first come-first serve would apply to AG.  If water supplies were used up, the AG developer would have to bring renewable water supply to the community.  That is a critical component to the development of AG.  The planning process looked at about 82,000 people that could be served based upon current water use numbers.  Regarding the areas where Metro or Tucson Water serves, OV required transfers of renewable water, and we would seek that.  There are no current plans to take over those areas now. 

- Does the renewable water source developers have to bring in include effluent to recharge?
Response by Mr. Saletta:  We are specifying renewable water sources, i.e. CAP, but it would have to be enough over long term that developer would have to bring in.

- What if AG is developed ahead of some other expansions of service areas in OV’s existing boundaries?  Will we reserve resources of water for everything within our existing boundary even though we are not servicing it right now?
Response:  We have no plans to serve those areas, but if they came in we would look at those areas transferring renewable water to us.  Regardless if we brought those lands in, future developers would have to bring in water if it was determined that we did not have adequate renewable water supplies. In the impact fees we have a component to acquire CAP water and payoff our new allocation we just received.

Commissioner’s comments or suggestions of proposed policies:

Commissioner Loughney was concerned that OS remains open.  Also identifying the actual Community or VC, mass transit or limiting traffic on Oracle Road, which was adequately addressed.

Commissioner Hornat was concerned about no roads crossing the wildlife corridor unless approved by Council. It is unrealistic to think we can afford to elevate or dig under the existing land to provide access across the corridor and he would not support that condition.  Electrical substations are not intrusive as stated at a prior meeting.  Transition of .4 - 1 is appropriate, but we don’t need to go overboard.  We have provided an extensive wildlife corridor.

Commissioner McKee said change 400 acres (of COP land use designation) to 600. In the energy conservation area delete item 3, 5 and 7 entirely.  In the OS and natural resources area, delete the reference to a connection of the employment commercial center on Oracle Road to MPC1 because that will force a road to go through some of that natural open space area.  Item 5 change area 4 to just area because there is no area 4 on the map.   Water supply area #2, delete words within existing water service area.  Item #4 in water supply section is redundant with item #4 in the energy conservation section; delete one of them.  Item #6 change within OV water service area to within the 2008 OV boundary and any subsequently annexed areas.  Expand the definition of words referring to wet and paper water.  Transportation and circulation section, define existing level of service to 2008 level of service for Oracle Road from Pinal County to Tangerine, and Tangerine from Oracle to Thorneydale.  What is the current service level?

Paul Keesler, Public Works, said the level of service varies along Oracle on a scale of A through E.  The policy level is to not degrade any more than what is close to anticipated unacceptable levels with or without the project.  This is a combination of current and projected levels.  Nothing is set in concrete. 

Chair Bergman asked if the level of service would be determined at the time of development or now.
Mr. Keesler said at the time of development. 

Commissioner McKee continued, item #6 refers to the road from the commercial COP area and should be deleted.  Item #7 electric carts are an alternate mode of transportation and would make sense within an area like this.  Also, limit the roads that cross the wildlife corridor to unimproved roads, not paved.  In the Park, Trails and Access section, replace item entirely with the developer will construct a multi-use public trail system that provides trailheads with paved vehicular access and linkages with open space and recreation areas.   Item #3 refers to standards, but what ones?  In the Public Facilities, Services and Schools section, he recommends listing a number of ball fields, library and fire stations.  The established standards should be defined.

Vice Chair Reddin and Commissioner Merry had no comments at this time.

Commissioner Adler said it is impossible to make notes on all of Commissioner McKee’s suggestions and he disagreed with many of them.  We are trying to provide general direction, not be overly specific. 

MOTION:  Commissioner Adler MOVED to recommend that the Town Council approval of OV11-08-05, General Plan Amendment for the Arroyo Grande area, generally bounded on the north by the Pinal County line, on the east by Oracle Road, on the south by the current Town of Oro Valley boundaries, and on the west by the Tortolita Mountain Park, as depicted on the Conceptual Land Use Plan, including the Arroyo Grande special area planning policies with the following adjustments:  with regard to the floating resort, it be a single resort; regarding transitional density that it be from low density residential range to medium density residential range; that the acreage allocated to Commercial Office Park be increased to 600 acres; and that the redundancy with regard to the road disturbance be corrected.  

Commissioner Adler said Ms. Estes was right in pointing out the skepticism that exists among the community generally is based upon past performance.  He is supporting this amendment because of the opportunity to demonstrate creativity in forward looking abilities.  We need to proceed as if we are going to preserve as much as we can and we are doing a good job of that.  All other processes will help with the details.

Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Reddin.

Discussion:
Commissioner Merry asked for clarification on last changes to the roads. 
Ms. More stated in policy 7 under transportation and circulation, the sentence "no roads will cross wildlife corridor unless approved by the Oro Valley Town Council" would be struck.  Add to Policy 1 under Open Space and Natural Resources, "no disturbances will be allowed unless approved by the Oro Valley Town Council" (in reference to the same wildlife linkage) would be added.

Commissioner McKee made a friendly amendment to the motion to eliminate in the transportation and circulation section, the  requirement that there be an interior road from the COP commercial area over to the MPC. 

Commissioner Adler did not agree to the friendly amendment.

MOTION:  Commissioner McKee MOVED to amend the motion to eliminate in the transportation and circulation section, the requirement that there be an interior road from the COP commercial area over to the MPC.  Motion failed for lack of second.

Original motion carried 7:0.

Commissioner McKee made a statement that he supported this amendment because it is very important that Oro Valley control that land.  Part of that process is approving a GP amendment. 

Chair Bergman agreed with Commissioner Adler that the ideal would be to keep the property as permanent untouched open space. That is not an option.  The Town of Oro Valley has done an admirable job of working to get the best we can get in a less than perfect situation.

Commissioner Merry encouraged the audience to look at the original amendment and what just was passed.  He thanked Ms. More and staff for all their hard work.

Commissioner Hornat agreed with Commissioner Merry.

Break: 7:40 p.m. to 7:45 p.m.

Bayer Vella, Principal Planner, gave the staff report. David Williams, Willdan, will present elements of code.  Mr. Grigsby and Mr. Hagedorn, Chair and Vice Chair from the Art Review Commission will present background information of working on this code amendment.  Kate Marquez, Greater Oro Valley Arts Council, was available to answer questions.

Since 1997 there have been 10 code amendments addressing public art.  Reasons for amending the code is that it is ambiguous on how to apply. This is a service for applicants.

David Williams, Willdan, Tucson, presented the new draft code: 1. Two new definitions (Chapter 31), 2. Established Art Review Commission, 3. Specific requirements as revised. (Section 27.3)  4. Town Code 6.1.5 was incorporated into the Zoning Code.  5. Applicability is a new section.

A new Exhibit B handout was presented. 

Dave Grigsby, President of ARC. The changes in the code will help with receiving good submittals from the artists and provide the best art for the Town.  This amendment will provide a common approach for both public and private art.  Responsibilities and authority of the Commission will be clarified.  The addition of a maintenance provision will provide a measurable improvement in the quality of submittals. The two step process for artists will help them understand concepts and what they need to do.  

Questions:
- If the number of artists on the Commission was increased, would it increase conflict or reduce it?
Mr. Grigsby responded that he didn’t think it would make a difference.  Art is subjective.  The increase is the size of Commission is good, but one artist seems to be enough. 

- The concern is that the conflict ends up before the Town Council.  Qualifications of citizens should be closely examined before being appointed. 

Steve Hagedorn, Vice Chair of ARC, stated that the new code added more direction for review.  The two step process will allow the Commission to look at the project upfront before the applicant gets too far into it and then come back with a refined product. 

Mr. Vella recommended the Commission recommend approval to the Town council with Exhibit B, rather than Exhibit A.

Items Addressed:
- Term limits
- Number of qualified artists in Oro Valley
- What defines an artist
- Safety of artwork
- Structural component must have building permit
- Staff inspection
- Definition of fountain: one of a kind
- Maintenance provision
- Is staff responsible for oversite? 
- Who inspects art over time?
- Inspections are up to citizens and staff does periodic sweeps
- No funding is provided for inspections
- Money not producing artwork should be contributed to TOV and earmarked for art; don’t need specificity.  
- There is a GP directive to support the endowment fund. 
- In-lieu fee for small projects. 
- $10 million is a hold over from previous code. 
- Performing arts facilities. 
- Capital improvement projects in excess of $50,000 require art, i.e. roadways. 
- Penalities for non-compliance
- Property owner is responsible for artwork.
- Vacant building, old property owner may remove artwork.  If building is reused there should be public art. 

PUBLIC HEARING opened at 8:52 p.m.

Matt Moutfis, OV resident, artist, discussed maintenance of artwork, medias, submittal designs, makeup of the Commission and how they relate to the artist.  

PUBLIC HEARING closed at 9:02 p.m.

Additional items discussed:
- Selection of Commission members.
- Maintenance budget.
- Penalities not well defined. 

Commissioner’s comments:

- Commissioner Loughney had all his questions answered.

- Commissioner Hornat said the Naranja Town site bothers him.  Certificates of Occupancy not being issued until the art is installed and certified, adds language that may delay projects.  Some language is too general.
 
- Commissioner McKee said the issue of Certificate of Occupancy may cause problems.  He supports the change but recommends deleting 6, 7, and 8, and provide a different way to not use the foundation to handle payments in lieu of actual art.

- Chair Bergman said it is important for the Town to hold itself to the same standard required of private business.  Maintenance of artwork in public projects is important.  Agrees with taking out specific things, i.e.  Naranja town site.  Using funds to construct performing art facilities, could be an artistic element of the site.  

- Vice Chair Reddin said regarding the final, there is an option for a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO).  Hold the Town equally responsible for their art.  On items 6, 7, 8, where money specifically should go should be pulled out, and have a general fund for art, that may be applied for in the future. 

- Commission Merry agrees on items 6, 7, and 8 of the budget section.  Of the 1% from Capital Improvement Project, perhaps take 10% to go towards maintenance and the other 90% towards production of new art.  Other than that, he is in complete favor of this.

- Commissioner Adler was concerned with the two step process.  If we could have a preview of the artist’s concept or theme, it might give P&Z members an opportunity to get comfortable with the notion.  If members are disinterest or don’t have experience to understand, the concept falls apart.  

MOTION:  Commissioner Adler MOVED to recommend that the Town Council approve OV7-08-05, new version of art code requirements, Exhibit B, and, in the Art Budget Sections 6 and 7, substitute the Town of Oro Valley for Oro Valley Community Foundation, and delete the reference to the Naranja town site performing arts facility.  The Town of Oro Valley would be the recipient and it shall be earmarked for public art projects. (Accepted friendly amendment made by Vice Chair Reddin):  Under B. Applicability, #3, after "All projects," insert "where public art work has not been provided in accordance with Town requirements." (Accepted friendly amendment made by Commissioner McKee):  Under C. Artwork Budget #8, after the words "performing art facilities", add the words "on project site."  Commissioner Hornat seconded the motion.   Motion carried 7:0.

Mr. Vella, Principal Planner, gave the staff report. 

David Williams, Willdan, discussed the changes to the assurances code. 

Items addressed:
- Letters of credit.
- Access to moneys.
- Benefit to the Town.
- Third party trusts.
- Protection of Town and citizens.
- No cost except time.
- Quicker access to money.
- Abandonment.
- No grandfathering.
- No increase to construction costs.
- Cost of bond.
- Administrative cost.

PUBLIC HEARING opened and closed at 10:02 with no speakers.

Comments:
Commissioner McKee said before this is decided upon by Town Council estimated costs for various construction projects should be figured.

MOTION:  Commissioner McKee MOVED to recommend that the Town Council approve OV7-08-03, new version of assurance requirements as provided in Exhibit A.  Vice Chair Reddin seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7:0.

Sarah More, Planning and Zoning Director, gave the staff report. 

Items addressed:
- This has been needed. 
- Does not go far enough. 
- Limited to neighborhood meetings. 
- Issue is to inform general public. 
- Community benefit. 

Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy, Town Attorney, stated that hearings and notices are two separate issues.

MOTION:  Commissioner Adler MOVED to recommend that Planning and Zoning department staff initiate the project to develop a neighborhood meeting section of the zoning code.  Commissioner McKee seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7:0.

Commissioner Adler and Vice Chair Reddin volunteered to be on the advisory committee to represent the Planning and Zoning Commission for the neighborhood meeting update.

9. OV7-08-09, The Planning & Zoning Department, requests to initiate a General Plan text amendment to require neighborhood meetings prior to the submittal of general plan amendment applications and change the submittal time frames.

Sarah More, Planning and Zoning Director, gave the staff report. 

Items addressed:
- Include site tours in neighborhood (NH) meetings. 
- Putting this with the Zoning Code NH meetings.
- Timeline
- Public input at a conceptual stage.
- After the pre-application meeting(s).
- Time spent with residents who will be impacted by project, because there will be less prejudgments. 

MOTION:  Commissioner Adler MOVE to initiate OV7-08-09, staff’s request for a text amendment to require neighborhood meetings prior to the submittal of general plan amendment applications and change the submittal time frames.  Commissioner McKee seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7:0.