Town Clerk Julie Bower stated that the request for a Series 12 liquor license for Harvest restaurant was due to a change in ownership. The premises was posted for twenty days as required by law and no protests were received. The Oro Valley Police Department conducted their standard background investigation on all owners/agents and the Police Department had no objections to the approval of the liquor license.
Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing.
No comments were received.
Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing.
MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Gillaspie and seconded by Vice Mayor Snider to Approve a Series 12 Liquor License for Lisa Shapouri for Harvest Restaurant located at 10355 N. La Canada Drive #141, Oro Valley, AZ, 85737.
MOTION carried, 7-0.
Interim Town Manager Greg Caton gave an overview of the item and said that it was a one-time compensation program for employees in the amount of $200 for benefit eligible employees and $100 for non-benefit eligible employees. The compensation would be provided in the form of OV Dollars gift cards. The cost of the program was approximately $64,000 and would cover 338 employees.
Councilmember Waters asked what the difference was between benefit eligible and non-benefit eligible employees.
Mr. Caton said that the program was divided between full-time (benefit eligible) and part-time employees (non-benefit eligible).
Councilmember Garner asked if the money for the OV Dollar gift card program would come from the respective funds associated with each employee.
Mr. Caton agreed that the funding would come from the same fund that the employee would normally be paid from.
Councilmember Solomon said that staff had not received any type of cost of living adjustment or any pay increase for several years, while at the same time, staffing had been reduced. He said that this was a small token of appreciation to the employees for all of their excellent service.
MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Solomon and seconded by Councilmember Waters to Approve the use of contingency funds in the amount of $64,100 for the distribution of OV Dollar gift cards to Town employees as a show of appreciation for their hardwork and dedication to delivering excellent service to the community.
MOTION carried, 7-0.
Management Assistant Catherine Vorrasi said that the feasibility study was completed in March of 2011 and accepted by the Town Council at the April 6th Regular Session meeting.
Ms. Vorrasi stated that the economic impacts associated with moving forward with improvements would attract large-scale swimming competitions. The aquatics operational improvements would consist of the following:
-50 meter pool depth modifications
-High performance gutters
-Splash pad and necessary components
-Multipurpose lap/program pool - 6 lanes
-Drop slide & tower
The architectural improvements would consist of the following:
-Change facility/Admin. building modifications
-Existing wading pool removal and replace deck
-10 lane scoreboard and timing system
-Spectator seating with shade on 50 meter course
-Shade structures
Stacey Lemos gave an overview of the two proposed funding options and stated that the estimated cost for the project was approximately $3,450,000.
Ms. Lemos said that one of the main factors that led to staff’s recommendation to use the Town’s existing Bed Taxes to fund the project was the recent passage of Senate Bill 1460. This bill became law on July 20, 2011 and changed requirements for how cities and towns with populations under 100,000 could use discriminatory Bed Taxes.
The law defined "discriminatory bed taxes" as that portion of those taxes collected in excess of the standard 2% sales tax. For the Town, this would mean that 4% of the 6% Bed Tax rate would be considered discriminatory under the new law. The discriminatory Bed Tax revenues must now be used exclusively for the promotion of tourism and economic development purposes.
Ms. Lemos presented funding option #1.
Councilmember Garner asked why the Town would want to bond for $50,000 rather than pay cash.
Ms. Lemos replied that cash could be used to pay for the bond issuance costs but typically, these costs would get rolled into the cost of issuing the bonds. Overall, both options were cost neutral but bonding at the higher amount would preserve a little more of the fund balance which could then allow more flexibility in the use of funds for another project in the future.
Councilmember Solomon asked if it would make sense to take advantage of the record low interest rates and sell the bonds at a much lower rate than five years down the road.
Ms. Lemos said that the bonds could currently be issued at around 4% but rates over the near term were not expected to change much for bond issuances.
Ms. Lemos presented funding option #2. $500,000 from the Bed Tax fund would not be used under this option and debt service would be increased to approximately $280,000 per year instead of $235,000 per year from option 1. All other revenue and expenditure figures remained the same in option 2 as in option 1. The second option would preserve more of the Bed Tax fund balance to allow more flexibility in utilizing those funds for future projects.
Based on extensive research from Ballard King Consultants, the feasibility study estimated an annual economic impact from the enhanced facility to be approximately $2 million dollars per year through holding more competitive multi-day swim events, added hotel stays in the area and creating a greater draw to the community in general.
Vice Mayor Snider asked what the projected timetable would be for the project if construction was to begin in May 2012.
Parks, Recreation, Library & Cultural Resources Director Ainsley Legner said that the renovations were expected to be completed by early fall.
Ms. Lemos noted that Parks and Recreation impact fees, by law, could only be used for the expansion of existing facilities due to new growth in the community.
Councilmember Waters asked if the Town was still thinking about renaming the pool facility.
Interim Town Manager Greg Caton said that staff was prepared to launch an agressive fundraising campaign and was confident that money could be raised by offering naming rights to the complex.
Councilmember Waters asked if it would cost users more to use the pool after the renovations were completed.
Mr. Caton said that there would be an increase but it would be minimal.
Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing.
Vince Trinidad, Director of Tucson Sports with the Metropolitan Tucson Convention & Visitors Bureau (MTCVB), was excited about the pool expansion project and the possibility of bringing in regional and national competition events.
Councilmember Waters asked if it was possible to hold a triathlon event in Oro Valley once the pool renovations were completed.
Mr. Trinidad said that there would be potential to do so.
Vice Mayor Snider asked what other facilities in the area would rival the pool once the renovations were completed.
Mr. Trinidad stated that the main aquatic facilities that would compare to the renovated pool would be those owned by the University of Arizona and the City of Tucson.
Lynn Ericksen, General Manager of the Hilton El Conquistador and Chairman of the Board for MTCVB, said that the pool enhancements would be a strong contributor to the community while providing a venue to help stimulate the economy, grow revenue and provide jobs. He urged Council to develop a strong brand and allocate appropriate resources to an agressive sales and marketing effort.
Oro Valley resident and treasurer of the Pusch Ridge swim team Ruth Kester, said that she was not opposed to the pool expansion but was concerned with future rate increases. She was concerned with the May 2012 start date because it would force two teams to share a six-lane pool during one of the busiest times of the year.
Management Assistant Catherine Vorrasi said that the pool enhancements were slated to start in the summer because staff felt that there was more water available at that time which would lessen the impact to the swim teams.
MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Gillaspie and seconded by Councilmember Solomon to direct staff to establish funding for and to implement Phases I and III of the Oro Valley Municipal Pool Feasibility Study using option #1.
Councilmember Hornat was concerned about raising fees.
Mr. Caton said that large fee increases were not anticipated.
MOTION carried, 7-0.
Finance Director Stacey Lemos gave an overview of Senate Bill 1525 and introduced Pat Walker from Heinfeld, Meech & Co. P.C.
Ms. Walker explained that an impact fee was a one-time charge against new development designed to reflect the proportionate cost of capital facilities to serve that development.
Ms. Walker outlined the following provisions of Senate Bill 1525:
-Major changes to the existing statute A.R.S. 9-463.05
-Redefined "necessary public services"
-Must have life expectancy of 3 years
-Must be owned or operated on behalf of Municipality
-Certain projects are not allowed
-Can be replaced by debt if before June 1, 2011
-New fees must be adopted by January 1, 2012
-New study by August 1, 2014
Ms. Walker gave an overview of the changes for the following fee categories:
-General government fees
-Library fees
-Parks and Recreation fees
-Police fees
Discussion ensued regarding the changes to the impact fees and how it would affect the town.
MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Snider and seconded by Councilmember Hornat to approve Resolution No. (R)11-83 adopting updated development impact fees to be compliant with Senate Bill 1525 prior to January 1, 2012.
MOTION carried, 7-0.
Planning Manager David Williams gave an overview of the item and stated that the applicant requested a Major General Plan Amendment from Commerce/Office Park (COP) to High Density Residential (HDR).
The proposed location was located on the North side of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard, approximately 1/4 mile from Oracle Road.
Mr. Williams stated that if the General Plan Amendment (GPA) was approved, a rezoning and design review process would follow.
Mr. Williams outlined the General Plan Amendment evaluation criteria and noted that the General Plan promoted a compatible mix of land uses through the Oro Valley planning area and encouraged new development to locate uses that depended on convenient transportation access near major arterial streets.
Factors for the General Plan Amendment:
-Multi-family residential (MFR) was a typical transitional land use next to single family residential (SFR)
-No apartment complexes north of Tangerine Road and east of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and multi-family housing was under represented in Rancho Vistoso
-Apartments would be in close proximity to employment and activity centers
-There appears to be a market for new apartment development
-MFR would likely have a smaller footprint on the site rather than Campus Park Industrial (CPI)
-MFR would not generate regular truck traffic or require loading docks
-The site was in proximity to major arterial roadways
-Negative impacts of the proposal could be substantially mitigated
Factors against the General Plan Amendment:
-The loss of Campus/Office Park (COP) land was not supported by the Community Economic Development Strategy
-The property had access, infrastructure and location suitable for CPI development which helps create primary jobs
-The apartments would be in close proximity to Innovation Park which may have negative impacts to residents
-Residents in adjacent subdivision in Neighborhood 2 have expressed objections to the proposal
Residents were concerned about the following:
-Traffic and circulation
-Crime/safety
-Noise, light and view impacts
-Impact on water supply
-School impacts
-Proximity of crematorium
-Aesthetic concerns
-Effects on property values
-Ensuring project was high-end
-Market viability
Mr. Williams stated that the amendment conformed with many General Plan policies and amendment criteria and that impacts of development could be mitigated through sensitive design and buffering.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial (6-0 vote) finding that the loss of Commerce/Office Park was not supported by the Community Economic Development Strategy (CEDS).
Mayor Hiremath asked if the traffic and circulation issues had been resolved.
Interim Development and Infrastructure Services Director Paul Keesler said that detailed traffic and circulation information was not available at this time but Rancho Vistoso as a whole and primarily Rancho Vistoso Boulevard were under utilized. Rancho Vistoso Boulevard was built with the ultimate build out of Rancho Vistoso in mind.
Councilmember Waters asked how the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance (ESLO) would factor in to new development.
Mr. Williams said that it would depend upon the General Plan designations since the General Plan dictated the level of conservation within the ESLO. If the property was located within a growth area, there would be no open space requirements on the ESLO side but there were open space requirements outlined in the Zoning Code.
Property owner Rodger Ford clarified that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-2 for denial rather than 6-0 as previously stated. Mr. Williams confirmed that the vote was 4-2. Mr. Ford said that the property was unique and shovel ready which was why it was chosen for development.
Mr. Ford said that he purchased the property in late 2006, early 2007 while it was zoned for Commerce/Office Park. By the time he received approval 15-18 months later, the demand for office space decreased and he lost the enthusiasm of his anchor tenants. Due to the current market conditions, he felt that the best use for the property was for apartments.
Ali Farhang, managing partner of the law firm Farhang and Medcoff said that there were three governing laws that pertained to this item: The United States Constitution, the Constitution of the State of Arizona and the Private Property Rights Protection Act under Arizona Statutes.
Mr. Farhang stated that a regulatory taking had occurred regarding the property in question because the Town regulated the property to such a degree that the regulation effectively amounted to the excercising of the Town’s emminent domain power without vesting the property owner of the title to the property. Government land regulations that denied the property owner any economically viable use was deemed to be a taking of the affected property. Since, in the foresable future, there was no possible industrial use that could be profitably carried out on any of the 15 acres, failure to amend the land use designation would constitute a per se regulatory taking.
Mr. Farhang said that if there was an existing right to use, buy, sell or possess private real property and if those rights were reduced by the enactment or applicability of any land use law enacted after the date the property was transferred to the owner and such action reduced the fair market value of the property, the owner would be entitled to just compensation.
In conclusion, Mr. Farhang said that by requiring the property to be preserved or allowing it to remain vacant for an indefinite period of time would infringe on the property owner’s rights under the Constitution and State law.
Applicant Sam Beznos, representing the Beztek Company, gave an overview of the proposed apartment complex design and layout. The apartments would appeal to executive professionals by offering cutting edge technology, functional design, artistic decor, superior materials and outstanding customer care.
Mr. Beznos said that Parcel 2-E was the only parcel that would allow short-term housing to be located within minutes of the office.
Mr. Beznos gave an overview of the site plan and stated that the proposal was for 256 units which including 220 garages to be built on the 15 acre site.
Mark Highlen stated that Parcel 2-E was chosen because it was very close to Innovation Park, it had enough land to support the 250+ units, was close to a major roadway and was very close to public transportation, local retail and other services.
Mr. Highlen said that no other sites were close enough to service Innovation Park. The criteria used when designing the site consisted of the following:
-Compatibility with the community
-Rancho Vistoso community had only been developed to 48% of its capacity
-No high-end apartments close by
-Close proximity to public transportation
-Employment opportunities
-High demand for multi-family housing
Mr. Beznos said that the average income of current residents was $88,900. According to the Buruea of Labor Statistics, residents at this site would spend $10.5 million/year at local businesses and would generate $212,000 in sales tax revenue for Oro Valley.
Mayor Hiremath asked the Town Attorney if he agreed with the opinion from Mr. Ford's legal Counsel.
Town Attorney Tobin Rosen disagreed with the legal opinion.
Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing.
The following individuals spoke in support of item #5:
-Tom Phielix
-Jerry Cacciatore
-Oro Valley resident Jim Harrison
-Richard Biocca
-Sheri Herrera De Frey
-Richard Frey
-Paul Carbone
-Mike Sandahl
-Brian Mueller
The following individuals spoke in opposition to item #5:
-Kenneth Bolan
-Oro Valley resident John Musolf
-Oro Valley resident Donald Bristow
-Oro Valley resident Brenda Ryan
-Oro Valley resident Lucia Valenzuela
-Oro Valley resident Geri Ottoboni
-Oro Valley resident Sandra Hoy-Johnson
The following individuals were undecided regarding item #5:
-Oro Valley resident Dave Perry
-Oro Valley resident Michelle Saxer
-Oro Valley resident Bill Adler
-Oro Valley resident Barbara Mostoff
Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing.
Mayor Hiremath recessed the meeting at 8:32 p.m.
Mayor Hiremath reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Councilmember Waters preferred to have a third party analysis conducted to determine the needs of Oro Valley.
Councilmember Solomon said that there was no guarantee that what was presented tonight would be built. Very specific conditions would have to be added to the General Plan Amendment in order to dictate what would be built.
MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Hornat and seconded by Councilmember Waters to continue item #5 to allow time to conduct an independant market analysis.
Councilmember Gillaspie was in favor of a non-biased study but was concerned with who should pay for it. He felt there was adequate High Density Residential (HDR) products in close proximity to employers in the area.
Councilmember Solomon questioned whether or not a study was relevant in this situation since it was determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission that not all General Plan requirements were satisfied.
Councilmember Hornat asked for clarification regarding whether or not the criteria for the General Plan Amendment was met.
Mr. Williams responded that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission believed that not all of the General Plan requirements were met.
Councilmember Garner would not support a continuance since the burden of proof rested on the applicant.
MOTION failed 3-4 with Vice Mayor Snider, Councilmember Garner, Councilmember Gillaspie and Councilmember Solomon opposed.
MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Solomon and seconded by Councilmember Gillaspie to deny Resolution No. (R)11-81, amending the General Plan to change the land use designation from Commerce Office Park to High Density Residential for a fifteen acre parcel located at the Northeast corner of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Vistoso Commerce Loop.
MOTION carried, 6-1 with Councilmember Hornat opposed.
Mr. Williams gave an overview of the item. The applicant was requesting a change from Neighborhood Commercial/Office to High Density Residential. The property was located on the east side of Oracle Road on the northeast corner at Linda Vista Boulevard.
The General Plan Amendment was to re-designate the eastern 13 acres to High Density Residential (HDR). The western 7 acres would remain NC/O (C-1 zoning).
Mr. Williams outlined the General Plan Amendment evaluation criteria and said that along with the criteria, staff also took into account the General Plan vision, goals and policies.
Mr. Williams discussed the factors for:
-Multi-family development was potentially more compatible with single-family residential than commercial uses
-Multi-family residential would not generate regular truck traffic or require loading docks
-The site was in proximity to Oracle Road
-The development would be designed through the PAD process
-The negative impacts of the proposal could be substantially mitigated through sensitive design and buffering
-There appeared to be a market for new apartment development
Mr. Williams discussed the factors against:
-Commercial development created retail sales tax revenue and employment
-Some housing variety already existed in the vicinity
-Nearby residents had expressed objections to the proposal
Neighborhood meetings were held on September 15th and October 6th and the main concerns from residents consisted of:
-Traffic and circulation
-Crime/safety
-Noise, light and view impacts
-Impacts to Linda Vista Trail/Pusch Ridge Wilderness
-Aesthetic concerns
-Effects on property values
-Ensuring project was high-end
-Market viability
Staff believed that the General Plan Amendment conformed with many General Plan policies and amendment criteria and that the impacts of the development could be mitigated through sensitive design and buffering.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended unanimous approval with the condition that the PAD rezoning process was required.
Councilmember Solomon asked if there were two separate parcels that could be each sold and developed separately.
Mr. Williams said there were three separate parcels according to the Assessor’s records and the parcel lines could be changed through survey and recordation.
Councilmember Hornat preferred that the whole property be considered under a PAD instead of just the back half.
Councilmember Gillaspie asked Mr. Rosen if the Council had the authority to stipulate that the General Plan Amendment would be contingent upon the rezoning to a PAD so that it could be considered in its entirety.
Mr. Rosen said that Council could condition the General Plan Amendment on the presentation of a PAD for the property.
Applicant representative Mike Grassinger, of the Planning Center, said the intent had always been to include the entire 20 acre parcel in a PAD and to develop the area as mixed-use. He felt that they had met the criteria recommendations of the General Plan.
Mr. Grassinger said that the demographics and economics had changed over the years and there now was a higher demand for High Density Residential (HDR) units such as the proposed condos and/or townhouses.
Mr. Grassinger said that the site was appropriate for the proposed use and was shovel ready. The intent was to build and fill the commerical developments first so that when customers moved in, it would create an even more attractive environment for potential users.
Mr. Grassinger stated the applicant had committed to having access to the residential only from Oracle Road. The main entrance would come off of Oracle Road and would be gated. There would be a right-turn only exit onto Linda Vista as well as 165 foot setbacks from the existing building to the future building and about 80 feet from the property line to the first building.
Councilmember Garner asked if Starbucks was still going to be featured on the site.
Mr. Grassinger replied that as far as he knew, Starbucks was still coming to the site.
Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing.
The following individuals spoke in favor of item #6:
-Dave Perry, President and CEO of the Pima County Chamber of Commerce and Oro Valley resident
-Mike Carlier, Oro Valley resident and representative for Venture West
-Oro Valley resident Elwood Mayberry
-Oro Valley resident Barbara Mostoff
The following individuals spoke in opposition to item #6.
-Oro Valley resident George Coutts
-Oro Valley resident Judy Bowser
-Oro Valley resident Carl Bowser
-Oro Valley resident Brian Wheelwright
-Oro Valley resident Susan Porter
-Oro Valley resident Dan Zespy
The following individuals were undecided regarding item #6.
-Oro Valley resident Joe Barr
-Oro Valley resident Bill Adler
Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Solomon was concerned about losing commercial property along Oracle Road.
Mr. Williams believed that there was excessive Neighborhood Commercial/Office designations in the General Plan today which was why staff supported this item.
Councilmember Solomon asked what type of retail would be allowed in the current land designation.
Mr. Williams replied that the current land use designation was C-1 and most retail uses would be allowed.
Councilmember Garner asked for clarification regarding whether apartments or townhomes would be built on the site.
Applicant Ross Rulney said that the preference was to sell fee-simple units if the market allowed but when the units were ready, flexibility was needed to be able to rent the units if the units could not be sold.
Councilmember Gillaspie asked Mr. Rosen if Council could stipulate that the General Plan Amendment be contingent upon a successful completion of a PAD.
Mr. Rosen said that the General Plan Amendment could be contingent upon a PAD but whether or not the PAD was successful, would be up to the Council to decide at a future legislative act. One could not be conditioned upon the other.
MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Gillaspie and seconded by Councilmember Hornat to adopt Resolution No. (R)11-82, amending the General Plan to change the land use designation from Commerce Office Park to High Density Residential for 13 acres located near the Northeast corner of Linda Vista Boulevard and Oracle Road subject to Exhibit B and that the General Plan amendment is contingent on rezoning to PAD.
EXHIBIT “B”
Condition of Approval Rulney General Plan Amendment OV1111-003
1. The property shall be zoned through the Planned Area Development (PAD) process. The PAD shall include the 7 commercial acres adjacent to the west of the subject property.
MOTION carried, 5-2 with Mayor Hiremath and Councilmember Garner opposed.
Principal Planner Chad Daines gave an overview of the item and said that this item was a General Plan Amendment that was filed by the Town. He described a municipal planning area as essentially the sphere of influence or a geographical area that encompassed future growth and development areas of the Town and adjacent areas that may impact or affect the Town.
Mr. Daines said the request was to expand the Municipal Planning Area boundary south to Orange Grove Road and west to Thornydale Road which would encompass approximatley 11 additional square miles.
Mr. Daines said that the purpose/intent of the General Plan amendment was to:
-Indicate the Town’s desire to take on a more significant role in regional planning
-Reflect desire to pursue annexation as an economic development strategy
-Indicate the Town’s potential to provide urban services to northwest area residents.
-Correct Boundary Issues
-Cobo Catalina Hills (12 lots)
-160 acres at Pinal County Line
-Develop long-term regional planning and coordination over area
Mr. Daines outlined the General Plan Amendment evaluation criteria and discussed the public notice process that was conducted.
The main concerns from residents consisted of:
-Future annexation of their property
-Maintenance of rural character of area
-Intensity of development on State Land parcel
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the General Plan Amendment.
Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing.
Oro Valley resident Charles Jones spoke in opposition to item #3.
Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing.
MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Hornat and seconded by Councilmember Garner to adopt Resolution No. (R)11-79 amending the Oro Valley General Plan to expand the Municipal Planning Area boundary west to Thornydale Road and south to Orange Grove Road, encompassing approximately eleven square miles and to assign this area as an "Undesignated Area".
MOTION carried, 7-0.
Mr. Williams gave an overview of the item and stated that the applicant requested a Major General Plan Amendment for 13 acres from Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NC/O) to Medium Density Residential (2.1 - 5.0 du/ac). The request would provide for a 50 lot subdivision. Mr. Williams stated that the applicant had already filed a request to rezone the property from R1-144 to R1-7.
The property was located on the left side of La Cholla Boulevard 1/4 mile south of Tangerine Road and approximately 660 feet north of Glover Road.
Mr. Williams explained that the project site currently contained the following General Plan land use designations:
-Western 1/3 Medium Density Residential (2.1 to 5.0 du/ac)
-Eastern 2/3 Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO)
-Significant Resource Area covering two washes
Mr. Williams outlined the General Plan Amendment evaluation criteria and noted the following public comments that were received.
-Generally supported the change to residential
-Concerned with density transition and impact on property values
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the requested General Plan Amendment.
Vice Mayor Snider asked if any input was received from Wilson K-8 School as to how the additonal population would impact their facilities.
Mr. Williams said that Wilson had been contacted and the Town was informed that Wilson had adequate capacity to handle the additional capacity of students that may be generated from the project.
Councilmember Waters was concerned about the future widening of La Cholla Boulevard and asked if there was a timetable set for the project.
Mr. Keesler said that the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) had the La Cholla Boulevard widening project broken up into three separate phases. This section of La Cholla Boulevard was not slated for improvements until 2022 - 2026.
Mr. Keesler stated that if the project was to move forward, a traffic impact analysis would be required.
Applicant Representative Ron Asta, of CPE Consultants, said that they had received reports from the school district that stated that Wilson was currently 400 students below itscapacity and the same was true for Inronwood Ridge High School. Mr. Asta believed that the project would generate approximately 45 additional students.
Mr. Asta said that the project would generate approximately 500 cars per day. Most students would have a bicycle path or pedestrian way into the parking lot of Wilson. The Amphitheater School Board agreed to allow them to connect the development's sewer into the school’s property.
Mr. Asta outlined the subject property and gave an overview of the improvements that would be made.
Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to item #4:
-Oro Valley resident Ken Dutton
-Oro Valley resident and President of Ironwood Canyon HOA Mark Adolph
The following individual spoke in support of item #4:
-Oro Valley resident Mike Carlier
The following individual was undecided:
-Oro Valley resident Nancy Martin
Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing.
Discussion ensued amongst the Council regarding the appropriate land use designation for the 13-acre parcel.
MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Gillaspie and seconded by Councilmember Hornat to adopt Resolution No. (R)11-80 amending the General Plan to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial/Office to Medium Density Residential for a 13 acre parcel located one quarter mile south of Tangerine Road on the west side of La Cholla Boulevard.
MOTION carried, 5-2 with Vice Mayor Snider and Councilmember Waters opposed.