Economic Development Manager Amanda Jacobs presented the item explaining the Community Funding Policy adopted by Council. She noted the five categories:
~Youth Development and Education
~Services for Senior Citizens
~Arts/Cultural Heritage
~Community Enhancement
~Special Events
Ms. Jacobs noted the following:
~Council had removed economic development from community funding
~Certain events that were categorized as Community Funding, impacted the Town economically
~It was determined that Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities (TREO) and Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau (MTCVB) would stand alone
*The two organizations would prepare performance measures for Oro Valley for accountability
*The Town had agreed to quarterly reports from MTCVB
~The Special Events category would be removed from Community Funding
Interim Assistant Town Manager Stacey Lemos stated that the intent was to streamline the process. She reviewed the proposed funding mechanism:
~Special Events Funding and Permitting Policy to include:
*Arizona Distance Classic
*El Tour de Tucson
*Iron Kids
*Southern Arizona Arts and Cultural Alliance (SAACA)
~Community Funding Policy
*Four Eligible Categories:
-Youth Development and Education
-Services for Senior Citizens
-Arts/Cultural Heritage
-Community Enhancement
*To include:
-Community Food Bank
-Catalina Community Services
-Interfaith Community Services
-Amphi Foundation
~Economic Development Financial Participation Agreements
*MTCVB
*TREO
Ms. Lemos reviewed the staff recommendations:
~Amend Community Funding to remove Special Events category
~Isolate Community Funding for cash contributions
~Enhance Special Events Policy to include:
*Application window
*Evaluation criteria
*Department cost estimates
*Community Event discount
*Up front deposit from applicant
~Establish funding mechanism for Special Events from Bed Tax Fund to cover discount
It was noted that special events promoted the Town and brought tax dollars to the Town.
It was explained that the applicant must meet the following criteria to qualify for the Community Event discount:
~501(c)(3) non-profit designation
~In business for a minimum of three years
~General public must be able to attend or participate in the event
~Event must have a positive economic benefit to Oro Valley
Ms. Lemos stated that the proposal included a revised application to add a section to have the applicant describe how the event would benefit the Town economically.
She noted that a 20% cost share was anticipated and that the funds would come from the Bed Tax Fund. She proposed that the applicant place a deposit to hold the event and collect the remaining balance after the event.
Discussion noted the following:
~City of Tucson cut back on funding events
~City of Tucson and the Town of Marana did not offer discounts
~Whether 20% would be enough to keep these events coming to Oro Valley
~Analysis regarding the dollar amounts generated by events had not been conducted
~The Town funded El Tour de Tucson at 100%
~It was common practice in other cities to share costs
~The Town wanted to avoid auditing the events as there were not enough staff to conduct such an audit
Mayor Hiremath opened the floor for public comment.
Oro Valley resident Bill Adler stated that the reduction in pool hours as a result of not generating enough revenue when it was the most popular program did not make sense. He noted that businesses were expected to track the benefits of a sign waiver and that the beneficiaries of special events, such as hotels that support these events, should track the revenue generated by special events.
Discussion ensued noting:
~The ability to track revenue generated by these events could justify the dollars given to these events
*This would be a way to create a base line
*Mayor Hiremath asked Ms. Jacobs to prepare a list of businesses to speak with
~Special events had also been hit by the economy
Town Attorney Tobin Rosen stated that revenue, as it related to sales tax, was confidential by law. He noted that as long as the figures given by business owners did not relate to tax returns, it would be alright for the Town to request the figures.
Mayor Hiremath requested that staff return to Council on October 6, 2010 with metrics to solicit comments from businesses and create recommendations for discussion and an action item.
Councilmember Snider requested recommendations in addition to the 80/20 for cost sharing.
Economic Development Manager Amanda Jacobs provided a history of signage issues. She stated that Council had requested that staff review the entire Zoning Code and return to Council with recommendations on September 15, 2010.
She explained the process of the Sign Code Task Force:
~Signage is used for identification
~Staff educated the task force on certain pieces and then focus members did the same
~Staff gathered recommendations during the meeting
~The recommendations went before a focus group
~Tried to balance the needs of businesses and the community
Ms. Jacobs reviewed the recommendations:
~Permanent Sign Standards:
*Entryway Signs
-Current Town Code regulation states 600 feet of frontage
-Task Force proposed 400 feet of frontage
-Illumination
`Proposed to remove the restriction of white and amber halo lights only and allow any color
`Recommended illumination hours of 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
*Freestanding/Monument Signs:
-Maximum number of anchor tenants was six; proposed to increase to 8 tenants
-Reduce from 600 feet to 400 feet
-Combined freestanding and monument signs in the Town Code
`Retain 50 sqare feet for a single tenant
`Increase to 75 square feet for a multiple tenant sign
-Height currently does not exceed eight feet
`Proposed adding an architectural element to signs which may exceed the height of the sign by 25% as long as all texts and logos are below the eight foot requirement from grade
-Recommended that any tenants unused must be opaque and match the rest the rest of the sign
*Under Canopy Signs
-Proposed verbiage: "Shall be consistent in color, shape and design."
*Wall Signs
-Currently, no more than two elevations may contain a wall sign
-Proposed: For single tenants of a freestanding building may have signs on three elevations
`Two of the three signs may be illuminated
-Currently illuminated signs must be turned off no later than one hour after the close of business
-Proposed time - no later than 11:00 p.m.
-Survey: 29% polled stated that signs should be turned off at close of business; 22% stated that the signs could stay lit all night; 21% stated that the signs should be turned off at 10:00 p.m.
~Temporary Signs
*Banner:
-Allowable for business openings or change of ownership
-Current maximum size -64 square feet
-Proposed: 64 square feet or no more than one square foot of sign for each linear foot of building frontage; whichever is less
`Tenants that are further than 300 feet from the street; the banner may contain no more than 1 3/4 square feet of sign area for each linear foot of building frontage
-Recommended verbiage: "All banners shall be securely anchored to the ground and/or parapet wall in such a manner that the banner shall not fold over and shall be taut."
~Temporary and Permitted Signs
*Commercial Industrial District
-Current minimum is 16 square feet; Height - five to ten feet
-Proposed: 32 square feet; Height - not to exceed eight feet
*Seasonal or Special Event Banners
-Recommended verbiage: "Shall be used to advertise a seasonal or special event."
*Three Day Special Event Banner
-64 square feet
-In addition to a 30 day banner
*Flag Signs
-Currently one pole per development
-Proposed:
`Maximum of two poles per commercial development
`Maximum of one pole per individual property subdivision
*Permitted Signs in a Residential Zoning District
-Model Home Banners
`Currently allowed one banner for 16 days
`Proposed:
^Allowed on weekends
^Maximum 120 days
^One banner per model home complex
*Model Home Complex Custom Home Lot Sale Signs
-Currently all signs must be removed upon completion of 95% of the development
-Proposed: All signs removed within seven days of after the sales office or model home has closed
*Minor Offset Signs - The same recommendations applied as for Model Home Center Signs
*On-Site Subdivision Signs
-Currently any sign that listed an individual developer had to be removed when 95% of the subdivision was sold
-Proposed: Signage must be removed no later than seven days after of the sales and closing of 100% of the lots within the development have been sold or 180 days after the closure of the sales office; whichever comes first
*Residential Zoning District: Real Estate Lease, Rent and For Sale Signs
-Currently, four square feet; Height - five feet; up to ten feet with approval
-Proposed: Six square feet to include modifiers
`Planning Division Manager may grant up to ten feet
*Real Estate Signs - Signs on Public Property
-Proposed:
`No more than one sign per change of road direction - up to four signs
`Signs shall be placed a minimum of ten feet from the paved surface of the roadway
`Signs may be displayed Friday through Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Ms. Jacobs noted that the Task Force determined that there should be a separate section of the Town Code for non-real estate signs. She explained that the same requirements for location and duration would apply.
Discussion continued:
~Concern regarding unintended consequences
~The Town Code currently has a category for realtors
~Concern regarding aesthetics and a loss of uniformity
~Concern regarding how the Town could enforce the Sign Code on weekends
~Businesses under the current Town Code would be grandfathered and could not be made to change their lighting
Councilmember Snider stated that the proposed setback requirement for Open House signs would put the signs on personal property. She requested that an exhibit depicting this issue be brought to the September 15, 2010 Council meeting.
Mayor Hiremath requested that staff take notes regarding Council’s concerns and respond in a brief with answers. He noted that real estate should have a better component to it and would like to see if the changes are successful by testing it over time.
Mayor Hiremath opened the floor for public comment.
Oro Valley resident and realtor Bob Semple stated the following:
~With regard to the ten foot setback, if the sign is moved back it would be either on the sidewalk or private property
~Each brokerage firm paid $1,000 per year to put signs in the right of way
~Realty signs were different from Fry’s store signs
~The time and day were changed in order to control it
Oro Valley resident Zev Cywan stated that a community was the sum of all its parts and the task force took this into consideration. He explained that a myriad of points were explored; most of which were not on paper. He noted that the community tried to find a middle ground.
Oro Valley resident Bill Adler stated that the Town should be careful not to deviate from the General Plan policies. He stated that the direction given to the task force was to take this into consideration and that the community should be consulted whether or not to alter the General Plan.