Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/2010 Regular Council Meeting Minutes~~~ee~ ~~~ ~AAj~A ~~.+~ Ynw?Q Qi YAlJ{N.4 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 11555 W. Civic Center Drive, Marana, Arizona 85653 Council Chambers, May 18, 2010, at or after 7:00 PM Ed Honea, Mayor Herb Kai, Vice Mayor Russell Clanagan, Council Member Patti Comerford, Council Member Carol McGorray, Council Member Jon Post, Council Member Roxanne Ziegler, Council Member REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor Honea called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. Town Clerk Bronson called roll. All Council Members were present except Vice Mayor Kai, who was excused. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION/MOMENT OF SILENCE Led by Mayor Honea. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion to approve moved by Council Member McGorray, second by Council Member Comerford Motion carried unanimously 6-0. CALL TO THE PUBLIC There were no speaker cards presented. PROCLAMATIONS MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS: SUMMARY OF CURRENT EVENTS Council Members Comerford and Council Member Clanagan both commented on the repaving project on Silverbell Road and commended the public works staff in charge of the project. MANAGER' S REPORT: SUMMARY OF CURRENT EVENTS Gilbert Davidson also complimented staff on the Silverbell Road paving project and noted that many other similar road improvement projects will be commencing in the next few months, including Sandario Road in the future uptown area, Tangerine Road and Twin Peaks over Rattlesnake Pass. PRESENTATIONS 1 May 18, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Minutes CONSENT AGENDA Motion to approve moved by Council Member Comerford, second by Council Member Posz Motion carried unanimously 6-0. C 1: Resolution No. 2010-47: Relating to Development; approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute the First Amendment to Real Estate Exchange and Development Agreement with Arizona. Pavilions Development, Inc. and Ranch Holdings L.L.C. C 2: Minutes of the May 4, 2010 special council meeting LIQUOR LICENSES BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES COUNCIL ACTION A 1: Ordinance No. 2010.08: Relating to Annexation; annexing into the corporate limits of the Town of Marana that territory know as the Avra Valley Road-Kai Annexation being an area containing approximately 1,200 acres of land located predominantly north of Avra Valley Road, approximately one mile east of Trico Road and southwest of Silverbell Road including the adjacent rights-of--way of Avra Valley Road Presented by Kevin Kish, who pointed out that the area is within the planning area of the town within the General Plan of the town and a logical extension based on our efforts to work with the County and other jurisdictions to grow our community. It does provide the Avra Valley Road about one and a half miles, including a bridge. One of the key components in controlling our development and circulation system on the major routes plan, there is a realignment of Avra Valley Road to the east of this area. To help the airport grow, we are looking to relocate Avra Valley Road down approximately a quarter of a mile and lining it up where the existing bridge is and making afour-lane highway up to Avra Valley interchange and in the future have expansion from Tangerine Farms Road connect into it. Again, with this annexation that will allow the town to control the alignment and seek funding for projects with the RTA and any other opportunities we have for funding and accomplish this within our boundaries without involving joint jurisdictional projects. Those are the major infrastructure improvements associated-with this annexation and the town's future needs. The blank petitions were recorded March 16, 2010. Tonight we are looking at the annexation itself to extend the corporate boundaries. The annexation petitions include the signatures of over 50 percent of the property owners as well as over 50 percent of the value of the property. During the annexation process one of the features was translation zoning. Mr. Kish went on to explain how the town's zoning translated to the County's zoning and the elements of both of those zonings so that the town's zoning closely mirrors the County's permitted uses. He then went on to describe the current entitlements for conditional uses by the County and the town's compatible conditional uses for the proposed annexation property. He noted that Council has received a lot of information but there has not been a formal presentation with rezoning information on the 2 May 18, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Minutes property, and staff is setting up a special meeting on June 22 where that information will be presented. This will be the first time staff will be presenting an application for a use of that property. They are looking at comments and separating processes for the town so that everyone understands the differences. Council Member Comerford asked for clarification that tonight's action is annexation only with the current zoning staying the same. Mr. Kish responded that this is an ordinance to annex the property. It has a translational zoning. Mayor Honea noted that he had five speaker cards on this item. He informed the audience that there had been a previous public hearing on this item, but he will be allowing a limited amount of people to speak. Albert Lannon, who spoke to the issue of DKL Holdings. David Morales addressed Council and asked the Town Clerk to distribute a letter he wrote to the Marana News. In that letter he identified four issues regarding the proposed annexation area which he began to enumerate. He ended his comments by stating that it would be at least five years before any site would be available. Elaine Ramirez spoke and reiterated her opposition to the landfill and is not willing to settle for anything but not having this landfill. She asked that Council listen to the information presented and gave the Town Clerk 210 new signatures in opposition, which tota1845 now opposing the landfill. Betty Sue Bard spoke in opposition to the landfill, specifically regarding her daughter who has cystic fibrosis and how a landfill will cause her daughter to die, noting that her family cannot afford to move. Annie Shelberg submitted a speaker card but was unable to attend the meeting to voice her opposition to the landfill. Council Member Clanagan addressed the audience and Mrs. Bard expressing his sympathy over her daughter's condition and stated that he hoped Council would not do anything to jeopardize anyone's life. He noted that he has been impressed with the information and ideas people have brought forward during the process. He also noted that early in the process the developer scheduled meetings, one at town hall, and only one family showed up. Mostly, it was staff who heard the presentation. He noted that during his time on Planning & Zoning and on the Council, developers have been encouraged to work with the neighbors to work out a solution, especially on contentious issues, to work on what issues can be taken off the table and what can be cleared up, but as Mr. Kish said, the Council has really not gotten to the meat of this landfill -the information we've gotten has come from the public. He begged them to sit down with the developers and figure out what can and can't be agreed on and come up with some solid, factual reasons that this project should not go forward based on actual data that you've gathered. He further stated his confusion as to why there is a reluctance to share information, especially if the information is valid -get it to the developer so that they can at least understand if the information is consistent with what they have. He further stated that the Council has done business with Mr. Racy for a number of years, and it would not be in anyone's best interest for him to bring a project forward that would in any way disadvantage the Council or the public that would be bogus or misleading and damage his professional credibility. Again, he asked the public to figure out a way to find a venue to meet and discuss some of the issues so determine what is factual and what is not factual. He did ask Mr. Cassidy for his legal opinion about what the town's exposure will be about the impact on property values that would be adverse if the landfill is approved, even though that is not the subject of tonight's action. Frank Cassidy 3 May 18, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Minutes addressed Council again stressed that tonight's action is not about the landfill. But as a general concept, when a land use decision is made that arguably reduces the value of surrounding property, that does not even create a claim under the new Proposition 207 that was adopted in 2006. Essentially that Proposition said that if a land use action that's directed at a specific parcel of property reduces the value of that property, then the person has a claim. Even if a person proves that it affects the value of surrounding property, there is no claim. As an example, this was what was known among land use lawyers as the Wal-Mart Clause. People would say if you approve a Wal-Mart next to my property that's going to devalue my property. As a result of those arguments, the initiative-passers put an exception in Property 207 and said that the claim of compensation only goes to the property that is rezoned effectively. So under that proposition there's not a claim for a reduction in value. Under the federal Constitution, in order for there to be a claim, it would have to be a pretty severe reduction in value, so I don't think that either of those theories is going to fly. Council Member Comerford again stressed that tonight is only an annexation, not a rezoning and not an approval for a landfill. This is only an annexation. Council Member Ziegler agreed with Council Member Comerford and expressed her concern that this is neither the time nor place to talk about property values going down, but did say she expressed her appreciation for people's comments. She stated that this is not easy for Council, but they need to let the process work, and tonight it is just annexation. There's no one on the Council who can speak to any of the organizations if they do go ahead with a landfill, the FAA, the Corps of Engineers, the ADEQ and many, many more who will weigh in on this project with authority and knowhow to help Council make the decision. Again, this is annexation only. Council Member Clanagan clarified that he has a clear understanding of what's going on, but in order for the people to keep coming to us with these concerns, he wants them to direct their questions for the opportunity to meet with the developer and their representatives and figure out what can be done as we move forward. That was the purpose of my comments. This is strictly annexation. It has nothing to do with the landfill, but we want to give the public some recourse to take your questions and get answers. The Mayor called for a motion. Motion to approve moved by Council Member Ziegler, second by Council Member Comerford. Motion carried after roll call vote S-1. Council Member McGorray voted nay and Vice Mayor Kai was excused. A 2: Resolution No. 2010-48: Relating to Streets; approving and authorizing the renaming of a segment of Camino de Mariana and a segment of Tortolita Road to "Twin Peaks Road" Presented by Keith Brann, who showed slides of the affected area, specifically from the Twin Peaks Interchange project up to Tangerine Road at the Dove Mountain intersection. He noted that the roadway project is under construction and has always been called the Camino de Mariana /Dove Mountain extension project, mainly because the alignments. In 2008 staff made a presentation to Council discussing how we would name major routes throughout the town, specifically principal arterials. Two main points that came out of that presentation and direction from Council was to avoid as much as possible principal arterials changing names throughout the community and avoid giving predominance to any one major development. Obviously, principal arterials go 4 May 18, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Minutes throughout the town, but we don't want one major development's name to be carried throughout other developments. So now the issue brings us back to 2008. We have a principal arterial that if it was signed exactly as it worked, we would have multiple names on a single four-lane road. He showed a slide of the current limits of Twin Peaks Road which stretches from Avra Valley through Continental Ranch and across the Twin Peaks Interchange where it currently ends at the Linda Vista intersection. Currently, Camino de Mariana would pick up at the Linda Vista intersection and run up to Tangerine. There's a small piece of Mariana left north of Tangerine, but the right-of--way was abandoned and Camino de Mariana no longer connects with Moore Road. The Dove Mountain Boulevard right-of--way begins at Tangerine and runs north. Heading south, there was a rezone done several years ago at Hartman Hills. At that time, a significant amount ofright-of--way was acquired for the Camino de Mariana project and it was acquired under the name Tortolita Road. Tortolita Road exists in the Dove Mountain community off of Moore Road. It runs northward toward Dove Mountain fire station, but Tortolita Road no longer connects south toward Tangerine. As staff grappled with this issue, we have been working closely with Pima County Addressing, and between us and Pima County Addressing, have determined that the name we would prefer is Twin Peaks Road continued from the interchange where it would then turn north and proceed to Dove Mountain. It would end its name of Twin Peaks at Tangerine Road. The advantages of using Twin Peaks is that there are about 34 residences that currently have addresses of either Camino de Mariana or Tortolita Road. Camino de Mariana is considered aneast/west road as is Twin Peaks, so for those addresses that directly abut the roadway project, they would maintain the same east/west house number direction. They would simply have a name change. For the one resident on Tortolita, it would be a totally different address. He showed the last slide of the area which is the limits from Oasis Road at the beginning of the project where the roadway turns north at Blue Bonnet and turns toward the mountain. He described the residences with abutting frontage and how their addresses would change. The balance of the residences that do not directly abut Camino de Mariana now are going to be receiving from Pima County Addressing a name change as they move toward better 9-1-1 response times. Pima County Addressing is looking to name the easements in this area. Of the 34- 35 addresses, there are about nine that will maintain their identity for numbering; the rest will have a total address change by Pima County Addressing. He again reiterated that staff has worked closely with Pima County Addressing as late as today. Those are the reasons staff has come forward to Council tonight -mainly because the large regional nature of the Twin Peaks Road and how it would tie a significant part of the disparate regions of the community together, which has also been a goal of the town. Council Member McGorray expressed her dislike of the road being named Twin Peaks. Her arguments centered on naming a road that is 25 miles long that it's too long and inappropriate. Mayor Honea commented on a letter from Bill Hallinan, who is with Cottonwood Properties and who stated that if the interchange could be named Dove Mountain, they would be in favor of naming the road Dove Mountain, but since it did not and could not go through and listed on I-10 as Dove Mountain Boulevard, they would rather the roadway not be so named. In their letter, they noted special things that have been done in Dove Mountain with patinaed guardrails, kiosk signs limited in the Cottonwood Specific Plan. If Dove Mountain continues it still won't go to the freeway and it become confusing, where if you separate it at Tangerine and make it Twin Peaks to 5 May 18, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Minutes the freeway, it's going to have the same name as the interchange. He further noted comments have been received from Tortolita, Camino de Mariana, etc. who do not want their address changed, noting that there is a lot of controversy. Twin Peaks coming off of Tangerine -probably half the traffic that uses Tangerine now is going to use the new road going toward Tucson. Mr. Braun made a clarification that the majority of residents who will be addressed by Pima County Addressing will face a significant change; it's a minority who will only have their name changed -not their number. Council Member Comerford stated, and Mr. Braun reiterated that the change is due to Pima County wanting to give a better emergency response time for one road name than it could for three or four. Council Member Ziegler asked for clarification of Council Member McGorray's preferred name. Mayor Honea called from the three individuals who had submitted speaker cards. Albert Manriquez addressed his concerns relative to his residence on W. Camino de Mariana. It will be an inconvenience to have his addresses changed to anything other than what it is. He referred to a letter he wrote opposing the name change, stating he lived at the address since 1999 and referenced history dating back to the late 1800s. Mayor Honea wanted to clarify for Mr. Manriquez that he was aware that the name of the road coming off the interchange would be Twin Peaks up to at least Linda Vista on the old piece of Camino de Mariana. Mr. Manriquez said he was aware of that. Gary Borax stated that he lived in Dove Mountain for 10 years and his point was name recognition for Marana and the fact that Dove Mountain has brought a lot of name recognition to the community and liked the idea of keeping the Dove Mountain name. Robert McClure spoke in opposition to the name change from Camino de Mariana. He has been resident of Camino de Mariana in the unincorporated area as well as an association for whom he is also speaking. He noted discussions with Pima County several years ago when his homeowner group attempted to get a name change and they were turned down. He spoke to legal jurisdiction and whether the town has the right to change the name of a road through unincorporated Pima County. He spoke to three sections of Pima County code where Marana does not have jurisdiction over east/west and north south renaming. He went on to explain his reasoning and prior discussions with Pima County and also the fact that there are more than 34 homes affected by the addressing change. Council Member Post asked for clarification from Mr. Braun on what Mr. McClure was talking about. Mr. Braun said that there are residences that don't directly abut Camino de Mariana but have Camino de Marana addresses. He said that the 34 residences refers only to those that carry the Camino de Marana name between Blue Bonnet where the road turns north and the Twin Peaks interchange. They are not seeking to change the Camino de Marana name east of Blue Bonnet. Mr. Braun further stated that staff went parcel by parcel through the database and checked every parceland they are confident that the number is 34 by this action. Council Member Post asked Mr. Braun is he was working in conjunction with Pima County on this issue, so the town is not pushing its jurisdiction on Pima County residents and this is something they would also do. Mr. Braun stated yes. Council Member Post asked why Twin Peaks and not Camino de Marana, and what if the Council took no action. Mr. Braun responded regarding the difficulties and if Council took no action, we would end up with Camino de Mariana from the intersection to Tangerine and would need to figure out if a segment would be Tortolita Road and if Dove Mountain would be extended south. Council Member Ziegler voiced her concern over the amount of time spent arguing about the name and asked for clarification for the different named sections and what the County would do if Marana did nothing. Speaking to Mr. McClure's concern over the County's 51 percent rule required before changing an address or name, Mr. Braun stated that the 6 May 18, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Minutes town also has a 51 percent rule, but only for private party initiated street renaming -not a renaming initiated by the town itself. He was unsure of the County's policy but thought that Marana probably took its policy from the County. Council Member Ziegler spoke to the audience and noted that she was not belittling their concerns, but stated that the Council has to make decisions on what is right for the town of Marana. County residents will have to deal with the County. For the town, Council has to make decisions that make sense, and to her, taking this road and calling it three or four different names doesn't make sense. And then there is a letter that states that Cottonwood Properties don't want to drop the name of Dove Mountain south of Tangerine. She again stated that Council must do what's right for the entire town, not just for Continental Ranch or Dove Mountain. or Gladden Farms. Council Member Ziegler further stated she's not stuck on a particular name. Council Member McGorray stated that maybe this can't be taken care of tonight. She took the town to task for presenting this item so quickly even though street naming of major arterials was brought to Council two years ago. She also understood David Mehl's concerns. Council Member Comerford: ADOT says there cannot be two names at the freeway. Mr. Braun concurred. Council Member Comerford: Dove Mountain doesn't want it unless they can come to the freeway? Mr. Braun concurred. Council Member Comerford: The County has said regardless of what we do they are going in and naming everything for public safety reasons? Mr. Braun responded affirmatively. Council Member Comerford: Mayor I'd like to make a motion. I move to adopt the Resolution 2010-48 approving the staff recommended an authorizing the renaming of the segment of Camino de Mariana and the segment of Tortolita Road to Twin Peaks Road Second by Council Member Ziegler. Council Member Ziegler addressed the question raised by Mr. McClure about Pima County changing the name anyway. Mr. McClure responded from the audience about his conversations with Pima County ten years ago when they were told they could not change the name of their street because they needed a 51 percent majority of all the existing homeowners on that roadway, and they denied their request. He believes it is a violation. of his property rights and due process to have the current name change foisted on him now based upon what he was told 10 years ago. Council Member Post called for a point of order. Mr. Braun responded that he did receive a letter from Mr. McClure and looked up his residence, and he is in the area that is going. to be actioned by Pima County regardless of what is done tonight. Mayor Honea asked for the Town Clerk to read the motion. "I move to adopt resolution 2010-48, approving and authorizing the renaming of a segment of Camino de Mariana and a segment of Tortolita Road to "Twin Peaks Road': Motion passed S-1 with Council Member McGorray voting nay. Mayor Honea addressed the audience stating that Pima County asked Marana to change the name to Twin Peaks for public safety reasons, and the town doesn't have any control over what Pima County does in those roads. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION D 1: Legislative/Intergovernmental Report: Discussion/Direction/Action regarding all pending state and federal legislation and report on recent meetings of other legislative bodies Presented by Steve Huffman. He gave a brief overview noting that last Tuesday was the last day the Governor had to sign bills presented by the Legislature, so he put together a summary of bills that the town worked on for or against during the last session and some of the high points and future bills that will have to be dealt with as a result. Early 7 May 18, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Minutes numbers are coming in from Prop 100, and it looks like about 60 percent in favor and 35 percent against, so it's passing by just about every county in the state. In early balloting it passed almost two to one in Maricopa County. As a result of that, we'll see what the Legislature does. There is still about $1B out of balance in the state budget. Council Member McGorray stated that there had been about a 40 percent turnout -were they getting that? Mr. Huffman stated that he didn't have those numbers yet. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS E 1: Executive Session pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03 (A)(3), Council may ask for discussion or consultation for legal advice with the Town Attorney concerning any matter listed on this agenda. E 2: Executive Session pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3),(4) and (7), discussion or consultation for legal advice with the Town's attorneys and discussion and to consider its position and instruct the Town Manager and staff concerning possible acquisition of certain water infrastructure and accounts and water rights and/or resources E 3: Executive Session pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3),(4) and (7), discussion or consultation for legal advice with the Town's attorneys and discussion and to consider its position and instruct the Town Manager and staff concerning (1) the lawsuit entitled Town of Marana v. Pima County/Pima County v. Marana (consolidated), Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2008-001131, (2) pending legal issues, settlement discussions and contract negotiations relating to the transition of Marana wastewater collection and treatment to the Town of Marana FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn moved by Council Member Clanagan, second by Council Member McGorray. Motion carried unanimously 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing are the true and correct minutes of the Marana Town Council meeting held on May 18, 2010. I further certi ~ present. C~~--=---may"`', Jocelyn C. Bronson/, n Clerk May 18, 2010 Regular Council Meeting Minutes