Council Votes NO on UHAUL

---

Last Wednesday, town council voted 4-2 to not approve a conditional use permit for a UHaul facility operated by ACE Hardware (Tangerine and First Avenue).  The applicant, apparently wanting to continue the decision on this, did not come to the council meeting to present his case.

According to town manager Greg Caton, the council had three options in light of the request for continuance. One was to simply grant it. A second was to hear the staff's presentation and hold the public hearing and then to continue the item. The third was to hear the item.

Initially, the council, based on the Mayor's direction, heard several public comments.

• Resident Norman Raymond, a property abutter, spoke against the proposal.  "I am not looking forward to sitting in my backyard and looking at UHaul trucks.  Despite all the promises made, I will have them in my view...I will have have ... noise pollution."  
• Resident Paul Baker noted that this applicant has been seeking continuances at various public hearings.  "It seems to be a game, but I could be wrong."  He also noted that the shopping center "has not been a good neighbor." It has not maintained the shrub screening.  "The rights of business do not supersede the rights of the citizen.... I will not support those [business] who seek to destroy property values and hurt their neighbors."
• Resident Bill Adler noted that town staff has determined that a truck rental facility in this location is a permitted use.  Therefor, it should be granted.
• Resident Don Bristow: "I strongly disagree with Mr. Williams administrative decision..." that a truck rental facility is a permitted use.  "Car is not a broad term and truck is not a subset of car."  He presented a strong position reinforcing what he and most of us understand is truth.  Trucks are not cars.  Trucks primarily carry possessions. Cars primarily carry people.  Council Member Burns subsequently agreed, pointing to state department of transportations regulations.
• The Oro Valley Chamber President spoke in favor of approval.  
• Resident Carly Hopkins observed that the shopping center has not provided the agreed upon buffer for the past six years. (Note:  Enforcement of agreements on buffering only occur if there have been complaints regarding a lack of compliance. Oro Valley does not police agreements. "Compliance issues are on the way," noted Planner David Williams.) 

We have previously written that Oro Valley does not have a truck rental facility permitted use.  It has an auto rental facility permitted use.  Town staff determined it was a permitted use on the basis that a truck and a car the same.  We disagree.  A truck rental facility and an auto rental facility are not the same.  The nature of the product being rented is dramatically different.  Therefore, we concluded, that a truck rental facility is not a permitted use.

We also noted in a previous posting that the seven conditions of approval present substantial enforcement challenges.  Council Member Waters agrees.  He asked Planner David Williams: "How you going to keep up with all of this?"

The estimate is that there will be 1 truck per day rented; 2 trucks per day returned.  Oro Valley earns sales tax revenues only on rented trucks.

After hearing the comments and after brief discussion, the council voted 5-2 to hear this CUP request.  At that point, Mayor Hiremath, feeling "under the weather", left the meeting.  Vice Chairman Waters attempted to delay the vote on this CUP, suggesting a continuance.   Council Member Garner moved to deny this CUP.  The discussion ensued.

The council voted 4-2 to deny the request.  Vice Chairman Waters and Council Members Burns, Garner and Zinkin voted to deny.  Council Members Hornat and Snider voted not to deny.  Snider noted that she did not want to deny the request because she wanted to hear from the applicant.

---

Our Analysis

The applicant's behavior regarding the CUP request has been bizarre.

The applicant has sought last minute postponement of hearings on several occasions. Last week, the applicant claimed sought a postponement of the hearing because of a supposed "scheduling conflict".  No representative, even one from UHaul, showed.  What could be more important to the applicant than some representation at a hearing?

In the meantime, the town's behavior regarding this application also been equally bizarre.

Oro Valley Planner Williams' generous interpretation that a truck and a car are the same may be syntactically correct based on a Webster Dictionary definition but is practically illogical.  The Planning and Zoning Commission backed away from a requirement that a higher wall be put in place to screen the neighbors when they applicant said they could not afford it.  Then the commission elected at their meeting to discuss the types of shrubs that could be used for screening.   When the applicant did not show up at the hearing last week, using a last minute scheduling conflict reason, Mayor Hiremath attempted to have the hearing delayed; Council Member Snider wanted to wait to hear from the applicant.  What more information ddid they need?  The town and Planning and Zoning Commission have been working with applicant for nearly a year.  Indeed, the council members had all the information they needed.

Add to this the fact that the 7 special provisions of the CUP are not enforceable. Oro Valley has no "special police" that visit agreements to determine compliance.  Oro Valley only enforces a past agreement if someone complains.  For example, the only way the town learned that this shopping center had not maintained the living buffer growth as required by an agreement with the center was when residents complained that new plantings would be equally ignored.  Past experience with the center tells us that there is no reason to believe that putting trees in (and watching them di)e was a reasonable buffer solution.

According to town staff, the amount of traffic daily will be minimal: One truck rented; two returned. Under this scenario, rear of the center becomes a parking lot for UHaul vehicles.   If this is really the case, then it makes no economic sense for the applicant.  There just wouldn't be enough business to make it matter economically.

All considered, it was good that this CUP was denied.  That said, it would be good to have a active, truck rental facility located somewhere in Oro Valley, one that meets code and does not impinge on the privacy and views of its neighbors.
---

Council To Consider UHaul Location Tonite

---
Tonight, the Oro Valley Town Council will consider approving a conditional use permit ("CUP") for a U-Haul facility to be located at and operated by Ace Hardware (Tangerine and First).  An applicant can apply for a CUP if the current zoning of a property does not permit the requested use.  The council, by majority vote, can approve this use. The recommendation for approval was unanimous by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its May meeting.

As we have noted in previous postings, Oro Valley does not have a zoning designation for truck rentals.  So, town staff is using the auto rental designation. According to the staff report: "The Planning and Zoning Administrator has determined that the proposed use is equivalent to a car rental facility."  Town staff has the authority to make such administrative decisions. However, the town council does not have to approve of such.

Town staff has recommended approval of the facility subject to the following approval conditions:

1. The applicant shall install 36” box trees in the locations depicted on the attached sketch. All trees shall be maintained during the duration of the U-Haul business. [Note: This is in lieu of an initially recommended two-course increase to and existing wall in the rear parking log.  The applicant said they could not afford to cost of this and the planning and zoning commission thought of and then approved this shrubbery solution.)
2. Any rental vehicle parked in front of the Ace Hardware Store shall be removed within a period of forty-eight (48) hours. 
3. The total number of vehicles associated with the U-Haul business shall not exceed eight (8) moving trucks and a combination of ten (10) cargo vans, trailers, and passenger trucks
4. Eighteen (18) parking stalls located behind the Ace Hardware store shall be designated for parking rental vehicles and equipment (trailers, tow halls, etc.). 
5. All rental vehicles shall not overhang into the adjacent drives. Rental vehicles may overhang into the adjacent sidewalk provided that a four (4’) foot wide, clear pathway is maintained. 
6. No diesel vehicles shall be permitted.
7. Hours of operation shall be from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday thru Friday, 9:00 am to 5:00 pm Saturday, and 10:00 am to 4:00 pm Sunday.

Our Analysis:

If you've visited the back of the shopping center you will realize that it will be a "push" to store vehicles of any significant size there.  The issue is whether or not doing such impedes fire lanes.

Leaving rental vehicles for up to 2 days in front of the Ace Hardware is really a bit excessive, don't you think? Does it really take 2 days to move a vehicle to the rear of the designated parking area?  We wonder if other tenants of the shopping center object.

Even if you like the agreement, Oro Valley has no mechanism to police this agreement.  The town will only know if the shrubs die, or if there are rental vehicles parked in front for more than 48 hours, or if the number of vehicles associated with the business exceeds the stated limits, or if a diesel vehicle is parked there if someone complains.  Then, if the town chooses, it will investigate.  So, really, after approval, there is no guarantee that applicant will adhere to the terms of the CUP.

We do "feel" for the ACE Hardware owner.  A Home Depot is down the street.  A competing ACE Hardware is at Lambert and LaCanada.  Every time we've been in the store its been empty of customers.  Our gut feeling is that this is a move to find a business that will generate some cash to supplement the existing hardware business.

This makes good business sense.  We hope it works for them.

The question council will decide tonight:  Does it make good sense for Oro Valley?
---

Planning and Zoning Commission Votes To Approve U-Haul Facility

---
The Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission voted last week to approve a UHaul facility for the Ace Hardware located at Tangerine and First Avenue. Their approval occured even though there is no provision in the code for truck rental. There is one for auto rental.

Oro Valley planner David Williams noted, at the hearing, that an automobile and/or car are the same as a truck for code purpose; therefore, the Oro Valley Code for car rental facility also apply to a truck rental facility. William's interpretation is considered to be an administrative decisions that can be challenged at the Board Of Adjustments.  Generally, it is the applicant who makes the challenge.

"If the code was intended to include truck rentals the code would have used vehicles as the Use Category and included Trucks and other vehicle type within the “Specific Use Types”", writes resident John Musolf.  He continues: "I rented hundreds of car rentals and never once called a car rental facility to rent a truck. I also rented a number of UHaul trucks to help relatives move and always called a Truck Rental Facility to obtain a truck. They are not the same."

Does town staff interpret town code so as to find and loosely match a use that will conform to the applicant’s request?  For example, Mr. Williams  recently inrecommending a use for the Desert Sky/Oracle memory care facility as a “skilled nursing facility" so a conditional use permit could be granted on that basis. His basis for doing so was the it looks like a skilled nursing facility on the outside.

The town had recommended granting the permit with the provision of an 8' wall to screen residential view of the trucks. The applicant rejected the idea. The Planning and Zoning Commission helped out the applicant by amending the permit to include trees, hedges, or some method of vegetation as the screening requirement instead of wall modification.  Exactly, we ask, how is this going to be enforced? Who is going to maintain this vegetation?

Next step:  The Oro Valley Town Council will hear this item at a future session.
---
(John Musolf contributed to this posting)

UHaul Or Not?

---
Is a UHaul rental center behind Ace Hardware a permitted use under Oro Valley code?  That is one of the questions that the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission will consider at tonight's meeting.

Ace Hardware at Placita de Oro Shopping Center (southwest corner of First Avenue and Tangerine Road) is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a U-Haul business.  "The proposed U-Haul business is considered a vehicle rental facility per the Zoning Code and requires a CUP. The applicant’s request consists of parking rental vehicles and equipment in front and behind the Ace Hardware Store." (Source)

Town staff is recommending approval of the CUP on the basis that: "The proposed CUP as mitigated through recommended conditions will meet all applicable Zoning Code requirements and will have minimal impacts to the commercial center and the adjacent residential area to the south and west

There are 8 conditions. Some are simply not enforceable.  For example, a requirement that no vehicles be parked in Area C or that there should be no more than a certain number of trucks or vans or that the vehicles shall not overhang adjacent drive. These are not enforceable because they require surveillance and, unless they become a public nuisance that is reported, they will not be noticed.  Who, by the way, is the enforcer?  Is it the police department? Is it Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department? Is it a Council Member?  Do they walk around with a list of the 8 conditions?  Not gonna happen!

A more pressing question is whether a vehicle rental center is even a permitted use in the PAD?  As one of our readers noted to us: "Oro Valley permitted uses include the category "auto rental" but not trucks, cargo vans, motor vehicle, RV, or motorcycles. If the code was intended to include truck or other vehicle rentals the code would have used vehicles as the Use Category and included Trucks and other vehicle type within the Specific Use Types."

Once again, is it town staff interpreting code as they did in recommending granting a CUP for the Desert Sky/Oracle memory care facility when Mr. Williams, Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department Planner, stated that "It looks like a skilled nursing facility" on the outside so the CUP could be granted on that basis?

There are also safety issues to be considered:

• Assuming that storing trucks and trailers area "C" will not be allowed, there is still the issue of the location for pickup and drop off. Will it be only in the back of the ACE? Or will we see the very unsafe mingling with walkers and cars in the front parking lot?
• UHaul trucks are not equipped with backup alarms or cameras. Their safety instructions include getting help before backing up. 
• Backing up isn’t the only safety concern. Regardless of the type of side view mirrors, blind spots which cannot be viewed with a simple turning of one’s head are a problem.

Tonight's Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission is just one more step in the process of considering this CUP.   Unless ACE withdraws the request, it will be heard by the Oro Valley Town Council regardless of the action taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 

---