---
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.
---
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.
---
10 comments:
So what happened to your "lock-step theory????? The only lock-step voting is from Zinkin/Garner and Burns. If it's pro-business they vote NO!!
OVOT: I would guess that the "fix" was not in as it may have been in the case of the missing porch.
My son works at Ace and says the owner was not notified of this meeting and that's why he was a "no show". If that turns out to be true, that is shady and unacceptable.
Hello Deane,
Our understanding is that town staff communicated with the applicant on at least three occasions in May and that a public notice was posted at the shopping center on May 20.
If these facts are assumed to be correct, then the applicant did receive proper notice. If these facts are not correct, then there was not proper notice.
Richard
---
OVOT,
Vice Mayor Waters seemed to make up his mind when he viewed the picture of one U-Haul truck from outside a neighbor's fence.
Just imagine how it would have looked with the 18 U-Hauls approved by the P & Z.
---
Look for reconsideration of this vote.
All it takes is one of the no votes to agree to do so. That would be Vice Mayor Waters, if he chooses to do so. Then, a second from any council member.
A reconsidered vote will likely pass 4-3.
---
Cares....While I don't expect those who post on this or any other blog to be as familiar with all proceedings regarding a case, I think it is reasonable to expect comments that have some foundation in fact. The absence of any puts the submitter in the category, in my opinion, of being a CAVE (Citizen Against Virtually Everything)Person.
The estimated volume of rental transactions at this location is forecasted to be one (1) per day. So where you come up with your number of 18 remains a mystery.
Further, "the 18 U-Hauls approved by the P & Z." is a factually incorrect comment on many fronts.
The number 18 came up during the P&Z Meeting and in the documents I read online. At one time, Ace had wanted more spaces.
If each of the 18 allowed spaces was filled with a truck, that would be 18 trucks.
This was not inaccurate information.
OVOT,
I was not talking about the number of rentals per day. I was talking about the number of spaces allowed. Originally, ACE wanted more than 18 space, but settled for 18.
If each space was filled with a rental truck, that would equal 18 trucks.
My information was correct, and you owe me an apology.
Cares......Your comments make it very clear that you did not attend or listen to the P&Z meeting, which doesn't surprise me. Might I suggest that you make the effort to ATTEND the meetings so you can have a better understanding about what goes on. Then maybe, just maybe, you might be able to carry on a conversation about the pros and cons based on something other than faulty guess work.
There were 18 spaces recommended by staff which the P&Z agreed to. We don't APPROVE these things.
The ACE location does not store U-Haul vehicles. They are a rental and return point ONLY. When a vehicle/trailer is brought in after a rental they process paperwork and contact the local U-Haul facility who comes out and removes the vehicle to a storage location. At any given time there may be 2-3 vehicles on site.
When someone comes in to rent a vehicle the ACE location will contact the storage location and have the proper rental vehicle delivered to their location.
There was never any intent, nor was it ever requested to store 18 vehicles at this location. That is simply a figment of your wild imagination. It's what is known as a red herring.
The only thing I owe you is honesty and a promise that I will continue to correct misinformation when it is posted. The latter keeps me pretty busy.
Post a Comment