HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 10/5/2010 MINUTES
ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 5, 2010
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER AT OR AFTER 6:00 P.M.
Chairman Reddin called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Clark Reddin, Chairman
Robert La Master, Commissioner
Robert Swope, Commissioner
John Buette, Commissioner
ABSENT: Alan Caine, Commissioner
Mary Caswell, Commissioner
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Reddin led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
CALL TO THE AUDIENCE (Non Agenda Items Only)
Open and closed without comment.
1. Public Hearing: Recreation Area Requirements, The Planning Division
requests approval of an amendment to Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised
Section 26.5, relating to provision of recreation area in residential
subdivisions. Case number: OV710-001
Matt Michels, OV Senior Planner, presented the following:
- Scope of Work/Focus Areas
- Linear Park Concept
- Linear Park Amenities
- Playground/Tot Lot Amenities
- Crime Prevention Through Environment Design (OPTED)
- Recreation Area Requirements
- In-Lieu Fee Requirements
- Project Timeline
- Summary of Factors
- Recommendation
Commission La Master asked if there was a specific reason why members of the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board requested that the item be
brought back for a formal recommendation.
Mr. Michels said to his knowledge there was some desire of certain members to
have a more line by line type of review.
Commissioner Buette asked if developers have taken the in-lieu fee option. Mr.
Michels said that some have but that most developers elect to provide on site
amenities consistent with the code.
Commissioner Buette asked if a cost analysis was completed.
Mr. Michels said we utilized an examination of existing developed recreation
areas within the Town, as for an amount dollar figure no. We did confirm with the
Southern Arizona Home Builders Association and believe they have addressed
their substantive issues.
Mr. Michels said one of the things they tried to do when they went through
subsequent revisions of the draft was try to build in as much flexibility as
possible.
Commissioner La Master asked if there was any guarantee that in-lieu fees must
be used for park and recreation.
Mr. Michels said yes, as it is right now there is actually a contract with the Town.
Commissioner Swope asked about the continuing problem with not receiving
enough funds from the in-lieu fee process to accomplish anything
meaningful and do we know if the in-lieu fees are working to our benefit.
Mr. Michels said these small recreation areas provide meaningful amenities to
residents and the ability for the in-lieu fee to provide what we consider
meaningful is limited from what he can see.
Mr. Williams asked staff if they looked at increasing the in-lieu fee to address the
cost of buying and installing the equipment.
Mr. Michels responded with the definition that is currently in the code which is fair
market value makes provisions primarily for the cost of the land and the
infrastructure, but not the equipment. Mr. Williams said this is an option and not
a requirement that we could add the cost of the facilities into the in-lieu option
making it more expensive to take the in-lieu option, giving us a better opportunity
to provide something meaningful from the in-lieu fee money.
Mr. Michels said he would advocate including a provision for the cost of the
facilities and the amenities as an addition to the definition to the fair market
value. Joe Andrews, OV Attorney said it would make the in-lieu fee more than
just an appraised value of the land.
Chairman Reddin asked if they limited the scope of the in-lieu fee to exclude R1-
36.
Mr. Michels said currently it is limited to subdivisions of 85 units or less.
Chairman Reddin asked about maintenance of existing assets and whether the
in-lieu fee is comingled or is set specifically for additions to the parks. Mr.
Michels responded that there is no provision addressing ongoing operations and
maintenance, but again through the process it requires review and approval by
the Parks and Recreation Director.
Chairman Reddin added unless it is an HOA maintained asset. Mr. Michels
responded correct.
Chairman Reddin asked if there are signage standards.
Mr. Andrews said that signs are regulated by the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Michels said to please refer to page 6, # 6 of the draft which states that all
recreational areas shall post at least one sign at the primarily entrance that
states the rules of the park.
Bill Adler, OV resident feels that not providing recreational opportunities for
residents within subdivisions has not been addressed. He is opposed to in-lieu
fees and thinks recreation codes are about generating recreation not money.
He feels there is not enough improvement on this plan to move it forward. He
recommends that this be tabled so that it becomes a part of the general zoning
code review which Council has mandated.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Buette and seconded by
Commissioner La Master refer OV710-001 Planning Division requests approval
of an amendment to Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Section 26.5, relating to
provision of recreation area in residential subdivisions back to the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board for further review and recommendation.
Commissioner Swope said philosophically he likes the idea of in-lieu fees, but he
is still not convinced that we know enough about how much revenue will be
generated to provide meaningful improvements. He would really_like to see the
Recreation Advisory Board input.
Commissioner Buette said he agreed with Mr. Adler and he feels good about
turning it back to Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
Commissioner La Master said he doesn't agree with that, but does agree that
there is not enough information.
Chairman Reddin said the board is all in agreement that they do not have
enough information and in-lieu fees are a big part of it. Mr. Williams commented
that they would address these issues and that impact fees are currently in place
for parks to address the larger issue of a Town wide park system. Staff will come
back and address the issues that were raised.
MOTION carried, 4-0.
2. Initiation of an amendment to the Oro Valley Zoning Code for Medical
Marijuana Dispensary and Cultivation Regulations. The Planning Division
requests approval of an amendment to add regulations related to location
and development standards for medical marijuana dispensaries and
cultivation locations. Case number: 0V710-004
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Swope and seconded by
Commissioner La Master to initiate OV710-004, an amendment to the Oro Valley
Zoning Code for Medical Marijuana Dispensary and Cultivation Regulations. The
Planning Division requests approval of an amendment to add regulations related
to location and development standards for medical marijuana dispensaries and
cultivation locations.
MOTION carried, 4-0.
3. Public Hearing: Medical Marijuana Dispensary and Cultivation Regulations.
The Planning Division requests approval of an amendment to Oro Valley
Zoning Code Revised to add regulations related to location and
development standards for medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation.
Case number: 0V710-004
David Williams, Planning Manager, presented the following:
- Arizona Medical Marijuana Initiative (Prop 203)
- Primary Components
- Pertinent Development Standards Dispensaries/Offsite Cultivation
- GIS Analysis
- Project Timeline
- Conclusion
- Recommendation
Commissioner Swope asked Mr. Williams to explain sensitive uses.
Mr. Williams said these additional uses are typically placed where people gather,
including young people and minors. Chairman Reddin asked if we prohibit from
anyone consuming marijuana on the premises.
Mr. Andrews said that was correct. Chairman Reddin asked if they
could buy marijuana at a dispensary and go around the corner and light up.
Mr. Andrews said it is a potential problem that the state law does not
address. There are some consequences that we can not regulate with land use
regulations.
Commissioner La Master asked if in the future the owners of a PAD can come
before the Planning Commission and ask for a rezoning.
Mr. Andrews responded that they could and that is how it is supposed be done.
Chairman Reddin asked if they come in after this law is adopted are they
restricted to the limitations imposed by the law.
Mr. Andrews said if Proposition 203 passes then we will have that issue. Right
now it is illegal to have any of these things in place, so adding new regulations
ahead of time it is not going to create a diminution of value to create a
Proposition 207 regulatory takings claim. If the new law is enacted there could
be diminution of value issues because it becomes an allowed use under state
law.
Chairman Reddin asked if it would be a PAD issue.
Mr. Andrews said if someone owns a piece of property in a PAD and they want to
amend their code, they can come in and discuss it.
Mr. Williams said he would like to clarify, they can file an application to allow a
marijuana dispensary. They would go through a normal rezoning process with
the town.
Chairman Redden asked if anyone coming in after the adoption of this
new law would fall under the new state law.
Mr. Andrews said that was correct because we can not amend any PAD.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner La Master and seconded by
Commissioner Buette recommend the Town Council approve 0V710-004,
definitions and regulations related to Medical Marijuana in the form of an
amendment to the Zoning Code as specified in Exhibit A.
Mr. Andrews said he would like to add that most but not all PADs have a section
that mentions that where the PAD is silent that the Oro Valley Zoning Code shall
prevail. Commission La Master commented on what he read from the Arizona
Department of Health that this is something we must do. To his understanding
if Proposition 203 passes and we have not taken any steps then it will be a free
for all.
Mr. Andrews said that medical marijuana would be treated as any other
commercial use. Chairman Reddin stated his concern was adopting a rule on
something that is currently illegal.
Mr. Andrews said the ordinance will be contingent upon the passage of
Proposition 203. Commissioner Swope said it is important to be pre-emptive, the
vote is affirmative in November the town is vulnerable if we don't have land use
restrictions in place.
Mr. Andrews said he agrees that we should do something.
MOTION carried, 4-0.
4. Planning Division Manager Update
Mr. Williams said he would like to discuss the November 2, 2010, meeting date,
as it falls on Election Day. We would like to propose another meeting date
of November 8, 2010, a Monday night instead of Tuesday November 2, 2010.
Mr. Williams stated that the Environmental Sensitive Land Ordinance is
scheduled for the November meeting along with an amendment to
the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Mr. Williams also stated that
the sign code amendments has been through the task force review process
and a Planning Commission public hearing and is on the Town Council study
session agenda for October 13, 2010, and October 27, 2010.
5. Future Agenda Items
Chairman Reddin said he would like to add election of a vice-chair to the
November meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner La Master and seconded by
Commissioner Buette to adjourn
MOTION carried, 4-0.
Prepared by,
fair 04.1
Roseanne Flores
Recording Secretary