Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 10/3/2006 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION October 3, 2006 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT 6:01 PM 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call PRESENT: Chair Pete Bistany Vice-Chair Doug McKee Commissioner Bill Adler Commissioner Ray Paolino Commissioner Terry Bergman Commissioner Honey Pivirotto EXCUSED: Commissioner Clark Reddin Others Present: Mayor Paul Loomis K.C. Carter, Council Member Sarah More, FAICP, Planning & Zoning Administrator David Ronquillo, Senior Planner Matt Michels, Senior Planner 3. Call to the Audience (Non Agenda Items Only) opened and closed at 6:03 p.m. there being no speakers. 4. Minutes MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to approve the September 7, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting minutes as written. Commissioner Paolino seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6 yes, 0 no. 5. OV7-06-04, Town Staff requests initiation of amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised to address zoning districts, requirements, and uses associated with religious assemblies and institutions This proposed zoning code update is an item on the 2006 Planning and Zoning work plan. It is considered "high-priority" as a result of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) legislation. Senior Planner Matt Michels gave the staff report. Staff is planning to bring this back to October 3, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 the Commission in December or January. Mr. Michels replied to Vice Chair McKee, that at this time he was not aware of any church applications submitted. The urgency does not come from any pending cases. There are legal implications with RLUIPA in terms of whether it could be construed as exclusionary zoning practice. As it currently stands a church comes to the Town, and the Town attorney's office will handle it on a case by case basis. This is so the Town will be in compliance with the law and be proactive so we don't get into a situation with a claim of not being compliant. Commissioner Adler asked that when the code is reviewed, that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) be attached if churches have recreational facilities, whether outdoor recreation or child care, or anything that would involve the possibility of noise and interference with residential neighborhoods. Mr. Michels said staff has identified any uses considered ancillary or not related to the primary function of religious expression which would be defined under a different term. This is so something could not be brought in that would be strictly a school for recreation facilities (for example) under the auspices of religious use. Commissioner Adler asked that religious uses in public parks, i.e. Easter sunrise services, midnight mass, etc., also be considered Mr. Michels told Commissioner Paolino that there is a public hearing involved before the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the Town Council. We will be reaching out to those entities that may be affected or interested. As it is currently written the code does not allow churches by right or by CUP within a residential district. Commissioner Paolino said staff should also look at church run schools. Commissioner Bergman said RLUIPA has been in effect for years and is Federal legislation, so it is prudent to make sure the Town is in compliance. There are certain external effects of churches that are a legitimate basis for regulation. To whatever extent we can legitimately regulate things, such as big box churches showing up in residential neighborhoods where they create major traffic and parking issues, we should do so. MOTION: Commissioner Paolino MOVED to initiate an amendment to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised to address uses and requirements associated with religious assemblies and institutions. Commissioner Bergman seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 6. OV7-06-03, Town Staff requests initiation of amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised to insure compliance with Growing Smarter Plus statutes by addressing pertinent general plan and rezoning procedures and requirements. This proposed zoning code update is an item on the 2006 Planning and Zoning work plan. It is designated "high-priority" in order to insure compliance with state October 3, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 3 requirements. Senior Planner David Ronquillo gave the staff report. The process would begin immediately if initiated and go to Council in January or February. Staff would gather information and gain understanding of the State requirements for the Growing Smarter Plus and how it relates to the Zoning Code. Staff would contact other jurisdictions, Chambers of Commerce, and Arizona Cities and Leagues. Examples of where there are conflicts: • The current General Plan only provides for one window of amendment submittal. The Zoning Code says there are two submittal windows. • The General Plan distinguishes amendments between major and minor. The Zoning Code only addresses a General Plan amendment. • Public involvement in the process is not reflected in the Zoning Code. Vice Chair McKee asked how much this process would cost. Ms. More responded that there has not been an analysis done of what needs to be done. The cost is staff time, which includes David's, Attorney Andrews and herself. We will figure out what percentage of time we will be able to dedicate to this to get it done. Commissioner Adler mentioned that none of the items listed are in the Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP). During the General Plan revision process major and minor amendments were discussed and the fact that this would require a zoning revision. It should have gone in the SIP. Mr. Ronquillo told Commissioner Paolino that it would not take a lot of time researching other jurisdictions, but staff would like to see what others have done and get examples. Ms. More said many communities have already taken care of this issue. The Arizona League of Cities and Town as well as the Arizona Department of Commerce Planning Division are good resources. It is important to use consistent language within our own code, and see other communities terminology. This is not a major research effort. Commissioner Bergman said you should view the research into what other communities have done as something that saves time rather than uses time. Attorney Andrews pointed out that there are no two general plans in Arizona that are alike. The bulk of Mr. Ronquillo's time will be spent looking at how others have implemented their general plan and see how it might fit into our General Plan. Commissioner Adler asked if it is necessary to amend the code to include the evaluation criteria that is in the General Plan. The Zoning Code simply says the Planning Commission will evaluate the proposed amendment on its merits. October 3, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 Ms. More said she did not think that was addressed in statute, but may well help clarify the whole General Plan process. It might not be necessary to enumerate the whole thing, but it might be good to have a reference. Ms. More said regarding the time frame needed, staff will commit to coming back with an information item and if necessary ask for an extension. Vice Chair McKee said there may be a General Plan amendment coming before the Commission before the Zoning Code change is in place. What complication may arise from this? Attorney Andrews replied that we will have to rely heavily on the Planning and Zoning Administrator and legal assistance to deal with such as situation. Ms. More added that it is clear in State Statutes that a town is limited to considering plan amendments to once a year. Our Code provides for two. The Town is supposed to consider all plan amendments at one time. The statute further states that all plan amendments are to be considered within the calendar year submitted, which is difficult if a case comes in on September 30th. The Code is going to have to be changed. Attorney Andrews said that in Growing Smarter Plus there are a lot of mandates, but he does not know of a single municipality in Arizona that has anything brought against them for having difficulties with bringing forward the general plan process and making their codes in compliance. Our Code needs to be fixed. MOTION: Commissioner Bergman MOVED to initiate amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised to insure compliance with Growing Smarter Plus statutes by addressing pertinent general plan and rezoning procedures and requirements. Commissioner Pivirotto seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6 yes, 0 no. 7. Discussion Item, the process for initiation of a General Plan amendment At the September meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission requested clarification of the process to initiate a General Plan amendment. Commissioner Bergman said since staff is going through analysis of the General Plan amendment process, this discussion should be delayed until after that analysis. Commissioner Adler said when we had a proposed General Plan amendment before us to be initiated from the Estes Group, it was discussed what the General Plan specifies in terms of initiation criteria. There is a risk in being too specific about criteria, because the more specific, the more exceptions can be discovered. The General Plan allows the Commission and the Council to judge whether the proposed meets the criteria of changes in conditions of the community. The language on the first page of the General Plan was tailored to meet the concerns and controversies that were prevalent for Oro Valley at that time. The problem should be clarified without getting the criteria so narrow that it creates problems. October 3, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5 Commissioner Paolino said we have to keep in mind that the General Plan provides the criteria for initiation a General Plan amendment. That is different from the process. Commissioner Bergman was troubled by the Commission making a decision about whether a person has a right to be heard. There is a due process issue that people ought to be able to file an application, have a hearing, and a decision made after all the facts are heard. CONSENSUS: It was the consensus of the Commissioners to delay discussion regarding the process for initiation of a General Plan amendment until after staff had gather more data. 8. Discussion Item, Town policy requiring an evaluation of members seeking reappointment At the September meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission requested clarification of the Town Commission/Board member reappointment process. Ms. More pointed out that on page 27 of the Town Council's Rules and Procedures; it discusses the evaluation process for a volunteer's reappointment. Staff will remind the Chair and Vice Chair that evaluations need to be done. Commissioner Adler said besides reminders being done, there is a question of what needs to be considered when judging performance. Does the applicant get a copy and is it discussed with them? Ms. More stated that on the same page it indicates the criteria for reappointment. Vice Chair McKee said this should be done for all volunteers whether up for reappointment or not, because the volunteer has the option to apply for another board or commission. A file should be kept on volunteers for other appointments. Chair Bistany did not think this should project into the future. The liaison to the Council should be aware if there are problems. NO ACTION TAKEN. 9. Discussion Item, the Planning & Zoning Commission's Rules and Operating Procedures requiring a majority present versus majority At the September meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission requested clarification of rules pertaining to a quorum. Ms. More said this discussion came about because of the way items can be placed on the agenda. Refer to Rules and Procedures page 6, 2.6A, page 10, F.4, and page 13, 2.11. Major decisions can be made by a majority vote of a quorum, which could be a minority of the Commission. October 3, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 6 Attorney Andrews said that if the Board were to decide to vote to place something on an agenda, it would take 4 people to get a matter on the agenda. If it was decided not to vote, 2 people could have an item placed on the agenda. To make it consistent, a motion with a second would be enough to get an item on the next agenda. That way it is not a majority vote. Ms. More will work on the language to clarify this issue, which after Commission approval will have to go to the Council. NO ACTION TAKEN. Planning Update • Ms. More attended the Southern New England Planning Association Conference in late September. • Commissioner Adler encouraged the Commission to get on the list and take advantage of the AzPA seminars and workshops available. Next meeting will be delayed from Tuesday, November 7th to November 9th due to elections on the 7th. Adjourn Regular Session Meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Prepared by: Diane Chapman Office Specialist