Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 11/1/2005 APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION NOVEMBER 1, 2005 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair John Anning Vice Chair Pete Bistany Commissioner Bill Adler Commissioner Don Manross Commissioner Teree Bregman Commissioner Doug McKee EXCUSED: Commissioner Honey Pivirotto Also Present: Mayor Paul Loomis Town Manager Chuck Sweet Helen Dankwerth, Council Member Conny Culver, Council Member Barry Gillaspie, Vice Mayor K.C. Carter, Council Member Terry Parish, Council Member Brent Sinclair, Community Development Director Joe Andrews, Town Civil Attorney Bayer Vella, Principal Planner CALL TO THE AUDIENCE opened at 6:02 p.m. John Mitchell, 1459 W. Fairway Wood Court, presented a handout (see attached) regarding the proposed location of a Golder Ranch Fire District fire station at Lambert Land and La Canada, which is an issue on the December Planning and Zoning Commission meeting agenda. He represents neighbors that have been working with Chief Fink. The neighbors initially opposed the location of the fire station at the time of the grading request which was approved by the Town Council. By approving the grading of the location in a horseshoe shaped hill, it will focus the hill at our community, at the children's daycare center and at Walgreens, and will force a lot of the diesel odors and noise to be amplified into the neighborhood. While the Fire Department has offered to mitigate that noise as much as they can, because we sit up above it and because of the horseshoe shape, we have serious concerns whether anything they do is going to mitigate it completely. The biggest concern is that the proposed project is too large for the location. It creates safety and traffic problems, and noise, air and lighting pollution. We have not yet decided as a group if we will oppose this at the November 1, 2005 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 meeting next month or not. We are trying to work with Chief Fink and recognize when the Council approves something they feel it is viable. Problems we have run into are that we cannot find a clear plan by Oro Valley of how they allocate fire services. The area is apparently served by three fire companies: Golder, Rural Metro and Northwest. This is confusing and we are trying to work with Staff to figure what the Oro Valley approach to the whole fire service situation is. Call to the Audience closed at 6:05 p.m. MINUTES Commissioner McKee brought up the fact that when the Commission misses a meeting, it is difficult to remember what went on at the last meeting when reviewing the minutes. In the future draft minutes will be emailed to the Commissioners as soon as completed. MOTION: Commissioner Bergman MOVED to approve the September 6, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting minutes as written. Commissioner McKee seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 1. PUBLIC HEARING, OV9-05-08A,, LEWIS AND ROCA LLP, REPRESENTING JOHN SIMON, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE STEAM PUMP VILLAGE PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) ZONING STANDARDS REGARDING OUTDOOR LIGHTING FOR A PERFORMANCE AMPHITHEATER WITHIN A 41 ACRE COMMERICAL DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ORACLE ROAD IN PROXIMITY TO EAST HANLEY BOULEVARDE AND THE HONEYWELL SITE, PARCEL NUMBERS 220-08-001P & 1Q, 220-11-003A, AND 220-04-009E & 9C. Mr. Sinclair introduced the project applicant. Carl Kilgore, Project Architect, 8250 E. Broadway, Tucson. The applicant is seeking an amendment to the Steam Pump PAD regarding a portion of the Steam Pump project relating to the lighting code, Section 27.5.H, referencing outdoor recreational facilities. The proposed use is for an outdoor plaza and performance venue which will house theatrical and musical performances, artisan exhibits, cultural events and community social gatherings. Three aspects of lighting were discussed: stage, plaza or house, and artistic. The section of the Code this facility should be considered under is the recreational facilities of the lighting code, specifically referenced to athletic fields, courts and tracks being exempt from the total lumen count. There is no reference to a performance facility in the lighting code. Applicant wishes to get this particular facility considered under the recreational provisions and compliance with aspects of that provision. The entire area of the Steam Pump Village project is 41 acres. The proposed area under the amendment is 15,675 s.f., which represents 9% of the entire project. The plaza, seating area and stage are located between buildings #3 and #4. Zone A is the November 1, 2005 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 3 2.5 acres Mr. Kilgore's client owns and is everything outside the plaza. The building lighting and parking lighting (Zone A) are not part of this request for amendment. See PAD Amendment conditional language in the Steam Pump Village PAD Amendment Request, bulleted paragraphs on pages 2 and 3. Mr. Kilgore's Power Point presentation detailed the various forms of lighting: stage lighting, plaza lighting and artistic lighting. The presentation showed the type of lights, where the lights would be located, where they were focused and their spread, how they were operated, how they were shielded, and total lumens. The lighting for the plaza area is essential to circulation, exiting, security and life safety. Not all the lights are on at the same time. There would be a pre and post performance where the house lights and the accent lights arel on and the theatrical lights are off. Once the performance begins approximately 50% of the theatrical lights that are outside of the stage would be on and about 80% of the accent lighting. Included in the PAD Amendment conditional language would be that the hours of operation for Zone B are between 6:00 a.m. and midnight, with illumination after midnight to be permitted for completing a scheduled event that was unable to conclude before midnight due to unusual circumstances and for shutting down purposes. The applicant felt that the combination of the design and lighting gives an enhanced cultural and dining experience to the project. It would be an invitation to World class performers. Oro Valley would be a premier location for cultural events. Mr. Kilgore replied to Commissioner Adler's question, that there would be more than just musical performances, but it is limited because there are no provisions for theatrical backdrops. Commissioner Adler said that musicians don't require a lot of light, so what is the need for more lighting? Mr. Kilgore replied that a lighting consultant from the University of Arizona designed the lighting for this project based on his experience in the industry. In the initial analysis it was determined that provisions of the code could not be met as written outside of recreational facilities. Staff was asked if this could be considered as a recreational facility because of the lighting being provided. For the stage to be functional for various performance a certain amount of lumens are required. Mr. Kilgore told Commissioner Adler there was nothing in Arizona like this that the Commissioners could tour. Mr. Kilgore replied to Commissioner Bergman that most venues would not go on until midnight. That was a boundary laid out by the lighting code. Most venues would end about 10:00 p.m. with shutdown for another hour or so. November 1, 2005 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 Mr. Kilgore told Vice Chair Bistany that the intent is for year round events. Weather would play a part in functions. The background image in the presentation does not accurately reflect the sky as it does not take into account the Tucson ambient light. Mr. Kilgore responded to Commissioner McKee's question, that without increasing the tower height, which is limited by the height restrictions, the spotlights could not go higher to provide more of an angle. The ones on the poles on the side have to be accessible to get to the light fixture. The Follow Spots are manned in the two towers on each side of the plaza. Mr. Kilgore told Commissioner Manross that the consultant said this project's lighting is more extensive than Reed Park Bandstand because of dealing with a lighted plaza. Mr. Kilgore told Commissionr Manross that the festoon lights with 500 linear feet and 2 foot spacing have a lumen value of 2,145. The intent is to give area lighting for people in the audience so they can move in and out of the facility. Mr. Sinclair gave the Staff report. The Steam Pump PAD Phase 1 was approved by the Town Council May 19, 2004. Within Phase 1 is the performance plaza. This can be summarized into three part: (1) Zone B performance area. The request is to categorize the lighting in the same manner it would be in other sections of the Code dealing with recreation areas. It would enable the lumen count to exceed the Town lighting code within limits. The main areas where it exceeds is with the spotlights. Because the spotlights are directional there is language in the proposal that there will not be any spillage. There is also language that there will be no lighting above the horizontal plane that extended from the stage roofline downward. (2) Outside lights on the east and west walls of the performance plaza are uplights which the Code does not permit. To mitigate, the lights will be shielded. The festoon lights will also have to be shielded. (3) Regarding hours of operation, it is suggested that the performance plaza be able to fall under the same guidelines in the lighting code for recreation areas, specifically E3 areas which are commercial areas. Entitled hours would be 6:00 a.m. and midnight with some extensions if needed to conclude the performance under unusual circumstances. The whole approach has been to capture the uniqueness of this performance plaza and its needs for lighting and mitigate areas where there is excess or spillage with screens or canisters in a manner that meets the intent of the Code. Commissioner Adler asked if creating an entertainment zone was considered rather than manipulating the recreational code to include something which is of an entertainment nature? Mr. Sinclair responded that in essence we have created its own thing. There is no way it can fit into any other section of the Code. That is why the PAD is being amended and fashioned in this manner. November 1, 2005 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5 t PUBLIC HEARING opened at 6:50 p.m. List of speakers: 1. Deborah Clark, 11250 N. Flying Bird (opposed) 2. Frank Ali, 11370 N. Charoleau (opposed) 3. Michael Barry, 11311 N. Charoleau (opposed) 4. Karen McRae, 11473 N. Copper Belle (opposed) 5. Elle Durham 11510 Copper Belle (opposed) 6. Ernie Malachowski, 11433 N. Charoleau (opposed) 7. Thomas Follett, 11380 N. Flying Bird (opposed) 8. Lawrence Casper, 11395 N. Flying Bird (opposed) 9. Frank Engle, 11221 Charoleau (opposed) 10. Denise Kilbury, 11530 N. Charoleau (opposed) 11. Roni Sabato, 11495 N. Flying Bird (opposed) 12. Pam Sabato, 11495 N. Flying Bird (opposed) 13. Kathy Flannigan, 11350 Flying Bird (opposed) 14. Cathy Casper, 11395 N. Flying Bird(opposed) 15. Patricia Denny, 10810 N. Eagle Eye Place(opposed) 16. Tom Coldren, 11340 Charoleau (opposed) 17. Art Segal, 10148 N. Bighorn Butte Dr. (opposed) 18. Brady Buckley, 11526 N. Civano Place (opposed) 19. Mike Nickles, 1550 N. Charoleau (opposed) 20. Larry Barrett, 11470 N. Charoleau (opposed) 21. Walter Craig, 11510 N. Charoleau (opposed) 22. Alex Heinz, 11506 N. Civano Place (opposed) 23. William Von Fabraice, 11455 Flying Bird Drive (opposed) 24. Jordan Madison, 11573 N. Copperbell Place (opposed) 25. Alan Dankwerth, 11515 N. Flying Bird Dr. (opposed) 26. David Kyle, 11511 N. Civano Place (opposed) 27. Joyce Rychener, 12636 N. Deer Print 28. Paul Parisi, 363 E. Sunburst Place 29. Richard Feinberg, 1451 E. Triton Place (undecided) 30. Steve Henderson, 63110 E. Harmony Drive, Saddlebrooke (undecided) 31. Joe Frannea, 8002 N. Sendero De Juana (undecided) 32. Al Cook, 11570 N. Skywire Way (supports) 33. Tom Moser, 1090 W. Graythorn Place (supports) 34. Jim Kriegh, 40 E. Calle Concordia (supports) Concerns/comments voiced by speakers either for or against: • Lighting "effect" intrusive • Concern about type of performances, i.e. rock and roll, heavy metal, etc. • Objection to lighting that does not meet Code, including any uplighting • Opposed to lighting and noise after midnight. • Concerned about impact on astronomers • Objection to variance allowing hours of operation beyond 10:00 p.m. • Opposed to lights and noise after midnight November 1, 2005 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 6 • Opposed to variance in time element. • Concern about adverse affect on quality of life • Concern about adverse affect on economic health and property value • Doesn't want to look down from his property and see lights and hear sound • Concerned about growth at expense of fellow citizens. • Erosion of dark sky from refracted light. • Opposed to increased lights and time beyond 10:00 p.m. • Will be unable to see the stars because of lights. • Doesn't want to listen to someone else's music all the time. • Opposed to noise, timing and lighting. • Don't compromise at expense of what neighbors will have to endure. • Development will be an eyesore. • Will be unable to use telescope. • Build this beautiful facility but meet the zoning codes. • A unique center which will enhance quality of life. • A benefit to the community for years to come. • Oro Valley is art deprived. The children need this facility. • Children should know "the stars in the sky and the stars of arts and music." • Benefit to all citizens: children, middle-age grownups and older people. • Opposed to performances going until midnight or after. A lot of noise. • Property values will go down. • Who will limit and monitor lighting? • Noise will reverbrate off the mountains. • 100% against project. • Concern with proposed lumen per acre cap and extending hours used. • Concerned with light trespassing in neighboring areas and into the sky. • Reflective light is a concern. • Light pollution will diminish usefulness of southern Arizona for astronomy. • Outdoor lighting codes do not contemplate surrounding reflective surfaces. • Opposed to hours of operation and any variance approval. • Against variances proposed. • Wonderful opportunity for project but not a cost of destroying our dark skies. • Guidelines need to be laid out. No laser shows, rock bands, etc. • Need good buffering. • Children are excited about a place to perform. • Project will bring class and culture. • Apply the codes we have. • Excited about project, but it needs to limit types of performances, their lighting and timing. • More reasonable daylight hours should be involved. • Don't offer a variance, stay within the Code. • Will look straight down at the lights and will hear all the noise. • Opposed to any variance. PUBLIC HEARING closed at 7:45 p.m. November 1, 2005 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 7 Commissioner Bergman asked Mr. Sinclair to clarify the definition of a PAD versus a variance. The Planned Area Development (PAD) is a particular zoning for a particular area. The Town is classified into the different zoning districts. The Steam Pump Village has its own zoning; its own PAD. The request is to amend the PAD for the purpose of allowing lighting specific to this performance plaza. It would not pertain to any other area in Oro Valley. A variance could be requested and/or granted anywhere else in any zoning district. Commissioner McKee asked how much different this proposal is than our current code with respect to the light pollution. Does what is being proposed meet our current codes? Mr. Sinclair answered yes and no. We have certain codes that pertain to recreational facilities and to commercial facilities. What is being proposed is neither. Spotlights generate an incredible amount of lumens, but if they are directed and shielded, then they may not create any light pollution. He is not an electrical engineer so he cannot answer that question. With respect to the festoon lighting, code provides that they should be shielded. The applicant has provided a way to shield the festoon lights, therefore they will meet the code. The uplighting on the east and west walls of the facility is not allowed in the code. They are providing a measure to shield the top portion. There may be reflection or refraction. Staff has tried to address differences between what is proposed and what is in the code. Mr. Sinclair told Commissioner McKee there are people skilled in analyzing lighting and it may be a possible to have one give a report. Commission Bistany felt it is incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate some visualization for the lighting impact of this increase. He cannot visualize the impact. He has never voted for anything he can't visualize. A presentation should be made to show the impact. MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to continue this item to our next meeting to give the applicant and staff an opportunity to reconsider how the case needs to be made for the increased lighting (amendment to the PAD) and to consider restrictions based upon the hours and the type of uses contemplated for the Performing Arts Plaza and other matters. Commissioner Bergman seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Kilgore requested that a vote be given on this issue tonight, either up or down. The season for acquiring acts for the venue is now. Acts need to be secured 1 to 1 1/2 years in advance. If there is a continuance that window of opportunity disappears and it would be two years before having acts for the facility. Commissioner McKee stated that this is breaking new ground. There is a hole in the code that doesn't cover this kind of usage and it needs to be fixed. Whatever is done sets a precedent and establishes a template for the next time. There will be a next November 1, 2005 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 8 time because of the Naranja Park site. This needs careful consideration. There has not been enough information or study of this to make a decision at this time. He will support the continuance. Commissioner Bergman said she seconded the motion because like Commissioner Bistany, she doesn't have a frame of reference for what this lighting will look like; therefore, she could not vote for or against it with good conscience. It is not clear to her what the process was for designing this particular lighting package. The hours need to be addressed. We need to know what really is needed for a venue of this type. It may not be appropriate to try to fit the recreation standards to this use. One of the good things about a PAD is that it allows for custom design for specific projects. Commissioner Manross stated that this project is a great project and is needed, but there are too many problems with it right now. The owners want a vote now, but may not like the outcome. The applicant should go back and revisit the hours of operation, the uplighting, the outside lighting for performances, how it will be controlled, etc. This project is needed, but right now it is not good for the Town. Chair Anning called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. BREAK: 7:55 to 8:00 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING, OV7-05-10, AMENDING THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED SECTION 23.4 AND 23.7, TO ADDRESS BUILDING HEIGHTS STANDARDS WITHIN AN R-4R RESORT ZONING DISTRICT Mr. Vella gave the Staff report. Commissioner Adler said the impact of height is a function of its high visibility location or its adjacency to a scenic area, which any revision to the code should take into account. Factor in where the resort is located and the impact to height as a function of its high visibility location or its proximity to highly valued scenic areas, i.e. peaks, ridgeline, foothills, etc. Mr. Vella agreed. The Oracle Road Overlay District does factor that in and requires a viewshed analysis and works with arranging the building in a manner to preserve viewsheds. Typically resorts seek a PAD. The challenge is how to address new resort development and at the same time recognize the potential of three resorts being in Town and making sure they are not non-conforming. The 25 feet does not accommodate a ballroom or conference center. Commissioner Adler said the three resort are all built far enough away from major thoroughfares so even though they exceed the present height limitation, they don't impact visually. He would be reluctant to approve anything that would allow something in the future to be built without considering viewshed and high visibility locations. November 1, 2005 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 9 Height is sometimes used for advertisement and he would be against that reason for height. Mr. Vella replied to Commissioner McKee that there is not an expiration date on the Rancho Vistoso PAD. It is part of their hard zoning. Commissioner Bistany asked if the El Conquistador was the only R-4R we now have? Mr. Vella answered yes. It is taking a look at the El Conquistador Resort which currently, built in Pima County, doesn't meet that standard. Within the Town's annexation goal boundaries there are two resorts that may come into the Town. Commissioner Adler wondered if it could be considered that a resort that would exceed the present code allotment for height would require a Conditional Use Permit. So not only the height is justified, but its location and suitable for the immediate area could be looked at specifically. Mr. Vella deferred that question to the Commission. PUBLIC HEARING opened at 8:15 p.m. Faith Barry, 7510 W. Desert Tree Drive. She is a resident of the Westward Look HOA and she deferred to the president of the association. Mike Lembo, 3 E. Old Ina, passed. Carol Brown, 9814 N. Ridge Shadow Place. (unintelligible on tape) She wondered if this would affect just the ballroom or the other rooms as well. When they built their lots, they were told that the view would not be impacted. If added on to, she would be looking into the hotel bedroom windows. Parking lots and the ballroom have been put in. If allowed to go up it would add insult to injury. Norma Lackow, 328 E. Desert Tree Dr. She is the president of the Westward Look Guest Ranch Association. They have had a long very pleasant relationship with the hotel. The resort's good financial health is very important to the association. You have to ride by the hotel in order to get to their homes. We have great concerns about changing the ambiance of the hotel. The hotel is a posh, wild area. Anything they do to change the wildness of the place, building it up and making it look plastic will change the character of the hotel. We have great concerns about your changing their ability to build up which would change the hotel's impact on us. Constantine Sakellar, 7251 N. Westward Look Dr. For the last 45 years, 3 generations of Sakeliar's have waved to the tour buses that came down Westward Look Drive. He spoke in favor of matching the County translational zoning of 34 feet. Westward Look has been a good neighbor. He welcomes the annexation into Oro Valley and believes that this Commission does watch out for its citizens and will hold Westward Look to a quality development. Tucson resorts are important to this Town. As an architect and planner he understands the height requirements for resort facilities. November 1, 2005 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 10 Jon Johnson, 7430 N. Michelle Place. (opposed) He lives just east of the Westward Look. They are opposed to the height change. Westward Look has a nice low key look and is not multi-story there. He believes a height change would block a lot of people's view. We enjoy Westward Look the way it is. PUBLIC HEARING closed at 8:25 p.m. Mr. Vella reiterated that part of this exercise is reflecting what is existing today. Westward Look's ballroom is 32 feet tall. El Conquistador has elements that are 30 feet tall. When a redevelopment proposal comes into the Town, the applicant goes before the Development Review Board to specifically look at the architecture that is being proposed. DRB has to work within the zoning code constraints. It is part of their charge to effect changes so that we are not looking at developments that are 34 feet across the board. They look at areas that need to be respected such as existing residential and viewsheds. There are viewsheds requirements for the entire expanse of Oracle Road. Commissioner Adler would like to make a distinction between existing and proposed. The Code for existing resorts should be allowed to exist at or below 34 feet. Any new proposed resorts should not exceed 25 feet, the current limitation, or apply for a Conditional Use Permit to justify that additional height which then would come before the Planning Commission and Council. MOTION: Commissioner Bergman MOVED to forward OV7-05-10, proposed amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Sections 23.4 and 23.7.B, to revise building height standards within the R-4R zoning district to 34 feet, to the Town Council recommending approval. Commissioner Manross seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Bergman's reason for forwarding this to the Council recommending approval is that this is the height that is allowed in Pima County for the resorts that are directly effected by this. It is to the benefit of the Town. Thirty Four feet is not an excessive height. Commissioner Manross asked Staff if the three resorts already there, all being developed under 34 feet, if they are brought in will they be grandfathered in and still be allowed to maintain any new additions to that elevation? Mr. Vella responded that if brought into the Town under our 25 foot standards, they would be considered grandfathered...a non-conforming use. Their existing heights would be respected. The impact would be that any potential expansions would be limited to the Oro Valley 25 foot standard. Chair Anning called for the vote. November 1, 2005 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 11 Motion carried 5 yes, 1 no. Commissioner Adler voted no. (The Planning and Zoning Commission voted on 12/6/05 to allow for a correction in the minutes stating the reason why Commissioner Adler voted no. His reasons are based on his stated comments in the paragraphs above the motion.) 3. PUBLIC HEARING, OV9-05-10, TRANSLATIONAL ZONING OF 970 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, THAT WERE RECENTLY ANNEXED INTO THE TOWN FROM PIMA COUNTY RH (RURAL HOMESTEAD) ZONING TO THE ORO VALLEY EQUIVALENT OF R1-300 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN AN AREA KNOWN AS THE LA CHOLLA AIRPARK AND IMMEDIATE ENVIRONS, SPECIFCALLY INCLUDING THE SOUTH HALF (S 1/2) OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST AND ALL OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST, AND THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST, GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. Mr. Sinclairg ave the Staff report. PUBLIC HEARING opened at 8:35 p.m. Gary Lichte, 13751 N. Piper (undecided) He was given the regulations at 23.6b and 23.b for R1-300 regarding setbacks, etc. and he wanted to make sure that is included in what is being voted on. Mr. Sinclair said yes, what was just described is that section of the Code that described the district regulation for R1-300. PUBLIC HEARING closed at 8:38 p.m. MOTION: Commissioner McKee MOVED to recommend approval of OV9-05-10, translating zoning of all parcels indicated in Attachment 1, to the Town of Oro Valley R1-300 district with the condition in Exhibit A. Vice Chair Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 4, OV7-05-11, STAFF REQUESTS INITIATION OF A PROJECT TO AMEND THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE WITH REGARD TO SEXUALLY-ORIENTED BUSINESS REGULATIONS. Mr. Sinclair gave the Staff report. On October 5, 2005, the Town Council approved Resolution No. R5-85 which approved a Code amendment to regulate sexually-oriented businesses. What was not approved deals with the land use regulations of sexually- oriented businesses providing for the specific zoning district for them to located in and other locational considerations, etc. The issue before the Commission would be to go through all the provisions relating to the Zoning Code issues for sexually-oriented businesses. November 1, 2005 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 12 Attorney Andrews stated that he came up with the other code and now it has to be integrated with the Zoning Code. MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to initiate OV7-05-11, potential amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised to address sexually-oriented businesses. Commissioner Bergman seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. PLANNING UPDATE • Town Council approved a Zoning Code amendment dealing with assurances and minor land division amendments. • Town Council will be considering the Commercial Code amendments on November 10 at 5:30 p.m. at a Special Session. • Mayor Loomis set a Study Session for November 9 at 5:30 p.m. to review the Planning and Zoning Commission Work Plan. The Commission is welcome to attend either of these above session. An agenda will be forwarded as soon as it comes forward. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane Chapman, Recording Secretary