Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 6/7/2005 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION JUNE 7, 2005 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Don Cox Vice Chair John Anning Commissioner Bill Adler Commissioner Pete Bistany Commissioner Doug McKee Commissioner Teree Bergman EXCUSED: Commissioner Don Manross OTHERS PRESENT: K.C. Carter, Council Member Conny Culver, Council Member Barry Gillaspie, Council Member Paul Loomis, Mayor Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Jeff Weir, Economic Development Administrator Bryant Nodine, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator Bob Conant, Senior Planner CALL TO THE AUDIENCE open and closed at 6:03 p.m. there being no speakers. MINUTES MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to approve the April 26, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Session meeting minutes as written. Vice Chair Anning seconded the motion. Commissioner McKee pointed out the following correction: Page 5, 2nd paragraph, change the word "perimeters" to "parameters". Commissioners Adler and Anning accepted the correction. Motion carried as corrected 6 yes, 0 no. MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to approve the May 3, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting minutes as written. Vice Chair Anning seconded the motion. Chair Cox pointed out the following correction: Page 5, paragraph starting Mr. Conant replied, change the word "degree" to "decibels." Commissioner McKee pointed out the following correction: Page 6, 2nd paragraph, change the word "feet" to "feel". Commissioners Adler and Anning accepted the corrections. Motion carried as corrected 6 yes, 0 no. June 7, 2005 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 MOTION: Vice Chair Anning MOVED to approve the May 9, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Session meeting minutes as written. Commissioner Adler seconded motion. Motion carried, 6 yes, 0 no. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: OV8-05-02, MARTACELLA HOLDING COMPANY LLC., REPRESENTING MERCADO DEL RIO LLC., REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE FACILITY ON LOT 12 OF MERCADO DEL RIO COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PUSCH VIEW LANE AND WEST OF ORACLE ROAD, PARCEL 224-28-2640 Applicant Kit Donley, 1980 E. Palisades Rd., introduced John Reddell, Architect for the above project. Mr. Donley explained that the only difference in this project is that the ownership has changed and this is now an investment property, so the property will be for lease and things could change overtime as to who is operating. John Reddell, Architect, 2501 N. Hayden Rd., Suite 103, Scottsdale. Lot 12 is an auto service building located between lot 11 to the north which is a full service car wash and on lot 13 is another auto service related building. The building is oriented so all the bay doors open to the east. Circulation and parking is all to the rear of the building with a minor amount to the north side adjacent to the car wash. Circulation is from either side. Included is a service bay area with five doors and a drive through lube facility. We worked with Staff on the layout and vehicular circulation in order provide the best route through the lube facility without any interruption to the existing approved sites to the north and south. People can pull up and enter the waiting area while their car is being serviced and then pick up and exit. The service bays are for more long term service. Commissioner Adler asked if the people who were there for longer term service pulled into the bays themselves. Mr. Reddell responded that very few uses allow a private citizen to pull their car into the facilities because of the liabilities. Employees would move the cars. There is enough depth of area provided in front of the bays for people to pull their cars out of the driveway circulation and not inside the building. Commissioner Adler asked if after their service is completed and they exit to the north turning left, is there any problem with traffic from the car wash interfering? Mr. Reddell said they worked with the Staff Traffic Engineer. Originally the building was flipped and there was conflict with the user of the building to the south. When we flipped it over, we also pulled the building back and there is enough area for people to view any oncoming traffic. The exit is also designed as a full perpendicular, which is the best visual control. Commissioner Adler asked with the long term service users, are there likely to be cars in partial stages of repair stored overnight in the parking lot? June 7, 2005 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 3 Mr. Reddell replied that the building has ample space to store cars inside. He also told Commissioner Adler that the people exiting the Brakemaster will exit to the north and use the south egress/ingress. Mr. Reddell responded to Commissioner Bistany that the approximately 1,300 square feet, second story will be used for offices. Mr. Reddell told Commissioner Bergman that the pedestrian connections are from the south across Brakemasters, crossing the driveway and continuing up to the carwash. There is also a pedestrian connection from Brakemasters on the east side that ties into our site. Mr. Reddell told Commissioner McKee that he did not know what will be going into lot 15. Mr. Donley said that there are only two lots that we may still seek a Conditional Use for auto service. At this time we are trying for retail use as an auto zone parts or detail stereo type shop. Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. Commissioner Adler said his key concern was the traffic entering and exiting and its relationship with the traffic from the adjoining properties. How do you evaluate volume for these kinds of uses and at what point does an undesirable relationship exist? Mr. Nodine replied that where conflict starts is when access points don't line up with each other. On this site to the south and north there are access points that are full access in and out to the west and they line up with others that are part of this project. In this type of low volume traffic you typically don't even need stop signs. PUBLIC HEARING Opened and closed at 6:25 p.m. there being no speakers. MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to recommend approval of OV8-05-02, conditional use permit for an automotive service facility on lot 12 of the Mercado Del Rio Commercial Center, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit A. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6 yes, 0 no. 2. CONTINUED ITEM, PUBLIC HEARING, OV7-01-09, AMENDING THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED BY AMENDING CHAPTER 8 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND CHAPTER 9 CONDITIONAL USE REGULATIONS Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report, which addressed the comments that have come up as a result of the public hearings. Commissioner Adler addressed the following issues and Mr. Nodine responded: • Chapter 8, permitted uses A. Delicatessen is listed as a permitted use, but it is also a convenience use in our Zoning Code and therefore requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). June 7, 2005 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 Response: Staff agrees. It is a definition in Chapter 2 that needs to be fixed. A delicatessen could only be a convenience use where it has 20% or more disposable containers. They should be removed from convenience use. • Restaurant is listed as a permitted use. Neighborhood Commercial is in immediate proximity to residences and there is a concern that restaurants with outdoor seating could be intrusive. That should be identified in this draft as needing a CUP. Response: Staff has treated restaurant as restaurant in general. Outside seating should be left to the Commission's discretion because of the potential noise. • Commissioner Adler had the same concern under services regarding day nursery or pre-school with outside play areas near residential areas. Day nurseries or pre- school with outside recreation areas on the property should require a CUP. This is commercial project on small pieces of property. Response: Staff felt this should be the Commission's discretion. He pointed out that this could be dealt with the design of the site in the Development Plan. Also, the CUP is not an onerous process. A CUP could be run at the same time as the Development Plan. • Analogous uses: should it be just the Planning and Zoning Administrator who determines that use or should a couple of Commissioners meet with the Administrator to determine the analogous use and whether it complies? The Commission should have a chance to comment. Response: The current approach is for the Commission to make the decision. The proposed approach is for the Planning and Zoning Administrator to make the decision. If the Administrator interprets the code, it can be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Nodine replied to Commissioner Bergman's questions regarding frequency of this type of decision, that he has only had 2 or 3 in 10 years. Analogous use determinations are usually fairly clear. • Plant Nursery storage: Does outdoor storage include display, i.e. outdoor sales? Response: This is for storage of plant materials, not as a display area in front with price signs. There is a separate portion of the Code that is on the work plan to deal with displays on sidewalks. • In C-1 and C-2, is there any way to limit the number of identical uses in the same parcel? Response: Most of these uses could be handled with a CUP. Limiting the number would restrict the market which becomes a planning issue. It would need to be something regarding quality of life, traffic, public safety; basically fitting under public health, safety and welfare. These should already have been reviewed through a CUP process where any that could create a problem have been identified. Attorney Andrews added that aside from the planning issues of prohibitions in zoning, he had definite legal issues with putting prohibitions in zoning. June 7, 2005 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5 Commissioner McKee said on page 8, 103.A it says uses shall be no greater than 5,000 square feet per use. That says you can't have more than one use per parcel if they total more than 5,000 square feet. Mr. Nodine said it may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment, but his interpretation is that it is per use. We can work on the wording to clarify. Attorney Andrews said the language will be clarified. Commissioner Adler said in C-2, Automobile sales is subject to a CUP. Where does it relate to automobile repair? Is that an analogous use? Mr. Nodine said it would be "all uses subject to Conditional Use Permit in C-1 zoning district that are not permitted uses in C-2." This would be carried over into the next more intense district if it is a CUP, and kept as CUP unless it is provided as a permitted use within that district. Commissioner Anning asked Mr. Nodine to give examples of locations, and of businesses that might be seeking the CN designation. Mr. Nodine said there are very few CN districts that are currently designated in the General Plan. He pointed out sites at Tangerine and La Cholla, and also north of Tangerine. Most of the others have zoning already. There is a lot south on Oracle Road that has R1-144, but CN is not appropriate for Oracle Road because of our concern for strip commercial. Along Oracle you tend to get businesses attracted to smaller sites that would not be geared to serving the neighborhood. All others have commercial zoning, either PAD or C-1. The only other exceptions are around the Rock Ridge Apartments which are R-6 parcels and would be looked at as not being Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Nodine said CN is probably the least used district. There are currently two CN properties in the Town. He does not anticipate people will come in looking for it, but it is a tool for the Town to use to create commercial on smaller sites. Commissioner Adler said in Chapter 9 there are restrictions placed upon antenna. Placing restrictions on antenna is prohibited for aesthetic reasons. The FCC doesn't allow HOAs to restrict placements of dishes unless there is a hazard. Has the Department considered that? Attorney Andrews replied that we have considered that and the Telecommunications Act says we can't prohibit, it does not say we cannot restrict or regulate. We can't keep them from finding a suitable site. We place a processing criteria under which you can place an antenna if you can find a site, and if you can get it developed under our criteria. It is an opportunity not a prohibition. Commissioner McKee commented that in some parts of the country wireless broadband communications is being installed for a whole town. These require antennas but looking at the restrictions, it discourages the application of that June 7, 2005 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 6 technology to this Town. The might be viewed as a disincentive to implementing a technology that would help the residents and businesses. We need to keep an open mind about this as the new technology comes forward. Commissioner Bergman said Neighborhood Commercial typically has permitted use of repair shops, i.e. shoes, computers, etc. Is that anything that should be considered? Mr. Nodine replied that we did consider it and decided not to include in the neighborhood commercial because of the concern that when you start to define repair, what kind of tools will be used. It could be included as a CUP if the Commission desires. We did provide an option for shoe repair. Commissioner Bergman noticed that a couple of uses specifically allowed up to 9,000 square feet of gross floor area. Would health spas and fitness centers fit in a 5,000 square foot building? Mr. Nodine said we looked at the ULI information, but could not recall what the study said. Commissioner Bergman asked about the district for schools and churches and the ability of communities to regulate churches which was influenced by the passage of some federal legislation a couple of years ago. Is all of this allowed by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)? Attorney Andrews said he is well versed in RLUIPA. You can't say that a church is not going to be allowed in certain areas of the Town when other uses that are more nuisance oriented than a church would be allowed. There is a special zone that provides for the church use. If someone tried to place a church in the middle of a residential area, RLUIPA says we will have to allow them to place it there. If someone gets the specific church zoning they have more protection in a well crafted zoning district. Mr. Nodine said when RLUIPA came out, we looked at adding churches to all the commercial districts, which you will see in the code now. We knew it wasn't going to meet the law to restrict them out of commercial areas. Commissioner McKee said on Page 11, Chapter 8, building heights are specified for auditoriums and gymnasiums. When does a gymnasium become an auditorium? Mr. Nodine said that would be an interpretation. An auditorium is set up where there is a stage and raised seating. A gymnasium has temporary seating and a stage at one end. When there is raised seating and a stage with lighting and pulley systems 45 feet is needed. Commissioner McKee said the minimum property size for TP is 5 acres. The General Plan list of parcels normally designed at TP had many that were less than 5 acres. Isn't this minimum restriction a problem? June 7, 2005 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 7 Mr. Nodine said there were parcels less than 5 acres, but when you look at a development of a site, you are not looking at individual parcels but a number of parcels put together. When property size is mentioned, it is the property being rezoned, not all the individual parcels that are part of that property. In the General Plan there is no site designated for Commerce Office Park that is less than 15 to 17 acres. Commissioner McKee asked if the revised code will apply to the area north of Tangerine. Mr. Nodine said not in terms of minimum property size because that is defined in the PAD. Commissioner Adler said in the CN district there are 5,000 square foot business schools permitted subject to a CUP. In the site standards for schools and churches, a school is supposed to have a minimum of 5 acres. Is that a conflict? Mr. Nodine said it could be a private school, different from that in the schools and churches district because it doesn't offer the standard parochial school curriculum. We would look at that as a commercial use. There isn't an issue regarding the 5 acres because you are not looking at the same type of facilities being in that school as in a parochial school. Mr. Nodine pointed out on page 8-10, #7, permitted uses include private schools having a curriculum equivalent to public schools, with related services and activities. This was to provide an opportunity for private schools with a typical curriculum, not a business type of school. Commission McKee commented that on page 8-14, in TP district, we are limiting the gross floor area to 15,000 square feet unless the lots size exceeds ten acres. What is the reason for this and how much reduction in total available building space will that cause? Mr. Nodine replied that the concern was to try to limit the mass of buildings and try to create sites with groups of smaller buildings versus one site with one big building with a mass of parking around it. It would probably not limit building space by more than 10%. PUBLIC HEARING Opened at 7:23 p.m. Keri Silvyn, One S. Church, spoke representing a group of commercial developers: Evergreen Devco, Diamond Ventures, CDO Partners, B.P. Magee and Vestar. Their concerns were all related to Chapter 9. The Commission took a five minutes break for copies of the matrix to be retrieved, 7:25 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Ms. Silvyn presented a matrix showing those concerns, what the issues are and suggested revisions (see attached). June 7, 2005 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 8 PUBLIC HEARING Closed at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Nodine responded to the issues Ms. Silvyn addressed in the matrix she presented. • 9-102.F.1, the 40 decibels could be changed to the abutting residential development property lines. 40 decibels are based on the previous Town Code which had a level of sustained noise of 40 decibels at the property lines. A quiet neighborhood is defined as 45 decibels. • 9-102.F.2, external speaker concerns are covered by an approved outdoor entertainment venue, i.e. a restaurant with live entertainment area. • 9-102.H.1, an opaque barrier would be fine. It would not have to be walled. • 9-102.H.4, prohibition of dispensing machines is for aesthetic issues. • 9-102.1.2.a, pedestrian circulation, he would not recommend changing the word "must" to "should" because at that point it is no longer a standard, but is a design guideline. The wording "must where possible" would give more option. • 9-102.K, the wording needs to be redone so it talks about the property lines of the commercial site itself. The 18' limit on the canopy is so it won't go above the adjacent buildings. • 9-109.A.1.a, regarding convenience uses, this could be deleted. The new code has all submittal requirements pulled and they can be revised. • 9-109.A.2.a, the 250 feet is not based on mitigating noise, but is to give the opportunity to block noise and to place other buildings in between. This also pushes convenience uses towards the center of a site. • 9-109.A.2.b, same as above. • 9-109.A.2.c., that is where the measurement is made from. • 9-109.A.3, the reason for one pad per 4.5 acres of shopping center or office park is to limit the amount of fast food restaurants, mini-marts, etc., and to make sure they are part of a development and not a stand alone approach. • 9-109.A.4.a, all convenience uses shall be accessed through a common driveway is to make them part of a development. • 9-109.B, the reason for including banks and financial institutions as convenience uses is because of the drive-through. Any drive-through has impacts on surrounding properties. Banks can be all night use. • 9-109.8&C, analogous uses, the definition in the Code is any use substantially similar to the permitted use and should not be any more deleterious, obnoxious or harmful in terms of traffic generation, use impacts and types of activities involved. The problem with the definition is when we are trying to define convenience uses, which analogous uses would be ones that are more deleterious. In this case the easiest thing would be to delete the analogous uses. That doesn't allow the Planning and Zoning Administrator to add a similar type of convenience use when one comes up that looks like it will have the same types of impacts as the ones listed. • 9-109.C.1 Convenience uses shall not be open for business until a minimum of 50 percent of the net floor area for the non-convenience use structures within the shopping center have been constructed. The rational for this is so a developer will not come in and develop all the pads and walk away from the site and leave the rest undeveloped. June 7, 2005 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 9 • 9-109.D.2.a.1, regarding kiosk style gas stations, under Tier II Convenience Uses, we set a standard size for gas stations, which is 36,000 square feet, which is a stand alone. A kiosk is going to go on a site that is smaller. We could write language such as "except kiosk fueling stations within a shopping center" which allows the kiosk to go on a pad. • 9-109.C.2.b.1, regarding carwashes, the technology is available for the best recycling. The word "most" can be eliminated and state "the current recycling technology". Seventy percent recycling can be achieved, so that can be included. Commissioner Adler said he would support Ms. Silvan's suggestion regarding submittal requirements for CUP. Adjusting the language for the kiosk gas station and the recycling requirements as just described by Staff are acceptable. The other points need to be left alone. The Planning Commission needs to have some input on analogous uses. Commissioner McKee said the noise from loud speakers is a problem if increased to 60 db and allowed to apply to music for outdoor dining areas. He would support Commissioner Adler's position on noise. The point regarding the 250 feet distance from residential area, would it work to say this convenience use cannot border an adjacent residential district? Mr. Nodine told Commissioner McKee said if you mean border as immediately adjacent to, or an intervening lot, there would have to be something related to an intervening use or noise, visual impact, etc. We are trying to define how to separate the use by creating a distance separation. The Development Plan would create the design element of separation. Commissioner McKee asked if it would make sense to have a limitation for Tier I and an additional limitation for Tier II, so you could have more than just two drive throughs. Mr. Nodine said he could see the rational for doing that because the traffic impacts of a drive through drug store compared for a drive through restaurant is tremendous. Commissioner Bergman said regarding the noise issues, a lot of ordinances that regulate noise levels put them in terms of how much time per hour that noise level can be exceeded. Noises become irritation when they are at a high level for an extended period of time. Should we define a time limit for a certain level of decibels? How would you enforce this? Commissioner Adler said the police can enforce noise issues. A defined time period would be more difficult to enforce. Noise is an objectionable intrusion in people's lives and should not be compromised. June 7, 2005 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 10 MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to recommend to Town Council approval of the recommended amendments to Chapters 8 and 9 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, with the necessary or appropriate adjustments in language to: • Accommodate the kiosk gas station • The recycling technology requirements for car washes, • The submittal requirements for Conditional Use Permits having to do with the type of conceptual development plan, • Stipulating that a CUP will be required for a restaurant with outdoor seating, • Stipulating that a CUP will be required for pre-school or day care center with outdoor recreational area adjacent to a residential area, • An agenda committee of the Planning Commission be arranged so when an analogous use is determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator, there are two Commissioners as a part of that determination. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. There was discussion as to whether this item should be moved forward to Council or if it was necessary to study the issues further. The Commission decided before they could make a motion the items that have been discussed needed to be clarified. A 15 minute break was taken while Mr. Nodine, Mr. Conant, and Attorney Andrews compiled a list of the issues and suggested action. BREAK 8:30 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. Mr. Nodine explained the compiled, clarifying list and the Commissioners voted on each item separately. The Commissioners voted on the following changes to Chapters 8 and 9 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code revised prior to making a motion: #1. Section 9-102.F.1 — Noise from internal loudspeakers, paging systems, live entertainment, or stereo speakers shall not exceed 40 decibels at the property line of any adjacent residential district. Vote: 4 yes, 2 no, Commissioners Adler and McKee voting no. #2. Section 9-102.H.1 - Outdoor storage and activity, change the wording from "walled area" to "barrier." Vote: 6 yes, 0 no. #3 Section 9-102.l.2.a — All building on the site, parking areas, bicycle parking, recreational areas, common outdoor areas, and amenities must be interconnected, where possible. Vote: 5 yes, 1 no, Commissioner Adler voting no. June 7, 2005 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 11 #4. Section 9-102K — Canopies, change the wording regarding location from "to any side or rear property line" to "from property line of the project." Vote: 5 yes, 1 no, Commissioner Adler voting no. #5. Section 9-109A.1.a — Delete. Vote: 6 yes, 0 no. #6. Section 9-109.B and C — Delete the wording "and analogous uses as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator." Vote: 4 yes, 2 no, Commissioners Adler and Bergman voting no. #7. Section 9-109.C.2.a.1 — Mr. Nodine will draft an exception regarding the minimum site size for kiosk gas stations. Vote: 6 yes, 0 no. #8. Section 9-109.C.2.b.1 — Mr. Conant will rewrite the wording to express that equipment provide for a minimum of 70% recycling for carwashes rather than the most current recycling technology and equipment. Vote: 6 yes, 0 no. #9. Reduce the minimum property size for Technological Park District from 5 acres to 3 acres. Vote: 5 yes, 1 no, Commissioner Adler voting no. #10. For Technological Park District, change to provide that the gross floor area of any one structure may be greater than 15,000 sq. ft. building size with a Conditional Use Permit. Vote: 6 yes, 0 no. #11. Analogous uses may be approved by Planning and Zoning Administrator (as proposed in the draft code). Vote: 6 yes, 0 no. #12. Restaurants with outside seating within the C-N, Neighborhood Commercial District require a Conditional Use Permit. Vote: 6 yes, 0 no. #13. Pre-schools with outside play areas within the C-N, Neighborhood Commercial District require a Conditional Use Permit. Vote: 3 yes, 3 no. Commissioners Adler, Bistany and McKee voting yes, Chair Cox, Vice Chair Anning and Commissioner Bergman voting no. Motion failed. #14. The wording at the beginning of CN and C-1 related to the size of uses versus individual businesses will be clarified. Vote: 6 yes, 0 no. MOTION: Vice Chair Anning MOVED to recommend that the Town Council approve the recommended amendments to Chapters 8 and 9 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, with the above voted on changes. (Note that #13 failed, all other changes were approved.) Commissioner McKee seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Adler felt that an amendment should be made that there will have to be a change regarding the definition of convenience use which now includes delicatessen in Chapter 2. June 7, 2005 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 12 Attorney Andrews said that because this was not noticed in the agenda, it can't be discussed under the open meeting law. Staff is aware that there is a conflict in the code and it will be fixed. If this issue came up, Mr. Nodine would have to make an interpretation. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 3. INITIATION, OV7-05-05, AMENDING THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED CHAPTER 4, SUBDIVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS, AND CHAPTER 2, DEFINITIONS, TO PROVIDE MINOR LAND DIVISIONS REGULATIONS Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. MOTION: Commissioner Bergman MOVED to initiate an amendment to address minor land division's regulations. Vice Chair Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6 yes, 0 no. 4. INITIATION, OV7-05-06, AMENDING THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED CHAPTER 8, COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS; ARTICLE 9-1, CONDITIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES; AND CHAPTER 2, DEFINITIONS, TO REGULATE SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. Commissioner Bergman asked if the zoning ordinances are the best place to make this change. A lot of communities have opted to regulate sexually oriented businesses through separate ordinances rather than trying to through zoning. Attorney Andrews said that is where it is currently, so that is where we are placing it. It may be something we could place as a Town Code provision or otherwise, but at this point in time because we are regulating uses, it is very zoning oriented. MOTION: Commissioner Bergman MOVED to initiate an amendment to regulate sexually oriented businesses and related activities. Vice Chair Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6 yes, 0 no. PLANNING UPDATE • Vestar development plan came in, in early May. • Steampump Village broke ground June 7. • Rancho Vistoso Trails: We are getting a public easement over the majority of trails that are in the Rancho Vistoso PAD. • Planning and Zoning Commission Rules, the R1-300 zone, the Airport Environment Zone, and the Comprehensive Code were all approved by the Town Council with no changes. • An orientation for new members of Board and Commissions will be at the end of June. June 7, 2005 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 13 • The General Plan is going to a Study Session on Wednesday, June 8th and to the Town Council the following Wednesday for a Public Hearing. This was Don Cox's last meeting. He was thanked for many years of service. ADJOURN REGULAR SESSION MOTION: Chair Cox MOVED to adjourn the June 7, 2005, Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6 yes, 0 no. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane Chapman, Recording Secretary