Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 7/27/2010 MINUTES ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD REGULAR SESSION July 27, 2010 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION AT OR AROUND 6:00 P.M. Chairman Schoeppach called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Michael Schoeppach, Chairman Eugene Wowk, Vice Chair Richard Luckett, Member Dennis Ottley, Member Ray Shelton, Member PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Schoeppach led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE Opened and closed with no comment. REGULAR AGENDA This is a discussion item only. Consequently, no action will be taken. 1. Discussion regarding the Council initiative to streamline the Town development review process. Chairman Schoeppach explained that the meeting had one purpose, to provide the board with a review of proposals made regarding the status of the Development Review Board (DRB). That did occur in the middle of another meeting but some board members may have been surprised and not prepared. As a result, we are now giving board members the opportunity to ask questions, to be certain what the proposal constitutes and understand its impact. There will not be any decisions made this evening as the board is not here to make decisions. I have submitted a letter to the board Director Smith to ask for a meeting should they desire to make a decision. Suzanne Smith, OV Development and Infrastructure Services Director, presented the proposal as outlined: -Council's direction to staff to streamline the development review process -Highlights of past improvements -8 to 10 month process time reduction -Mandatory Neighborhood Meetings -Streamlined Master Development Plan process -Defined comprehensive lists on submittal requirements -Improved communication -Building permit process improvements -Created foundation only permits -Created early tenant improvement permit issues can save approximately 4 months -Accepting permit applications upon approval of the development plan and architecture by the DRB saving almost two months in application time -Created pre-construction meetings to remove obstacles resulting in a timely certificate of occupancy -Authorized inspectors to approve minor non-structural revisions in the field which can save approximately 2-4 weeks in construction -Reviewed the current development process -Reviewed handout outlining the four options: Option A - Shows no change with zero time savings. Option B - Staff assumes most DRB recommendations and approval responsibilities, time savings is 4-6 weeks. DRB is renamed the Design Review Board. Option C - Staff assumes all DRB responsibilities (DRB is eliminated), time savings is 4-6 weeks. Option D - Staff assumes all DRB & non-statute Council responsibilities (DRB is eliminated) time savings'is 4-11 weeks. Ms. Smith reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of changes depending upon the option selected: Advantages: -Improved service delivery by simplifies the process time -Time savings results in monetary savings for the applicant and the Town -Creates additional staff capacity that can be refocused on the Planning & Zoning Workplan Disadvantages: -Potential loss of public transparency at the final stage of approval in keeping with the reduction of the process time -Development of new standards will be required -Cost savings will not be as significant to the Town however improved customer service will be realized and high quality development is ensured Ms. Smith said the next steps are: -To conduct public meetings which have been ongoing from June -August -Option C is the preferred solution by Council. -Council has asked staff to prepare an Action and Implementation Plan after conducting the public meetings and bring back for Council consideration on September 1, 2010. Member Luckett said for 9 years he served on the City of Tucson's DRB, primarily reviewing architecture and zoning complaints. There are a lot of issues that this DRB reviews that should be reviewed by Town Staff because of the engineering aspects to them. I appreciate what is going on in this process but hope that you would not disband the DRB. Vice Chair Wowk asked why residents were taken out of the process for public input in Option C. Ms. Smith explained that Option C does not allow for resident input but Option B would. Vice Chair Wowk said it does not seem that you are considering resident input in your streamlining efforts and asked that residents be included in the plan. Chairman Schoeppach said he would like to make the record clear with the following statements: "In the last four years there were four instances where there were continuances at DRB meetings. Two were caused because the applicant did not appear for their presentation. There were three instances where the board denied a project over that same period of time. I think it is fair to put into context the 4 to 6 weeks issue and the suggestion that it could be longer than that, given that factual record. Ms. Smith said this is not about the DRB's performance; this is looking at ways to streamline the DRB process to ensure a more timely delivery. Member Ottley asked if they were only DRB in the greater Tucson area. Ms. Smith said to the best of her knowledge, yes. Paul Keesler, OV Permitting Division Manager, said there are other DRB's that exist with varying types of focus. Chairman Schoeppach asked if it was true that the plans change as the development proceeds. Ms. Smith said the shifts are minor in a development plan stage, otherwise they would have to go back for public process again. Chairman Schoeppach said there are no standards in the ordinance that define what constitutes the need to have further meetings. Ms. Smith said it is the Planning and Zoning Administrator that makes that call. Chairman Schoeppach said there are no standards for making that call; is that a fair statement? Ms. Smith said that was a fair statement other than code. Chairman Schoeppach asked "When the neighborhood meetings take place, is there any kind of report that is created that is provided to policy makers? Ms Smith replied, "We do attach the findings of the neighborhood concerns to the council item." Chairman Schoeppach asked if that goes to council in the form of a recommendation. Ms. Smith said the neighborhood meetings are in place to work out any disagreements prior to the formal application stage. Chairman Schoeppach asked if Ms. Smith was suggesting that there is a requirement in the process where there has to be an agreement between the neighbors and the developer in order for the plan to move forward. Ms. Smith said she would look at the code and get the exact language for him. Mr. Williams said there are no specific provisions about resolution of issues in the ordinance. Chairman Schoeppach asked if there were any standards that exist that would require another neighborhood meeting to be held. Ms. Smith said per the ordinance, it is at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Administrator to determine. Chairman Schoeppach asked when a neighborhood meeting has to take place. Mr. Williams said a meeting is required to prior to the submittal of the development plan package or if there are no neighbors within 600 feet the Planning Manager has the ability to waive the meeting requirement if it meets the criteria in the code. Chairman Schoeppach asked if there are any current plans for council to review the neighborhood meeting ordinance. Ms. Smith said she believes the first study session in October, the Town Council wants to look at the process, see how it is working and see if it needs any refinements. Chairman Schoeppech asked if there is anything other than the regular requirements that apply as to eliminating the DRB that would limit council's actions with respect on how they would address neighborhood meetings ordinance. Mr. Rosen said that was correct, the council adopted the ordinance so the council is free to amend it. Vice Chair Wowk said by eliminating our board, neighboring communities will no longer have input in Oro Valley, only in their own neighborhood. Is that the intention behind doing away with the DRB? Ms. Smith said the residents will have neighborhood meetings, the Planning and Zoning Commission public meetings as well as Town Council meetings. Member Ottley said the previous Town Council recommended Option C and asked if Ms. Smith would be re-presenting this to the new Town Council in September. Ms. Smith said her presentation would reframe where council was back in April and what decision had been made. Ms. Smith said she would review the public meetings that were held and Town Council has asked her to include an Action and Implementation Plan. Member Luckett said he understands that Option C does not include citizen participation past the rezoning or conditional use permit. Ms. Smith said there are neighborhood meetings prior to the development plan and preliminary plat stage. Member Luckett said he is concerned that you are not hearing the voices of the community if you cut them off so early in the process. Vice Chair Wowk asked when the DRB would be able to have a dialogue with the Town Council about this. Chairman Schoeppach said he could not answer that, but has made a request for an additional meeting on August 10th. The agenda item would be for the DRB to make a recommendation about these proposals. Ms. Smith said there is a Public Open House on August 5th at 4:30 p.m. in the Town Council Chambers and any member is welcome to participate. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Member Shelton and seconded by Vice Chair Wowk to adjourn the DRB meeting at 7:02 p.m. MOTION carried, 5-0 Prepared by, Deanna Ruiz Recording Secretary