MINUTES
ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
*AMENDED (7/5/16, 2:00 PM)
STUDY SESSION

July 14, 2016
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CA√ĎADA DRIVE
 
PZC SS 07-14-2016 PACKET

STUDY SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM

CALL OR ORDER

Chair Leedy called the July 14, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Session to order at 6:00 PM.

ROLL CALL

PRESENT:
Bill Leedy, Chair
Charlie Hurt, Vice Chair
Bob Swope, Commissioner
Melanie Barrett, Commissioner
Greg Hitt, Commissioner

EXCUSED: Tom Gribb, Commissioner
Tom Drzazgowski, Commissioner
 
ALSO PRESENT: 
Vice Mayor Lou Waters
Council Member Joe Hornat
Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Chair Leedy led the audience and the Commission in the Pledge of Allegiance.

CALL TO AUDIENCE - at this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the commission on any issue not listed on today’s agenda.  Pursuant to the Arizona open meeting law, individual commission members may ask town staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers.  However, the commission may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during "call to audience."  In order to speak during "call to audience" please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card.

No speaker requests.

COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS

Council Member, Joe Hornat provided a recap of the Conditional Use Permit for Freddy's Steakburger in the Steam Pump Village development.

STUDY SESSION AGENDA

*1.  REVIEW AND/OR APPROVAL OF THE MAY 3, 2016 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES

Planning Commission May 5, 2015 Draft Minutes

2.

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE HOME OCCUPATIONS ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, OV1600759


OV1600759 HOME OCCUPATION ZCA STAFF REPORT

ATTACHMENT 1 - EXISTING HOME OCCUPATION CODE

ATTACHMENT 2 - FIRST DRAFT OF PROPOSED HOME OCCUPATION CODE

ATTACHMENT 3 - SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES

Patty Hayes, Senior Planning Technician, provided a presentation that included the following:

- Purpose
- What is a Home Occupation?
- Current List Based Approach
- Performance Based Approach
- Clarify Standards
- Type I vs. Type II uses
- Case Study - Contractors Office
- Case Study - Home Baking Business
- Case Study - Architect Office
- Summary

Commissioner Barrett expressed some concern with the limitation to no more than 5 customers per day and suggested raising the limit according to use.

Chair Leedy suggested the following:

- Adding a definition to the code for the use of the word "employee" for all the various types of people that are engaged in some sort of relationship with an on-going business.
- Page 2, item 2,B,II Non-resident employee reporting to the home, suggested limiting the full-time employee during the course of the day.
- Page 2, item 2,B,III, Agrees with Commissioner Barrett regarding the limitation to no more than 5 customers per day.
- Page 3, item A, IV, questioned the need for authorization of approval from property owner
- Page 3, item A,V, clarify distinction between a household pet, and the prohibition against a home occupation associated with animals.
- Page 3, item B,II & III, Oro Valley is becoming more business friendly, and suggested reconsidering the number of employees who can report to the home.
- Page 5, item G,III, clarify whether this section applies to display of products both inside or outside the home.
- Section 25.2 Accessory Uses and Structures, item A,1, clarify whether this means commenced or completed.
- Section 25.2,C,1 clarify whether there is a limit on how long a garage sale can last. 
- Section 25.2,C,2 Suggest adding drones

Vice Chair Hurt, suggested adding a paragraph to clarify what a list approach is versus a performance based approach.

Commissioner Barrett suggested adding a time limit to garage sale.

3.

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE A-FRAME SIGNS AND OUTDOOR DISPLAYS ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, OV1601007


OV1601007 A-FRAME SIGN_OUTDOOR DISPLAY ZCA STAFF REPORT

ATTACHMENT 1 - PROPOSED DRAFT OF A-FRAME CODE AMENDMENT

ATTACHMENT 2 - PROPOSED DRAFT OF THE OUTDOOR DISPLAY AMENDMENT

ATTACHMENT 3 - SUMMARY OF PROPOSED A-FRAME CODE

ATTACHMENT 4 - SUMMARY OF PROPOSED OUTDOOR DISPLAY

GREATER ORO VALLEY CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE COMMENTS

Patty Hayes, Senior Planning Technician, provided a presentation that included the following:

- Purpose
- A-frame Signs
- Outdoor Displays
- General Plan
- Summary

Dave Perry, Oro Valley resident, shared his thoughts on the new language on A-frame signage.  Mr. Perry's questioned clarification on the meaning of  vehicular traffic on Section 28.4, B, A. Mr. Perry commented that when people enter a shopping center, their intent is to do commerce and they seek information.  A-frame signs do not detract from the motorists or pedestrian safety experience.  Section 28.4. B. C., Area of Sign, Mr. Perry believes that an A-frame sign is two sided, and the clarification of the sign area needs to be added.  Section 28.9 A.12. Off-site Signs, this could be problematic for government, partially given the case there is a free speech component to what you say on your sign.  Section 28.4, B, H, IV, lettering shall be neat and legible copy, how will this be define or enforced.  Mr. Perry is very appreciative as well as the business community and one thing he does ask is to look at the allowance for frontage that staff is proposing on outdoor displays.  As long as the business meets safety and emergency access requirements let them put out there as much stuff as they want.  We all win in the end.

Don Bristow, Oro Valley resident, commented that A-frame signs are a safety issue.  If you trying to read the sign instead of watching the road, that is a safety issue.  The amount of copy on the sign is distracting the driver from the road.  Mr. Bristow recommends that those signs be pedestrian oriented and move them back closer to the stores entrance. There are several other more professional attractive looking alternatives that staff has kept off the table.  Outdoor displays is not a big issue, there is probably 8 or 9 merchants that use outdoor displays on a regular basis. The citizens deserve a descent looking community and don't need the piles of dangerous stuff.  Handicapped accessibility to the store comes into play and needs to be considered.  Mr. Bristow would consider one row of merchandise against the back wall or the store, but the merchant does not need to have two or three rows and the residents some relief.

Commissioner Barrett commented that she likes the A-frame signs and it helps to see what a current special promotion or sale items.  She also agrees that they should be pedestrian focused especially if they have a lot of text.  Commissioner Barrett stated she would like to see added a prohibition that they not advertise alcohol or tobacco products.

Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney, responded to Commissioner Barrett's comment that the regulation of content is prohibited.

Commissioner Swope commented on Section 28.6, H, IV, Lettering shall be neat and legible copy, but in the summary it mentions professionally made signs, which seems to conflict.  Section 28.6, H, III, Balloons or additional signs shall not be affixed to the a-frame, staff mentioned flags and other attachments, and the standards need to be very specific and attachments can subtract from the aesthetics of these signs.

4.

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING


A.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW CRITERIA, OV1601159


B.

TABLE OF PERMITTED USES ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, OV1601159


OV16001159 CUP CRITERIA _PERMITED USE TABLE ZCA STAFF REPORT

ATTACHMENT 1 - FEBRUARY 2 2016 PZC STAFF REPORT

ATTACHMENT 2 - DRAFT PERMITTED USE TABLE ZCA

ATTACHMENT 3 - DRAFT SECTION 25_1_USE STANDARDS ZCA

ATTACHMENT 4 - DRAFT CHAPTER 31_DEFINITIONS ZCA

Mike Spaeth, Senior Planner, provided a presentation that included the following:

- Purpose
- Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria
- Permitted use Table
- Update use categories
- Consolidate use categories
- Add new & reclassify us categories
- Use standards
- Use Definitions
- Summary

Commissioner Swope questioned the prohibiting of car washing at a vehicle rental facility, and how would the rental facility operate without washing and cleaning their vehicles.

Chair Leedy commented on the following:

- Check cross references prior to final draft
- Section 25.1, number 13:  Gas Stations, item C, questioned whether staff was intending to limit kiosk sales.  He was not sure if this language is appropriate.
- Chapter 31, Definition of Employee
- Chapter 31, Definition of Animal Services, Questioned whether this meant animals other than domestic animals
- Chapter 31, Definition of Cultural Use, this definition ends with, "not including items for sale," he's never been in a museum without a gift shop
- Chapter 31, Definition of Grocery Store, The definition is missing reference to bulk material or nonperishable items
- Chapter 31, Definition of Microbrewery, Questioned whether the Town regulates microbreweries that produce less than 10,000 gallons
- Chapter 31, Definition of General Retail, Suggested a new definition be provided for a goods or services that are provided or sold to the end user or consumer.
- Chapter 31, Definition of Sport Court, Add pickle ball to definition
- Chapter 31, Definition of Vet Services, Suggested striking everything after the word treatment

PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY)

Bayer Vella, Planning Manager, had no update

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Leedy adjourned the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 8:59 pm.