Matt Michels, OV Senior Planner, presented the following:
- Scope of Work/Focus Areas
- Linear Park Concept
- Linear Park Amenities
- Playground/Tot Lot Amenities
- Crime Prevention Through Environment Design (CPTED)
- Recreation Area Requirements
- In-Lieu Fee Requirements
- Project Timeline
- Summary of Factors
- Recommendation
Commission La Master asked if there was a specific reason why members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board requested that the item be brought back for a formal recommendation.
Mr. Michels said to his knowledge there was some desire of certain members to have a more line by line type of review.
Commissioner Buette asked if developers have taken the in-lieu fee option. Mr. Michels said that some have but that most developers elect to provide on site amenities consistent with the code.
Commissioner Buette asked if a cost analysis was completed.
Mr. Michels said we utilized an examination of existing developed recreation areas within the Town, as for an amount dollar figure no. We did confirm with the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association and believe they have addressed their substantive issues.
Mr. Michels said one of the things they tried to do when they went through subsequent revisions of the draft was try to build in as much flexibility as possible.
Commissioner La Master asked if there was any guarantee that in-lieu fees must be used for park and recreation.
Mr. Michels said yes, as it is right now there is actually a contract with the Town.
Commissioner Swope asked about the continuing problem with not receiving enough funds from the in-lieu fee process to accomplish anything meaningful and do we know if the in-lieu fees are working to our benefit.
Mr. Michels said these small recreation areas provide meaningful amenities to residents and the ability for the in-lieu fee to provide what we consider meaningful is limited from what he can see.
Mr. Williams asked staff if they looked at increasing the in-lieu fee to address the cost of buying and installing the equipment.
Mr. Michels responded with the definition that is currently in the code which is fair market value makes provisions primarily for the cost of the land and the infrastructure, but not the equipment. Mr. Williams said this is an option and not a requirement that we could add the cost of the facilities into the in-lieu option making it more expensive to take the in-lieu option, giving us a better opportunity to provide something meaningful from the in-lieu fee money.
Mr. Michels said he would advocate including a provision for the cost of the facilities and the amenities as an addition to the definition to the fair market value. Joe Andrews, OV Attorney said it would make the in-lieu fee more than just an appraised value of the land.
Chairman Reddin asked if they limited the scope of the in-lieu fee to exclude R1-36.
Mr. Michels said currently it is limited to subdivisions of 85 units or less.
Chairman Reddin asked about maintenance of existing assets and whether the in-lieu fee is comingled or is set specifically for additions to the parks. Mr. Michels responded that there is no provision addressing ongoing operations and maintenance, but again through the process it requires review and approval by the Parks and Recreation Director.
Chairman Reddin added unless it is an HOA maintained asset. Mr. Michels responded correct.
Chairman Reddin asked if there are signage standards.
Mr. Andrews said that signs are regulated by the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Michels said to please refer to page 6, # 6 of the draft which states that all recreational areas shall post at least one sign at the primarily entrance that states the rules of the park.
Bill Adler, OV resident feels that not providing recreational opportunities for residents within subdivisions has not been addressed. He is opposed to in-lieu fees and thinks recreation codes are about generating recreation not money. He feels there is not enough improvement on this plan to move it forward. He recommends that this be tabled so that it becomes a part of the general zoning code review which Council has mandated.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Buette
and seconded by Commissioner
La Master
refer OV710-001 Planning Division requests approval of an amendment to Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Section 26.5, relating to provision of recreation area in residential subdivisions back to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for further review and recommendation.
Commissioner Swope said philosophically he likes the idea of in-lieu fees, but he is still not convinced that we know enough about how much revenue will be generated to provide meaningful improvements. He would really like to see the Recreation Advisory Board input.
Commissioner Buette said he agreed with Mr. Adler and he feels good about turning it back to Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
Commissioner La Master said he doesn’t agree with that, but does agree that there is not enough information.
Chairman Reddin said the board is all in agreement that they do not have enough information and in-lieu fees are a big part of it. Mr. Williams commented that they would address these issues and that impact fees are currently in place for parks to address the larger issue of a Town wide park system. Staff will come back and address the issues that were raised.
MOTION carried, 4-0.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Swope
and seconded by Commissioner
La Master
to initiate OV710-004, an amendment to the Oro Valley Zoning Code for Medical Marijuana Dispensary and Cultivation Regulations. The Planning Division requests approval of an amendment to add regulations related to location and development standards for medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation locations.
MOTION carried, 4-0.
David Williams, Planning Manager, presented the following:
- Arizona Medical Marijuana Initiative (Prop 203)
- Primary Components
- Pertinent Development Standards Dispensaries/Offsite Cultivation
- GIS Analysis
- Project Timeline
- Conclusion
- Recommendation
Commissioner Swope asked Mr. Williams to explain sensitive uses.
Mr. Williams said these additional uses are typically placed where people gather, including young people and minors. Chairman Reddin asked if we prohibit from anyone consuming marijuana on the premises.
Mr. Andrews said that was correct. Chairman Reddin asked if they could buy marijuana at a dispensary and go around the corner and light up.
Mr. Andrews said it is a potential problem that the state law does not address. There are some consequences that we can not regulate with land use regulations.
Commissioner La Master asked if in the future the owners of a PAD can come before the Planning Commission and ask for a rezoning.
Mr. Andrews responded that they could and that is how it is supposed be done.
Chairman Reddin asked if they come in after this law is adopted are they restricted to the limitations imposed by the law.
Mr. Andrews said if Proposition 203 passes then we will have that issue. Right now it is illegal to have any of these things in place, so adding new regulations ahead of time it is not going to create a diminution of value to create a Proposition 207 regulatory takings claim. If the new law is enacted there could be diminution of value issues because it becomes an allowed use under state law.
Chairman Reddin asked if it would be a PAD issue.
Mr. Andrews said if someone owns a piece of property in a PAD and they want to amend their code, they can come in and discuss it.
Mr. Williams said he would like to clarify, they can file an application to allow a marijuana dispensary. They would go through a normal rezoning process with the town.
Chairman Redden asked if anyone coming in after the adoption of this new law would fall under the new state law.
Mr. Andrews said that was correct because we can not amend any PAD.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
La Master
and seconded by Commissioner
Buette
recommend the Town Council approve OV710-004, definitions and regulations related to Medical Marijuana in the form of an amendment to the Zoning Code as specified in Exhibit A.
Mr. Andrews said he would like to add that most but not all PADs have a section that mentions that where the PAD is silent that the Oro Valley Zoning Code shall prevail. Commission La Master commented on what he read from the Arizona Department of Health that this is something we must do. To his understanding if Proposition 203 passes and we have not taken any steps then it will be a free for all.
Mr. Andrews said that medical marijuana would be treated as any other commercial use. Chairman Reddin stated his concern was adopting a rule on something that is currently illegal.
Mr. Andrews said the ordinance will be contingent upon the passage of Proposition 203. Commissioner Swope said it is important to be pre-emptive, the vote is affirmative in November the town is vulnerable if we don’t have land use restrictions in place.
Mr. Andrews said he agrees that we should do something.
MOTION carried, 4-0.
Mr. Williams said he would like to discuss the November 2, 2010, meeting date, as it falls on Election Day. We would like to propose another meeting date of November 8, 2010, a Monday night instead of Tuesday November 2, 2010.
Mr. Williams stated that the Environmental Sensitive Land Ordinance is scheduled for the November meeting along with an amendment to the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Mr. Williams also stated that the sign code amendments has been through the task force review process and a Planning Commission public hearing and is on the Town Council study session agenda for October 13, 2010, and October 27, 2010.
Chairman Reddin said he would like to add election of a vice-chair to the November meeting.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
La Master
and seconded by Commissioner
Buette
to adjourn