Matt Michels, Senior Planner, presented the following:
- Amendment Background
- Hierarchy of Lodging Types
- How other jurisdictions regulate this type of use
- What is an Owner-Occupied Lodging House (OOLH)?
- Specific Requirements
- Potential OOLH Locations
- Local Example
- Building & Fire Safety Requirements
- Findings in Favor
- Findings Against
- Recommendation
Councilmember Hornat commented that this item has not be reviewed or been moved forward by Town Council.
Chairman Cox opened the Public Hearing.
Sheila Strickler, Oro Valley resident, voiced her concerns with the proposed for the following reasons: short notice was given for the hearing, lack of clarity and the language used to define the limits, and the deviousness of calling the proposed change a text amendment. Ms. Strickler went on to ask the Commission to reject the proposed zoning change.
John Furrie, Oro Valley resident, stated he is against the proposed text amendment because the Town is not similar to other jurisdictions. Traffic and multiple additional vehicles are a problem for a single family resident subdivision that wasn't designed to accommodate additional traffic. Mr. Furrie asked the Commission to consider lot size as well.
Don Bristow, Oro Valley resident, echoed the previous speakers comments and requested the Commission deny the proposal. Mr. Bristow continued on to read his previous comment letter emailed earlier.
Christopher Markley, Oro Valley resident, voiced his opposition that the proposed text amendment was not widely spread to residents, and there is no home owner's association in his area. Traffic with additional visitors to the neighborhood and urges the Commission to deny the request to the text amendment.
Trindy Le Forge, Oro Valley resident, expressed her concerns with the following areas: additional traffic on the street, safety of the horses, bicyclist, walkers and CDO High School students that run there frequently, as well as bringing instability and insecurity to the neighborhood, and the increased noise. The Town is not considering the facts and data related to the availability of hotel rooms and other means of residents within the Town, rather than just changing the code. Ms. Le Forge recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission reject this extremely bad idea.
Wayne Stickler, Oro Valley resident, commented that alternating the entire zoning for large properties in Oro Valley does not seem to be a bona fide risk and reward approach. Changing the language that will affect all residents of Oro Valley is asking for a rather radical departure from what has existed before. There seems to be a constant struggle in Oro Valley between those that have moved here, and those who look at Oro Valley as a mere form of making money. A business does not belong in a residential area.
Cathy Lucus, Oro Valley resident, read from the previous comment letter emailed earlier from Mr. Lucas, her husband.
Gil Alexander, Oro Valley resident, commented that "temporary" is missing. Mr. Alexander went on to voice his concerns on the proposed code amendment which included: no enforcement, 10 occupants is alot, and Home Owner Association approval is needed.
Bill Gentz, Oro Valley resident, stated he is strongly opposed to this proposed text amendment. Clarification is needed on owner occupied, nothing is written that the owner needs to occupy or live in the house at the time of the rental. Mr. Gentz strongly urged the Commission to look very closely at considering this change.
Kenneth Snow, Oro Valley resident, stated the proposal is a business, and a business is a business. Mr. Snow expressed concern regarding the proposed coming into his area and urges the Commission to vote against the proposal.
Anne Lawrence, Non-Oro Valley resident, expressed how the entire Town is affected by the proposed text amendment and that there was no way the entire town was notified. Ms. Lawrence, went on to express her concerns with the following requirements: could property be sold, no more than 1 non-resident employee, owner's room to be used as a rental, events for non-guest are not permitted, no more than 1 guest house shall be permitted, separation of 1200 feet from another owner-occupied lodging house use, definition of neighborhood and how will the business license be permitted?
Neill Freeman, Oro Valley resident, expressed his concern that the proposed text amendment was staff driven and there is no need for this in Oro Valley. There is a surplus of rooms in Oro Valley and immediate areas. The lodging industry adjusts their rates for the time of year and the demand based on special events. This type of amendment rips the rug out from under a lot of home owners. There is nothing in the conditional use permit process that mandates be adequate notice to all neighbors and a consent from those neighbors be obtained.
Mike Sheehan, Oro Valley resident, stated that in the end it's the quality of life that is affected and asked the Commission to deny the proposed text amendment. Should the Commission move forward, noise, lighting, traffic and safety of neighborhoods should be addressed.
Karen Steinbronn, Oro Valley resident, spoke in opposition to this type of a zoning change. Ms. Steinbronn went on to voice her concern regarding a business coming into a residential area and she echoed the previous speakers comments. Adding the conditional use permit as the mechanism to establish these changes creates more work for staff and the Commission.
Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, stated that the success of this project is totally dependent on the conditional use permit process. The conditional use process which would be attached to this zoning change has been discredited by the Commission and by the Town Council. If the proposal is approved a different process other than a conditional use permit is needed. In his opinion this is considered a rezoning and needs to comply with the General Plan. The Strategic Plan should not be the controlling element here, it should be the General Plan.
Nancy Wright, Oro Valley resident, stated that if the residents seem a little concerned about their neighborhood it's because they have good reason to be and went on to echo the previous speakers comments.
Rosemary Panvco, Oro Valley resident, echoed the concerns of the previous speaker's comments and agreed that this is not a good idea for Oro Valley.
Dave Perry, Oro Valley resident, stated that on March 22nd he submitted a one page letter supporting Town's efforts towards endorsing a zoning code amendment like this to allow sports tourism. There has been discussion regarding the weakness of the notification process and this subject will continue to haunt us until, as a community, we figure out a way to inform people that maybe affected by proposals that come before our governing boards. He would like to figure something out here, this doesn't look like the way to do it.
Susan Pennacchini, Oro Valley resident, echoed the concerns of the previous speakers.
Mary Topmiller, Oro Valley resident, echoed the concerns of the previous speakers.
Donald Mower, Oro Valley resident, stated that he wants a bed and breakfast at his house. The Town has changed and change is going to continue to happen. Mr. Mower went on to say that he is not completely against this proposal, but the Town needs to relook at how this is going to occur. There is a need for a place where you can go and have a nice cup of coffee, look out the window, with more of a family environment instead of sitting in a resort and sitting with maybe three or four hundred other people. Mr. Mower believes that there is a need for an in-between.
Chairman Cox closed the Public Hearing.
Bayer Vella, Interim Planning Manager, responded to the questions asked during the public hearing in regard to staff operations of rules and procedures and all public notices.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Leedy
and seconded by Commissioner
Pitts
to deny of OV714-001 finding that the change is more appropriately addressed as part of the General Plan process.
MOTION carried, 5-1 with Commissioner Drazazgowski opposed.
*4. PUBLIC HEARING: A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD OR AMEND DEFINITIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LONG TERM CARE FACILITIES, RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, MIXED-USE SENIOR CARE FACILITIES, AND ASSISTED LIVING HOMES, OV714-002 (THIS ITEM HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA)
Bayer Vella, Interim Planning Manager, provided the following Planning Update:
- Upcoming items on the June 3rd Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda
- 3 major General Plan Amendments have been submitted
- Your Voice, Our Future Guiding Principles will be heard by Town Council on May 7th.
Commissioner Drazazowski suggested further discussion on Bed and Breakfast. Chairman Cox added a discussion of a tier 3 for a home occupancy.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Leedy
and seconded by Commissioner
Pitts
to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 8:18 PM.