Chad Daines, Principal Planner, provided a presentation that included the following:
- Purpose
- Objectives of a Neighborhood Meeting Code
- Background
- Summary of Current Requirements
- Experience: Hierarchy of Audience Needs
- Case Example - Cell Tower
- Case Example - Major General Plan Amendment
- Current and Proposed Changes
- Benefits of Amendments
- Summary of Study Session Discussion
- Enhanced Public Notice
- Sign Posting - Current and Proposed
- Notification Radius
- Enhanced information and education
- Small group meetings
- Facilitation training
- Summary and Recommendation
Vice-Chair Leedy questioned whether the Town or staff at anytime take a position of advocacy on how best to overcome public opposition when meeting with applicants and/or developers or/and does staff at any time take a position of advocacy with members of the community.
Mr. Daines responded that staff strives to remain neutral in neighborhood meetings. The goal in conducting neighborhood meetings is to ensure fair and open dialogue.
Commissioner Hurt questioned whether the Town or staff suggest facilitators when there is an impasse or is the facilitation done by staff.
Bayer Vella, Planning Manager, responded that the common practice of facilitation is provided by staff. There have been very limited examples where a professional facilitator has been brought in. If the facilitator does not have a basic understanding of planning principals, it's a very tough spot to be in.
Commissioner Hurt stated that although staff is neutral at neighborhood meetings, ultimately staff will make a recommendation on the case.
Mr. Vella responded that it's always a challenge even though staff does their best to be neutral at neighborhood meetings. Staff will ultimately make a recommendation and if that recommendation happens to be in favor of the developer, that does leave a impression with many of the neighbors that staff favors the developer. This demonstrates the fine line we walk and it's a very challenging one.
Vice-Chair Leedy voiced his concern with the misperception that staff, this Commission and Town Council is a rubber stamp for applicants in this community. Mr. Leedy believes that perception is in large part if not entirely a function of a lack of knowledge of the number of applicants or applications that come before the Town that never see the light of day with respect to a staff report, an action from this Commission or an action from Town Council. Would this be an accurate statement?
Mr. Danies responded that many times a developer will come in and have a pre-application meeting or their first neighborhood meeting. What they hear at the neighborhood meeting determines if they move forward with application. Not all applications move beyond that first neighborhood meeting.
Chairman Rodman voiced his concern with the Policy and Procedures, 4.c.4: small group meetings between the applicant and neighborhoods and/or specific groups of residents. Chairman Rodman suggested clarification, that the policy applies to small group meetings arranged by the Town staff.
Chairman Rodman opened the public hearing.
Dave Perry, Oro Valley resident and President and CEO of the Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce, believes the most fundamental problem the business community has with neighborhood meetings and with the process as a whole is that it takes to long. So he hopes whatever is done has the effect of reducing the length of time it takes to get something done while fully involving the public and arriving at mutual agreed upon outcomes. We do need better public noticing for proposed zoning changes and neighborhood meetings. He liked some of what he saw here tonight with bigger signs. We need to do a better job with broader media notification of meetings and events. Mr. Perry thinks we still need to be selective at the discretion of staff about use that media when appropriate. Mr. Perry suggested using "The Vista", which arrives in our water bill every month. One of the questions before you is if the notification should be widened from the current 1,000 - 600 square foot notification requirement, he doesn't believe this should happen. He suggest a creation of a primer, something that is broadly outlined but can be modified to specific cases that describes the current proposal. Lets put the valid issues in front of the people right off the bat, because when we get to the end the valid issues are raised. Right sizing is important, something deserve a lot of attention, detail, notification and meetings but some things don't. It's important that staff have the option of making some of those kinds of judgments. Staff does an outstanding job at balancing the applicants interests and the interests of neighbors that often don't have any idea what is happening. Should we think about a member of staff being assigned on a case by case basis as an ombudsman. Someone who is not directly working with the developer, someone who understands the code, understands the issues and can work with those people in the public.
Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, commented that in terms of the Standing Operating Policy (SOP), he has always felt that the content and structure of the educational meeting should be part of the ordinance. There is nothing in the staff proposal that has to do with conditional approval. The ability for the community to add conditions of approval is central and this ordinance has to make a statement in regards to this. The community has the right to understand and staff has an ethical obligation to give the community the information, if it takes longer than the allotted time, tough. Staff is either going to honor this obligation or they are not. Mr. Adler commented that what works is people being knowledgeable and trusting government.
Shirl Lamonna, Oro Valley resident, commented that she feels that everybody has property rights, not just the developers. There is absolutely no guarantees that when a developer comes in that he has to be given the authority to have his property rezoned or what ever it might be. In Oro Valley there is no such thing as being fairly balanced, the developers clearly have the upper hand on what goes on with development in this Town and it's sad that the constituents don't have better education. Ms. Lamonna encourages the neighborhood meeting process so constituents can learn about the issues. She thinks it's important that when staff speaks to the constituents that all the facts are presented to them. Another concern is Listserv not having a large number of people receiving notifications, as well as people do not automatically go to the website for information. The Town's website is not user friendly and needs some improvement. Ms. Lamonna went on to question whether the general plan signs use five inch letters as required by code.
Don Bristow, Oro Valley resident, commented that he agrees with Mr. Adler. Mr. Bristow commented that he has attended a number of these meetings and the public walks away still feeling uneducated. To expect the citizens to be as educated about the codes and regulations as the developer who hires outside professionals is a ridiculous consideration. The citizens expect to be educated by the Town but walk way being let down. Mr. Bristow's concern with the proposed zoning code amendment and staff deciding when and if the meeting format will be changed is taking away from the process from what it used to be. Mr. Bristow agrees with the previous speaker about the Town website needing improvement, it is harder and harder to find things. The language in the small group meeting policy needs to be cleaned up, the language is conflicting. Another concern is that everything is neutral is untrue.
Chairman Rodman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Daines responded to the public speaker's questions as follows:
When a question about the development proposal arises at a neighborhood meeting, staff refers the question to the applicant. In a lot a cases, especially at the first meeting, staff hasn't had the opportunity to review the application, and may be learning about it for the first time at the meeting. It is the applicant's application and it is their responsibility to answer the questions related to what they are proposing.
Staff indicates that they regularly reflect resident concerns in the conditions of approval or special area policies that ultimately get recommended by staff to the Commission and Town Council.
Staff tries to respond to the diversity of issues involved in large cases. You might have one area that is focused on one aspect like lot size and another area that is completely looking at something different like commercial uses.
In terms of education, staff does not just place a stack of handouts on the back table. Staff reviews the development standards and makes sure that residents understand what is being proposed by the developer.
In terms of Staff selecting certain policies, there are over 200 policies in the General Plan and staff is trying to make that simpler on the residents by providing the applicable policies to the request.
In terms of the level of information, neighborhood meeting is conducted in 1.5 hours. Staff takes 30 minutes on the presentation and the applicant takes another 30 minutes that leaves the balance of time to hear from our residents. Some of the information gets summarized in an effort to get to what's really important and hear from the residents about their concerns.
Staff does not go through how a neighborhood can force a super majority vote. Staffs goal is to be neutral. We have had neighborhoods ask, and we provided information on the code.
In terms of General Plan Lettering on sign postings, the font size is 5 inches, they are measured before the signs are posted.
Vice-Chairman Leedy proposes striking the word educate out of Section A: Purpose, number 3. As well as striking the text, "building trust through" out of Section A: Purpose, number 1 and insert the word utilize.
MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman
Leedy
to recommend a continuance of the Zoning Code Amendment until the next meeting.
Motion died for a lack of a second.
MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman
Leedy
to recommend approval of the Zoning Code Amendment subject to the changes to Section A: Purpose, number 1, inserting the word "utilize" and number 3, striking the text, "building trust through".
Motion died for a lack of a second.
MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman
Leedy
and seconded by Commissioner
Hurt
to Recomend Approval of the Zoning Code Amendment in Attachment 1 related to the neighborhood meetings, based on the findings in the staff report.
MOTION carried, 6-0.
Bayer Vella, Planning Manager, presented the Planning Update that included the following:
- Thank you to Chairman Rodman for his service and leadership to the Commission
- Two new members will be at the next meeting
- Items on the January 5th agenda
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman
Leedy
and seconded by Commissioner
Drazazgowski
to adjourn the December 1, 2015, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 8:08 PM.