This past Tuesday, Don Bristow, Oro Valley resident spoke at the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission special sessions during the call to the audience at the start of the meeting. Don's askedthat the commission follow Town Codes prescribed procedures for transacting business. Until they do so, Don noted: "We, the residents, have a right to be concerned about the quality of your recommendations."
Don supported his statement with the following:
"Town Zoning Code Sections 21.3, 8.C.4 states “Recommendations and/or decisions of the Planning and Zoning Commission should be based exclusively on the merits of the applications, validity of the testimony presented at hearings and conformance with the General Plan and Town Codes. Yet at the Sept. 18, 2012 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting while dealing with Agenda Item 3, the amending of the 1983 El Conquistador PAD for Fry’s service station signs, the Commission clearly didn’t meet the requirements for transacting business.
The applicant didn’t present any need or facts to support changing:
- The current off –site sign restriction contained in both the PAD and Town Code or
The use of a sign structure not defined or approved in Town Code.
The staff report failed to present:
- The lack of conformance with Town Codes except for a concern for one of the off-site signs
- Any concerns regarding the future impact for Oro Valley and
- Valid facts for their recommendation approving the proposed ordinance
The commission needs to:
- Establish a procedure, a checklist or other process to determine that the recommendations you make follow code and General Plan policies, and if not why
- State why your recommendations are in the best interest of the Town, not an applicant.
- Recognize that staff’s reports and recommendations are often structured for political reasons
You must do something to assure your future recommendations are based on validity and conformation with the General Plan and Town Codes, regardless if a PAD, CUP, and code change, etc. Failure to act can only accelerate the residents’ lack of trust for the government of Oro Valley."
---
We often listen to or attend council or commission meeting hearings. One of the things that we notice is the significant amount of irrelevant information that is presented by the individuals requesting the information or the town staff. We don't mean that the information being presented is interesting. What we mean is that the information is being presented is not relevant to the decision that is being made.
For example, a developer requesting a major general plan amendment may present their project in detail. Yet the decision on whether the general plan amendment should be granted has nothing to do with the specifics of the project. It has to do with responding to four specific criteria that must be met in order for a major general plan amendment to occur requirements. These four requirements are generally not discussed. What is discussed it seems to last for the details around the project.
---
6 comments:
Don's observation is supported by the not so high-end retail that we have in Oro Valley Marketplace. Lots of "extraneous details" to get it through that never materialized.
It is not surprising that this blog would support Mr. Bristow’s comments/observations. It fits a pattern of not requiring accurate information to gain support.
The following comments reflect my personal opinions and do not in any way reflect the opinions of other members of the P&Z Commission.
It is evident by Mr. Bristow's dialog that he evidently did not listen to the proceedings. There was a representative a Fry’s present who made a brief presentation eluding to the fact the some of the changes requested were in response to the neighbors request to not have a sign in a particular location.
In addition I find it somewhat puzzling that Mr. Bristow did not express any concerns , or make any comment about the lack of input from the applicant that evening during the public hearing, when it was most appropriate to do so.
I believe it is worth noting that Mr. Bristow has been the author of several complaints in the past regarding the Fry’s store at LaCanada and Lambert. So many, in fact, that one has to wonder if there isn’t some ulterior motive.
Lastly, the case before the P&Z met all codes and was in accordance with the general plan and sought by those neighbors most directly effected and thus was appropriately forwarded to the Town Council with a recommendation for approval.
OV Objective Thinker,
1. How can you say the case before P&Z met all codes, as the sign proposed for use, a combination fuel and monument sign was a new type of sign not in the code?
2. Have you, as a member of P & Z, read Code Section 28.1, F Signs Prohibited by Omission?
3. Are you familiar with the sign code which prohibits off-site signs?
4. Where have you read several complaints, authored by Mr. Bristow, regarding the Fry's store at LaCanada and Lambert? Could you please list the specific content of his complaints along with the dates of each?
5. What possible ulterior motive could Mr. Bristow have? This comment is ridiculous. Do you think he wants to put Kroger's (parent company of Fry’s) out of business?
Mr. Bristow cited: Town Zoning Code Sections 21.3, 8.C.4 states “Recommendations and/or decisions of the Planning and Zoning Commission should be based exclusively on the merits of the applications, validity of the testimony presented at hearings and conformance with the General Plan and Town Codes.”
It obvious you, Mr. Cox, are trying to divert the attention from Mr. Bristow’s observations that the Planning & Zoning Commission clearly didn’t meet those requirements for transacting business.
Cares.......
Your posting and the endorsement of this blog are a perfect match which I will gently define as, "totally uninformed". And frankly it is symtomatic of what is wrong with most of the comments made on this blog.
If you were informed folks you would realize the the case before the P&Z had little to do with the Oro Valley Zoning code.
What was heard was a requested change in the El Conquistador PAD.
As to Mr. Bristow's motives, ask him. I am simply an observer of his actions.
As to his complaints I suggest you take the time and effort to request the information from the Town of Oro Valley, as did I.
OVOT...
You say my posting and the endorsement of this blog are a perfect match for which you gently define as, "totally uninformed", and symtomatic of what is wrong with most of the comments made on this blog.
In my thoughtful opinion, I believe many people, who comment on LOVE, would say the same about you.
Cares.... I respect your opinion. And I agree with you that most people who comment on this blog would say the same. However that doesn't change fact.
Allow me to further explain.
The case was a change to the El Conquistador PAD. In this case the PAD takes precedence over the OVZC Revised. Therefore what is in the zoning code DOES NOT APPLY, unless the PAD is mute on the topic.
That totally destroys Bristow's arguments and should serve to notify that the endorsement and agreement by you is without merit.
You then come along and make comments such as:
1. How can you say the case before P&Z met all codes, as the sign proposed for use, a combination fuel and monument sign was a new type of sign not in the code?
2. Have you, as a member of P & Z, read Code Section 28.1, F Signs Prohibited by Omission?
3. Are you familiar with the sign code which prohibits off-site signs?"
You obviously don't understand.
The remainder of your comments are, in my opinion, simply jibberish.
Mr. Bristow is one of the most prolific complainers in this community and frequently many of his complaints are without merit.
Do some homework and make comments and contributions that demonstrates that you really do Care for OV. Maybe at that point you will have some credibility.
Post a Comment