The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPackets - Planning and Zoning Commission (201) AGENDA ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION September 5, 2023 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE For information on public comment procedures, please see the instructions for in person and/or virtual speakers at the end of the agenda. To watch and/or listen to the public meeting online, please visit https://www.orovalleyaz.gov/town/departments/town-clerk/meetings-and-agendas Executive Sessions – Upon a vote of the majority of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission may enter into Executive Sessions pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes §38-431.03 (A)(3) to obtain legal advice on matters listed on the Agenda. REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 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. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS REGULAR SESSION AGENDA 1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 8, 2023 SPECIAL SESSION MEETING MINUTES 2.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED TRANSLATIONAL REZONING OF AN APPROXIMATELY 36-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND MOORE ROAD FROM PIMA COUNTY SUBURBAN RANCH (SR) TO TOWN OF ORO VALLEY R1-144 (LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL) 3.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 23, ZONING DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 26, PROVISIONS OF RECREATIONAL AREA, CHAPTER 31, DEFINITIONS, AND OTHER RELATED SECTIONS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, MULTI-FAMILY, AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) ADJOURNMENT POSTED: 8/29/2023 at 5:00 p.m. by dt When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the Commission meeting in the Town Clerk's Office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk’s Office at least five days prior to the Commission meeting at 229-4700. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS The Town has modified its public comment procedures for its public bodies to allow for limited remote/virtual comment via Zoom. The public may provide comments remotely only on items posted as required Public Hearings, provided the speaker registers 24 hours prior to the meeting. For all other items, the public may complete a blue speaker card to be recognized in person by the Chair, according to all other rules and procedures. Written comments can also be emailed to Recording Secretary Jeanna Ancona at jancona@orovalleyaz.gov, for distribution to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the meeting. Further instructions to speakers are noted below. INSTRUCTIONS TO IN-PERSON SPEAKERS Members of the public shall be allowed to speak on posted public hearings and during Call to Audience when attending the meeting in person. The public may be allowed to speak on other posted items on the agenda at the discretion of the Chair. If you wish to address the Commission on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete a blue speaker card located on the Agenda table at the back of the room and give it to the Recording Secretary. Please indicate on the blue speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on, or, if you wish to speak during Call to Audience, please specify what you wish to discuss. Please step forward to the podium when the Chair calls on you to address the Commission. For the record, please state your name and whether or not you are a Town resident.1.Speak only on the issue currently being discussed by the Commission. You will only be allowed to address the Commission one time regarding the topic being discussed.2. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.3.During Call to Audience, you may address the Commission on any matter that is not on the agenda.4.Any member of the public speaking, must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present. 5. INSTRUCTIONS TO VIRTUAL SPEAKERS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS Members of the public may attend the meeting virtually and request to speak virtually on any agenda item that is listed as a Public Hearing. If you wish to address the Commission virtually during any listed Public Hearing, please complete the online speaker form by clicking here https://forms.orovalleyaz.gov/forms/bluecard at least 24 hours prior to the start of the meeting. You must provide a valid email address in order to register. Town Staff will email you a link to the Zoom meeting the day of the meeting. After being recognized by the Chair, staff will unmute your microphone access and you will have 3 minutes to address the Commission. Further instructions regarding remote participation will be included in the email. Thank you for your cooperation. Planning & Zoning Commission 1. Meeting Date:09/05/2023 Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development Case Number: N/A SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 8, 2023 SPECIAL SESSION MEETING MINUTES RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve (approve with changes), the August 8, 2023 meeting minutes. Attachments PZC 8.8.23 Draft Minutes D R A F T MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL SESSION August 8, 2023 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Herrington called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Joe Nichols, Commissioner Kimberly Outlaw Ryan, Commissioner Skeet Posey, Commissioner Daniel Sturmon, Vice Chair Phil Zielinkski, Commissioner Jacob Herrington, Chair Absent: Anna Clark, Commissioner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Herrington led the Commission and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Melanie Barrett provide updates on recent Planning cases on the Town Council agenda and stated the Town Council is on summer break. SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA 1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 6, 2023 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Joe Nichols, seconded by Commissioner Kimberly Outlaw Ryan to approve the June 6, 2023 meeting minutes. Vote: 6 - 0 Carried 2.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED 1,649 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT LOCATED SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND LA CANADA DRIVE ITEM A: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CASE NO. 2202252) ITEM B: CONCEPTUAL SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS AND REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (CASE NO. 2202232) ITEM C: CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE (CASE NO. 2202253) Senior Planner Kyle Packer provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Location - Zoning, history and master development plan (MDP) - Item A: Conditional Use Permit - Item A: Conditional Use Permit - compatibility - Item A: Conditional Use Permit - distance reduction request - Item A: Hours of operation request - Item B: Development plan and landscape plan - Item C: Conceptual architecture - Review criteria - Public participation - Summary and recommendations Rory Juneman with Lazarus & Silvyn, representing the applicant, provided a presentation that included the following: - Agenda - Location map - Current site condition - Current development plan - Original site plan and architecture - Updated site plan - Drive through screening - Enhanced landscaping and seating - Trash and loading - Parking and circulation - Kiosk speaker - Renderings - Summary of design changes - Viewsheds - Residential setback - Demand for drive throughs Chair Herrington opened the public hearing. Oro Valley resident Gerald Roberts spoke in opposition to Agenda Item 2. Chair Herrington closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued among the Commission and applicant. Motion by Commissioner Joe Nichols, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to recommend conditional approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed 1,649 square foot drive-thru restaurant located south of the southwest corner of Lambert Lane and La Cañada Drive, subject to the conditions of Attachment 1, based on the finding that the request complies with all Zoning Code criteria. Commissioner Outlaw Ryan made comments regarding traffic and commerce. Motion by Commissioner Kimberly Outlaw Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to recommend approval of the Conceptual Site and Landscape Plan and Revised Master Development Plan for the proposed 1,649 square foot drive-thru restaurant located south of the southwest corner of Lambert Lane and La Cañada Dr, based on the finding that the proposal complies with all Zoning Code criteria. Vote: 6 - 0 Carried Motion by Commissioner Kimberly Outlaw Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Phil Zielinkski to recommend approval of the Conceptual Architecture for the proposed 1,649 square foot drive-thru restaurant located south of the southwest corner of Lambert Lane and La Cañada Drive, based on the finding that the request complies with all applicable Zoning Code criteria. Vote: 6 - 0 Carried Vote: 6 - 0 Carried PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided an update of items on the next Commission meeting agenda. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Kimberly Outlaw Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Joe Nichols to adjourn the meeting. Chair Herrington adjourned the meeting at 6:47 p.m. I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the special session of the Town of Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 8th day of August 2023. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist Planning & Zoning Commission 2. Meeting Date:09/05/2023 Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 2301772 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED TRANSLATIONAL REZONING OF AN APPROXIMATELY 36-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND MOORE ROAD FROM PIMA COUNTY SUBURBAN RANCH (SR) TO TOWN OF ORO VALLEY R1-144 (LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed translational rezoning. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed "translational" rezoning of an approximately 36-acre property located at the southwest corner of La Canada Drive and Moore Road (see graphic at right). The request (Attachment 1) is to change the existing Pima County Suburban Ranch (SR) zoning to Town of Oro Valley R1-144 (large-lot residential). Town Council will consider annexation of the property concurrently with this item at a public hearing on September 6, 2023. As required by state law, when a jurisdiction annexes new territory, it is required to: "...adopt zoning classifications that permit densities and uses not greater than those permitted by the county immediately before annexation. Subsequent changes in zoning of the annexed territory shall be made according to existing procedures established by the city or town for the rezoning of land" This request will only be considered by Town Council if the annexation is approved. The uses and development standards of the Town's R1-144 zoning district is the closest comparable zone to the existing Pima County Suburban Ranch district. It is anticipated that the property owner will pursue a future rezoning application for the property, which will proceed through the regular public participation and rezoning process with public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. This request is in conformance with all State requirements. Staff recommends approval. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: This item is for a proposed translational rezoning of the vacant property at the southwest corner of La Canada Drive and Moore Road (Attachment 1). Town Council will consider the proposed annexation of the property during a public hearing on September 6, 2023. This request is required subsequent to Town Council annexation of unincorporated property. Site Conditions Approximately 36 acres Located in Pima County and within the Town's General Plan Planning Area Boundary Generally, flat topography bisected by a wash running north to south Trail number 325 on the Towns Adopted Trails Map follows the wash alignment Surrounding Zoning (see graphic at right) North: Rancho Vistoso PAD and R1-300 (Large-lot Residential) East: R1-20 (Medium Density Residential) South: R1-36 (Large-lot Residential) and R1-20 (Medium Density Residential) West: Pima County Suburban Ranch (Large-lot Residential) Public Notification All owners of property within the translational rezoning area have been notified Notices were sent to all property owners within 600 feet of the property (distance increased in some areas to ensure the entire subdivision was included) Postings on the property Posting at Town Hall and website Summary and Recommendation This request is in conformance with State requirements. Staff recommends approval. This request will only be considered by Town Council if the associated annexation is approved. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may wish to consider one of the following motions: I MOVE to recommend approval of the proposed translational zoning finding it conforms with state requirements. OR I MOVE to recommend denial of the proposed translational zoning based on a finding that _________________. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 - TRANSLATIONAL ZONING TRANSLATIONAL ZONING LA CANADA DRIVE AND MOORE ROAD (2301772) Attachment 1 Planning & Zoning Commission 3. Meeting Date:09/05/2023 Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 2201754 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 23, ZONING DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 26, PROVISIONS OF RECREATIONAL AREA, CHAPTER 31, DEFINITIONS, AND OTHER RELATED SECTIONS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, MULTI-FAMILY, AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to discuss and act, by making a recommendation, on proposed code amendments (Attachment 1) to private recreation areas, including the size, type of amenities and in-lieu fee options applicable to new residential subdivisions, multi-family and mixed-use developments. The proposed code amendments do not apply to public parks or existing private recreation areas. Examining and updating the Town's private recreation area requirements is an objective in the Town Council's Strategic Leadership Plan (SLP). Specifically, as part of the SLP, the Town Council directed staff to examine methods that would "prioritize larger neighborhood area parks and amenities as outlined in the Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment." The Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified the park size and amenities that homeowner associations should provide to meet the recommended level of service standards. A need for more neighborhood parks, no less than 2 acres each, basketball courts, playgrounds and ramadas in private recreation areas was recommended. These recommendations were based on significant community input that was collected during the Parks and Recreation Master Planning process, including a town-wide survey. The Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) discussed staff's research and key aspects of the proposed code amendments on September 6, 2022 (see Attachment 2 for the staff report with more information). The key findings and code amendments were also discussed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) and the Town Council. A complete list of the comments and questions with staff responses is included in Attachment 3. To help respond to some of the feedback and gather additional input, board members of HOAs with private parks were surveyed. The survey had 18 responses, representing 24 private recreation areas. Despite the low response rate, the information is helpful in providing some insight about private parks. The survey identified the type of amenities and location as primary determinants of a park's use and benefit to the community. An analysis of the survey responses is included in Attachment 4. An update on the proposed code amendments was presented to PRAB on August 1, 2023. Additionally, staff presented the proposed code changes to the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association (SAHBA) and Metropolitan Pima Alliance (MPA). The proposed code amendments aim to meet the objectives of the SLP and incorporate feedback provided from the PRAB, PZC, Town Council, the survey, and stakeholders. SLP: Prioritize larger neighborhood area parks. 1. Consolidate recreation areas Objective: Create adequately sized, meaningful recreation areas that provide a central focal space for gathering, passive and active amenities. Existing code: There is no mechanism to consolidate the private recreation areas. Finding: This can result in smaller, scattered parks throughout a subdivision or residential development. The utility of a park significantly decreases when it gets too small. Feedback: Agreement from all three bodies (PZC, PRAB and Town Council) that larger, consolidated parks are best. However, special circumstances may arise warranting flexibility. All three bodies were concerned with the mechanics and feasibility of requiring adjacent subdivisions to develop larger, shared recreation areas. Almost half (47%) of the survey respondents (HOA board members) agreed that having one, larger, centrally located private park is better than having multiple, smaller, private park areas spread throughout the development. Location and accessibility were themes throughout the survey responses. Both were key determinants for the usability of a park. Proposed code and new information: Requires private recreation areas be consolidated into no more than 2 areas, unless further distribution is warranted and approved by the Town Council. Factors that warrant further distribution include site constraints (e.g., topography, drainage, etc.), improved access or the ability to provide a better variety of amenities. The requirement for adjacent subdivisions to develop a larger, shared recreation area would only apply to areas where a rezoning or master-planned development (e.g. Rancho Vistos and Capella) results in more than one residential subdivision. An example of a larger, shared recreation area that resulted from the rezoning process is the park between Alterra and Valley Vista. Due to the limited amount of land remaining in Oro Valley, both scenarios are likely to primarily occur if land is annexed into the Town. 2. Increase or establish the size of recreation areas. Objective:Improve utility and use by creating larger parks with more space for amenities. Existing code: The zoning code requires 512 sf/ lot of private recreation area for all new residential subdivisions. There is not a clearly defined amount of recreation space required for multi-family and mixed-use developments. Instead, those zoning districts have an open space requirement to include a tot lot (if applicable). Indoor recreation is also required in R-6, a multi-family zoning district. Finding: Oro Valley's recreation area size requirement for single-family subdivisions is low compared to some other southern Arizona jurisdictions. The portion of open space that must have amenities for passive and active recreation is unclear for multi-family and mixed-use developments. Feedback: The proposed increase was positively received by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Town Council to meet the need for larger, neighborhood parks. SAHBA has concerns about the amount proposed. However, it is similar to Pima County's requirement (870 sf/unit) and provides ample space for meaningful amenities. PRAB and Town Council directed staff to ensure the open space requirement for multi-family zoning districts is maintained. The PZC and Town Council guided staff to require rec space for apartments on a per unit basis (similar to single-family subdivisions). Proposed code and new information: Increase the amount of private recreation area to 900 sf/lot for all rezoning requests to develop detached single-family homes, attached townhomes or patio homes. Maintain the open space requirement in all multi-family and mixed-use zoning districts but stipulate a portion (ranging from 512 sf/unit - 900 sf/unit depending on housing type) of the open space be a useable recreational area. Require 400 sf/unit of meaningful recreation space for apartments. This is an increase to the amount of rec space currently provided in apartments. 3. Prioritize high-value recreation areas. Objective: Increase utility by eliminating very small parks with little space for amenities while providing an equitable alternative for smaller residential projects. Existing code: There is no minimum size requirement for private recreation areas in the code. Town Council may approve an in-lieu in exchange for providing private recreation areas if the subdivision has access to a public park and this alternative approach is beneficial to future residents. In-lieu fees may satisfy a portion or all of the private rec requirement. In-lieu fees are collected once, prior to construction and used for improvements to town park facilities. Finding: This can result in very small private recreation areas with minimal space to provide a variety of amenities. Private recreation areas less than a 1/4 acre in size have low recreational value. Feedback: The Parks and Recreation Master Plan established there is not a need for more mini parks. However, there is a need for larger neighborhood parks that can support basketball courts, playgrounds and ramadas. Agreement that very small parks have limited capacity to provide usable and meaningful recreation space. PRAB had concerns about automatically requiring an in-lieu fee instead of a minimum park size. Town Council provided guidance to require in-lieu fees be used at private or public park facilities within a 1/2 mile distance from the associated project. Survey respondents with smaller parks identified the location and type of amenities, including shade structures, as the main determinants of their use. Proposed code and new information: Requires an in-lieu fee for private recreation areas that are 1/4 acre or less, so no more smaller parks are developed. The ability to request an in-lieu fee for larger subdivisions is maintained but further restricted to only satisfy a portion of the rec area requirement. Requests must show access to a public rec area within a 1/2 mile of the project. Collected in-lieu fees must be used for improvements to the public recreation facility closest to the subject project. In consultation with the town's legal department, using in-lieu fees on private facilities is outside of the town's authority. The town cannot require a developer to contribute to a private park space, nor can we require an adjacent subdivision to open their park to residents outside of their area. SLP: Proritize amenities. 4. Provide meaningful amenities Objective: Ensure a variety of passive and active amenities for all ages and abilities is provided. Existing code/Finding: There are no specific provisions in the Zoning Code to ensure meaningful amenities in private rec areas. Other than indoor rec and a tot-lot, the code does not specify the number or type of amenities required in multi-family or mixed-use developments. Feedback: Agreement that a variety of amenities for all ages and abilities encourages park use. Seating, shading, and pedestrian connectivity were highly ranked as amenities most used and needed in private recreation areas by survey respondents. Nearly all (94%) of the respondents found these amenities important to the usefulness of a park. The PZC raised concerns about the amount of irrigation needed in larger parks and ensuring there is adequate shade over play areas. SAHBA agreed shading is important but had concerns about the cost of shade structures spaced far apart from one another or tall play structures (e.g. rock walls). Similarly, PRAB was concerned about ongoing costs for residents to maintain amenities, such as the shade structures. All three bodies gave guidance to ensure a variety of amenities are provided to serve future residents' needs. Specifically, PRAB was concerned with having duplicate amenities and the Town Council asked for flexibility to approve comparable amenities not listed in the code. Proposed code and new information: Requires minimum amenities for every private recreation area, such as seating, shade structures, and pedestrian connectivity. Updates to the menu of active and passive amenities to incorporate more variety, and allow flexibility to use comparable amenities not included on the list. The proposed code also allows the Town Council to replace proposed amenities to reduce duplication and/or improve the variety of amenities provided. Irrigation - Only allows 15% of the total private recreation area to be natural turf, unless a sports field or similar amenity is approved by the Town Council. The 15% of natural turf must be for activity (free play, gathering) and not decorative. Play equipment shading - Requires 100% of play equipment and the associated use (fall) zone to be fully shaded, which is an increase to the existing code. This will result in play equipment being clustered together under one, larger shaded area. With regard to height concerns, the safety standard for equipment is between 6-10 feet, which would allow a shade structure to meet the underlying zoning district's height allowance. In Oro Valley, shade structures in newer subdivisions, such as Villages at Silverhawke and Ironwood Estates, range between 11-12 feet. The proposed code amendments are supported by the General Plan's guiding principles and policies.Therefore, staff recommends approval. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Review of current private recreation area requirements in the Zoning Code was prioritized by the Town Council through the Strategic Leadership Plan FY21/22-22/23: Review Town codes related to recreation amenity requirements for residential subdivisions and recommend updates that will prioritize larger neighborhood area parks and amenities as outlined in the Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified specific items needed to improve the level of service in private recreation areas. This included constructing larger, neighborhood parks (no less than 2 acres) with space to provide basketball courts, playgrounds and ramadas. In coordination with the Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department and PROS Consulting, planning staff conducted extensive research to identify methods to prioritize larger private recreation areas and enhanced amenities for more meaningful recreation areas.The proposed changes prioritize the objectives of the SLP and also achieve greater parity with the requirements of other jurisdictions in southern Arizona, particularly Pima County and Sahuarita. Key findings and associated solutions were presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) and Town Council through study sessions held in 2022 and 2023. HOA boards responsible for private parks were also surveyed to understand the value of smaller parks, use of amenities and maintenance needs. The proposed code amendments were also presented to key stakeholders representing the development community, through the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association and the Metropolitan Pima Alliance. The proposed code amendments aim to meet the SLP objectives and incorporate the feedback from the study sessions, stakeholder meetings and survey. A complete list of the comments and questions received during the study sessions is included in Attachment 3 with a detailed survey report included in Attachment 4. DETAILED ANALYSIS: Key elements of the proposed code amendments (Attachment 1) are provided below, followed by notable feedback/survey responses in italics and new information addressing the feedback. SLP: Prioritize larger neighborhood area parks. 1. Consolidate recreation areas Objective: Create adequately sized, meaningful recreation areas that provide a central focal space for gathering, passive and active amenities. Existing code: There is no mechanism to consolidate private recreation areas. Finding: The existing code can lead to smaller, scattered parks spread throughout a subdivision or residential development. The utility of a park significantly decreases when it gets too small. Proposed code: Proposed code: Requires private rec areas to be consolidated into no more than 2 areas for individual residential projects. Require adjacent subdivisions resulting from rezoning or within master-planned areas to have larger, shared recreation areas. Feedback: Agreement from all three bodies (PZC, PRAB and Town Council) that larger, consolidated parks are best. However, guidance was given from PRAB and the Town Council to allow further distribution, if warranted, for projects developing in phases or to locate the recreation area within a 1/2 mile from the residents it is intended to serve. Flexibility to allow further distribution on a case-by-case basis was supported by the survey. Almost half (47%) of the respondents agreed having one larger, centrally located private rec area was better than having several, smaller recreation areas spread throughout the development. The other half (52%) were mostly neutral with some respondents in disagreement. The mechanism and feasibility of requiring adjacent subdivisions, which may be built by different developers with separate homeowner associations, to develop larger, shared recreation areas was a key concern from PRAB, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and Town Council. New information: Flexibility to allow Town Council approval of further distribution when warranted due to topography, to meet or exceed the 1/2 mile distance requirement or to provide a better variety of amenities is included in the proposed code language. The requirement for adjacent subdivisions to develop a larger, shared recreation area would only apply to areas where a rezoning or master-planned development resulted in more than one residential subdivision. Master development plans are already required by code for larger areas that need to be cohesively designed. An example of a recent master planned area is Capella, located near the northwest corner of La Cholla Blvd. and Lambert Lane. The Capella plan lays out the residential, commercial and recreation areas for the entire 207 acre area. These types of developments typically have a master HOA, similar to Rancho Vistoso (also a master-planned community) that is responsible for all of the recreation areas. An example of a rezoning that resulted in a shared recreation area is the park between the Alterra and Valley Vista subdivisions in Rancho Vistoso. Due to the limited amount of large pieces of land remaining in Oro Valley, both scenarios are only likely to occur through annexations. 2. Increase or establish the size of recreation areas. Objective: Improve utility and use by creating larger parks with more space for amenities. Existing code: Requires 1 acre per 85 units (512 sf./unit) for single-family subdivisions. There is no rec requirement for multi-family or mixed-use developments. Rather, the multi-family zoning districts have an open space requirement that includes the required recreational amenities, such as a tot lot. Finding: Oro Valley's recreation area size requirement for single-family subdivisions is low compared to some other southern Arizona jurisdictions. The portion of open space that must be used for passive and active recreation is unclear for multi-family and mixed-use developments. Proposed code: Increase the amount of private recreation area for residential subdivisions to 900 sf/unit when a rezoning is required. Establish the portion of open space that must be useable rec area for townhomes and patio homes, or apartments. Feedback: The proposed increase was received positively by PRAB, PZC and Town Council to meet the need and recommendations in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. SAHBA was concerned with the amount of the proposed increase. However, 900 sf./unit is similar to Pima County's requirement (870 sf./unit) and allows ample space to provide usable amenities. Town Council had concerns that an increase to the required rec size could be unlawful as a taking. Guidance to ensure the open space requirements for multi-family zoning districts are maintained was received from both PRAB and the Town Council. The PZC and Town Council also guided staff to require rec space for apartments on a per unit basis (similar to single-family homes). New information: The proposed increase from 512 sf/unit to 900 sf/unit will only apply to rezoning applications for compliance with State law. The amount of open space required in each multi-family zoning district is maintained. The proposed code amendments clarify that a portion of the open space must be usable for recreation with passive (e.g., walking paths) and active (e.g., ball courts) amenities. Upon further research of other Arizona jurisdictions and existing developments within Oro Valley, the recreation requirement for apartments is proposed at 400 sf./unit. This reflects a similar amount of open space currently provided in OV apartments but does require more of the open space to be an amenitized rec area. It is slightly more than required by some other jurisdictions. The chart below shows the amount of recreation area required for each housing type. 3. Prioritize high-value private recreation areas Objective: Increase utility by eliminating very small parks with little space for amenities while providing an equitable alternative for smaller residential projects. Existing code: There is no minimum size requirement for private recreation areas in the code. Town Council may approve in-lieu fees to satisfy a portion or all of the recreation area requirements for residential subdivisions. Approval is based on proximity to a public park facility, the amount of the in-lieu fee, and benefit to future residents. Finding: Since there is no minimum size requirement for private recreation areas, small private recreation areas with minimal space to provide a variety of amenities may be constructed. Private recreation areas less than a 1/4 acre in size have low recreational value. Proposed code: Require in-lieu fees for private recreation areas that are 1/4 acre or less. This equates to a residential project that has 21 residential units or less or a rezoning with 12 residential units or less. Maintain the ability for Town Council to approve an in-lieu fee for larger subdivisions but restrict it to only satisfy a portion of the rec area requirement. This ensures some recreation space is installed in residential projects requiring more than 1/4 acre of rec space. Feedback: Agreement that smaller parks have limited capacity to provide usable and meaningful recreation space. PRAB had concerns about automatically requiring an in-lieu fee rather than a minimum size for a recreation area. Additional concern about the use of in-lieu fees on private or public facilities further than a 1/2 mile away from the subject project was provided by the Town Council. To help understand the value of mini parks (1/4 acre or less), staff surveyed HOA boards that are responsible for private recreation areas of all sizes. Most (71%) respondents with mini parks stated they were used often - very often because of their location and types of amenities, including shading. Location and the types of amenities, including shading, were also the primary determinants for smaller parks that were rarely used. New Information: Requiring an in-lieu fee for projects that would have private parks smaller than a 1/4 acre ensures enough usable space is available to provide the minimum amenities required (shading, seating, pedestrian connectivity) and a variety of amenities to appeal to residents. It also provides an equitable alternative for smaller residential projects. Smaller projects could range from 3 units to 21 units. Staff finds requiring every project to have a minimum 1/4 acre rec area will have a larger, inequitable impact on a 3-unit project than a 21-unit project. Lastly, language requiring in-lieu fees to be used for public rec facilities closest to the associated project has been included. However, using in-lieu fees on private facilities is outside of the town's authority. In consultation with the town's legal department, the town cannot require a developer to contribute to a private park space, nor can we require an adjacent subdivision to open their park to residents outside of their area. SLP: Prioritize amenities. 4. Provide meaningful amenities. Objective: Ensure a variety of passive and active amenities for all ages and abilities is provided. Existing code/Finding: There are no specific provisions in the Zoning Code to ensure meaningful amenities in private rec areas. Other than indoor rec and a tot-lot, the code does not specify the number or type of amenities required in multi-family or mixed-use developments. Proposed code: Requires minimum amenities such as seating and shade for every recreation area and updates the menu of active and passive amenities allowed. In addition to the minimum amenities, every recreation area must have at least 1 active and 1 passive amenity. For every additional 1/2 acre, another active or passive amenity must be included. These requirements apply to residential subdivisions, multi-family and mixed-use developments. Feedback: Agreement that a variety of amenities for all ages and abilities encourages park use. Survey respondents identified the type of amenities as a main determinant for a private park's useability. Seating, shading and pedestrian connectivity were very important amenities, supported by 94% of respondents. PRAB had concerns about duplicate amenities being installed. Similarly, the Town Council provided guidance to allow flexibility to approve comparable amenities unlisted to meet residents' needs (e.g. seniors) and achieve a variety of amenities. The PZC raised concerns about the amount of turf allowed in bigger parks and the amount of shading provided over play areas. SAHBA agreed adequate shading was important but was concerned with the additional cost to provide shading over 100% of the playground equipment. Specifically, very tall or stand-alone structures spaced out from other amenities. New information: The proposed code includes language to allow the Town Council to replace proposed amenities with others or approve comparable amenities not listed in the code in order to achieve a high variety and meet the needs of future residents. With regards to irrigation, the code amendments maintain the limitation of natural turf (15% of the total recreation area) to private rec areas unless a sports field or similar amenity is approved by the Town Council. The 15% of turf area must be used for activities and not for decorative purposes. Lastly, the code amendments require all play equipment and the associated use (fall) zones to be fully shaded. This is an increase from the existing code which only requires small play equipment (or a portion of larger pieces) to be shaded. This will likely result in play equipment being clustered together to fit under one shade structure. With regard to height, the National Safety Standard for Playgrounds is 6-10 feet above the surface. Anything over 8 feet needs a better quality surface to reduce the risk of injury. In Oro Valley, shade structures in newer subdivisions, such as Villages at Silverhawke and Ironwood Estates, range between 11-12 feet. GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE The proposed code amendments are in conformance with all the applicable guiding principles and policies in the General Plan. This includes the 7 following guiding principles, goals or policies (out of 113): Guiding Principle: Provide more parks, recreation and cultural opportunities for all ages. Guiding Principle: Keep Oro Valley a family-friendly community. Goal E: A high-quality parks, recreation and open space system that is accessible, comprehensive, connected, integrated, and serves the community’s needs. Policy CC.1:Promote the overall physical and social health of the community. Policy CC.2: Provide appropriate park facilities and services for residents of all ages in the community. Policy CC.3: Link existing and planned neighborhoods with parks and open spaces by incorporating paths and trail facilities. Goal V: Neighborhoods that include access and effective transitions to open space, recreation and schools and that are supported by shopping and services which meet daily needs. PUBLIC NOTICE AND OUTREACH Public notice has been provided as stated below. All HOAs in Town were notified of this hearing Ad in the Daily Territorial Newspaper Public hearing notices were posted at Town Hall and on the Town's websites. An update on the proposed code amendments was provided to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on August 1, 2023 (click here for recording of meeting). The following questions and comments summarize the discussion: Clarification of whether parking or pedestrian connectivity is included in the rec area size requirement - Parking is not included but pedestrian connectivity (e.g. trails and walking paths within the rec space) is included in the rec size requirement. Sidewalks along roadways to access the rec area would be excluded. Allowing solar panels on recreation facilities - The code does not prohibit solar panels on recreation structures. Prescribing age appropriate playground equipment - The code purposefully does not prescribe a specific age range for the play equipment. It is intended to allow the developer to specify the types of play equipment based on their target market. Enforcement of rec area amenities - Recreation areas should be maintained to the approved plan, per the zoning code. Any changes to the recreation areas must be submitted and approved by the Town. Any complaints about recreation areas received by the town will be investigated and resolved through the standard code violation process. Concern regarding added costs for residents to maintain amenities, specifically shade structures - With regard to amenity maintenance, the proposed code specifies an HOA or property management company may request to revise a recreation area with administrative approval as long as it still meets the code to the same extent as the previously approved plan. This gives future residents an opportunity to address high maintenance costs and allow amenities to evolve with the residents. Many newer subdivisions are already providing more than the required amount of shade to appeal to new residents. Additionally, in the HOA survey, shade was a main factor in a park's usability. The proposed code amendments codify best practices already being implemented. Much of the cost associated with shade structure is incurred by the developer for initial design, engineering and construction. Maintenance costs to replace shade sails/ clothes are lower. Staff also presented the proposed changes to the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association (SAHBA) and the Metropolitan Pima Alliance (MPA). Key points of the discussion include: SAHBA - As discussed in previous sections of this report, key concerns were the increase in recreation area size and cost to provide more shading over playground equipment. MPA - Several clarifying questions about dedication of private rec areas to the Town, amenities to benefit future residents, rec requirements for apartments, and the ability to further distribute rec areas (more than 2 times) when warranted. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed code amendments provide provisions to priorize larger private recreation areas and enhance amenities to ensure private parks are functional for residents in subdivisions, multi-family and mixed-use developments. The proposed amendments support the objective of the SLP item adopted by the Town Council and incorporate feedback received from the study sessions, survey and stakeholders. The proposed code amendments are in conformance with the General Plan and therefore, staff recommends approval. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may consider the following motions: I MOVE to recommend approval of the proposed code amendments to Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 31, and other related sections of the zoning code based on the finding they are in conformance with the General Plan. OR I MOVE to recommend denial of the proposed code amendment to Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 31, and other related sections of the zoning code based on the finding__________________. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 - PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS ATTACHMENT 2 - PZC STAFF REPORT 9.6.2022 ATTACHMENT 3 - STUDY SESSION FEEDBACK AND RESPONSES ATTACHMENT 4 - PRIVATE PARK SURVEY Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 1 of 21 1 Section 22.9.C. Authorities Section 23.7 Property Development Standards for Multi-Family Residential Districts B. R-4 Townhouse Residential District The provisions of Section 23.4 and the following additional requirements shall apply in this district. 1. Density The minimum gross land area per dwelling unit shall be five thousand four hundred fifty (5,450) square feet. DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY TABLE 22-9B. REVIEW AUTHORITY Planning and Zoning Reviews features related to site, landscape, and architecture design for compliance with applicable zoning requirements, design principles and standards, and the general plan Public Works Reviews features related to drainage, floodplains, and roadways for compliance with adopted street and drainage standards Water Utility Reviews features related to water use and infrastructure Parks and Recreation Reviews features related parks and recreation facilities, including trails for compliance with the applicable maps, plans or policies Police Department Reviews features related to public safety and police protection, SUCH AS CONFORMANCE TO CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENT DESIGN (CPTED) ELEMENTS. Fire District Reviews features related to public safety and fire protection for compliance with adopted fire codes Pima County Wastewater Reviews features related to sewage disposal Arizona Department of Transportation Reviews right-of-way and intersection design for land abutting a state highway Utilities and other agencies All applicable utilities and other agencies affected shall review for compliance with their adopted codes Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 2 of 21 2 2. Open Space AND RECREATION Requirements A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the total gross land area of the development shall be set aside AS OPEN SPACE IN THE FOLLOWING PROPORTIONS, for recreation uses or other common landscaped areas unless the overall density of the development is less than five (5) units per acre. The Town Council may waive this requirement because of the relationship of the development to an existing public park or recreation area. a. RECREATIONAL SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 26.5 AND THE FOLLOWING: i. All accessory buildings for recreational purposes shall not occupy more than fourteen percent (14%) of the total area reserved for recreation uses and other common landscaped areas. b. THE REMAINDER OF THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED IN COMMON OPEN SPACE. C. R-4R Resort District The provisions of Section 23.4 and the following additional requirements shall apply in this district. 1. Density a. The minimum gross land area per guest room shall be four thousand two hundred fifty (4,250) square feet. b. The minimum gross land area per dwelling unit shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. c. The total acreage required by subsections B.1.a and b of this section shall not exceed the gross acreage of the property. 2. Open Space AND RECREATION Requirements a. Buildings may cover COVERAGE SHALL NOT EXCEED an aggregate area of twenty-five percent (25%), excluding parking areas. b. SITES DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL USES SHALL PROVIDE RECREATIONAL SPACE, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 26.5. c. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH A RESORT, AND ACCESSIBLE TO RESIDENTS, MAY BE CREDITED TOWARDS THE RECREATION REQUIREMENTS. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 3 of 21 3 D. R-S Residential Service District 3. Open Space AND RECREATION Requirements a. There shall be a minimum of thirty-six percent (36%) of the net lot area in open space. b. Open space shall be provided in the following proportions: i. A minimum of twelve percent (12%) of the net lot area shall be provided as frontage open space to provide a setting for the building, visual continuity within the community and a variety of spaces in the streetscape, except that the frontage open space shall not be required to exceed fifty (50) square feet per one (1) foot on public street frontage, excluding drives. Exception: Where a lot has two (2) or more street frontages, there shall be no less than twenty (20) square feet of open space per one (1) foot of street frontage for one (1) street, and no less than ten (10) square feet of open space per one (1) foot of street frontage, excluding drives for other street(s). In no case shall a building be closer than twenty (20) feet to the front lot line. ii. A private outdoor living space shall be provided adjoining each dwelling unit equal to a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the gross size of the dwelling unit, except that dwelling units above the first story shall provide space equal to a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the gross size of the dwelling unit. Outdoor living space on the ground level may be included in the open space requirements. iii. SITES DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL USES, OR A COMBINATION OF RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, SHALL PROVIDE RECREATIONAL SPACE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 26.5. iv. The remainder of the required open space shall be provided in common open space. E. R-6 Multi-Family Residential District 3. Open Space AND RECREATION Requirements Development of all R-6 zoned property shall provide a minimum of thirty-five percent (35%) of the net lot area as open space in the following proportions: a. Each lot shall contain a minimum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of usable outdoor living space for each dwelling unit, exclusive of front yards. (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5) Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 4 of 21 4 b. SITES DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL USES, OR A COMBINATION OF RESIDENTIAL AND NON- RESIDENTIAL USES, SHALL PROVIDE RECREATIONAL SPACE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 26.5 AND THE FOLLOWING: b. Not less than fifty percent (50%) of said required space shall be provided in a single common area, with a minimum dimension of twenty (20) feet at any point. (MOVED AND REVISED IN SECTION 26.5.C.1). i. Portions of THE REAR AND SIDE yards (excluding the front yards) which are contiguous with, and an integral part of, the outdoor living space may be included in calculating the area and minimum dimensions of such space. THE RECREATION AREA. ii. Pools and paved recreation areas may be developed AS PART OF in the required common space. c. A private outdoor living space shall be provided adjoining each dwelling unit, equal to a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the gross size of the dwelling unit, except that dwelling units above the first story shall provide such space equal to a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the gross size of the dwelling unit. Outdoor living space on ground level may be included in the open space requirement. i. Outdoor living areas shall be reasonably accessible to dwelling units served ii. Driveways and landscaping within driveway areas shall not be included in calculations of outdoor space. f. The remainder of the required open space shall be provided in landscaped or natural COMMON open space. 7. Recreational Facilities a. Wherever there is constructed on a lot, or contiguous lots, multiple dwellings which have fifty (50) or more dwelling units, an active outdoor recreational facility shall be provided for the occupants of said units. In addition to the active outdoor recreation area, an indoor recreational facility shall also be provided for the occupants of said dwelling units. The recreational facility may be used as the leasing, sales, or manager’s office, but that use may not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor area. The balance of the facilities shall include group meeting facilities and facilities for exercise, table sports, and games. (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.C.1) b. Wherever there is constructed a multiple dwelling which has twenty (20) or more dwelling units, there shall be provided on the lot site of said multiple dwellings a play area for children. Said play area shall be separated from any private access ways and public streets by a fence or wall. The tot lot requirement shall be excluded from a senior citizens development. (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.C.1) Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 5 of 21 5 Section 26.5 Provision of Recreational Area A. Applicability The provision of recreational facilities shall be required of all residential subdivisions, MULTI-FAMILY OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS, except those located within the R1-36, R1-43, R1-144, and R1-300 Zoning Districts, unless utilizing the lot size reduction flexible design option enabled by Section 27.10. B. Recreational Area Plan Submittal and Approval 1. The developer shall submit a LANDSCAPE AND recreational area plan AS PART OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL PACKAGE. THE RECREATION AREA SHALL to include the minimum improvements for recreational purposes as required by subsection D of this section. 2. The LANDSCAPE AND recreational area plan shall be submitted and reviewed by Town Council concurrently with the preliminary plat. SUBJECT TO RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND APPROVAL FROM THE TOWN COUNCIL, CONCURRENTLY WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN. 3. Approval of the plan by the Town Council, after review and recommendations by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (for public recreational areas and the Planning and Zoning Commission (for private recreational areas) shall be a prerequisite to approval of the final plat (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.E.2). 3. All recreational area plans shall be reviewed by the Oro Valley Police Department (OVPD) for conformance to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) design elements contained in subsection D.5 of this section. (MOVED TO THE TABLE 22-9B) 4. HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION OR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REQUESTS TO MODIFY EXISTING FACILITIES AND AMENITIES modification of facilities and amenities depicted on the approved recreational area plan ARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: a. Modifications deemed necessary and beneficial to provide for the recreational needs of residents THAT MAINTAIN PARITY WITH THE QUANTITY AND TYPE OF AMENITIES PREVIOUSLY APPROVED are REVIEWED AND MAY BE APPROVED subject to approval by the Parks and Recreation Director (RECREATIONAL AREAS DEDICATED TO THE TOWN ONLY) and THE Planning and Zoning Administrator (PRIVATE RECREATIONAL AREAS). b. All modifications shall conform CONFORMANCE to the provisions of this code. C. Minimum Recreation Area Standards Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 6 of 21 6 1. THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF RECREATION AREA AND PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE ARE ESTABLISHED IN TABLE 26-1 AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: A. RECREATION AREAS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN NO MORE THAN TWO COMMON AREAS UNLESS FURTHER DISTRIBUTION IS APPROVED BY TOWN COUNCIL DUE TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: i. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS SIZE, SHAPE OR TOPOGRAPHY APPLY TO THE PROPERTY ii. THE DISTANCE TO RESIDENTS THE RECREATION AREA IS SERVING MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 26.5.C.2. iii. THE VARIETY OF AMENITIES PROVIDED MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 26.5.D. B. RECREATION AREAS SHALL NOT BE NARROWER THAN SIXTY (60) FEET WIDE AT ANY GIVEN POINT UNLESS APPROVED BY TOWN COUNCIL DUE TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: i. THE RECREATION AREA IS A TRAIL OR LINEAR PARK ii. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS SIZE, SHAPE OR TOPOGRAPHY APPLY TO THE PROPERTY C. A REZONING OR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT RESULTS IN MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION SHALL PROVIDE SHARED RECREATION AREAS TO: i. MAXIMIZE SPACE TO CLUSTER AMENITIES ii. LOCATE IN A CONVENIENT AREA THAT IS ACCESSIBLE TO ALL RESIDENTS FROM THE ASSOCIATED SUBDIVISIONS D. LINEAR PARKS, AS DEFINED BY THIS CODE AND DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION D.2.H. OF THIS SECTION, ARE ACCEPTABLE AS A PORTION OF RECREATION AREAS WHEN THEY SERVE TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO AMENITIES AND OPEN SPACE NETWORKS. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 7 of 21 7 TABLE 26-1: RECREATION AREA STANDARDS HOUSING TYPE MINIMUM RECREATION REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM RECREATION REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO REZONING APPLICATIONS DWELLING UNITS, SINGLE- FAMILY 512 SF PER UNIT 900 SF PER UNIT DWELLING UNITS, ATTACHED, INCLUDING TOWNHOMES OR PATIO HOMES 512 SF PER UNIT 900 SF PER UNIT APARTMENTS 400 SF PER UNIT 400 SF PER UNIT A TOT LOT IS REQUIRED FOR APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT HAVE 20 OR MORE, TWO (2) + BEDROOM UNITS, UNLESS THE COMPLEX IS AGE-RESTRICTED FOR SENIORS. AN INDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITY IS REQUIRED FOR APARTMENT COMPLEXES WITH 50 UNITS OR MORE. C. IN-LIEU OF CONSTRUCTING THE REQUIRED RECREATION AREA, RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, MULTI- FAMILY OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS REQUIRING ONE-QUARTER (¼) ACRE OR LESS MUST PROVIDE A FEE PER SECTION 26.5.F.1.a. 1. An area shall be devoted to and designated as “recreational area” on the preliminary plat which equals a ratio of one (1) acre to every eighty-five (85) dwelling units. (MOVED TO TABLE 26-1). 2. The Recreational area(s) shall be usable and accessible by all subdivision residents WITHIN THE INTENDED SERVICE AREA.and shall provide amenities that best serve the needs of the development. THE LOCATION OF RECREATION AREA(S) SHALL MEET ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: a. POSITION WITHIN ONE-HALF (½) MILE, OR A 10-MINUTE WALK FROM ALL RESIDENTS IT IS INTENDED TO SERVE. b. CREATE A CENTRAL FOCAL SPACE THAT IS HIGHLY VISIBLE FOR GATHERINGS, PASSIVE AND ACTIVE ACTIVITIES. c. ACCESSIBLE VIA SIDEWALK, WALKING PATH, TRAIL, BICYCLE OR SHARED USE PATH BY ALL RESIDENTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION, MULTI-FAMILY OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: i. AT LEAST ONE ACCESS ROUTE TO THE RECREATION AREA SHALL COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA). ii. ACCESS ROUTES SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE RECREATION AREA PLAN. d. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (CPTED) ELEMENTS: Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 8 of 21 8 i. NATURAL SURVEILLANCE - EMPHASIS ON VISIBILITY OF THE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, ALSO KNOWN AS “EYES ON THE STREET,” TO DETER UNAUTHORIZED USERS AND ACTIVITIES. ii. ACCESS CONTROL - USE OF DESIGN ELEMENTS TO DENY ENTRANCE TO RECREATIONAL FACILITIES TO UNAUTHORIZED USERS AND ACTIVITIES. 3. PASSIVE RECREATION AREAS SHOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN PROXIMITY TO NATURAL OPEN SPACE AREAS AND/OR CONSERVED, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS. 4. RECREATIONAL AREAS SHALL NOT INCLUDE LAND SUCH AS PEAKS, RIDGES, LAND FRAGMENTS, LAND RESTRICTED BY TOWN POLICY, CONDITION OR ORDINANCE, AND LAND DETERMINED UNUSABLE FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES BY TOWN COUNCIL. 5. SHALLOW RETENTION BASINS (FLOOD-PRONE AREAS) MAY BE APPROVED FOR USE AS RECREATION AREAS SUBJECT TO RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE TOWN ENGINEER AND PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. DECISIONS MAY BE APPEALED TO THE TOWN COUNCIL. 3. Upon review and recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, the Town Council may allow environmentally sensitive open space (ESOS) to be credited toward the recreation requirements of this section, to the provisions of the environmentally sensitive lands ordinance (ESLO). The applicant may receive a credit for this property at a one to one (1:1) ratio for a maximum of one hundred percent (100%) of the required recreational area. Credit may be obtained only when the following criteria are met: a. The area shall be determined to contain significant, unique, and desirable environmental, scenic, or cultural features. b. The area shall be delineated as common area, designated with a conservation easement, with ownership to be held in common by the homeowners’ association or the town. c. The area shall be accessible via sidewalk, walking path, trail, and/or bicycle or shared use path by all residents within the project. (SECTION MOVED TO 26.5.D.3.C.) D. Recreational Area Plan Standards IMPROVEMENTS AND AMENITIES 1. Site Location TRAILS a. Recreational areas shall be a focal point for passive and active recreational activities and provide a meaningful place for neighborhood gatherings and activities. Recreation areas shall be placed in a highly visible area of the subdivision that is accessible via sidewalk, walking path, trail, and/or bicycle or shared use path by all residents within the project. (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.C.2) Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 9 of 21 9 b. Linear parks, as defined by this code and described in subsection D.2.h of this section, are acceptable when they serve to improve access to recreational amenities and open space networks. (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.C.1.) c. Passive recreation areas should be located within proximity to natural open space areas and conserved, environmentally sensitive lands. (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.C.2) d. Recreational areas shall not include land, such as peaks, ridges, land fragments, land restricted by Town policy, condition or ordinance, and land determined unusable for recreational purposes by the Mayor and Town Council. Shallow retention basins (flood-prone areas) may be approved for use as recreational areas subject to recommendations by the Town Engineer and Planning and Zoning Administrator. Decisions may be appealed to the Town Council. (MOVED TO 26.5.C.2). A. In cases where a recreational area lies adjacent to a trail identified within the Eastern Pima County Trails System Master Plan and/or the Oro Valley Trails Map and their subsequent updates, a connection shall be provided between the recreational area and said trail. B. TRAILS AND ASSOCIATED SIGNAGE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PIMA REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM MASTER PLAN STANDARDS, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE TOWN’S PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: i. TRAILS SHALL BE POSITIONED IN A MANNER TO AVOID NATIVE VEGETATION AND MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL OF EROSION. ii. TRAILS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO ENSURE MINIMAL MAINTENANCE. iii. TRAIL EASEMENTS MUST BE A MINIMUM OF TWENTY-FIVE (25’) WIDE, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR. iv. TRAILS MUST BE DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT, NON-MOTORIZED USE, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR. C. MAINTENANCE OF PRIVATE TRAILS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION OR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY. D. DETAILED DESIGNS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE AND RECREATION AREA PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: i. SURFACE TREATMENT ii. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES iii. PLACEMENT OF SIGNAGE PER SECTION 26.5.C.5. 2. Recreational Facilities Improvement Standards RECREATION AREA IMPROVEMENTS AND AMENITIES Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 10 of 21 10 a. Recreational area improvements shall be appropriate to the anticipated needs of the development. DETAILED DESIGNS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH PROPOSED AMENITY WITH THE LANDSCAPE AND RECREATION AREA PLAN final plat. b. Equipment installed within the recreational areas shall comply with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). C. IF PROVIDED, RESTROOM FACILITIES SHALL BE LOCATED IN A HIGHLY VISIBLE AREA AND SHALL BE FREE OF SHRUBS THAT REACH A MATURE HEIGHT GREATER THAN THREE (3) FEET. D. RECREATION AREA IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE APPROPRIATE TO THE ANTICIAPTED NEEDS OF RESIDENTS. AREAS MUST INCLUDE A VARIETY OF AMENITIES TO SUPPORT RESIDENTS OF ALL AGES AND ABILITIES. E. EACH RECREATION AREA MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING AMENITIES, AT A MINIMUM: I. SEATING SUCH AS A BENCH, PICNIC TABLE, OR OTHER SIMILAR AMENITY II. TRASH RECEPTABLE AND/OR PET WASTE STATION IV. VEHICLE AND BICYCLE PARKING PER SECTION 27.7 V. SHADING PROVIDED BY BUILT STRUCTURES, OR COMBINATION OF BUILT STRUCTURES AND NATURAL VEGETATION. VI. PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN ALL AMENITIES VII. Provision of One (1) active and one (1) passive amenity AS SPECIFIED IN TABLE 26-2 for the first one-half (1/2) acre or portion thereof. a. For every additional one-half (1/2) acre (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST HALF not fractions), an additional passive and active AMENITY use shall be provided. up to the maximum provided by the following subsections. b. A MAXIMUM OF FIVE (5) PASSIVE AND THREE (3) ACTIVE AMENITIES ARE PERMITTED WITHIN A SINGLE RECREATION AREA, UNLESS SUFFICIENT SPACE HAS BEEN PROVIDED AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OR THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR. i. A single park area may contain up to five (5) passive amenities. Examples of passive amenities include turf areas, benches, picnic tables, shade structures, barbecue grills, pathways, etc. (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.D.2.F). Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 11 of 21 11 ii. A single park area may contain up to three (3) MAJOR amenities. Examples of active amenities include basketball courts, volleyball courts, bocce courts, horseshoe pits, par courses, etc. (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.D.2.F). F. THE TOWN COUNCIL MAY REQUIRE DIFFERENT AMENITIES WITHIN A SUBDIVISION, MULTI- FAMILY OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT TO ACHIEVE MORE VARIETY OR APPROVE AMENITIES NOT SPECIFIED IN TABLE 26-2, YET COMPRABLE IN USE, ACCESSIBLITY AND FUNCTION. G. WHEN APPROPRIATE TO THE NEEDS OF RESIDENTS, TOT LOTS SHALL BE REQUIRED. TOT LOTS SHALL INCLUDE, AT A MINIMUM: I. PLAY EQUIPMENT AREA. II. DRINKING FOUNTAIN. III. SEATING AREA ORIENTED TOWARDS THE PLAY EQUIPMENT. IV. TRASH RECEPTACLE(S). V. BICYCLE PARKING WITH A FOUR (4) BICYCLE MINIMUM CAPACITY. VI. PICNIC TABLE. VII. LIMITED TURF AREA FOR ACTIVITY AREAS ONLY (LESS THAN FIFTEEN PERCENT (15%) OF TOTAL RECREATIONAL AREA) MAY BE PROVIDED. H. Linear parks SHALL may be utilized to satisfy the recreational requirements of this section. Required amenities BE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF TWENTY-FIVE (25’) FEET AT ANY GIVEN POINT AND include, at a minimum: i. A shared use path for pedestrians and bicyclists. TABLE 26-2: RECREATION AREA AMENITIES ACTIVE AMENITIES PASSIVE AMENITIES SWIMMING POOL BARBECUE GRILLS BALL COURT (BASKETBALL, VOLLEYBALL, PICKLEBALL, TENNIS) BOCCE BALL OR HORESHOE PIT RAMADA PICNIC TABLE PLAYGROUND OR TOT-LOT SWING SET OR STANDALONE PLAY STRUCTURE RECTANGULAR TURF FIELD SMALL TURF AREA OR PAR COURSES WORKOUT/FITNESS EQUIPMENT WALKING PATH COMMUNITY GARDEN DOG PARK Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 12 of 21 12 ii. Seating area. iii. Landscaping. iv. Drinking fountain, if located within one hundred (100) feet of a potable water line. v. Trash receptacle(s). vi. Pet waste removal station(s). vii. Exercise stations MAY BE INCLUDED may be located within linear parks. The location of the amenities along a linear park is subject to the approval of the Planning and Zoning Administrator. and PRLCR Director. I. INDOOR RECREATION AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: i. THE INDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITY MAY BE USED AS THE LEASING, SALES, OR MANAGER’S OFFICE; HOWEVER, THAT USE MAY NOT EXCEED THIRTY PERCENT (30%) OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA. ii. THE REMAINDER OF THE SPACE SHALL INCLUDE PASSIVE OR ACTIVE AMENITIES SUCH AS GROUP MEETING SPACE OR COMMUNITY RECREATION ROOMS WITH EXERCISE EQUIPMENT, TABLE SPORTS, GAMES, OR OTHER SIMILAR AMENITIES. 3. Credit for Enhanced Amenities OR ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE OPEN SPACE (ESOS) A. Credit for the additional cost of enhanced recreational amenities, including community swimming pools splash pads, skate/BMX parks, fully improved sports fields, and other amenities approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator, may be obtained against the recreation area requirement in subsection C.1 of this section based on the following criteria: i. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate summarizing the following: a) Value of the land and cost of the improvements and amenities that would be required by this code. b) Value of the land and cost of the improvements and enhanced amenities proposed as alternative means of compliance. ii. Credit for the additional cost of the enhanced amenities may be received in the form of a reduction to the required recreation land area. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 13 of 21 13 iii. The extent of the credit shall be determined by the value of the enhanced amenity as determined by the Town. The maximum reduction of recreation area requirement is one-half (1/2) acre. B. Credit for improved indoor recreational space, UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED, may be obtained subject to the following criteria: i. Improved community recreation rooms, community centers, gymnasiums, performance space, or other recreation space accessible to all residents of a development shall receive credit at a ratio of three to one (3:1) against the area requirement contained in subsection C.1 of this section. ii. Each active and passive amenity contained within an indoor recreational space shall receive a credit to the recreational amenity requirements contained in subsections D.2.e.vii, D.2.c, and D.2.d of this section at a one-to-one (1:1) ratio. C. UPON REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD, TOWN COUNCIL MAY ALLOW ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE OPEN SPACE (ESOS) TO BE CREDITED TOWARD THE AMOUNT OF RECREATION AREA BEYOND THE ALLOWANCES PERMITTED IN SECTION 27.10 AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS ORDINANCE (ESLO). THE APPLICANT MAY RECEIVE A CREDIT FOR THIS PROPERTY AT A ONE TO ONE (1:1) RATIO FOR A MAXIMUM OF ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (100%) OF THE REQUIRED RECREATIONAL AREA. CREDIT MAY BE OBTAINED ONLY WHEN THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE MET: i. THE AREA SHALL BE DETERMINED TO CONTAIN SIGNIFICANT, UNIQUE, AND DESIRABLE ENVIRONMENTAL, SCENIC, OR CULTURAL FEATURES. ii. THE AREA SHALL BE DELINEATED AS A COMMON AREA, DESIGNATED WITH A CONSERVATION EASEMENT, WITH OWNERSHIP TO BE HELD IN COMMON BY THE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY OR THE TOWN. iii. THE AREA SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE VIA SIDEWALK, WALKING PATH, TRAIL, AND/OR BICYCLE OR SHARED USE PATH BY ALL RESIDENTS WITHIN THE PROJECT. g. When appropriate to the needs of the residents, tot lot amenities shall be required. Tot lots shall include, at a minimum:(MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.D.2.G) i. Play equipment area. ii. Drinking fountain. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 14 of 21 14 iii. Seating area (may include benches or seat walls) oriented towards the play equipment. iv. Trash receptacle(s). v. Bicycle parking with a four (4) bicycle minimum capacity. vi. Picnic table. vii. Limited turf area for activity areas only (less than fifteen percent (15%) of total recreational area) may be provided. gh. Linear parks may be utilized to satisfy the recreational requirements of this section. Required amenities include, at a minimum: :(MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.D.2.H) i. A shared use path for pedestrians and bicyclists. ii. Seating area. iii. Landscaping. iv. Drinking fountain, if located within one hundred (100) feet of a potable water line. v. Trash receptacle(s). vi. Pet waste removal station(s). vii. Exercise stations may be located within linear parks. VIII. The location of the amenities along a linear park is subject to the approval of the Planning and Zoning Administrator and PRLCR Director. 4. Play Equipment Standards a. Applicant shall submit evidence that play equipment complies with the current American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) safety standards for playground equipment. b. Playground surface materials, including certified wood fiber, shredded rubber, poured-in- place surfacing, or other acceptable material approved by the Parks and Recreation Director, shall be placed at a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches under the equipment. c. No play equipment shall be located within thirty (30) feet of any road right-of-way, driveway or alleyway, parking area, or single-family residential lot or single-family residential zone unless AN ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE WALL, PERMANENT FENCE, OR SIMILAR an acceptable barrier is provided AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 15 of 21 15 d. ALL PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND ASSOCIATED USE (FALL) ZONES must be fully shaded with a UV-resistant sunshade or other appropriate shading material, or structure as approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. and Permitting Division. e. Play equipment or apparatus with a footprint of two hundred fifty (250) square feet or less must be fully shaded with a UV-resistant sunshade or other appropriate shading material or structure as approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator and Permitting Division. f. At least fifty percent (50%) of play equipment or apparatus must be fully shaded with a UV- resistant sunshade or other appropriate shading material, or structure as approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator and Permitting Division. This requirement shall be applied only to play equipment or apparatus with a footprint of two hundred fifty (250) square feet or greater. g. To maximize the safety of children, play spaces shall be located to provide maximum visibility from surrounding homes. h. Play equipment shall not be located on a slope greater than four percent (4%). 5. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Elements(MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.C.2.d) a. Recreational area design shall consider the following CPTED elements: i. Natural Surveillance Emphasis on visibility of the recreational facilities, also known as “eyes on the street,” to deter unauthorized users and activities. ii. Access Control Use of design elements to deny entrance to recreational facilities to unauthorized users and activities. 5. SIGNAGE a. All recreational areas shall post at least one (1) sign at the primary entrance(s) stating: i. Hours of operation. ii. Park/recreational area rules. iii. Trespassing notice for unauthorized users, including citation of applicable ordinances/statutes. iv. Notice that all dogs must be kept on a leash (unless an approved off-leash area has been designated). v. Emergency (911) contact information to report suspicious or criminal activity. vi. If A recreation area is privately operated, homeowners’ association contact information to report maintenance or safety issues. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 16 of 21 16 b. If a neighborhood watch program exists, a sign shall be posted at the primary entrance(s) to the recreational area. c. If the recreational area abuts an environmentally sensitive lands (ESL) area, a sign shall be posted every AT one hundred (100) feet FOOT INTERVALS ALONG at the border of the ESL area. The sign shall conform to the ESL sign requirements per the environmentally sensitive lands ordinance (ESLO). d. IF THE SUBDIVISION, MULTI-FAMILY OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS INCLUDES PRIVATE OR PUBLIC TRAILS, DIRECTIONAL TRAIL SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED AT ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY (150) FOOT INTERVALS ALONG THE TRAIL OR, AT ONE HUNDRED (100) FOOT INTERVALS IF ABUTTING AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS AREA. 6. LIGHTING AND RECREATION AREA HOURS a. All lighting shall be consistent with the standards of Section 27.5, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 27.5.H. (RECREATIONAL FACILITIES). b. ALL LIGHTING MUST BE FULLY SHIELDED and turned off by 10:00 p.m. c. If no lighting is provided, recreation area hours shall be limited to daylight hours only and shall be posted on the informational sign(s) at the park entrance(s) required by subsection D.5 of this section. E. Facilities Installation, Ownership and Maintenance 1. Private Recreational Facilities a. In cases where the recreational facility is to be privately owned, ALL SHARED recreational AREAS INCLUDING AMENITIES, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC TRAILS WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS facilities and ASSOCIATED parking improvements shall be completed and in place by the time thirty-five percent (35%) of the building permits are issued. Prior to release of the required bond or assurance, the developer shall provide written documentation to the Town that all mechanisms are in place to protect the rights of the RESIDENTS homeowners (i.e., liability insurance). b. Private recreational areas, and improvements IN A SUBDIVISION shall be owned and maintained by a mandatory membership homeowners association (HOA) created by covenants. If the HOA fails to adequately maintain the required recreational facilities, the Town may cause the property to be maintained and may cause a lien to be placed on the property, subject to and inferior to the lien for general taxes and to all prior recorded mortgages and encumbrances of record. 2. Public Park Facilities Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 17 of 21 17 a. In cases where the required recreational area is at least three (3) acres in size and is located adjacent to a public thoroughfare, dedication to the Town may be accepted. In this case, the park land shall be owned and maintained by the Town. The subdivider shall, without credit: i. Provide full street improvements and utility connections including, but not limited to, curbs, gutters, street paving, traffic control devices, lighting, street trees, and sidewalks to land which is dedicated pursuant to this section; ii. Provide solid masonry fencing along the property line of that portion of the subdivided lots contiguous to the dedicated land; iii. Provide improved drainage through the site; and iv. Provide other improvements and amenities that the Town Council determines to be essential to the acceptance of the land for recreational purposes. Subsequent improvements, if any, shall be developed and maintained by the Town. b. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC DEDICATION ARE SUBJECT TO RECOMMENDATION BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND APPROVAL BY THE TOWN COUNCIL. c. When park land is dedicated to and accepted by the Town, the provisions of subsection B.1 of this section shall not apply. F. In-Lieu Fee Option 1. IN-LIEU FEES USED TO SATISFY THE RECREATION AREA AND ASSOCIATED AMENITY REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION, APPLY AS FOLLOWS: a. RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, MULTI-FAMILY OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS REQUIRING A RECREATION AREA OF ONE-QUARTER (¼) ACRE OR LESS MUST PROVIDE AN IN-LIEU FEE. b. ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, MULTI-FAMILY OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS MAY REQUEST USE OF AN IN-LIEU FEE TO SATISFY A PORTION OF THE RECREATION AREA REQUIREMENT. REQUESTS ARE SUBJECT TO SECTION 26.5.2 AND A MINIMUM ONE-QUARTER (1/4) ACRE MUST BE PROVIDED ONSITE WITH AMENITIES PER SECTION 26.5.D.2. The remaining portion of the recreation improvement obligation shall be applied to on-site recreation area(s) and WITH amenities per the provisions of this code. c. IN-LIEU FEES CANNOT BE USED TO SATISFY ANY REQUIRED PRIVATE OR PUBLIC TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS. 1. In lieu of the required private recreational area or public park land dedication and required recreational facilities. The Town Council may approve an alternative proposal for an in-lieu fee that aids in the development or improvement of Town parks or recreational facilities. All subdivisions containing forty- three (43) lots or less may utilize the in-lieu fee option. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 18 of 21 18 2. Subdivisions of eighty-five lots or more may elect to utilize the in-lieu fee option for up to fifty percent (50%) of the total cost of recreation area improvements as determined by the recreation area in-lieu fee calculation definition. The remaining portion of the recreation improvement obligation shall be applied to on-site recreation area(s) and amenities per the provisions of this code. In-lieu fee proposals shall meet all of the following conditions: 2. REVIEW OF IN-LIEU FEE REQUESTS a. IN-LIEU FEE REQUESTS ARE SUBJECT TO RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND APPROVAL BY TOWN COUNCIL. In-lieu fee requests shall meet the following: i. The subdivision, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT has or can provide legal and physically constructed access to an existing Oro Valley public park, a park location WITHIN ONE-HALF (½) MILE, OR A TEN (10) MINUTE WALK FROM THE SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT. identified in the Town Parks, Open Space and Trails Master Plan, or other location approved by the Parks and Recreation Director. ii. The total amount of the in-lieu fee determined by the recreation area in-lieu fee calculation is, in the opinion of the Planning and Zoning Administrator (PZA) and PRLCR Director, sufficient to fund a specific park development or improvement project for an existing facility. b. In evaluating a REQUEST TO UTILIZE THE IN-LIEU FEE OPTION proposal under this section, the Town Council shall consider the impact on the property resulting from a change in the standard requirements for recreational space, the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed alternatives, the benefits afforded to the subdivision from the alternative proposal and the relative values to the community afforded by the alternative proposal as compared with the standard requirements. 3. FEE CALCULATION AND DETERMINATION a. A WRITTEN APPRAISAL REPORT PREPARED BY AN APPRAISER SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR TO DETERMINE THE IN-LIEU FEE. b. THE REPORT SHALL BE BASED ON THE IMPROVED VALUE OF THE LAND, INCLUDING: i. THE COST OF THE LAND REQUIRED FOR THE RECREATION AREA ii. THE COSTS FOR STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES REQUIRED IN SECTION 26.5.D. iii. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 19 of 21 19 iv. NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE (I.E., ROADWAYS, DRAINAGE WATER, ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND SEWER) REQUIRED TO SERVE THE RECREATION AREA AREAS. c. THE TOWN MAY ENGAGE THE SERVICES OF A THIRD-PARTY APPRAISER, AT THE APPLICANT’S SOLE EXPENSE, TO EVALUATE THE ACCURACY OF THE REPORT. d. The recreation area in-lieu fee shall be determined by the Town, with a written appraisal report prepared by an appraiser acceptable to the Town. PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR. The determination of the recreation area in-lieu fee shall consider, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: i. Approval and any conditions of the conceptual site plan. AN ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT OR REZONING ii. The general plan iii. Conditional zoning iv. Property location v. Off-site improvements facilitating use of the property vi. Site characteristics of the property e. The recreation area in-lieu fee calculation shall be based on the improved value of the land, including structures and facilities required by Section 26.5, design, construction costs, and having the necessary infrastructure (i.e., roadways, drainage water, electric, telephone and sewer) installed to serve the park areas. (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.F.3.b) f. OBJECTIONS TO THE DETERMINED IN-LIEU FEE MAY BE APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PER SECTION 22.12. 6. The proposal shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the Planning and Zoning Administrator and Parks and Recreation Director who shall forward their recommendations to the Town Council for its action after an advertised public hearing. 4. APPROVAL a. The terms of the agreement shall be made a matter of public record and a condition of approval of any final plat, IF APPLICABLE, or issuance of any GRADING permit. s for the subdivision. b. The agreement shall provide for the funding TO IMPROVE OR DEVELOP PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES CLOSEST TO THE SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT. of the equivalent of park land and/or recreational facilities to the Town as would have been provided by a recreational area in the subdivision. 8. In evaluating a proposal under this section, the Town Council shall consider the impact on the property resulting from a change in the standard requirements for recreational space, the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed alternatives, the benefits afforded to the subdivision from the alternative Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 20 of 21 20 proposal and the relative values to the community afforded by the alternative proposal as compared with the standard requirements.(MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.F.2.b). 10. If the subdivider objects to the determined in-lieu fee, he/she may appeal to the Town Council, with the burden of proof lying with the subdivider. (MOVED AND REVISED IN SECTION 26.5.F.3.f). 11. The Town Council may waive requirements for an appraisal when the subdivider provides acceptable alternative information to the Planning and Zoning Administrator (PZA), Parks and Recreation Director, and the Finance Director as a means of determining the improved value that is presented and accepted at a Town Council public hearing. Section 27.6.C.3 Plant Materials and Restrictions g. Natural turf is prohibited with the following exceptions: a. Town of Oro Valley public parks. b. Private parks that serve more than one neighborhood. c. Private RECREATION AREAS parks serving only one (1) neighborhood are limited to no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total park RECREATION area UNLESS A SPORTS FIELD OR SIMILAR AMENITY IS APPROVED BY TOWN COUNCIL. d. Private schools. e. Golf course greens and tee boxes only. For all uses enabled by exception, turf may only be utilized for activity areas and not for ornamental purposes. Private Park RECREATION areas may not be seeded with winter rye. Section 27.10.F. ESOS Use and Conservation Development iii. Trails Trails and associated amenities such as benches must conform to SECTION 26.5.D.1 standards established by the Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department. CHAPTER 31 – DEFINITIONS Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 21 of 21 21 Apartments – A DWELLING residential use, which is occupied as the home or residence of three (3) or more families living independently of each other. DESIGNED FOR THE OCCUPANCY BY THREE (3) OR MORE FAMILIES LIVING INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER IN UNITS STACKED ON TOP OF ONE ANOTHER. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT – A DEVELOPMENT WITH A COMBINATION OF RESIDENTIAL AND NON- RESIDENTIAL USES. Recreation Area A land area that is designated for recreation or contains specific facilities such as community recreational centers, pedestrian ways, swimming pools, picnic facilities, basketball and sport courts, playground equipment and exercise equipment. Active An area delineated for formal activities THAT INVOLVE RELATIVELY HIGH IMPACT OR MORE ENERGY. Which may or may not require equipment and take place on a prescribed field. Active recreational areas include, but are not limited to, tennis, volleyball, bocce ball and other court games, baseball, soccer and other field sports, swimming pools, track, and improved playground activity areas. Passive An area delineated for activities that involve relatively LOW IMPACT inactive or less ENERGY. energetic activities., such as walking, sitting, picnicking, card games, checkers, and similar table games. PASSIVE RECREATIONAL AREAS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, WALKING PATHS, DOG PARKS, OR PICNIC AREAS. Passive recreational areas also include natural open space, which contain nature walks and observation areas. Townhouse - A dwelling with party walls and no side yards between abutting dwellings. A DWELLING DESIGNED FOR OCCUPANCY BY TWO (2) OR MORE FAMILIES LIVING INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER IN UNITS JOINED SIDE BY SIDE OR FRONT TO BACK BY PARTY WALLS, STRUCTURAL ROOF COMPONENTS OR SIMILAR ELEMENTS. ATTACHMENT 3: Feedback provided during previous study sessions with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), and Town Council (TC). Question / Comment Staff Response PRAB With regard to the consolidation of rec areas, would they be located within the same subdivision with the same developer? This depends on whether a Master Development Plan or rezoning is required. The Zoning Code requires a master development plan for large areas of land that need an integrated and comprehensive design. Rancho Vistoso is an example of a master planned area. A rezoning case may also result in a larger, shared recreation area between adjacent subdivisions built by different developers. PRAB If developers can only break up a recreation area twice, how can you ensure the park is within 10 min from all residences? TC Several smaller parks are sometimes better especially if the project is developing in phases. PRAB How do you define adjacent? If a wash runs between two subdivisions are they adjacent? Per code, adjacent is defined as "being near or close to, but not necessary having a common dividing line (e.g., two properties that are seperated by a street or alley shall be considered as adjacent to one another)." PRAB Do adjacent subdivisions have to be built by the same developer? Is that economically feasible to have two different developers work together? TC Concern consolidation may be problematic with two different developers. TC Is it legal to require two developers and two private HOAs to share a rec space?Yes, requiring a larger, recreation area shared by adjacent developers is legal through the rezoning process. PZC Concern of potential problems between two HOAs when sharing a rec area, specifically regarding maintenance. TC Concern of shared maintenance and regulation of the space if there is not a Master HOA. TC Who maintains private parks?Homeowner associations or property management companies are responsible for maintaing private parks. PRAB Maintain open space [ for R-6] at 35%. TC When simplifying, make sure the overall open space requirement (35% in R-6) is maintained? TC Should multi-family be allowed to divide the rec space into multiple areas? If so, meaningful rec areas must be maintained. Both multi-family and single-family developments can only divide the rec space into two areas, unless further distribution is approved by Town Council. Factors considered for further distribution include site constraints, improved access or ability to provide a better variety of amenities. PZC Is the requirement for multi-family [apartments] based on size of property or the amount of units?There is not an existing recreation area size requirement for apartments. Instead, the code requires 50% of 35% of the gross land area to be in a single-common open space area, which may include recreational uses. The proposed code stipulates 400 sf/unit must be meaningful rec space. TC Should lot size be factored in to the recreation area size requirement (similar to Marana)? The existing code factors in lot sizes. Private recreation areas are not required for large-lot residential zones (36,000 sf lots or more). TC Is increasing the recreation size requirment a violation of State law. Would it be considered a taking to require more than before? The proposed increase from 512 sf/unit to 900 sf/unit for detached single-family homes would only apply to rezoning applications, which complies with State law. TC Why is multifamily based on area rather than per unit?Multi-family has been based on land area since the first zoning code was adopted in Oro Valley. However, this method does not factor in density or relate the rec area requirement to the needs of future residents. The proposed code requires 400 sf/unit to resolve these issues. TC Consider context of subdivision to determine if a rec area should be required (proximity to open space or parks). TC Should in-lieu fees be allowed if a park (private or public) is not within a 10 min - 1/2 mile distance? TC How many lots would a subdivision have to require a 1/4 acre or less? A residential project with 21 lots or less, or a rezoning with 12 lots or less would require an in-lieu fee to satisfy the rec area requirement. PRAB The maintenance costs of the smaller parks is high. Makes sense to allow in-lieu fee. PRAB Concern of automatic in-lieu fee for 1/4 acre parks. Why not require a minimum park size of 1/4 acre instead? Requiring an in-lieu fee for very small parks, 1/4 acre or less aligns with staff's research and maintains equity amongst smaller developments. PRAB Make it a penalty to have small park (double fee) and a 1/4 acre or more is a fee? Currently the code allows in-lieu fee to satisfy 100% of the rec area requirement for smaller parks (1/2 acre or less). The proposed code lowers this to a 1/4 acre and restricts the use of in-lieu fees for larger parks by only letting the fee satisfy a portion of the rec requirement. This ensures some recreation space be provided in larger residential projects. PZC Could in-lieu fees be used for maintaining existing trails or adding new trails?Parks and Rec could use in-lieu fees for facilities, such as trailheads. TC Parks help with aesthetics and breaking up the monotony of homes. What mechanism will replace that aspect if an in- lieu fee is paid? The existing code requires local streets to be no more than 600 feet in linear feet without a curve or break in circulation (e.g., traffic circle). This design standard requires rows of homes to be broken up. TC Do we have data on the usage of mini parks? TC Can one provide attractive amenities in mini parks? TC Is this an amenity or size issue? TC Can in-lieu fees be used for private parks (especially if that is what is closest to the neighborhood)? TC In-lieu fees should be used for parks within the 10-min or 1/2 mile zone (whether private or public) TC In-lieu fees should not be used for general maintenance but to add amenities in Town parks (to account for the added population). Staff recommends the Town maintains flexibility on the use of the in-lieu fee as long as it is used at a public park within 1/2 mile or closest to the associated project. TC Where do the in-lieu fees go?In-lieu fees are paid to the Town and used for improvements in public park facilities (including trailheads). TC How frequent are in-lieu fees paid? Are they transferred from one homeowner to the next? In-lieu fees are paid one time by the developer (prior to construction). 1A. Consolidate rec area into 1-2 spaces unless there are special circumstances 1B. Increase or establish the size of recreation areas. 1C. Prioritize high-value private recreation areas (1/4 acre or more) Maintenace of recreation areas shared by multiple HOAs would be established in private agreements. Typically, most of the scenarios this is applicable to would have a master HOA. An example is the Vistoso Community Association, which oversees the private recreation areas in Rancho Vistoso. Code language added to allow further distribution if needed to meet the 1/2 mile, or 10-minute walk distance requirement, provide more amenity variety, site constraints or more. Adjacent subdivisions do not have to be built by the same developer. Recreation areas consolidated and shared by adjacent subdivisions would be within a master planned area or a result of a rezoning. An example of two different developers working together to construct a recreation area is the community park located between the Alterra at Vistoso Trails and Valley Vista subdivisions. The amount of open space required in every multi-family zoning district has been maintained. The proposed code clarifies that a portion of the open space must be useable rec space. Yes. HOAs with existing private parks were surveyed to better understand the value of mini parks. More than half (71%) responded that mini parks were used often-very often. The location and type of amenities were the primary determinents of a park's use. Per the survey results, a smaller park can provide attractive amenities but the limited space poses problems to achieve a variety and meet the No. Use of in-lieu fees on private property could not be enforced by the Town. However, language was added to require the in-lieu fee be used on a public park within a 1/2 mile of the associated project. The option to request use of an in-lieu fee when located within a 1/2 mile of a public park facility for a portion of the private recreation area requirement is maintained. PRAB Do other counties or places do recurring fees?Yes but Oro Valley is a one-time fee. The in-lieu fee is based on the money it would cost to provide a recreation area. This includes the value of the land, cost of amenities and other improvements associated with the recreation area. TC If approved, would in-lieu fees be applied to any existing parks?No, the proposed code amendment will only apply to new residential projects. TC If an in-lieu fee is paid, would residents still have to pay standard park fees (e.g. admission to the community center)? Yes, standard park and facility fees still apply. TC What is the benefit of in-lieu fees to the Town? To the developer? TC If an in-lieu fee is approved, could they use the land for more homes? TC Do we charge Park and Recreation impact fees?Yes. Impact fees will be collected even if an in-lieu fee is paid. PRAB Town would require the type of amenities in lieu of a fee? The cost of amenities that would be provided are factored into the in-lieu fee. PRAB A sand volleyball court is much different than paved courts. Every developer will choose a volleyball court. PRAB Concern of having duplicate amenities. The proposed code amendment allows Town Council to replace proposed amenities to achieve a better variety. PRAB Concern about the cost of maintaining a swimming pool. In addition to residential subdivisions, the proposed code requires active and passive amenities in multi-family and mixed-use developments. Swimming pools are one of several options a residential subdivision developer may choose to satify the amenity requirements. The incentive (credit for enhanced amenities) to install a swimming pool has been removed. PRAB Revise language to be a minimum of 1 instead of requiring 1 each The proposed code language requires a minimum of 1 active and 1 passive in every recreation area. The amount increases by 1 for each additional 1/2 acre. PRAB Clarification between minimum amenities and required amenities Clarification for the minimum amenities required has been added to the proposed code amendment. PRAB/ PZC Community garden as an additional amenity Community garden has been added as an active amenity. PZC Consideration for the walking experience (e.g. crossing roads, ADA, shade etc.)The propoosed code requires at least one access routes be ADA accessible. Access routes must also be shown on the Recreation Area Plan to check for barriers, landscaping, etc. PZC When centralizing larger parks would that allow more turf areas? What about water conservation? Use of artificial turf?The proposed code amendment maintains only 15% of the recreation area may be natural turf but clarifies it may only be used for activity purposes. Decorative use of natural turf is not prohibited. PZC Consider hard surfaces and how much heat they absorb - use reflective painting.The code requires softer and safe materials under play equipment such as wood fiber or rubber. PZC Consider shade for amenities, specifically more shade is needed for play areas. The proposed code amendment requires 100% of all play equipment and the associated use (fall) zones to be fully shaded. This is an increase from the existing code, which only requires the play equipment (or a portion of) to be shaded. TC If approved, how would this affect areas with lesser value amenities? The proposed code amendment will only apply to new residential projects. TC Need to allow flexibility based on target demographics (e.g., Sun City vs. a neighborhood for younger families) PZC Consider the recreation needs of the residents it is serving (e.g. seniors) TC Can they select an active amenity not on the list that is comparable? PRAB Should we be surveying high end communities like Scottsdale?Scottsdale requires a percentage of open space per residential development (medium to high-density). PRAB What will developers think about this?Town staff has periodically discussed the proposed code amendments with the Southern Arizona Homebuilders Association (SAHBA) and reached out to the Metropolitan Pima Alliance (MPA). PRAB Did the Town require the shared park for Valley Vista and Alterra?Yes, through a rezoning the Town required a community park be shared between Alterra Trails and Valley Vista. PZC Were multifamily developers reached out as well?Yes, staff reached out to the AZ Multi- family housing Association. 2. Provide more meaningful amenities The proposed code amendment allows Town Council to approve comparable amenities not listed in the code to better meet the needs of future residents. Other comments or questions The benefit to the Town is getting funds to improve a public park facility. The benefit to the developer and future HOA is not constructing or maintaining a recreational space with little value. The developer may use the land for other site improvements, such as 1 Private park amenities, use and maintenance - Survey Report Overview The Town of Oro Valley is working on proposed code amendments to private recreation areas, including the size, type of amenities and in-lieu fee options applicable to new residential subdivisions, multi- family, and mixed-use developments. The proposed code amendment does not apply to public parks. Examining and updating the Town's private recreation area requirements is an objective in the Town Council's Strategic Leadership Plan (SLP). Specifically, as part of the SLP, the Town Council directed staff to examine methods that would "prioritize larger neighborhood area parks and amenities as outlined in the Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment." As part of this effort, the Community and Economic Development department sought input from HOAs that currently own private parks to understand use of amenities, the value of smaller parks, and maintenance needs. Methodology Property management companies of subdivisions with private parks were contacted to identify HOA board members. Management companies were also asked to forward the survey to unidentified HOA board members. The Town received HOA board contact information for 62% of the 49 subdivisions that own private parks. Direct emails with a link to survey were sent out to the identified HOA board members encouraging them to participate in the survey. Despite the Town’s best efforts, only 18 surveys were completed. Even with the low response rate, the information is helpful in providing some insight about private parks. However, the responses are not representative of all HOAs with private parks. Therefore, this survey should not be solely used as a basis for decision-making. Participants were able to choose whether to participate in this survey, thus introducing a possibility of self-selection bias. Self-selection bias occurs when the group that chooses to participate is not equivalent to the group that opts out. We can assume that individuals that took time to respond to a survey regarding are more likely aware and invested in their private recreation areas. Report Sections This report contains the following: • Section 1: Survey respondents • Section 2: Private Park Amenities • Section 3: Use of Small Private Parks – ¼ acre or less • Section 4: Maintenance of Private Parks • Section 5: Additional Information • Appendix: Survey Questions 2 Key Findings and Opportunities Section 1: Survey Respondents Opportunities • 18 surveys were completed that represent 24 private park or recreational facilities. • Rancho Vistoso is most represented. HOAs with private parks on the south side of town (south of Lambert Lane) are least represented. • A wide range (0.2 -13.8 acres) of park sizes were reported in the survey, including very small parks less than a ¼ acre. • Subdivisions with 200 or less homes were most represented. The survey had a low response rate which provides some insight about private parks, including very small private parks but is not a representative sample of all HOAs with private parks. Section 2: Private Park Amenities Opportunities • Passive amenities such as benches, ramadas, picnic tables and walking paths were prevalent in most of the surveyed subdivisions. • Benches, playground equipment, walking paths, ramadas, ball courts and turf areas were most used. • Require valued amenities in every private park for seating, shading and pedestrian connectivity. • Playgrounds, ball courts and turf areas are popular active amenities that are most likely to be used over time. Section 3: Use of Small Private Parks – ¼ acre or less Opportunities • Most (71%) of respondents with small parks stated they were used a few times a week or daily. • The primary factors for park use were the location, accessibility and type of amenities provided. • Small private parks are used often. Use is dependent on location, accessibility and the type of amenities provided. • Require a variety of amenities to appeal to most residents. • Locate private parks regardless of size in a centralized, highly visible area that is a focal point in the community. Section 4: Maintenance of Private Parks Opportunities • Maintaining landscape and irrigation (71% of responses) are the highest costs associated with private recreation areas. • 48% of respondents thought the Town should limit the amount of natural turf in private parks. • Limit natural turf area in private parks. Section 5: Additional Information Opportunities • Almost all (94%) of respondents agreed private parks need seating, shading, and walking paths. • 58% of respondents agreed a diverse range of amenities to accommodate all age groups and abilities is important. The other 42% were neutral while no one disagreed. • Private parks should all include seating, shading and pedestrian connectivity at a minimum. • Park areas need to have a variety of amenities for all ages and abilities. 3 Section 1: Survey Respondents The map below identifies private parks owned and maintained by HOAs in Oro Valley. The map only includes private parks within residential subdivisions. Responses from outreach and to the survey are also mapped below. 4 Subdivisions and private parks represented Vistoso Community Association represents 16 private park and recreation areas. In addition to Vistoso Community Association, 9 other subdivisions are represented in this survey. SUBDIVISION PARK SIZE (ACRES) RESPONSES Vistoso Community Association 0.2 – 13.8 2 Carmel Pointe 1.0 2 Catalina at Canada Hills 0.2 1 Copper Creek 3.5 1 Copper Ridge Estates II 2.8 3 Ironwood Canyon 0.5 2 Residences at Miller Ranch 0.2 1 Tangerine Terrace 0.2 4 Villages at La Canada 0.9 2 Number of homes represented Roughly, how many homes does your HOA serve? Subdivision with 100 or less homes represent 39% of the responses, medium subdivisions with 101-500 homes represent 33%, and large subdivisions 501+ homes represent 28%. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10-100 101-200 501-600 600+Number of ResponsesNumber of Homes Represented HOA Board Representation 5 Section 2: Private Park Amenities What type of amenities are in the private parks your HOA oversees? Passive amenities such as benches and ramadas were most prevalent in existing private parks surveyed. Ball courts (e.g., basketball, tennis, etc.) and playground equipment were the most common active amenities. Turf areas for free play were also common. None of the respondents had swimming pools in their private recreation areas. Note: For accuracy, duplicate responses for the same subdivision were removed. Those who responded with “Other” amenities listed: • Horseshoe area • Parking lot • Barbecue grills • Bathrooms, water fountains • Shade canopies • Security cameras and lighting • WIFI and concrete event pad Of the surveyed private parks, the number of amenities ranged between 2-5 per park area. The two subdivisions with the smallest private recreation areas (0.2 acres) had 2-3 amenities. Passive Amenities Active Amenities 6 Based on your knowledge, please rank the amenities used most often in private parks? Benches, playground equipment, walking trails or paths ranked highest (Tier 1). Ball courts, ramadas or picnic tables and turf areas were second with dog parks, swimming pools and workout/fitness equipment used least. Note: Respondents were asked to rank all the amenities listed below whether they were prevalent in their private park. Therefore, the results may be skewed since some amenities (e.g., dog parks and swimming pools) are not common in the private parks surveyed. Tier I Tier 2 Tier 3 7 Section 3: Use of Smaller Private Parks – ¼ acre or less The following section is focuses on smaller private parks a (1/4 acre or less). The map depicts the amount and location smaller private parks exist. 8 Based on your knowledge, how often are small private parks (1/4 acre or less) used in your area? Examples given included Copper Spring Park in Vistoso Estates, The residences at Miller Ranch subdivision park, Torreno Park, The Cove subdivision park, and Desert Crest subdivision park. Of the 18 respondents, this question was only applicable to 7. From the 7 respondents who represent subdivisions with smaller parks, most found their parks were used a few times a week (often). Interestingly, 4 respondents representing the same neighborhood had varying opinions ranging from rarely – very often. For those who do not own small private park areas, 4 opted out of the question and 7 responded. The 7 responses matched those above, except for 1 response of “very rarely.” If responded with very rarely or rarely, why do you think small private parks are rarely used? For those who own smaller private parks, the following factors were identified as the primary reasons they are only used a few times per month (listed in random order): • The type of amenities is not appealing • They are not shaded enough for year round • The number of amenities is too low For those who do not own private parks, the following factors were identified as primary reasons for why they are only used a few times per month (listed in random order): • They are not centrally located • The type of amenities not appealing • They are too small • They are not shaded enough for year-round 0 1 2 3 4 5 Very rarely ( a few times per year) Rarely (a few times per month) Often ( a few times per week) Very often (daily) Use of Small Parks 9 If responded with often to very often, why do you think small private parks are well used? For those who own smaller private parks, the following factors were identified as the primary reasons they are used often: Similarly, for those who do not own private parks the top factor better use the parks’ location. Section 4: Maintenance of Private Parks What are your biggest maintenance costs related to private parks Maintaining or replacing landscaping and irrigation were the highest maintenance costs for private parks. Two participants were unsure and opted out of the question. 0 1 2 3 4 5 They are centrally located to most homes. The number of amenities provided is good. The type of amenities is appealing to residents. They are well-shaded for year-round play. They are right sized for the community. They are accessible and visible in the community Factors for Often - Very Often Used Small Parks 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Irrigation costs (watering or replacement) Maintaining or replacing landscaping Reseeding natural turf Upkeep/replacement of equipment Maintenance Costs 10 Section 5: Additional information Based on your knowledge, is there interest from the community to change the private park amenities or design? Five (26%) of the respondents answered yes to this question. All the changes requested were to replace or add amenities: • Change the basketball court to pickleball • Replace real grass with artificial grass • Remove volleyball court and add ramadas, benches, and tables or maybe a bocce ball court Please rate your agreement with the following statements Ninety-four (94%) of respondents agreed seating, shade, and walking paths are important in private parks. Although irrigation and landscaping are high maintenance costs, the responses to whether the Town should limit turf in private parks varied. Forty-eight percent (48%) agreed, twenty-six percent (26%) were neutral, and twenty-seven percent (27%) disagreed. Similar to previous responses, the variety of amenities and location of private recreation areas were the primary determinants for meaningful and usable recreation space. Is there anything else the Town should consider regarding private parks? At the end of the survey, respondents were given the opportunity to share anything else they felt had not been covered. With the opportunity to provide an open-ended response, it was popular for respondents to cite a specific issue they care about. Responses highlighted the value of small parks and emphasized the need for private parks to be accessible, centrally located and have amenities such as seating. 11 There were four responses to this question: • Our park is not very appealing, is scarcely used, and seems frankly unnecessary in such a small community. The Town provides much better amenities at its parks and community centers. • Maybe the city taking over our park • It is easily accessible to the families in this community, and they don't have to take their children elsewhere to play. It is also a central location so that the area can be used for other neighborhood gatherings. Needs more seating and parking off street. • Allow the association to manage the small community parks. They know their membership best and will focus on maintaining the safety and appeal of the park while controlling expenses. Conclusion The survey provides some insight about existing private park areas in subdivisions. Due to the low response rate, this information is helpful but not representative of all private parks. Key themes from the survey include a need for standard amenities, such as seating and shading, focus on having a variety of amenities, and a central/accessible location for private rec areas to be meaningful and usable by all residents. 12 Appendix Copy of Survey The Town of Oro Valley is updating the private park standards for new subdivisions. We are seeking input from HOAs that currently own private parks. As an HOA board member, you have been selected to share your experience. The survey will take approximately 5 minutes and individual response will not be shared with other parties. This survey is for HOA board members and is only available online through June 30. If you have any questions about the proposed updates or the survey, please contact Milini Simms, Principal Planner at 520-229-4836. 1. What is the name of the homeowner’s association (HOA) you represent? 2. Roughly, how many homes does your HOA serve? 3. What types of amenities are in the private parks you oversee? (Check all that apply) • Benches • Ramadas or picnic tables • Workout/fitness equipment • Paved walking paths or trails • Playground equipment • Swimming pools • Ball courts (basketball, pickleball, volleyball, etc.) • Turf areas for free play or gathering • Dog parks • Other: 4. Based on your knowledge, please rank the amenities used most often in the private parks? • Benches • Ramadas or picnic tables • Workout/fitness equipment • Paved walking paths or trails • Playground equipment • Swimming pools • Ball courts (basketball, pickleball, volleyball, etc.) • Turf areas for free play or gathering • Dog parks • Other: 5. Based on your knowledge, how often are small parks (1/4 acre or less) used in your area? Please click here for a map of small private parks in the Town of Oro Valley. • Very rarely (a few times per year) • Rarely (a few times per month) • Often (a few times per week) • Very often (daily) 13 6. Why do you think the small private parks are rarely used? • They are not centrally located most of the homes. • The amount of amenities is too low. • The type of amenities is not appealing to residents • They are too small. • They are not shaded. • They are not accessible or visible. • Other: 7. If you answered “often – very often,” why do you think small private parks are well used? • They are centrally located to most homes. • The amount of amenities provided is good. • The type of amenities is appealing to residents. • They are well-shaded for year-round play. • They are right sized for the community. • They are visible and accessible. • Other: 8. In your experience, has the community raised any of the following concerns about private parks? • Private parks are not accessible from where they live. • The types of amenities in the private parks are not appealing. • Private parks lack enough shade for year-round play. • Private parks are too small. • Other: 9. What are your biggest maintenance costs related to private parks? (Check the top 2) • Irrigation costs (watering or replacement) • Maintaining or replacing landscaping • Reseeding natural turf • Upkeep/replacement of equipment • Sign replacement • Lighting • Other: 10. Based on your knowledge, is there interest from the community to change the private park amenities or design? • Yes • No If yes, please elaborate: 14 11. Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements (Strongly disagree – Strongly Agree, do not know) • Seating, shade, and walking paths are important in private parks. • The Town should limit the amount of natural turf allowed in private parks. • A diverse range of amenities to accommodate all age groups and abilities is important. • Having one, large, centrally located private park is better than multiple, smaller private parks spread throughout the neighborhood. • Maintenance of small private parks (less than a ¼ acre) outweighs the benefits they provide to the community. 12. Is there anything else you think the Town should consider regarding private parks? SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL September 5, 2023 Mr. Jacob Herrington Chair, Planning & Zoning Commission Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Cañada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 RE: Proposed Changes to Private Recreation Area Requirements Dear Mr. Herrington: The Southern Arizona Home Builders Association (SAHBA) represents more than 300 member companies in all segments of the planned residential community development industry. Our developer and builder members have contributed to the growth and prosperity of Oro Valley through the construction of some of the premier master planned communities and subdivisions in the region. While we support the Town’s desire to improve the level and amount of park amenities for future residents, we have several comments and concerns on the proposed changes to the Private Area Recreation Requirements that we ask you to consider. • Increased Size Requirement: The change in size required for private recreation areas internal to a subdivision (going from 512sf/unit to 900sf/unit) is costly and strips developers of developable land which could provide additional homes in a housing market where inventory is desperately needed. We ask the Commission to reduce the park area size requirement. • Relationship Between Impact Fees & Recreation Area Requirements: We understand the Town’s intent in raising the area requirement to be closer to that of Pima County, but the County, nor Sahuarita, charges park impact fees. We would like to better understand the relationship between the intent of park impact fees and the recreation area requirements as it appears the home buyer is effectively paying twice for park amenities. • Required Park Amenities: Selecting the type of park amenities for a subdivision depends on the target buyer segment for the particular community. It is a marketing decision best left to the builder. We request the process of choosing amenities be made as simple and as flexible as possible. The applicant should have an opportunity to work with Town staff on determining the appropriate type of amenity and not the prescribed approach of the current draft. • Clean Up and Clarification on Certain Code Changes: We have identified areas in the proposed language where there seem to be inconsistencies or questions about meaning/intent. For example: o Section 26.5.B.1, ‘Pre-plats’ are referenced and then the terms ‘construction plans’ and ‘development plans’ seem to be used interchangeably when they are in fact different things. o Section above Table 26-1 and section below are duplicate “C”s. We ask for an opportunity to work with Town staff to address these issues. • Review and Approval Process: There are many approval requirements in different parts of the process (i.e. staff approval, Town Council approval, Planning and Zoning Administrator approval , Parks and Recreation Advisory Board approval, Parks Director approval, etc). These different layers make the process complex and likely increase time. We ask the Commission to recommend staff streamline the process to make it simpler and easier to understand for all involved. Southern Arizona Home Builders Association 2840 N. Country Club Rd. Tucson, AZ 85716 P: 520.795.5114 www.sahba.org PRESIDENT & CEO David M. Godlewski EXECUTIVE OFFICERS Chair Andrew Hayes Hayes Construction 1st Vice Chair Steve Crawford Pepper Viner Homes 2nd Vice Chair Andrew Gasparro KB Home Secretary/Treasurer Randy Agron A.F. Sterling Homes Immediate Past Chair Michael Del Castillo Richmond American Homes • Increased Shade Requirements: Doubling the size of shading required will add tens of thousands of dollars in cost. It would also result in extremely large monolithic structures. We ask the Commission to reduce the proposed amount of required shade to be more in line with what is currently required. • Housing Affordability: As the demographics of the Town evolve, and more and more families choose to call Oro Valley home, the reduction of land available for homes in a subdivision and added costs will price many families out of the market. We encourage the Commission to take into consideration the impact on housing affordability. • Additional Credit for Trails/Paths: Walking on trails and paths is a popular means of exercise and recreation. Therefore, we ask that walking paths and trails are counted towards the required square footage of the neighborhood’s private recreation area regardless of width or size so long as they include trash receptacles, benches, etc. • Use of In-lieu Fee Option: The proposed changes reduce flexibility in the use of an in-lieu fee. We request that the in-lieu fee option remain the same. • Consolidating Recreation Areas: While in concept consolidating recreation areas within a subdivision may seem to be the most practical approach, in most cases there is a preferred location strategy for a particular subdivision. It is also extremely difficult to consolidate parks between two subdivisions and would not support this being a requirement. The proposed changes are too prescriptive and should be more carefully developed. We request the opportunity to work with staff on this provision and that allowing two or more rec areas be an administrative decision. In conclusion, we thank you and Town staff for hearing from stakeholders on the proposed changes. We offer these comments with the goal of working together to reach the objectives of the Town while providing flexibility to builders and maintaining affordability for home buyers. We look forward to the continued conversation on this topic and stand ready to work with you on finalizing the new requirements. Sincerely, Jennifer Barroso, Government Liaison Southern Arizona Home Builders Association 2840 N. Country Club Rd. Tucson, AZ 85716 520.795.5114 | jennifer@sahba.org CC: Daniel Sturmon, Vice Chair Skeet Posey, Commissioner Kimberly Outlaw, Commissioner Phil Zielinski, Commissioner Joe Nichols, Commissioner Anna Clark, Commissioner Milini Simms, Principal Planner Southern Arizona Home Builders Association 2840 N. Country Club Rd. Tucson, AZ 85716 P: 520.795.5114 www.sahba.org PRESIDENT & CEO David M. Godlewski EXECUTIVE OFFICERS Chair Andrew Hayes Hayes Construction 1st Vice Chair Steve Crawford Pepper Viner Homes 2nd Vice Chair Andrew Gasparro KB Home Secretary/Treasurer Randy Agron A.F. Sterling Homes Immediate Past Chair Michael Del Castillo Richmond American Homes