Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1889)         AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR AND STUDY SESSION AUGUST 7, 2024 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 Town Council, the Council 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 5:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER   ROLL CALL   EXECUTIVE SESSION   1.Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(1) and (A)(3) Personnel matter - Town Manager annual performance review   RESUME REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER   ROLL CALL   1.APPROVAL OF ANY DIRECTION TO THE TOWN ATTORNEY AND/OR NECESSARY STAFF AS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION PERTAINING TO THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF THE TOWN MANAGER   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE   UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS   MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS ON CURRENT EVENTS   TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT ON CURRENT EVENTS   ORDER OF BUSINESS: MAYOR WILL REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE MEETING   INFORMATIONAL ITEMS   CALL TO AUDIENCE – At this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Mayor and Town Council on any issue not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, individual Council 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 Mayor and Council 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.   PRESENTATIONS   1.Proclamation - Drowning Impact Awareness Month   2.Presentation of Air Force project updates by DM50 and Davis-Monthan Air Force Base representatives   CONSENT AGENDA  (Consideration and/or possible action)   A.Minutes - June 19, 2024   REGULAR AGENDA   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (The Council may bring forth general topics for future meeting agendas. Council may not discuss, deliberate or take any action on the topics presented pursuant to ARS 38-431.02H)   ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR SESSION   STUDY SESSION   CALL TO ORDER   STUDY SESSION AGENDA   1.PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 23, DEFINITIONS, CHAPTER 31 AND OTHER RELATED ITEMS   ADJOURNMENT The Mayor and Council may, at the discretion of the meeting chairperson, discuss any Agenda item.   POSTED: 7/31/24 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 Council meeting in the office of the Town Clerk 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 Council 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 Mayor, according to all other rules and procedures. Written comments can also be emailed to Town Clerk Michael Standish at mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov for distribution to the Town Council 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 Mayor. If you wish to address the Town Council 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 Town Clerk. 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 Mayor calls on you to address the Council. 1. For the record, please state your name and whether or not you are a Town resident. 2. Speak only on the issue currently being discussed by Council. You will only be allowed to address the Council one time regarding the topic being discussed. 3. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. 4. During Call to Audience, you may address the Council on any matter that is not on the agenda. 5. Any member of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present. 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 Town Council 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 Mayor, staff will unmute your microphone access and you will have 3 minutes to address the Council. Further instructions regarding remote participation will be included in the email. Thank you for your cooperation.    Town Council Regular Session 1. Meeting Date:08/07/2024   Submitted By:Mike Standish, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(1) and (A)(3) Personnel matter - Town Manager annual performance review RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to go into Executive Session. Attachments No file(s) attached.    Town Council Regular Session 7. 1. Meeting Date:08/07/2024   Submitted By:Mike Standish, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF ANY DIRECTION TO THE TOWN ATTORNEY AND/OR NECESSARY STAFF AS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION PERTAINING TO THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF THE TOWN MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to... Attachments No file(s) attached.    Town Council Regular Session 1. Meeting Date:08/07/2024   Proclamation - Drowning Impact Awareness Month Subject Proclamation - Drowning Impact Awareness Month Summary Attachments Proclamation     Town Council Regular Session 2. Meeting Date:08/07/2024   Presentation and update regarding DM50 Subject Presentation of Air Force project updates by DM50 and Davis-Monthan Air Force Base representatives Summary Attachments No file(s) attached.    Town Council Regular Session A. Meeting Date:08/07/2024   Requested by: Mike Standish Submitted By:Michelle Stine, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: Minutes - June 19, 2024 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 the following changes), the June 19, 2024, minutes.   Attachments 6-19-24 Draft Minutes  D R A F T   MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION JUNE 19, 2024 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE            REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor Melanie Barrett, Vice-Mayor Tim Bohen, Councilmember Harry Greene, Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember Josh Nicolson, Councilmember Steve Solomon, Councilmember EXECUTIVE SESSION   1.Pursuant to ARS §38-431.03 (A)(3) and (A)(4) for legal advice and litigation and settlement regarding the Clifton matter, Pima County Superior Court Cause of Action No. C20215129       Motion by Councilmember Josh Nicolson, seconded by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett to remove the Executive Session item from the agenda. Discussion ensued amongst Council, staff, and the Town Attorney regarding the motion to remove the Executive Session item from the agenda. The Town Attorney, David Hindman, suggested a motion to continue the item to an unspecified future date.    Motion by Councilmember Josh Nicolson, seconded by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett to continue the Executive Session item to an unspecified future meeting date, to be selected by either the Agenda Committee or during a future Council meeting.  Vote: 4 - 3 Carried  OPPOSED: Councilmember Harry Greene  Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey 6/19/24 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular Session 1  Councilmember Steve Solomon    Mayor Winfield recessed the meeting at 5:14 p.m.   RESUME REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield resumed the Regular Session at 6:01 p.m.   ROLL CALL    Present: Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor Melanie Barrett, Vice-Mayor (attended via Zoom) Tim Bohen, Councilmember Harry Greene, Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember Josh Nicolson, Councilmember (attended via Zoom) Steve Solomon, Councilmember   1.APPROVAL OF ANY DIRECTION TO THE ATTORNEYS, TOWN MANAGER AND STAFF AS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING THE CLIFTON MATTER, PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE OF ACTION NO. C20215129       As a result of the Executive Session motion, this item was continued to an unspecified future meeting date, to be selected by either the Agenda Committee or during a future Council meeting.   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE    Mayor Winfield led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.   UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS    Town Clerk Mike Standish announced the upcoming Town Meetings.   MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS ON CURRENT EVENTS    Councilmember Greene provided information regarding monsoon preparedness, and included information on how Oro Valley residents could receive free sandbags from the Town of Oro Valley. Councilmember Greene also reported that the Oro Valley Stormwater Utility Department has worked diligently to keep service costs down. Councilmember Greene reported that the Oro Valley Historical Society held a celebration event in honor of Henry Zipf's service to the Oro Valley Historical Society. A bench was installed to commemorate his service. Vice Mayor Barrett thanked Town Staff for their work and support with the expansion and grand opening of Naranja Park. 6/19/24 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular Session 2 opening of Naranja Park.   TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT ON CURRENT EVENTS    Town Manager Jeff Wilkins reported the following information: Highlighted the CDO Wash Levee augmentation project 50 Businesses for 50 Years continues Upcoming Town Events   ORDER OF BUSINESS    Mayor Winfield reviewed the order of business and stated the order would stand as posted.   INFORMATIONAL ITEMS    There were no informational items.   CALL TO AUDIENCE    Oro Valley resident Charlie Hurt spoke regarding the need to expand current amenities in Oro Valley to include performing arts. Oro Valley resident Analai Walters spoke regarding the need for a performing and visual arts center in Oro Valley. Jennifer Holthaus spoke regarding Spotlight Youth Productions, and the need for a cultural and performing arts Center in Oro Valley. Brandon Howell spoke regarding the need for a cultural and performing arts center in Oro Valley. Oro Valley resident Bill Rodman spoke regarding the need for a cultural and performing arts center in Oro Valley. Oro Valley resident Judi Rodman spoke regarding the need for a cultural and performing arts center in Oro Valley. Oro Valley resident Gene Abranaya spoke regarding the need for a cultural and performing arts center in Oro Valley. Oro Valley resident Joe Erceg spoke regarding the need for a cultural and performing arts center in Oro Valley. Oro Valley resident Dick Eggerding spoke regarding the need for a cultural and performing arts center in Oro Valley. Oro Valley resident Madison Masland spoke regarding the need for a cultural and performing arts center in Oro Valley. Dexter Maslen spoke regarding the need for a Cultural and Performing Arts Center in Oro Valley. Oro Valley resident Anthony Farrara voiced his concerns regarding the proposed Oro Valley Church of 6/19/24 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular Session 3 the Nazarene rezoning request. Oro Valley resident Tim Tarris voiced his concerns regarding the proposed Oro Valley Church of the Nazarene rezoning request.   PRESENTATIONS   1.Presentation and discussion regarding an update on the community's effort to create OV's Path Forward, including the results from the Big Community Survey       Principal Planner Milini Simms presented the update on the community's effort to create OV's Path Foward, including the results from the Big Community Survey: Purpose Tonight's Focus Creating the 10-year plan Invitations to participate Inform Engage The BIG Community Survey Jan Gordley of the Gordley Group, continued the presentation and included the following: Consultants Survey Methods Elements Liked Best about OV Biggest Challenges Describing Oro Valley Suggested Changes Preferred Future of Oro Valley Public Safety Priorities Traffic and Mobility Priorities Land Development Priorities Water Related Priorities Trail, Bike and Pedestrian Priorities Environment and View Priorities Town Revenue Generators Economic Development Priorities Energy & Sustainability Priorities Patterns Comparison to the 2013 Survey Mrs. Simms continued the presentation and included the following: Resident Working Groups' Toolkit Summary & Next Steps Discussion ensued amongst Council, staff, and Ms. Gordley, regarding the update on the community's effort to create OV's Path Forward, including the results from the Big Community Survey.   2.Proclamation - Parks and Recreation Month       Mayor Winfield proclaimed July 2024, as Parks and Recreation Month in Oro Valley. 6/19/24 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular Session 4  Mayor Winfield proclaimed July 2024, as Parks and Recreation Month in Oro Valley. Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Director Rosalyn Epting accepted the proclamation.   CONSENT AGENDA    Vice Mayor Barrett requested that Consent item (A) be removed from the Consent Agenda.   B.Final Plat approval for a 64-lot residential subdivision known as Naranja Trails, located south of Naranja Drive, approximately 1/4-mile west of N. First Avenue      C.Final Plat amendment approval for Lot 10 of the Foothills Business Park subdivision, located near the northeast corner of Oracle Road and Hanley Boulevard      D.Resolution No. (R)24-21, authorizing and approving an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town of Oro Valley and Pima County regarding payment for the incarceration of municipal prisoners      E.Resolution No. (R)24-22, authorizing and approving an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town of Oro Valley and the Pima County Jail to provide officer coverage for video proceedings between the jail and the Court      F.*Resolution No. (R)24-28, authorizing and approving an amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town of Oro Valley and the Pima County Recorder for election services, modifying the date of the 2024 Primary Election from August 6, 2024 to July 30, 2024 due to HB2785       Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene to approve Consent agenda items (B) through (F).  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   G.*Resolution No. (R)24-29, authorizing and approving a Participation Form/Agreement concerning the New National Opioids Settlement with Kroger       Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene to approve Consent agenda item (G).  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   A.Minutes - June 5, 2024       Vice Mayor Barrett clarified why she was abstaining from Consent agenda item (A).    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene to approve Consent agenda item (A).  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried  Other: Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett (ABSTAINING)    Mayor Winfield recessed the meeting at 7:54 p.m. 6/19/24 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular Session 5  Mayor Winfield recessed the meeting at 7:54 p.m. Mayor Winfield reconvened the meeting at 8:09 p.m.   REGULAR AGENDA   2.RESOLUTION NO. (R)24-23, PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO ADOPT REVISED FINANCIAL AND BUDGETARY POLICIES, INCLUDING THE INVESTMENT POLICY AND PSPRS PENSION FUNDING POLICY       Chief Financial Officer David Gephart presented item #2 and included the following: FY24-25 Financial & Budgetary Policy Purpose Notable Items Questions    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene to approve Resolution No. (R)24-23, adopting revised financial and budgetary policies, including the investment policy and PSPRS pension funding policy.    Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the possible action to adopt revised financial and budgetary policies, including the investment policy and PSPRS Pension Funding Policy.    Councilmember Nicolson requested a friendly amendment to keep the CIP threshold at $50,000, and to keep the funding threshold for the PSPRS at 100%, seconded by Vice Mayor Barrett. Mayor Winfield accepted the friendly amendment, seconded by Councilmember Greene. Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding item #2.    Motion by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey, seconded by Councilmember Steve Solomon to call the question.  Vote: 4 - 3 Carried  OPPOSED: Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett  Councilmember Tim Bohen  Councilmember Josh Nicolson    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene FINAL MOTION AS AMENDED, to approve Resolution No. (R)24-23, adopting revised financial and budgetary policies, including the investment policy and PSPRS pension funding policy, and with the amendment that the CIP threshold will be kept at $50,000, and the funding threshold for the PSPRS will be kept at 100%.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   3.RESOLUTION NO. (R)24-24, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO REVISE PERSONNEL POLICY 14 OVERTIME       Human Resource Director Andy Votava provided a brief overview of the proposed revised Personnel 6/19/24 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular Session 6  Human Resource Director Andy Votava provided a brief overview of the proposed revised Personnel Policy 14 Overtime.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene to approve Resolution No. (R)24-24, revising Personnel Policy 14, overtime.    Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding possible action to revise Personnel Policy 14 - Overtime. Vice Mayor Barrett requested a friendly amendment that staff shall be able to cash out with the approval of the department director. Mayor Winfield agreed to the friendly amendment, seconded by Councilmember Greene. Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding item #3.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene FINAL MOTION AS AMENDED, to approve Resolution No (R)24-24, revising Personnel Policy 14, overtime, allowing staff to cash out with the approval of the department director.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   4.RESOLUTION NO. (R)24-25, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO REVISE PERSONNEL POLICY 19 TRAINING EMPLOYEES AND REIMBURSEMENT FOR EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES       Human Resource Director Andy Votava provided a brief overview of the proposed Personnel Policy 19, Training Employees and Reimbursement for Educational Expenses.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene to approve Resolution No. (R)24-25, revising Personnel Policy 19, Training Employees and Reimbursement for Educational Expenses. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #4.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene to approve Resolution No. (R)24-25, revising Personnel Policy 19, Training Employees and Reimbursement for Educational Expenses.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   5.RESOLUTION NO. (R)24-26, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO REVISE PERSONNEL POLICY 10 LEAVES       Human Resource Director Andy Votava provided a brief overview of the proposed revision to Personnel Policy 10, Leaves.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene to approve Resolution No. (R)24-26, revising Personnel Policy 10, Leaves. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #5. Mayor Winfield requested to amend the main motion to approve Resolution No. (R)24-26, revising Personnel Policy 10, Leaves, with the change from three weeks to four weeks, seconded by Councilmember Greene. 6/19/24 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular Session 7    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene FINAL MOTION AS AMENDED, to approve Resolution No. (R)24-26, revising Personnel Policy 10, Leaves, with the change from three weeks to four weeks.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   6.PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION NO. (R)24-27, APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE FINAL BUDGET OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024/25, INCLUDING APPROVAL OF THE 10-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FROM FY 2024/25 THROUGH FY 2033/34 AND THE FY 2024/25 GENERAL PAY PLAN       Chief Financial Officer David Gephart presented item #6 and included the following: FY 2024/25 Final Budget Final Notes and Next Steps    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene to approve Resolution No. (R)24-27, adopting the Final Budget of the Town of Oro Valley for fiscal year 2024/25, including the FY 2024/25 General Pay Plan under the same conditions authorized with the FY 2023/24 General Pay Plan Adoption, and further MOVE to approve the Town of Oro Valley 10-year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2024/25 through FY 2033/34. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #6.    Motion by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett, seconded by Councilmember Tim Bohen to amend the main motion to change the general pay plan to an average of a 3% pay increase this year. Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding item #6.    Motion by Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett, seconded by Councilmember Tim Bohen to amend the main motion to change the general pay plan to 3% average raises, and to allow department directors to provide performance-based pay increases.  Vote: 3 - 4 Failed  OPPOSED: Mayor Joseph C. Winfield  Councilmember Harry Greene  Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey  Councilmember Steve Solomon    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene to approve Resolution No. (R)24-27, adopting the Final Budget of the Town of Oro Valley for fiscal year 2024/25, including the FY 2024/25 General Pay Plan under the same conditions authorized with the FY 2023/24 General Pay Plan Adoption, and further MOVE to approve the Town of Oro Valley 10-year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2024/25 through FY 2033/34. Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding item #6.    Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding item #6. 6/19/24 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular Session 8  Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding item #6. Councilmember Solomon requested an amendment to the main motion to include; all available funds for the 10-year capital improvement program, from FY 2024/25, to FY 2033/34, excluding the Water Enterprise Fund, shall be prioritized and spent to meet the 10 year CIP needs as follows; 1. Police and Public Safety, 2. Roads and Infrastructure, 3. Health and Safety, 4. Maintenance repairs required to prevent serious deterioration, only after the above CIP needs are funded shall any remaining funds be spent on other CIP needs. No second received. Discussion continued amongst Council and staff regarding item #6. Vice Mayor Barrett requested an amendment to move the Community Center Men's Jacuzzi to an Outdoor Accessed Restroom to 2025/2026. Mayor Winfield accepted the amendment, seconded by Councilmember Greene.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene FINAL MOTION AS AMENDED, to approve Resolution No. (R)24-27, adopting the Final Budget of the Town of Oro Valley for fiscal year 2024/25, including the FY 2024/25 General Pay Plan under the same conditions authorized with the FY 2023/24 General Pay Plan Adoption, and further MOVE to approve the Town of Oro Valley 10-year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2024/25 through FY 2033/34, and to move the Community Center Men's Jacuzzi to an Outdoor Accessed Restroom to 2025/2026.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS    There were no future agenda items requested.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Steve Solomon to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried     _______________________________________________ Michelle Stine, MMC Deputy Town Clerk I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 19th day of June 2024. I further certify that the meeting was duly called an held and that a quorum was present. ________________________________________________ Michael Standish, CMC Town Clerk 6/19/24 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular Session 9    Town Council Regular Session 1. Meeting Date:08/07/2024   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Submitted By:Milini Simms, Community and Economic Development Case Number:2200629 SUBJECT: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 23, DEFINITIONS, CHAPTER 31 AND OTHER RELATED ITEMS RECOMMENDATION: This item is for information and discussion purposes only. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposed code amendments (Attachment 1) were presented and continued by the Town Council on October 5, 2022 (Attachment 2). Key points about the proposed code amendment are provided below.  A full list of responses to Town Council's questions and comments is in the Discussion/Analysis section of this report.  The proposed code amendment has been significantly simplified and refined to comply with the Town Council's motion for continuance. There are no longer any changes to the recreation requirements proposed. These changes were discussed and addressed in a separate code amendment, approved by the Town Council in October 2023.  1.    There are no reductions to open space or setbacks from adjacent uses proposed.     The code amendment does not boost multifamily development. The code amendment does not increase allowed uses or density and in some areas creates stricter requirements to address gaps (areas where standards are unclear or inconsistent with other sections).  2. Ensures consistent application and reduces or eliminates the need for staff interpretation. Since the current code has not been significantly updated since the 90s, there is a high level of staff interpretation necessary to apply it to the broad variety of permitted housing types. The proposed code amendment ensures consistent application of code requirements by: 3. A) Clearly and accurately defining various housing types B) Addresses spacing between single-family homes in a high-density zoning district (R-6) C) Aligning different code sections and standards to remove contradictions in current code The proposed code amendments meet the goals and policies and in the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan. By providing clarity to existing requirements and addressing inconsistencies and gaps, it primarily reflects sound code administration.  As a result, it indirectly aligns with supporting diverse housing types (Policy CC.7) and providing effective transitions between differing land uses (Goal X). This item is for information and discussion purposes only.    BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Upon receipt of several applications to develop neighborhood-scale, low-rise, high-density housing types (also known as "missing middle" housing), it was apparent there are issues with the existing zoning code. For example, the R-6 zoning district allows all housing types ranging from single-family homes to apartments yet applies a "one-size fits all" approach to all of them. On March 1, 2022, the Planning and Zoning Commission initiated this code amendment primarily based on the staff identified need to address gaps, inconsistent requirements and lack of clarity.  The initial code amendment was presented to the Town Council on October 5, 2022 (for minutes, see Attachment 2 ). The main discussion points of the proposed code amendment are provided below. 1) The proposed code amendment has been simplified and refined - There are no longer any changes to open space, recreation area requirements or setbacks from adjacent uses proposed. The recreation area requirements were updated in a separate code amendment approved by the Town Council in October 2023.  2) Proposed code amendment does not boost multifamily development - The code amendment does not allow additional uses or more density. Some of the code amendments create stricter standards by addressing gaps in the current code. For instance, in an R-S zoning district there are currently no spacing requirements between dwelling units. The proposed code adds a minimum of 10 feet depending on the housing type and height.  3) Ensure consistent application of code requirements to reduce or eliminate the need for staff interpretation. It achieves this by: A) Clearly and accurately define housing types - The definitions for apartments, patio homes, and town homes overlap each other in the current code. This can make determining what is permitted in various multifamily zoning districts difficult. To make sure each housing type is clearly differentiated, the plethora of different and vague marketing terms ("casitas" etc.) used to describe various housing types has been addressed by creating three different categories (see image below). The new definitions are based on building form rather than marketing terms. Basing zoning requirements on form rather than use is common practice.   Detached - single, freestanding dwelling unit Attached - independent dwelling units attached horizontally (side to side or front to back).  Multi-level - independent dwelling units attached vertically (on top of one another).  B). Creating right-sized building separations in-between single-family homes within a high-density zoning district (R-6) - Currently, the distance between 2 townhomes in the R-6, high-density zoning district is 10 feet. Detached, single-family units and multi-level apartments must be 10–20 feet apart, based on height. The proposed code amendment would apply the existing townhome distance (10 feet) to all detached, single-family units. C). Aligning different code sections to remove current contradictions - Most of the proposed code amendments are housekeeping items to align different sections of code, improve formatting or grammar (Attachment 4 identifies substantial changes verse housekeeping items). A few examples, related to the Table of Permitted Uses (Table 23-1) are provided below.  The table of permitted uses allows "dwelling units attached, including patio homes..." in R-4. However, patio The table of permitted uses allows "dwelling units attached, including patio homes..." in R-4. However, patio homes are defined in Chapter 31 as "an attached or detached single-family dwelling". The intent was to allow a mix of both, with attached units being the primary use. The table of permitted uses was updated to reflect the existing allowance and intent.  Similarly, the table of permitted uses does not allow attached dwelling units in C-N. However, in Section 23.8.B.8, residential uses include "condominiums, townhomes, and apartments..."  The table was updated to reflect that attached townhomes are allowed in C-N. Home occupations are allowed in every zoning district that allows residential units, except C-N. The table of permitted uses was updated to allow home occupations in that zoning district as well. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS The Town Council continued the proposed code amendment on October 5, 2022. The motion to continue stated, "I move to continue this item to a date to be determined in the future and ask that what comes forward has no reductions in open space or setbacks in the R-6 zoning district ." In response:  Open Space: No changes proposed.  Setbacks: No reductions to setbacks from adjacent uses proposed. The following questions and comments were raised by the Town Council on October 5, 2022. Staff responses are provided in italics. A. Definitions:  Multi-level is marked as non-subdivided, but a condo is subdivided. There will be conflicts for condos, so clarification may be needed. 1. The definition for multi-level does not specify between subdivided or un-subdivided. It is based on building form (units stacked vertically), not whether the units are rented or purchased. The existing definition of a condo remains in the code. Depending on the building form, condos are subject to the same development requirements as apartments or town homes. B. Setbacks and distance between buildings:  Clarify setbacks on the road. Is it from the pavement edge at the end of the curb or road easement?2. Per the existing code definition, a setback is measured from the property line. No changes are proposed to the setbacks from adjace nt uses or roadways. Did the Fire Dept sign off on the 10 feet between buildings? Can it be enclosed, or how would the fire department get access? 3. Yes. Golder Ranch Fire is aware of and fine with the proposed code amendment. Fire code enables a 0' setback as long as common walls are built to a higher protection standard. The proposed code amendment to allow detached, single-family homes to be 10 feet apart (regardless of height) is the same as the existing allowance for attached townhomes in the R-4 zoning district and several subdivisions in Rancho Vistoso (Sun City, Center Pointe, etc.). A wall could be built on the property line, but the area must remain unobstructed by buildings. The image to the right shows what a 10-foot distance between detached, single-family homes looks like.   Regarding setback standards in R-6, are there other avenues available for applicants to change their setbacks? 4. Yes. An applicant may request a variance be approved by the Board of Adjustment. However, variances are rare exceptions to allow property owners with special circumstances. They are not the proper tool for addressing persistent issues in the zoning code. There is also an Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) flexible design option, that allows an applicant to request Town Council approval of reduced setbacks. ESL does not apply to all projects. We are taking the same buildings and changing the setbacks on them? The only difference is, people live upstairs. Is there a limit to how many can be attached? 5. No. The existing code allows attached townhomes to be 10 feet apart, even in an R-6 zoning district. The proposed change would only extend this requirement to detached, single-family homes. For context, this is the same setback requirement in Rancho Vistoso's Medium Density and Medium-High Density Residential Districts (e.g., Sun City, Centerpointe, etc.). C. Parking:  Regarding parking, how would that previous [parking] code amendment be impacted by this one?6. This code amendment does not impact the previous parking code amendment. The parking code amendment focused on parking requirements for non-residential uses. The proposed changes only update the terms used to describe different housing types and remove associated redundancies. If the Morning Vista subdivision were to come through this process with this code amendment, would it have been non-compliant? 7. No. The Morning Vista subdivision has 4 spaces per unit. The proposed code amendment clarifies that all subdivisions must have 4 spaces per unit, regardless of housing type.  Per unit, can be made up throughout the development rather than on the driveway?8. Yes. Typically, parking spaces are provided on driveways, but the current code does not prohibit them from being provided throughout the site (as done with Morning Vista). The proposed code amendment does not change this existing allowance. Do I understand that there are 4 [parking] spaces per unit? And would this apply to all detached, attached and a mix of units? 9. Yes. The proposed code applies the current requirements for detached, single-family subdivisions to subdivisions with townhomes or a mix of both. D. Recreation and Open Space requirements  Why are we specifying tot lots? Many complexes are retirees or empty nesters, so why dictate a tot lot [is required] even for 2 bedrooms [units]? 10. I seldom see anyone using these small playgrounds. Do we have any utilization data to know what types of amenities there should be in these areas to increase usefulness? 11. If we had a development that was an acre, would it need 2 separate passive and 2 active amenities? Is that scale appropriate if they needed 40 amenities? 12. Do the rec and open space standards increase or decrease recreation and open space?13. What does 50% of 35% mean?14. I disagree that it doesn’t reduce open space. Go from 35% to 10% open space for attached units in R-6, is that correct? Rather than rezoning to a zone that allows a less open space. 15. What do we mean by passive and active amenities?16. The issues above were addressed with the changes to the private recreation area code requirements, approved by the Town Council in October 2023. No changes to recreation requirements or open space are proposed by this amendment. E. Other  What does housekeeping mean?17. Housekeeping items address formatting issues and ensure different code sections are in alignment with one another. They do not include any substantial changes to the standards. Attachment 1 identifies substantive changes vs. housekeeping items. Frustrated by a change like this – much more complicated for the Town Council. Why do we need to change? Maintaining the code is complex, but developers can figure it out. The number of concerns raised and simplification for simplification’s sake is more confusing. Deceptively difficult. 18. The proposed code amendment has been simplified by removing the recreation amendments to enable more focus. The amendment is needed to ensure consistent application of code requirements. The clarifications proposed reduce the need for staff interpretation and ensure consistent enforcement. These housing types will continue to be proposed. The code amendment makes sure it is clear to staff reviewers, developers, nearby residents and decision-makers what requirements must be met. How did this initially come about? Did Planning and Zoning request an agenda item or was this a staff presentation? 19. The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated the code amendment based on staff's recommendation and an identified need to address gaps, inconsistencies, and outdated definitions etc. The current code requires a high level of staff interpretation to apply it to the various permitted housing types. The clarifications provided in the proposed code amendment reduce or eliminate the need for staff interpretation and ensure consistent enforcement. Do we have any R-6 projects in the process that would be impacted by this code amendment if approved?20. No. Anything with 5 units per acre is commercial. When I think multifamily, I think 1–4 lots owned by individuals. Why is this brought to us when we don’t support high density? 21. The proposed code amendment is not intended to boost multifamily development. Rather, it gives residents, staff, and decision-makers a set of clear standards to evaluate applications. Regardless of positive or negative political "support" for "high-density", the town must process all development proposals received. The primary aim is ensure consistent review and enforcement. The proposed code amendment does not change the density allowed in multifamily zoning districts. The current code has not been substantially updated since the 90s. It does not include standards for the broad range of housing types allowed, specifically low-rise, high-density products. The aim of this code amendment is to eliminate the need for staff interpretation and ensure consistent enforcement as these applications come in. If an applicant wants different standards than R-6, then why can’t they rezone?22. Yes, but requiring applicants to rezone does not address the issues. The R-6 zoning district allows the broadest type of housing units, yet the standards are truly written only for apartments. Although a small change was made in 2017 to address townhomes, a larger change is needed to create standards for detached, single-family homes and a mix of detached and attached units (both already permitted). When is multifamily zoned land ever going to be developed as single-family?23. Several high-density zoned areas (equivalent to R-6) in Rancho Vistoso have developed with single-family homes and less density than allowed. Specifically, the Horizons subdivision north of Safeway and the subdivision north of Vistoso Highlands are single-family homes in a high-density zone. Development at lower densities than permitted is a primary reason why Rancho Vistoso has roughly 67% fewer homes than approved. Although there aren't any currently under review, the Town has received pre-applications in the recent past to develop single-family in R-6 zoning districts.   GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE The proposed code amendment was reviewed for compliance with the General Plan. By clarifying housing definitions and applying standards to address a variety of housing products, the proposed code amendment indirectly meets the following:  Goal D: A community with a wide range of services, amenities, shopping and dining opportunities and housing types that meet the needs of current and future residents. Goal X: Effective transitions between differing land uses and intensities in the community. CC.7: Support the development of diverse housing types within the community. LU.5: Provide diverse land uses that meet the Town's overall needs and effectively transition in scale and density to adjacent neighborhoods. PUBLIC NOTICE 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 the Town Hall and on the town's websites.  SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION Since the Town Council's October 5, 2022, meeting, the proposed code amendment has been refined. Key points include:  The proposed code amendment has been refined to meet the Town Council's conditions for continuance. 1. The proposed code amendment does not boost multifamily development. More specifically, it does not increase allowances or density and in some areas creates stricter requirements to address gaps.  2. It allows consistent application that eliminates the need for staff interpretation and ensures consistent enforcement.  3. The proposed code amendment helps ensure consistent application of standards and enforcement.  Furthermore, it helps meet several of the General Plan goals and policies.  FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.  SUGGESTED MOTION: This item is for information and discussion purposes only.  Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 - DRAFT CODE AMENDMENT  ATTACHMENT 2 - TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 10.5.2022  Staff Presentation  Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 1 Housekeeping: Added the existing process for apartment and townhome architecture. Change: Terms used to describe housing types. Housekeeping: Updated language for consistency amongst all R1 zoning districts. Section 22.9 Development Review Table 22-9C Approval Authorities Section 23.1 Districts and Boundaries Thereof Section 23.1.A – No Changes B. Purpose of Districts 1. R1-300 Single-Family Residential District This district is intended to promote and preserve rural, DETACHED single-family residential development. The district permits airparks and other uses that are compatible with the large single-family lots predominated by open space. 2. R1-144 Single-Family Residential District This district is intended to promote and preserve suburban-rural, DETACHED single-family residential development. The large lot size permits agricultural uses and promotes open space. 3. R1-72 Single-Family Residential District This district is intended to promote and preserve suburban-rural, DETACHED single-family residential development, with lots large enough to accommodate on-site sewer systems. 4. R1-43 Single-Family Residential District This district provides for low-density, DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY residential development with lots large enough to accommodate on-site sewer systems. Submittal Type Planning and Zoning Administrator Planning and Zoning Commission Town Council Additional Regulations Model Home Architecture FOR DETACHED OR ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS Recommendation Decision Appeal Section 22.9. E.7 MULTI-LEVEL DWELLING UNITS RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION DECISION SECTION 22.9. E.7 Non-residential Architecture Recommendation Recommendation Decision Section 22.9. E.7 Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 2 Housekeeping: Updated for consistency with other districts. Improved accuracy by Including all housing types already permitted in R-4. Housekeeping: Updated to match the format of the other districts. 5. R1-36 Single-Family Residential District This district provides for low-density, DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY residential development. 6. R1-20 Single-Family Residential District This district provides for low-density detached single-family residential development. 7. R1-10 Single-Family Residential District This district provides for medium density detached single-family residential development. 8. R1-7 Single-Family Residential District This district provides for medium high-density detached single-family residential development. 9. SDH-6 Site Delivered Housing District THIS DISTRICT PROVIDES FOR SITE-DELIVERED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. The purpose of this zone is to provide for properly planned and orderly developed manufactured or site delivered housing subdivisions. The principal land use is single-family dwellings and uses incidental or accessory thereto. 10. R-4 Townhouse MIXED Residential District This district is intended primarily for TWO-FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. DETACHED DWELLING UNITS ARE PERMITTED AS A COMPONENT OF A TWO- FAMILY OR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. to provide for relatively low-density development having individual ownership and built-in privacy, either in the form of party wall construction or enclosed courtyards. 11. R-4R Resort District The Resort District THIS DISTRICT is intended primarily to provide for accommodations for seasonal visitors. The controlled access, deep setbacks, and landscaping requirements are intended to enhance the value, safety, and aesthetic quality of both the highway ENTRY frontage and the adjacent propertIESy. 12. R-S Residential Service District This district is composed of certain land and structures used primarily to provide administrative, clerical and professional offices of a residential scale and character to serve nearby residential Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 3 Housekeeping: Multi-family is defined as a residential use so the word residential isn’t necessary. and commercial areas as well as the Town as a whole. These uses are characterized by low volume of direct daily customer contact. Secondarily, this district provides for medium density residential uses. This district is designed to be a transitional zone and should be used to buffer low density residential uses from more intense land uses, districts and heavily traveled transportation routes. The property development standards, while strict in order to protect adjacent low density residential uses, are designed to be flexible enough to allow experimentation in office and housing design and to allow housing constructed within this district to incorporate its own protection from more intense adjacent uses. 13. R-6 Multi-Family Residential District This district is intended to support multi-family residential development, to accommodate an increased density of population and to provide recreational and aesthetic amenities, which enhance the residential character of a multi-family project and produce a high-quality environment. This district also furnishes employment opportunities, by providing for business and professional office complexes on a residential scale, with low silhouettes, a variety of separate building masses and landscaped open space, to be compatible with surrounding residential uses. 14. C-N Neighborhood Commercial District This district provides small office and service centers within walking/biking distance or a short drive from adjacent neighborhoods. The center shall be designed to fit into the adjacent neighborhoods, serve as a neighborhood activity center, and provide a combination of uses that offer basic goods and services that meet the needs of the nearby residents. A mixture of office, retail, and residential is enabled in the C-N zone and is anticipated to provide a physically and functionally integrated combination of uses. Sites should be designed to accommodate multiple, smaller uses rather than a single, large use. C-N zoning may be found along multi-use paths, near parks, immediately between or among higher density residential developments and municipal service sites. It is most appropriate at the intersection of collector streets or a collector street and an arterial road. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 4 Change: The table of permitted uses was updated to reflect the terms proposed to describe different housing types and existing allowances in R-4 (currently allows a mix of detached and attached housing types) and C-N (currently allows attached townhomes in Section 23.7). 15. C-1 Commercial District This district provides for large scale office complexes and medium sized retail centers, located on a major arterial. Through buffering and other mitigation measures, C-1 centers must be compatible with adjoining residential neighborhoods, while satisfying commercial and service business needs of nearby neighborhoods. 16. C-2 Commercial District This district provides for commercial activities designed to serve a regional area with emphasis on shopping centers and group commercial developments. Uses must incorporate extensive mitigation measures to harmoniously co-exist with nearby neighborhoods. C-2 uses are substantial traffic generators and should be located near the intersection of two principal arterials. 17. PS Private Schools District This district provides for religious facilities and private educational facilities. 18. T-P Technological Park District This district is intended to provide high quality employment opportunities, such as research and development, biotechnology, and other similar industries. Uses include a mix of light industrial, professional office, warehouse, assembly and distribution, ancillary retail services and related uses. These uses generally occur in a business park-type environment with clustered buildings and inward focused activity intended to be compatible to adjacent residential areas. 19. Parks and Open Space District This district is primarily for those areas of the Town where it is desirable and necessary to provide permanent park, public open space, and in general, areas to be preserved in their present or managed state. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 5 Single-Family TWO-FAMILY AND Multi-Family Commercial Other USE CATEGORY SPECIFIC USE TYPE R1- 300 R1- 144 R1- 72 R1- 43 R1- 36 R1- 20 R1- 10 R1 -7 S D H 6 R- 4 R-4R R-S R-6 C-N C-1 C-2 PS T-P P O S NOTES RESIDENTIAL USES Residential Apartments DWELLING UNITS, MULTI-LEVEL P P P 23.7 26.5 Assisted Living Home P P P P P P P P P P 25.1.B.1 Dwelling Units, Single-Family DETACHED P P P P P P P P A P P 25.1.B.24 23.6 23.7 26.5 Dwelling Units, Site- Delivered, Single- Family P Dwelling Units, Attached, Including Condominium, Patio Home or Townhouse P P P P P 26.5 23.7 Home Occupations P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 25.2.D Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 6 Improves accuracy and ensures consistent application of existing standards. Section 23.7 Property Development Standards for TWO-FAMILY AND Multi-Family Residential Districts A. Common Regulations of TWO-FAMILY AND Multi-Family Districts 1. Alternative development standards in Section 27.10.B.3 (environmentally sensitive lands) may be applied at the request of the property owner upon satisfaction of applicable ESL review criteria. 2. THE FOLLOWING SHALL APPLY WHEN DETACHED AND/OR ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBDIVIDED ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS: a. SECTION 23.5.C.2, RESIDENTIAL SETBACK USES b. SECTION 23.6.A, COMMON REGULATIONS OF R-1 DISTRICTS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A.1., MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS c. SECTION 25.2, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A.4, SETBACKS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES 1. Walls and Fences a. Section 23.6.A.3 shall apply to individual townhome lots or properties built with a single-family home. 2. Setback Exceptions a. Section 23.5.C.2 shall apply to single-family home properties built in a multi-family residential district. B. R-4 Townhouse MIXED 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. 2. Open Space and Recreation Requirements Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 7 Housekeeping: Maintains existing requirements. Changes to make it easier to read. Housekeeping: Maintains existing requirements. Changes to make it easier to read. Change: Removes the allowance for an average setback. Maintains requirement of a 20’ setback for all buildings from all roadways. 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, unless the overall density of the development is less than five (5) units per acre: 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. 3. Setbacks i. Wherever an R-4 development abuts an R-1 District or an alley abutting R-1 Districts, the following shall apply: i. FOR SINGLE STORY STRUCTURES, A setback of not less than thirty (30) feet shall be maintained FROM ANY R-1 DISTRICT OR AN ALLEY ABUTTING A R-1 DISTRICT for single-story structures. An additional depth of ten (10) feet shall be provided for each additional story. i. Wherever an R-4 development abuts any district other than R-1, or abuts an alley adjacent to such other district, a A setback not less than ten (10) feet in depth shall be maintained FROM ALL OTHER PROPERTY LINES. ii. A SETBACK OF NOT LESS THAN TWENTY (20) FEET SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM ALL PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREETS SURROUNDING THE DEVELOPMENT. d. No building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in this district that is nearer a dedicated street or private street than twenty (20) feet, except that the average setback from any dedicated street shall be at least twenty-five (25) feet. iii. A minimum distance of ten (10) feet shall be provided between all detached units. D. R-S Residential Service District Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 8 Change: Proposed term used to describe housing types. Change: Addresses a gap in code by requiring the existing separation requirements for apartments in an R-S district. The provisions of Section 23.4 and the following additional requirements shall apply in this district: 1. Standards for Townhouses ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS i. THE STANDARDS IN SECTION 23.7.B SHALL APPLY TO Whenever RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS OR DEVELOPMENTS dwelling units are to be built WITH as townhouses ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS, OR A COMBINATION OF ATTACHED AND DETACHED UNITS., the development standards in Section 23.7.B shall apply. 5. Yards and Setbacks a. Wherever an R-S development abuts an R-1 or R-4 District, or an alley abutting any of those districts, a building setback of not less than forty (40) feet shall be maintained, except that covered parking may be constructed adjacent to the required bufferyard. b. Wherever an R-S development abuts any district other than R-1 or R-4 or abuts an alley adjacent to such other district, a building setback of not less than twenty (20) feet shall be maintained except that covered parking may be constructed adjacent to the required bufferyard. c. Larger setbacks may be required if the existing or future development of the area around the site warrants such larger setbacks. d. A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF TEN (10) FEET SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN ALL DETACHED DWELLING UNITS ONLY, EXCEPT MULTI-LEVEL DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: I. BETWEEN TWO (2) SINGLE-STORY STRUCTURES: TEN (10) FEET; II. BETWEEN A SINGLE-STORY AND A TWO (2) STORY STRUCTURE: FIFTEEN (15) FEET; III. BETWEEN TWO (2) TWO (2) STORY STRUCTURES: TWENTY (20) FEET. E. R-6 Multi-Family Residential District The provisions of Section 23.4 and the following additional requirements shall apply in this district. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 9 Housekeeping: Requirement maintained but moved below. Housekeeping: This contradicts the screening requirement in Chapter 27, which requires 3.5’ tall walls around all parking areas. Housekeeping: Makes the landscape area and setback the same. Housekeeping: Moves existing separation requirements for apartments. Change: Addresses gap by applying existing townhome standards to detached units. Housekeeping: Clarifies existing perimeter setbacks. 1. Standards for Townhouses Whenever dwelling units are to be built as townhouses, the development standards in Section 23.7.B shall apply with the exception of density (Section 23.7.E.2) and building height (Section 23.7.E.4). 5. PERIMETER SETBACKS AND Minimum Distance Between Buildings a. Between two (2) single-story structures: Ten (10) feet; b. Between a single-story and a two (2) story structure: Fifteen (15) feet; c. Between two (2) two (2) story structures: Twenty (20) feet. A. A SETBACK OF NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (30) FEET SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM ALL PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREETS SURROUNDING THE DEVELOPMENT. B. A SETBACK NOT LESS THAN TWENTY (20) FEET IN DEPTH SHALL BE MAINTAINED FROM ALL OTHER PROPERTY LINES. C. A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF TEN (10) FEET SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN ALL DETACHED DWELLING UNITS ONLY, EXCEPT MULTI-LEVEL DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: I. BETWEEN TWO (2) SINGLE-STORY STRUCTURES: TEN (10) FEET II. BETWEEN A SINGLE-STORY AND A TWO (2) STORY STRUCTURE: FIFTEEN (15) FEET; III. BETWEEN TWO (2) TWO (2) STORY STRUCTURES: TWENTY (20) FEET. 6. Walls, Fences and Required Screening a. Walls and fences within the required front setback are limited to three (3) feet, unless otherwise approved by the Building Official or Planning and Zoning Administrator. Decisions may be appealed to the Town Council. b. All areas between a building and a street frontage except for access drives and walks shall be open space. Where parking occurs between a building and PERIMETER street, an area thirty-five (35 30) feet in depth between the street and parking shall be maintained in a landscaped setting. This depth may be decreased to a minimum of Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 10 Housekeeping: Removes example of uses as all residential uses should meet this requirement. twenty (20) feet if special circumstances warrant approval by use permit or THE Planning and Zoning Commission approval, such circumstances being: i. Depressed parking; ii. Wall and berming Section 23.8 Property Development Standards for Nonresidential Districts A. Common Regulations of Nonresidential Districts Alternative development standards in Section 27.10.B.3 (environmentally sensitive lands) may be applied at the request of the property owner upon satisfaction of applicable ESL review criteria. B. C-N Neighborhood Commercial District 8. Residential Site Design a. Residential uses, which include condominiums, townhomes, and apartments, shall be physically and functionally integrated with commercial uses by utilizing one (1) or more of the following design strategies: i. Attached Dwelling Units with First Floor Office or Retail ii. Nonresidential uses shall provide pedestrian paths linking them with multi- family THE residential uses on the property. Section 24.4 Planned Area Development (PAD) F. General Plan Compatibility As a component of approval, all proposed PADs must be found to be consistent with the adopted Oro Valley General Plan and any other applicable, adopted area, neighborhood or specific plans. Compatibility is required for all applicable General Plan elements and shall be determined in accordance with subsection G of this section. Lack of compliance with the General Plan or its subsets may, solely, form the basis for PAD denial. Any PAD applicant who recommends deviation from the General Plan or other adopted plans shall concurrently apply for, and process, a plan amendment. Only upon approval of such an amendment may a non-complying PAD be subsequently approved. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 11 Change: Proposed term used to describe housing types. Change: Proposed term used to describe housing type. G. General Plan Criteria The following criteria are derived from the adopted Oro Valley General Plan. All PAD applications shall be evaluated utilizing these criteria. In order to approve a PAD, the Town Council must find eighty percent (80%) of the applicable criteria are adequately addressed in the PAD plan and text documents. All absolute criteria (shown in bold typeface) must be met by the proposed PAD. 1. Land Use Element a. Varied types and intensities of development have been incorporated. b. Site analysis information completely supports the land use proposals contained in the PAD. c. A mix of housing types, such as DETACHED, ATTACHED OR MULTI-LEVEL DWELLING UNITS single-family attached and detached, single-family cluster homes, patio homes, townhouses and apartments, is incorporated in the PAD. d. The PAD promotes clustered (average density) developments to protect environmentally sensitive areas. e. Higher density or intensity developments abutting lower density or intensity areas include buffering and shall substantially mitigate any negative impacts. f. Residential neighborhoods are afforded multi-modal access to, and are in close proximity to, activity centers to minimize travel times. g. Activity centers provide a wide range of appropriate services. Section 26.5: Provision of Recreation Area 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 Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 12 Change: Proposed terms used to describe housing types. Housing Type Minimum Recreation Requirements Minimum Recreation Requirements Applicable to Rezoning Applications MULTI-LEVEL Apartments OR CONDOMINIUMS 400 sf per unit 400 sf per unit A tot lot is required for MULTI-LEVEL apartment complexes that have 20 or more 2+ bedroom units, unless the complex is age-restricted for seniors. An indoor recreational facility is required for apartment MULTI-LEVEL complexes with 50 units or more. Section 27.7 Off-Street Parking Section 27.7.A thru C. No Changes D. Parking Lots – Required Number of Spaces for Type of Use 1. Residential Parking Requirements: Residential uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards below. Any increase or decrease in parking shall be in accordance with subsection C.2 of this section. a. DEVELOPMENTS WITH MULTI-LEVEL UNITS, Attached UNITS, OR A COMBINATION OF DETACHED AND ATTACHED UNITS WITH EACH UNIT NOT ON AN INDIVIDUAL LOT Dwellings: For each two (2) family and multifamily dwelling, there shall HAVE be parking spaces provided as indicated by the following table: Table 27-13. TWO-FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY Attached Dwelling Parking Unit Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces per Dwelling One or less 1.5 Two 1.75 Three 2.0 Four 2.5 Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 13 Housekeeping: Redundant of tables 27-13 and 27-14. Unit Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces per Dwelling Plus one (1) space per every four (4) units for guest parking. b. Guest Parking: Off-street guest parking spaces in multifamily developments shall be distributed proportionally to effectively serve the dwelling units that they are intended to serve. Such parking shall not be located more than two hundred (200) feet from any dwelling unit that is intended to be served. c. Single-Family: For each single-family dwelling, there shall be at least two (2) parking spaces and two (2) guest spaces. Parking of any vehicle in the front yard of a lot shall be prohibited unless parked on a surface of asphalt, concrete, rock, or other similar inorganic material with a permanent border. d. Mobile Homes: There shall be two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit and one (1) space per four (4) units for guest parking. 2. Nonresidential Parking Requirements: The table below sets forth the number of required parking spaces for nonresidential uses within the Town. Table 27-14. Required Parking Spaces Permitted Use Parking Spaces/Square Feet (Unless Otherwise Noted) Accessory buildings and uses Not applicable Commercial stables 0.75/employee and 0.75/horse stall Farms and ranches 1 per 2 employees Marketing of products raised on the premises 4/1,000 Plant nursery 4/1,000 Bars 20/1,000 Distillery 0.75/employee and 20/1,000 for bar Entertainment at bars or restaurants Not applicable Microbrewery 0.75/employee and 20/1,000 for bar Mobile food units, including food trucks Not applicable Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 14 Permitted Use Parking Spaces/Square Feet (Unless Otherwise Noted) Restaurant 10/1,000 Restaurant with drive-in/drive-thru See Table 27-15 Food processing, artisanal 0.75/employee and 4/1,000 for public use areas Food processing, large scale 0.75/employee and 4/1,000 for public use areas Manufacturing services, heavy 0.75/employee Manufacturing services, light 0.75/employee Warehousing, heavy 0.75/employee Warehousing, light 0.75/employee Communication studios 3/1,000 Offices 3/1,000 Research and development 3/1,000 Convenience market 8/1,000 Drive-thru uses See Table 27-15 General retail 4/1,000 Grocery store 5/1,000 Marijuana establishment 4/1,000 Wholesaling 4/1,000 Animal services 4.5/1,000 Commercial or fine arts studio 3/1,000 Daycare 0.75/employee and 3/1,000 Drive-thru uses, not including banks See Table 27-15 Financial services 3.5/1,000 Funeral services 1 per 4 seats and 2 per 3 employees Household services 0.75/employee and 4/1,000 for public use areas Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 15 Permitted Use Parking Spaces/Square Feet (Unless Otherwise Noted) Medical services 4.5/1,000 Personal services 0.75/employee and 4/1,000 for public use areas Private clubs without entertainment 10/1,000 Private clubs with entertainment 10/1,000 Self storage 1 per 50 units Senior care facility See Table 27-16 Sexually oriented businesses 4/1,000 Technical services 4/1,000 Theater 1/3 seats Gas stations 8/1,000 Parts store 0.75/employee and 4/1,000 for public use areas Rental establishments, less than 10 vehicles 0.75/employee and 1 per 10 vehicles stored on premises Rental establishments, over 10 vehicles 0.75/employee and 1 per 10 vehicles stored on premises Rental establishments, moving services 0.75/employee and 1 per 10 vehicles stored on premises Vehicle repair facilities 5/1,000 Vehicle sales 3/1,000 Vehicle storage facility, including parking garage 0.75/employee and 1 per 10 vehicles stored on premises Vehicle washes/detailing 0.75/employee Boarding house or lodging house 1/unit Guest ranches 1/unit Hotels/motels 0.75/employee and 1/unit Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 16 Permitted Use Parking Spaces/Square Feet (Unless Otherwise Noted) Resorts 0.75/employee and 1/unit Short-term rental properties Applicable residential standards apply Arts and cultural use 3/1,000 Cemetery Offices: cemetery offices shall be parked as an office use Grounds: 0.75 spaces per nonoffice employee shall be provided and internal roadways or access drives shall accommodate parallel parking Fire stations and rescue facilities, private 3/1,000 of office space General aviation 0.75/employee and 1/1,000 for public use areas Golf course Parking for golf courses shall be provided through a shared parking analysis including all associated uses Golf driving range or miniature golf, stand alone 2 per bay Government services 1 per 4 seats and 2 per 3 employees Religious institutions 1 per 4 seats and 2 per 3 employees Schools, private 1 per 4 seats and 2 per 3 employees Schools, public including charter schools None required Utilities, privately owned 0.75/employee Utility poles and above ground wires, new Not applicable Buildings and facilities, not-for-profit community service organizations, such as Boys & Girls Clubs or YMCA 4/1,000 Buildings and facilities, private, including fitness centers or health spas 4.5/1,000 Apartments, MULTI-LEVEL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS See Table 27-13 Assisted living home See Table 27-16 Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 17 Permitted Use Parking Spaces/Square Feet (Unless Otherwise Noted) Dwelling units, single-family RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS WITH DETACHED OR ATTACHED UNITS, OR A COMBINATION THEREOF. 2 parking and 2 guest spaces Dwelling units, site-delivered single- family RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS 2 parking and 2 guest spaces; or in SDH-6: 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit and 1 space per 4 dwelling units for guest parking Dwelling units, attached, including condominium, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITH DETACHED OR ATTACHED WITH EACH UNIT NOT ON AN INDIVIDUAL LOT patio home or townhouse See Table 27-13 Home occupations Existing parking provided on property shall be used to accommodate vehicles related to the home business. Additional regulations provided in Section 25.2.E.3.e. Model homes, including temporary real estate office Applicable residential standards apply Antennas None required Recreation area (100 or fewer homes) 1 parking space for every 20 dwelling units or portion thereof Recreation area (greater than 100 homes) 1 additional parking space for every 40 dwelling units or portion thereof over 100 Communication facilities, major 1 space per facility Communication facilities, minor None required Section 27.7.E Thru G – No Changes CHAPTER 31 – DEFINITIONS Apartments - A dwelling designed for the occupancy by three (3) or more families living independently of each other in units stacked on top of one another. Dwelling - A building, or portion thereof, designed exclusively for residential purposes. Multiple – A building, or portion thereof, designed for occupancy by three (3) or more families. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 18 Change: Proposed terms used to describe housing types. Single-Family - A building designed for occupancy by one (1) family. Two-Family (Duplex) - A building designed for occupancy by two (2) families. Family - A person living alone, up to but no more than ten (10) persons unrelated to each other by blood, marriage or legal adoption, living together in a dwelling unit existing solely as a single housekeeping unit, with common access to all living, eating, kitchen and storage areas within the dwelling unit. Dwelling Unit - A building, or portion of a building, arranged, designed or used as living quarters, including bathroom and kitchen facilities, sleeping and living areas, for a family. ATTACHED – A BUILDING DESIGNED FOR OCCUPANCY BY TWO (2) OR MORE FAMILIES LIVING INDEPENDENTLY OF EACHOTHER IN UNITS JOINED SIDE BY SIDE OR FRONT TO BACK BY STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS. STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS INCLUDE PARTY WALLS, ROOFS OR OTHER SIMILAR ITEMS. ELEMENTS LIKE TRUSSES, BEAMS, AND PATIO WALLS ARE NOT INCLUDED. THIS TERM INCLUDES DUPLEXES, PATIO HOMES, TOWNHOMES, CONDOMINIUMS AND OTHER SIMILAR HOUSING TYPES. DETACHED – A BUILDING DESIGNED FOR OCCUPANCY BY ONE (1) FAMILY. THIS TERM INCLUDES FREESTANDING HOMES. SITE DELIVERED – A BUILDING THAT IS NOT CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE ON WHICH IT IS LOCATED. THIS TERM APPLIES TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING AND MOBILE HOMES BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE RECREATION VEHICLES. MULTI-LEVEL – A BUILDING DESIGNED FOR THE OCCUPANCY BY TWO (2) OR MORE FAMILIES LIVING INDEPENDENTLY OF EACHOTHER IN UNITS STACKED ON TOP OF ONE ANOTHER. NON-RESIDENTIAL USES MAY BE LOCATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR, AS PERMITTED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT. THIS TERM INCLUDES APARTMENTS, MIXED-USE BUILDINGS, CONDOMINIUMS AND OTHER SIMILAR HOUSING TYPES. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 19 Change: Proposed terms used to describe housing types. Change: Proposed terms used to describe housing types. Patio Home - An attached or detached single-family dwelling constructed with no side yard on one (1) side of the lot. Townhouse - 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. Site-Delivered Dwelling - A dwelling that is not constructed on the site on which it is located. Site-delivered homes include prefabricated housing, manufactured housing, and mobile homes. Site-delivered homes do not include recreation vehicles. ADDENDUM A – DESIGN STANDARDS Chapter 3: Single-Family Residential Development Design Standards DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DETACHED AND ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS Applicability: These development design standards shall apply to all single-family RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITH attached and AND/OR detached residential projects and housing types within the Town of Oro Valley, DWELLING UNITS, EXCLUDING CUSTOM HOMES including production home subdivisions and custom homes, unless specific Planned Area Development design guidelines apply. Chapter 4: Multi-Family DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTI-LEVEL Residential Development Design Standards UNITS Applicability: These Multi-Family Residential Development D design S standards shall apply to all multi-family MULTI-LEVEL attached and detached residential projects and housing types within the Town of Oro Valley, including townhomes, apartments, condominiums and attached single-family residential development unless specific Planned Area Development design guidelines apply. Addendum H: Scenic Resource Area Design Guidelines 3. Design Guidelines Section A – No changes. b. Architectural Design Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 20 Improved accuracy: These requirements are intended for subdivisions not individual custom home lots. i. General Design a. Buildings constructed in scenic corridors and park viewsheds should be low and of colors, materials and textures, which blend with natural desert vegetation, leaving large areas of open space between developments. Buildings that are visible from scenic corridors should seem to be a part of, or in, the landscape rather than appearing to be an imposition on the site. The buildings should follow the natural contours of the existing topography. b. Building Colors a) Building colors should relate to one another and the natural environment on the basis of pigment, color value, and/or intensity. In scenic corridors, earth tones and pastels are encouraged, especially in areas of high visibility. Desert/mountain colors that blend with the natural background are encouraged. b) In areas upslope from scenic corridors, darker, geologic colors to blend with mountain slopes. c) In locations upslope from the ultimate scenic corridor roadway right-of-way, richer, earth tone or geologic colors and rougher textures are preferred, especially those which complement background views, downslopes, darker earth colors with more dense landscaping clusters. d) Color schemes should avoid jarring juxtapositions with primary colors. e) In more private area, away from scenic corridors, homeowners and business owners are permitted more freedom in color selections. f) Bright colors should not be visible from scenic corridors or other public rights- of-way. g) Foreground colors should harmonize and blend with existing vegetation, natural rock/earth forms or built background. c. Include architectural detailing on all structure facades. ii. Residential Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 21 Review of all residential developments other than CUSTOM HOME individual, detached, single-family home construction shall consider the following criteria to assure design consistency with Scenic Resource intent and character: a. Building heights should be varied, preferably mixing one and two-story homes to enable views across the site from the scenic corridor right-of- way. b. Consistent, finished rooftop treatments, without visible roof-mounted equipment. c. Noise Mitigation should be addressed by masonry construction, double- paned windows, and limited window openings and recreational yard uses facing scenic corridors. d. Structural screening of access or frontage roads and parking visible from scenic corridors, and structural integration with terrain, such as building lower floors into slopes. e. Thematic architectural detailing should be included. ADDENDUM I. Hillside Development Zone in Effect Prior to Implementation of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance on 7/19/11 (formerly codified in Section 24.2) Sections A-E. No Changes F. Development Criteria Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 22 Change: Proposed terms used to describe housing types. The following development criteria apply to all parcels that are affected by this zone. Any parcel created must meet slope/size requirements of Table 24-1. All development is subject to the Oro Valley Grading Ordinance. 1. Single-Family Residential Development RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS WITH DETACHED AND/OR ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS a. This paragraph applies to an existing parcel where no land division has occurred, nor is land division proposed, since the adoption of this ordinance. The average cross slope (ACS) is calculated for the entire parcel. If the ACS is 15 percent or greater, Columns A and D of Table 24-1 apply. b. This paragraph applies to any parcel of property or lot where land division is proposed or has occurred since the adoption of this ordinance. The average cross slope is calculated for the parcel prior to land division. If the ACS is 15 percent or greater, columns A and C of Table 24-1 apply. Natural open space may be designated on the parcel in accordance with Section24.2.G, to reduce the ACS percentage. Such natural open space will be excluded from the ACS calculation but will be included in the land area for the parcel. i) If a subdivision plat is required, all 25 percent or greater slopes (as defined in24.2. C.1.b) within the proposed lots, except for those within natural open space areas, are delineated. These sloped areas then determine the design of the development according to the following criteria. a) Where the areas of 25 percent or greater slope are located outside the buildable area, the minimum lot size requirements of the underlying zone apply. The buildable area may be redefined by the applicant to exclude areas of steeper slope in order to comply with this requirement. Grading may occur only within the buildable area and access to the buildable area. Grading for roadway or driveway access shall not cross a Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 23 Change: Proposed terms used to describe housing types. 25 percent or greater sloped area unless no alternative routes exist. Driveway clearing and grading may be no wider than 30 feet. b) Where the buildable area contains areas of 25 percent or greater slope, the minimum size required for that proposed lot is 43,560 square feet unless a greater size is required by the underlying zone. The amount of grading permitted is the amount indicated in Column D of Table 24-1, based on the area of the lot, Column B. ii) If a subdivision plat is not required, the land area of each parcel created must comply with Columns A, B and D of Table 24 -1. 2. Multi-Family Residential Development RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITH MULTI-LEVEL OR ATTACHED UNITS, OR A COMBINATION OF ATTACHED AND DETACHED UNITS WITH EACH UNIT NOT ON AN INDIVIDUAL LOT. a. All grading is subject to the provisions of the Oro Valley Grading Ordinance. b. The ACS is calculated for the entire parcel. If the ACS is 15 percent or greater, columns A, B, C, and D of Table 24-1 apply. c. Natural open space may be designated on the parcel, in accordance with Section24.2.G to reduce the ACS percentage. Such natural open space will be excluded from the ACS calculation, but will be included for density calculation. If the ACS of the remaining portion of the parcel, after natural open space designation is: i) Less than 15 percent and contains no areas of 25 percent or greater slope, 100 percent of that portion may be graded. ii) Less than 15 percent, but contains areas of 25 percent or greater slopes, no more than 80 percent of that remaining portion may be graded. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31 and Addendums A, H and I of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. 24 iii) Fifteen percent or greater, columns B, C, and D of Table 24-1 apply, based on the entire area of the parcel. Study Session: Proposed code amendment to align and clarify standards for a variety of permitted housing types Town Council August 7, 2024 Proposed Code Amendment •Parking and recreation area requirements •Up next: Lighting and design standards One of several code amendments to update old standards •Does not increase density, permit more housing types, or reduce standards for apartments •Not a result of the OV Housing Study Does not boost or encourage multi-family development •No changes to open space or R-6 setbacks to meet motion of continuance Simplified and refined Ensure consistent application of code to reduce or eliminate need for staff determinations Purpose 1. Clearly and accurately define housing types 2. Address spacing in-between single-family homes in R-6 by matching similar districts 3. Align different code sections and standards Focus on multi-family and mixed-use zoning districts No changes to apartment standards or requirements Ensure consistent application of code to reduce or eliminate need for staff determinations Zoning District Purpose R-4 Townhomes and patio homes – no apartments R-4R Resorts and accommodations for visitors – no apartments R-S Neighborhood-scale commercial and medium-density housing – allows apartments R-6 Neighborhood-scale commercial and higher-density housing – allows apartments C-N Mix of office, retail and residential – allows apartments 1. Clearly and accurately define housing types Finding: Current definitions overlap each other and exclude newer marketing terms like casitas Proposed: Simplify and combine a variety of marketing terms by defining housing types based on building form Development standards align with building form not ownership Ownership only determines if a plat is required Ownership does not determine height, buffer yards, setbacks, etc. Multi-family or apartments Stacked duplexes, fourplexes or townhomes Live-workSingle-Family attached or semi-detached Two-family or townhomes Patio homes or casitasSingle-family home Casita Cottage or bungalow Overlapping Marketing Terms PROPOSED Dwelling Unit (D.U.) D.U.D.U. D.U.D.U. D.U.D.U. Detached Attached Multi-level 2. Address spacing in-between single-family homes in R-6 No changes to setbacks from adjacent developments. Only addressing spacing in- between single-family homes Finding: Spacing in-between townhomes and apartments provided in R-6. No specific spacing in-between single-family homes Proposed: Require 10-feet in-between all single-family homes Same as Rancho Vistoso medium density and medium-high density residential districts •R6 is equivalent to Rancho Vistoso high-density residential but conservative approach proposed Same spacing required in-between townhomes 10 feet 10 feet Center Pointe in Rancho Vistoso 3. Address gaps and inconsistencies in current code Type Finding Proposed Gap C-N Zoning District: Only district that allows homes but not home occupations. Allow home occupations in C-N. Gap R-S Zoning District: No requirements for spacing in- between units. Add same requirements for spacing in- between units as R-6 Gap Parking Requirements: Includes outdated housing definitions. Updates definitions to ensure accuracy and alignment with all housing types. No changes to parking ratios. Gap Design Standards: Includes outdated housing definitions. Updates definitions to ensure accuracy and alignment with all housing types. No changes to design standards. Inconsistency C-N Zoning District: Attached homes allowed in C-N per Section 23.8 but not shown on permitted use table. Update the Table of Permitted Uses to reflect existing allowance in Section 23.7. Inconsistency R-4 Zoning District: Currently allows patio homes, defined as a mix of detached and attached units. Update the Table of Permitted Uses to reflect existing allowances. Align Table of Permitted Uses with existing code allowances below: R-4 Chapter 31, Patio Homes: “An attached or detached single-family dwelling constructed with no side yard on one (1) side of the lot.” C-N Section 23.8: “Residential uses, which include condominiums, townhomes, and apartments, shall be physically and functionally integrated with commercial uses by utilizing one (1) or more of the following design strategies….” 3. Address gaps and inconsistencies in current code General Plan Compliance Indirectly meets the following goals and policies: Goal D: A community with a wide range of services, amenities, shopping and dining opportunities and housing types that meet the needs of current and future residents. Goal X: Effective transitions between differing land uses and intensities in the community. CC.7: Support the development of diverse housing types within the community. LU.5: Provide diverse land uses that meet the Town's overall needs and effectively transition in scale and density to adjacent neighborhoods Summary Ensure consistent application to eliminate need for staff determination Provide accurate definitions and addresses gaps and inconsistencies One of many updates to old code sections Parking, recreation areas, lighting, and design standards Does not boost or encourage multi-family development Does not increase density, permit more uses, or reduce standards for apartments Simplified and refined No changes to open space or R-6 setbacks from adjacent developments