Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1898)         AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 18, 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 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER   ROLL CALL   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE   UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS   MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS ON CURRENT EVENTS Spotlight on Youth   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 - Diaper Need Awareness Week   CONSENT AGENDA  (Consideration and/or possible action)   A.Minutes - September 4, 2024   B.Resolution No. (R)24-33, authorizing and directing the Water Utility Director to execute and file an application for a drinking water state revolving fund loan from the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA)   REGULAR AGENDA   1.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS TO VISTOSO TRAILS NATURE PRESERVE AND MAINTENANCE BUILDING   2.PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)24-08, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW THE KEEPING OF SMALL ANIMALS AND/OR LIVESTOCK WITHIN ALL ORO VALLEY ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ACCOMMODATE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND AMEND RELATED SECTIONS OF TOWN CODE   3.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RESTORATION OF THE EL CONQUISTADOR GOLF COURSE 5TH HOLE   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 The Mayor and Council may, at the discretion of the meeting chairperson, discuss any Agenda item.   POSTED: 9/11/24 at 5:30 p.m. by mrs 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:09/18/2024   Proclamation - Diaper Need Awareness Week Subject Proclamation - Diaper Need Awareness Week Summary Attachments Proclamation     Town Council Regular Session A. Meeting Date:09/18/2024   Requested by: Mike Standish Submitted By:Michelle Stine, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: Minutes - September 4, 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 September 4, 2024 minutes.  Attachments 9-4-24 Draft Minutes  D R A F T   MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE            REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor Melanie Barrett, Vice-Mayor Tim Bohen, Councilmember Harry Greene, Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember (attended via Zoom) Josh Nicolson, Councilmember Steve Solomon, Councilmember 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 and the Oro Valley Path Forward Community Events.   MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS ON CURRENT EVENTS    Councilmember Bohen reported that the rehabilitation work at Rancho Valley Vista was close to completion. Mayor Winfield recognized the Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department for receiving the Arizona Parks and Recreation Associations, 2024 Outstanding Education Program Award. This award was received in recognition of the Oro Valley Nature Camp. Vice Mayor Barrett reported that she and other Councilmembers had attended the League of Arizona Cities and Towns where they were able to attend sessions related to various local government issues, 9-4-24 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 1 to further educate themselves about serving the citizens of Oro Valley. Vice Mayor Barrett also attended a luncheon with Congressional Representative Juan Ciscomani, where the focus was around his accomplishment in securing federal appropriations for the Town of Oro Valley, and the requirements to receive federal funding. Vice Mayor Barrett congratulated Mayor Winfield for receiving the Public Official of the Year Award from the Arizona Parks and Recreation Association.   TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT ON CURRENT EVENTS    Town Manager Jeff Wilkins reported the following: Update on the Oro Valley Parks and Recreation's upcoming Fall Camps. The Town of Oro Valley and Marana received the Best Tourism Partnership Award from the Arizona Governor's Conference on Tourism. The Oro Valley Friday Night Concerts Series starts on September 27th. Oro Valley's Bark in the Park will be held on September 28th. Registration for the Oro Valley Community Academy ends on September 27th.   ORDER OF BUSINESS    Mayor Winfield stated that after reviewing the agenda for this evening, and given the fact that the Council did not receive the traffic impact study as prepared by Southwest Traffic Engineering. The following motion was offered.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Tim Bohen to continue Regular Agenda item #1, items (A) and (B), to a date determined by the Agenda Committee. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding the motion for Regular Agenda item #1.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Tim Bohen to continue Regular Agenda item #1, items (A) and (B), to a date determined by the Agenda Committee.  Vote: 6 - 1 Carried  OPPOSED: Councilmember Steve Solomon   INFORMATIONAL ITEMS    There were no informational items.   CALL TO AUDIENCE    Oro Valley resident Tricia Tozier voiced her concerns regarding the proposed Oro Valley Church of the Nazarene project.   PRESENTATIONS   1.Proclamation - Constitution Week    9-4-24 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 2    Mayor Winfield proclaimed the week of September 17th through September 23, 2024, as Constitution week in the Town of Oro Valley. Ms. Peggy Schaller of the El Presidio Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution accepted the proclamation.   CONSENT AGENDA   A.Minutes - August 13 and August 21, 2024      B.Reappointment/appointment to the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS) Local Board and the Corrections Officer Retirement Plan (CORP) Local Board      C.Resolution No. (R)24-32, authorizing the Chief of Police to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding Between the Town of Oro Valley and the Arizona Department of Public Safety regarding the provision of alias social security numbers       Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene to approve Consent agenda items (A) - (C).  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   REGULAR AGENDA   1.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON TWO ITEMS RELATING TO A PROPOSED COFFEE SHOP DRIVE-THRU AND OFFICE/RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF INNOVATION PARK DRIVE AND TANGERINE ROAD: ITEM A: ORDINANCE NO. (O)24-07, PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT TO ENABLE ACCESS ONTO TANGERINE ROAD ITEM B: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COFFEE SHOP DRIVE-THRU USE       This item was continued to a future Council agenda as determined by the Agenda Committee.   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS    No future agenda items were requested.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Josh Nicolson to adjourn the meeting at 6:16 p.m.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried     ___________________________________________ 9-4-24 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 3 ___________________________________________ 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, Arizona held on the 4th day of September 2024. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. ____________________________________________ Michael Standish, CMC Town Clerk 9-4-24 Minutes, Town Council Regular Session 4    Town Council Regular Session B. Meeting Date:09/18/2024   Requested by: Peter Abraham Submitted By:Peter Abraham, Water Department:Water SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R)24-33, authorizing and directing the Water Utility Director to execute and file an application for a drinking water state revolving fund loan from the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Water Utility is currently in the construction phase of the Northwest Recharge Recovery and Delivery System project, which will allow the utility to deliver up to an additional 4,000 acre-ft. of Central Arizona Project water to the Utility's service area. It is estimated that once complete, this project will be a $50 million investment in the Town's water resource delivery infrastructure. To date, all planning, design and construction activities have been funded by a combination of Impact Fees, Groundwater Preservation Fees, and grant funding awarded to the Town by the Water Conservation Grant Fund. It is estimated there will be a need to finance approximately $18 million, including contingency. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: In April 2017, the governing bodies of Metro Water, the Town of Marana and the Town of Oro Valley unanimously approved a 50-year Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to partner in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Northwest Recharge, Recovery, and Delivery System (NWRRDS). The Water Utility is currently in the construction phase of this project. This project will allow the utility to deliver up to an additional 4,000 acre-ft. of Central Arizona Project water to the Utility's service area. It is estimated that once complete, this project will be a $50 million investment in the Town's water resource delivery infrastructure. To date, all planning, design and construction activities have been funded by a combination of Impact Fees, Groundwater Preservation Fees, and grant funding awarded to the Town by the Water Conservation Grant Fund. The Water Utility is exploring the cost to finance $18 million from the Water Infrastructure Financing Authority (WIFA) to complete the NWRRDS project. To complete this discovery process, a loan application needs to be filed with the WIFA. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with submitting the application to the WIFA. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (approve or deny) Resolution No. (R)24-33, to authorize and direct the Water Utility Director to execute and file an application for a drinking water state revolving fund loan from the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona. Attachments (R)24-33 WIFA Application Resolution  RESOLUTION NO. (R)24-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE WATER UTILITY DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AND FILE AN APPLICATION FOR A DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN FROM THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AUTHORITY OF ARIZONA (WIFA); AND DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER, TOWN CLERK, TOWN LEGAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, WATER UTILITY DIRECTOR, OR THEIR DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND AGENTS TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, pursuant to ARS § 9-511, et seq., the Town has the requisite statutory authority to acquire, own and maintain a water utility for the benefit of the landowners within and without the Town’s corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley of Pima County has identified a need for a drinking water capital improvement project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statues (A.R.S. § 9-571), the Town of Oro Valley may obligate the net water revenues to repay a loan from the WIFA; and WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley of Pima County certifies that the population of the community is under 150,000 in population as of the most recent U.S. Census data; and WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley’s population at the time of this request is 48,000 which meets the requirement under A.R.S. § 9-571; and WHEREAS, it is in the Town of Oro Valley’s best interest to pursue and apply for financial assistance from the WIFA of Arizona of an amount not to exceed $18,000,000.00 for the Northwest Recharge, Recovery and Delivery System project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, that: SECTION 1. The Water Utility Director is hereby authorized and directed to execute and file an application for a drinking water state revolving fund loan from the WIFA. SECTION 2. The Town Manager, Water Utility Director, Town Clerk, Town Legal Services Director or their duly authorized officers and agents are hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of this resolution. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. SECTION 4. All Oro Valley Resolutions, or Motions and parts of Resolutions or Motions of the Council in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 18th day of September, 2024. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mike Standish, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: Date:    Town Council Regular Session 1. Meeting Date:09/18/2024   Requested by: Vice Mayor Barrett and Councilmember Bohen  Submitted By:Michelle Stine, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS TO VISTOSO TRAILS NATURE PRESERVE AND MAINTENANCE BUILDING RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item will provide information regarding the Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve maintenance building, which was included as part of Town Council's motion from the budget adoption. This item also includes an update on the Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve Desert Ecosystem Restoration Project per Town Council's direction. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: MAINTENANCE BUILDING The Maintenance Building at Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve is located within the Maintenance Yard at 775 W. Pebble Creek Drive. The building has six (6) garage bays, minor office space and is approximately 6,000 square feet in size. Currently, the Maintenance Building is not being used due to the unstable roof, creating a safety concern. The repair of the Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve Maintenance Building roof and security is included within the FY 2024/25 Budget, in the amount of $210,000, with the stipulation that Town Council will determine the purpose and use of the facility before funds are allocated. The project details for repair are as follows: Replacement of the roofing tile, underlayment, and some decking is required to preserve the structural integrity of the facility. Roofing scope:  * Remove the existing roofing material down to the wood deck * Install one layer of tile underlayment on sloped decks * Install concrete roof tiles on the sloped decks * Install plywood sheathing on the west canopy roof area * Install a three-ply self-adhered roof system on the low sloped roof areas As a result of the facility's current condition, the exterior carports are being used for all equipment related to the Preserve's maintenance. Items currently being kept in the Maintenance Yard include:  Large vehicle/utility trailer Large mower/utility trailer Pull behind boom sprayer Kubota tractor 2 Kubota side-by-side vehicles Pull behind sprayer with generator Tow behind blower Two landscape trailers Toro 3500 deck mower Brightview Landscaping provides weekly cleanup along the edges of the trail and also keeps the following equipment within the enclosure:  John Deere side-by-side Small Trailer The Conservation Easement specifically mentions the Maintenance Yard and gives directions for its use, stating, “Grantor may construct, maintain, repair, remodel, or replace the existing structures described in this Paragraph 2.2 (“Existing Structures”), and may convert or replace the structures and impervious surfaces of the Maintenance Yard to structures or uses that support the operation, maintenance or recreational use of the Property provided said changes or replacements are equal to or smaller than the Existing Structures and impervious surfaces.” With the preserve restoration project starting in early 2025, more maintenance hours will need to be dedicated to addressing the invasive plants. Therefore, more equipment, materials and supplies will be housed at Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve. Note that any herbicides or pesticides will be kept in a separate shed onsite. Items that will be kept in the Maintenance Building include as many items as possible from the current Town equipment list kept on site (listed above), as well as additional items below:  Pull behind sprayers Tank sprayers Gas powered tools Hand Tools Work bench to service gas powered tools and sharpen hand tools Any t-posts and fencing needed for the revegetation project Seed for any revegetation that is needed Staff obtained proposals to repair the Maintenance Facility Roof as well as building demolition. The cost estimates are listed below. Note that there is not a known cost associated with any underlayment repairs that are needed. That amount and cost of underlayment repairs will be determined when the old roof is removed. 3 potential options are as follows:  Standing Seam Metal Roof $183,600 plus underpayment repairs Concrete Tiles $168,600 plus underpayment repairs Demolition of the Building $123,000  Staff recommends replacing the roof with a standing seam metal roof. The metal roof is lower maintenance and longer lasting. However, both options are acceptable and are expected to last more than 20 years. A new roof will be instrumental in maintaining town equipment for as long as possible, as well as provides an enclosure for field staff work to be conducted in the extensive Arizona summer heat and weather. DESERT ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT Kimley-Horn and Associates is the consultant for the restoration project. Rebeca Field is the Senior Project Manager assigned to this project from Kimley-Horn. Ms. Field has been working with staff and stakeholders to develop a concept plan that will be presented to Town Council for feedback. Stakeholders interviewed include:  Rosa Daily – Resident Jack Dash – Horticulturist and Botanist, President of the Local Chapter of the Native Plant Society Elise Gornish – Ecological Restoration Specialist, University of Arizona Gayle Mateer – President of Preserve Vistoso Joe Winfield – Mayor Matt Wood – President of Vistoso Community Association Megan Worzella – Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Member Rebeca Field will be in attendance to discuss the process thus far, as well as present the concept plan that is based on prior Town Council discussion and stakeholder feedback. Per the Council motion on April 17, 2024, the desert garden design and prioritization of areas receiving treatment will be approved by Town Council. Per Vice Mayor's request, attached to this item are other studies related to the Maintenance Building. FISCAL IMPACT: The Maintenance Building Roof is budgeted in the amount of $210,000. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (approve OR deny) the repair of the Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve Maintenance Facility roof project AND I MOVE to (approve OR deny) the concept plan for the Desert Ecosystem Restoration Project. Attachments Concept Plan  Stakeholder Meeting Notes  2020 Rancho Vistoso Golf Course Feasibility Study  2023 Environmental Site Assessment  2024 Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve Master Plan  Photos of Facility Conditions  Staff Presentation  VISTOSO TRAILS NATURE PRESERVE MAINTENANCE AREA PHOTOS OF FACILITY CONDITIONS Page of 1 9 VISTOSO TRAILS NATURE PRESERVE MAINTENANCE AREA PHOTOS OF FACILITY CONDITIONS Page of 2 9 VISTOSO TRAILS NATURE PRESERVE MAINTENANCE AREA PHOTOS OF FACILITY CONDITIONS Page of 3 9 VISTOSO TRAILS NATURE PRESERVE MAINTENANCE AREA PHOTOS OF FACILITY CONDITIONS Page of 4 9 VISTOSO TRAILS NATURE PRESERVE MAINTENANCE AREA PHOTOS OF FACILITY CONDITIONS Page of 5 9 VISTOSO TRAILS NATURE PRESERVE MAINTENANCE AREA PHOTOS OF FACILITY CONDITIONS Page of 6 9 VISTOSO TRAILS NATURE PRESERVE MAINTENANCE AREA PHOTOS OF FACILITY CONDITIONS Page of 7 9 VISTOSO TRAILS NATURE PRESERVE MAINTENANCE AREA PHOTOS OF FACILITY CONDITIONS Page of 8 9 VISTOSO TRAILS NATURE PRESERVE MAINTENANCE AREA PHOTOS OF FACILITY CONDITIONS Page of 9 9 Improvements to Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve and Maintenance Building Maintenance Yard ➢Conservation Easement –maintenance yard uses must support the operation, maintenance or recreational use of the property ➢Maintenance Building ➢Approximately 6,000 Square Feet ➢6 Garage Bays ➢Minor Office Space ➢Currently Empty Due to Unstable Roof ➢Small Shed Maintenance Yard Continued ➢2 Multi-Vehicle/Equipment Carports Used For: ➢Large Vehicle/Utility Trailer ➢Large Mower/Utility Trailer ➢Pull Behind Boom Sprayer ➢Kubota Tractor ➢2 Kubota Side-by-Side Vehicles ➢Pull Behind Sprayer with Generator ➢Tow Behind Blower ➢Two Landscape Tailers ➢Toro 3500 Deck Mower ➢Brightview Landscaping ➢John Deere Side-by-Side ➢Small Trailer ➢4 Holding Bays for Rock/Dirt/Sand Maintenance Building Roof Repair ➢$210,000 included in FY 2024/25 Budget ➢Council to determine purpose and use of facility prior to usage of funds ➢If repaired, staff would utilize the building for equipment on previous slide, as well as: ➢Pull Behind Sprayers ➢Tank Sprayers ➢Gas Powered Tools ➢Hand Tools ➢Work Bench to Service Tools ➢T-Posts or Fencing ➢Seed ➢Work Area Pro posals Re ceived ➢Standing Seam Metal Roof ➢$183,600 + Underlayment Repairs ➢Concrete Tiles ➢$168,800 + Underlayment Repairs ➢Demolition ➢$123,000 ➢Both Roof Options are Acceptable ➢New Roof Instrumental in Maintaining Town Equipment ➢Recommendation: Standing Seam Metal Roof ➢Lower Maintenance ➢Longer Lasting Presentation to Town Council September 18, 2024 Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve Agenda •Scope of Work •Project Challenges & Opportunities •Discussion Highlights from Stakeholder Meetings •Restoration Area Concept Plan •Desert Garden Area Concept Plan •Next Steps Scope of Work ❑Existing conditions review ❑Stakeholder & council engagement ❑Grant application assistance ❑Concept development ❑Construction documents ❑Construction cost estimates ❑Bidding & contractor selection Project Challenges & Opportunities •Budget -$2M total •Existing conditions •Methodology for restoration •Irrigation strategies Desert Restoration Examples The Waterman Project2017 2018 20222019 Canoa RanchPre-Design Conditions Post-Construction Post-Construction Post-Construction (1 year) Discussion Highlights •Be mindful of impacts to adjacent residences •Irrigation for entire site is unfeasible •Expectations need to be managed and communicated to residents •Consider existing wildlife in the Preserve when generating restoration strategies •Well-preserved habitat on the margins is a benefit (‘Islands of Fertility’) Discussion Highlights •Nearly impossible to completely eradicate Bermuda grass •Consider a variety of soil treatments; removal of topsoil NOT recommended •Take advantage of ‘people -power’ for invasive species removal •Identify small areas that are most likely to be successful for restoration approach •Start work from the outside and work IN – focus on the edges Restoration Concept Plan Desert Garden Area Concept Plan Schedule Questions & Direction Regarding Maintenance Building Roo f & Concept Plan    Town Council Regular Session 2. Meeting Date:09/18/2024   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Submitted By:Alexandra Chavez, Community and Economic Development Case Number:2301321 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)24-08, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW THE KEEPING OF SMALL ANIMALS AND/OR LIVESTOCK WITHIN ALL ORO VALLEY ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ACCOMMODATE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND AMEND RELATED SECTIONS OF TOWN CODE RECOMMENDATION: On August 13, 2024, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended conditional approval subject to revising the language to enable miniature goats on properties from 36,000 to 143,999 square feet in size. The proposed code and associated ordinance have been updated to address this condition.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to consider proposed zoning code amendments (Attachment 1) to allow the keeping of livestock and small animals (chickens, rabbits, and other similar animals) on detached, single-family residential properties with associated requirements. This item was initiated by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their May 2, 2023, Regular Session in response to a resident’s request for such a use. The proposed code amendment also aims to address a shift in land use practices relative to animal husbandry that many surrounding jurisdictions have adopted over the last few years to allow property owners to keep livestock and small animals for non-commercial purposes. Oro Valley’s Zoning Code has not been updated in over 20 years and is relatively restrictive compared to other Arizona jurisdictions (Figure 1). The proposed code amendment aims to take a comparatively conservative approach that prioritizes compatibility with neighbors.    Figure 1: Peer jurisdiction research findings.  Currently, the Zoning Code only allows the keeping of such animals for "Farm" and "Ranch" uses and requires a minimum lot size of 144,000 sq feet. Governor Hobbs recently signed House Bill 2325 into law (Attachment 2) which requires municipalities to allow up to six (6) chickens on detached single-family residential properties one-half acre or less. HB 2325 also provided specific standards such as requirements for setbacks and enclosure requirements and maintenance standards that municipalities may choose to adopt.   Staff delayed finalizing the draft revision in anticipation of legislative action on HB2325. The intent of this proposed code amendment aims to:  Ensure the Town is compliant with recent changes to state law permitting chickens.1. Allow approved livestock and small animals, as appropriate, on detached single-family residential properties.  2. Adopt appropriate standards to help assure compatibility with neighbors.3. In addition to new statutory changes and research findings, staff incorporated comments and feedback from study sessions with the PZC and TC to develop the proposed Zoning Code amendments in Attachment 1. The proposed code amendment also aims to incorporate input received from stakeholders such as residents and the Oro Valley Police Department. A complete list of comments and questions with staff responses is included in Attachment 3. At the August 13, 2024, public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission (see Attachment 6 for draft minutes) expressed value in taking a conservative approach to this request. The Commission recommended conditional approval of the request, subject to revising livestock allowances to enable a maximum of four (4) miniature goats (excluding males) on properties 36,000 to 143,999 sq. feet in size. This condition has been addressed in the proposed code amendment presented to the Town Council. Miniature goats are defined as goat breeds such as "Pygmy" and "Nigerian Dwarf" measuring no more than twenty-three (23) inches in height at the shoulder at normal stance.     BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: In March 2023, Town staff received a request from a resident regarding the keeping of chickens on their property. The Zoning Code currently only allows the keeping of livestock and small animals (chickens, rabbits, and similar animals) for commercial purposes with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which requires public meetings and approval by Planning and Zoning (PZC) and Town Council (TC). PZC formally initiated this code amendment to consider allowing small animals, including chickens, and livestock on residential properties for non-commercial purposes. Staff researched existing standards of surrounding municipalities relative to the keeping of small animals and livestock. Many neighboring jurisdictions have adopted sustainability measures by adding more flexible zoning code standards and requirements to allow residents access to a backyard food source and animal husbandry practice (Attachment 4). Staff found standards and allowances vary widely by jurisdictions related to permitted animal types, animal limits, and lot size minimum. Many jurisdictions, such as Sahuarita and Marana, allow large numbers of animals on relatively small lots. The proposed code amendments provided in Attachment 1 have been drafted to be compliant with state law and are conservative to preserve Oro Valley's character. Staff’s research and preliminary code amendments were presented at separate study sessions with the PZC and TC prior to drafting the code language. Proposed amendments incorporate key discussion points. Since the study sessions, HB 2325 was passed into law, necessitating significant changes to the draft code amendment. A key objective of the proposed zoning code amendments (Attachment 1) is now aimed at achieving compliance with the changes to State law.  In summary, the proposed amendment aims to:  Meet the requirements outlined by state law.1. Enable more residents to keep livestock and small animals for non-commercial purposes.   2. Ensure compatibility with neighbors by adopting standards in compliance with the new state law.3. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS A. RESEARCH AND CODE DEVELOPMENT Extensive research was conducted to gather information from professional resources and zoning codes of similar jurisdictions such as Flagstaff, Gilbert, Scottsdale, Placer County, CA, and Brighton, CO. Additionally, staff conducted interviews with several southern Arizona municipalities (Tucson, Sahuarita, Marana) to determine best practices. Research efforts also included assessment of Oro Valley's Zoning Code to identify areas where clarification was needed. The zoning code currently only permits keeping livestock and small farm animals for commercial purposes on farms or ranches. Farming and ranching is only permitted by right in R1-144 and as a conditional use in R1-7, R1-20, R1-36, R1-43, R1-72, and R1-300. A minimum lot size for 144,000 square feet (equal to 3.3 acres) is required to keep agriculture animals in all the aforementioned zoning districts. Figure 2 provides an overview of Farm and Ranch uses permitted by zoning districts.    Figure 2: Zoning districts permitted to keep livestock and small animals.    Findings from state law, background research, and assessment of existing code standards were used to develop the proposed code amendment (Attachment 1). A summary of the four key elements in the proposed code amendment that were presented to the PZC and TC is provided below. More background and detail is provided in the Town Council Study Session staff report in Attachment 5.  1. Expanding allowances to keep small agricultural animals for non-commercial purposes. A majority of Arizona jurisdictions have implemented new zoning code standards to allow residents access to backyard food sources as a means to support sustainability efforts. The Town's Zoning Code has not been updated in 20 years. Currently, Oro Valley only allows keeping of poultry, rabbits and similar small animals for Farm and Ranch uses. Farming and ranching is a permitted by right in R1-144 zoning district and requires a conditional use permit (CUP) for zoning districts R1-7 through R1-72, and R1-300.  This means, by current Zoning Code standards, a family interested in keeping two chickens for eggs or a miniature goat for milk on a one-acre lot would not be permitted to do so. Keeping such animals requires a minimum lot size of 144,000 sq. feet and a Conditional Use Permit. The CUP process entails holding a neighborhood meeting, consideration from the PZC, and ultimately approval from Town Council. The existing Zoning Code is heavily restrictive when compared to peer jurisdictions and creates an unintended barrier for residents to use their property in a manner commonly used by others in neighboring municipalities, contributing to instances of non-compliance.  This proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) will establish two new subcategories: Small Animal Husbandry (non-commercial) and Livestock (non-commercial) under agricultural uses in Table 23-1 Permitted Uses, shown in Figure 4. Amendments required by state  law are outlined in purple. The new categories will 1) enable the Town to comply with State law changes and 2) conservatively expand allowances for properties under 144,000 sq. feet. This amendment will clarify the Zoning Code to distinguish keeping animals as it pertains to commercial (Farm and Ranches) and non-commercial uses (Small Animal Husbandry and Livestock).   The aim of the amendment is to clarify the Zoning Code and distinguish keeping animals as it pertains to commercial (Farm and Ranches) and non-commercial uses (Small Animal Husbandry and Livestock) as shown in the table shown below (Figure 3). The proposed amendment recommends permitting small animal husbandry and livestock as an Accessory Use (A) for detached single-family residential properties. This means a property must have a main building (residence) to keep animals on site.     Figure 3: Amendments to permitted uses by zoning districts.    2. Identifying appropriate property size and zoning districts. Current zoning code standards permit keeping of livestock and small animals on properties with a minimum lot size of 144,000 sq. feet for farming and ranching. During the study sessions with the PZC and TC, staff presented recommendations for establishing lot size minimums for keeping small animals and livestock for non-commercial purposes to ensure compatibility with neighborhood characteristics. Staff recommended allowing small animals on lots with a minimum size of 20,000 sq. feet, as these properties will have sufficient area to meet setback requirements. Furthermore, staff's research found most properties under 20,000 sq. feet are located within Homeowner Association communities and have restrictions in place for keeping small animals and livestock. The new state law (HB2325) provides provisions which allows residents to keep up to six chickens in backyards on detached single-family residential properties under one-half acre (21,780 sq. feet). These new provisions only apply to keeping chickens and do not include allowances for any other small animal types. Per state law, Oro Valley may not adopt any law, ordinance or other regulation that prohibits a resident from keeping chickens on their detached single-family property that is one-half acre or smaller.  This proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) will ensure the Town is compliant with State law. Additionally, the proposed amendment applies the provisions for chickens to larger properties greater than one-half acre to provide a consistent application of zoning code standards.  3. Establishing new limits for the number of animals. Staff’s research found many jurisdictions defined animal limits based on property size and animal size (e.g. small animals or livestock). Currently, Oro Valley Zoning Code only establishes limits for keeping livestock and small animals relative to "Farm" and "Ranch" uses. Livestock is limited at a rate of one head of livestock per 30,000 sq feet. Limits for keeping poultry and similar small animals are currently undefined, as shown previously in Figure 3. Staff presented preliminary animal limits to the PZC and TC during study session meetings. Based on study session comments and feedback, the proposed animal limits were revised to address concerns regarding bees and pot-bellied pigs. The animal types were moved to larger lot requirements as shown with blue text in Figure 5. Amendments required by s tate law are outlined in purple. At the August 13, 2023, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended a condition to revise the animal limits to allow miniature goats (excluding males) on properties 36,000 sq. feet to 143,999 sq. feet in size (outlined below in orange).     Figure 4: Proposed limits on the number of small animals and livestock permitted.  The proposed code amendment provides animal limits that are 1) compliant with state law and 2) are based on property size and animal type. The proposed animal limits shown in Figure 4 are conservative compared to all nearby jurisdictions. This approach will help ensure compatibility with neighborhood characteristics while adopting standards prescribed by state law.  4. Establishing new requirements to ensure compatibility and mitigate nuisances. Property standards, such as setback requirements and property maintenance standards, are keystone zoning code elements used by jurisdictions to mitigate nuisances associated with the keeping of small animals and livestock. Staff presented recommendations to the PZC and TC relative to setback requirements. These recommendations include:  Animals must be kept in the rear and side yards.  Coops and pens are subject to the main building setback standards for the zoning district.  Other jurisdictions commonly adopt property maintenance standards and requirements for keeping small animals and livestock to ensure neighboring properties are not impacted. Oro Valley Zoning Code currently does not have such district standards and requirements relative to keeping such animal types. Nuisance and property maintenance standards are currently addressed through Town Code.  HB 2325 also provides provisions for standards and requirements only pertaining to the keeping of chickens, shown below in Figure 5. These provisions apply only to properties one-half acre or less. Municipalities may choose to adopt these provisions but cannot impose further restrictions than stated. Figure 6 shown below provides a summary of the provisions outlined in HB 2325 and are included in Attachment 2.       Figure 6: HB235 provisions for keeping chickens.    The proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) incorporated the provisions in HB 2325 to establish Oro Valley Zoning Code standards and requirements for keeping chickens on properties one-half acre or less. For consistency, staff recommends adopting the HB 2325 provisions to small animals and livestock on properties one-half acre or greater. The proposed code amendments will sharpen existing code language by 1) providing distinct standards and specific requirements for keeping small animals and livestock, 2) establishing requirements for compatibility with neighborhood characteristics, 3) ensuring compliance with State law. B. STUDY SESSION FEEDBACK Staff discussed research findings and key aspects of the proposed code amendment during study sessions with the PZC and TC prior to drafting the code language. A complete list of comments and questions with staff responses is included in Attachment 3.  Feedback provided by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Town Council, as well as other stakeholders was incorporated into drafting the proposed code amendment (Attachment 1). Key themes from study session feedback are provided below followed by a staff response. 1. Lot Size and Related Requirements Feedback: The PZC and TC had concerns regarding lot size and setback requirements as it pertains to impacts on neighbors.  Response/Proposed Code: While HB2325 enables residents to keep chickens on site on detached single-family lots one-half acre or less. The provision and associated standards and requirements outlined in the legislation only pertain to keeping chickens. The provisions include requiring enclosures to:   Be located in the rear or side yards, and1. Must be at least 20 feet from neighboring properties2. Per HB2325 provisions, a municipality cannot restrict residents from keeping chickens on site. For smaller detached single-family residential properties unable to meet the 20’ setback requirements, the Planning and Zoning Administrator must grant a setback reduction on a case-by-case basis.  Surrounding jurisdictions allow small animals and livestock based on a minimum property size relative to the animal type (small animal vs livestock). HB 2325 provisions pertain to only chickens and properties one-half acre or less. The proposed code amendments (Attachment 1) establish minimum lot sizes for small animals and livestock, as shown in Figure 4. This distinction will allow for consistent application of land uses and enforcement of the Zoning Code.  Additionally, the proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) provides setback requirements for properties one-half acre or greater, which are in accordance with setbacks for the main building. These requirements have been drafted to be conservative relative to surrounding municipalities and ensure compatibility with neighborhood character. Additionally, the proposed amendments restrict livestock and small animals, including chickens, to the rear yard based on feedback provided by Town Council. This will ensure properties will have ample space to accommodate setback requirements.  2. Approved Animal Types and Limits Feedback: Town Council provided recommendations to adjust the proposed animal limits to round numbers for animal limits. Town Council members also expressed concerns regarding pot-bellied pigs and bees. Response/Proposed Code: Staff revised the proposed limits for number of animals per lot as shown in Figure 6. Regarding pot-bellied pigs and bees, staff conducted additional research to find best practices and existing code standards from other jurisdictions.  To ensure compatibility and mitigate potential nuisance, staff reclassified pot-bellied pigs from small animals to livestock which requires a minimum of 144,000 sq feet lot size. As with pot-bellied pigs, miniature goats were reclassified from small animals to livestock.  Additionally, to ensure ample space is provided to practice beekeeping and maintain a safe distance from neighbors, keeping bees on site also requires a minimum of 144,000 sq feet lot size. 3. Enforcement And Nuisance Concerns Feedback: Feedback from the PZC and TC ranged from concerns about animals roaming off properties, impacts to the Oro Valley Police Department and procedures for reporting violations. Response/Proposed Code: The proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) provides zoning standards which require all animals to be kept in an enclosure. Impoundment of the animals is the responsibility of Pima County Animal Control through an Intergovernmental Agreement in place with Pima County. Through the proposed code amendments, zoning enforcement would be responsible for addressing violations regarding roaming animals, setback encroachment, and property maintenance issues. Concerns regarding nuisance impacts on neighbors were also expressed at both study sessions. Staff coordinated with the Oro Valley Police Department and Pima County Animal Control to retrieve data for calls received due to animal nuisance. Research found many calls, from both jurisdictions, related to animal nuisances originated from barking dogs. Both agencies reported very few calls, if any, related to small animals and livestock. With the proposed code amendments, nuisance complaints will be addressed through the Town's legal channel.  4. Special Use Permits Feedback: Town Council expressed interest in requiring a Special Use Permit or similar application process for the keeping of animals.   Response/Proposed Code: While the Town currently requires a Conditional Use Permit to keep small animals and livestock for commercial purposes, requiring residents on one-half acre or less to apply for a permit would constitute a restrictive regulation per the recent changes to State law. As such, the Town is prohibited from adopting such ordinance or regulation (Attachment 2) to potentially deny this right to a property owner. Requiring such a permit for properties larger than one-half acre would create inconsistencies in applying zoning code standards. Staff recommends allowing the keeping of small animals and livestock as an ancillary use for a single-family residential property.  C. STATE LAW COMPLIANCE Governor Katie Hobbs signed House Bill 2325 into law on May 21, 2024, (Attachment 2). The new State law prohibits a municipality from restricting residents on one-half acre (21,780 sq. feet) or less from keeping chickens on site. HB2325  established the following:     “A municipality may not adopt any law, ordinance or other regulation that prohibits a resident of a single-family detached residence on a lot that is one-half acre or less in size from keeping up to six fowl in the backyard of the property.”    Additionally, the legislation outlines provisions that municipalities may choose to adopt (Figure 5). The proposed code amendments in Attachment 1 incorporate the provisions established by HB2325 by allowing chickens on detached single-family residential properties less than one-half acre to comply with State law.  Proposed Code Amendment: The primary objective of the proposed zoning code amendment (Attachment 1) is aimed at achieving compliance with the changes to State law for properties less than 21,780 sq. feet. With regard to larger properties, the proposed amendment allows residents to keep small animals and livestock for non-commercial purposes. This is commonly permitted in many jurisdictions but is not an existing use in Oro Valley's Zoning Code. These amendments include:   Expanding allowances: by creating new subcategories for agricultural uses to establish the keeping of small animals (chickens, ducks, rabbits) and livestock for non-commercial purposes as permitted accessory uses in detached single-family residential districts. Establishing animal limits: in compliance with state law and are based on animal size and size of the property. Establishing new requirements: to mitigate nuisances through property standards and setback requirements.  Staff incorporated feedback from the PZC and TC as guidance to develop the key code elements of the proposed code language (Attachment 1). Impacts to Oro Valley: The provisions of HB2325 (Attachment 3) allow residents to keep up to six chickens on detached single-family residential properties less than one-half acre (21,780 sq. feet). This would be permitted in Oro Valley's zoning districts that accommodate detached single-family residential homes as shown in Figure 2. The State law only addresses the keeping of chickens on residential properties. Other fowl types such as ducks and geese would be categorized as small animals per the proposed code amendments. At the study sessions with the PZC and TC, staff presented findings from GIS analysis conducted to identify the potential impacts of allowing small animals and livestock in Oro Valley. A key  takeaway from the analysis found many properties under 20,000 sq. feet are located within Homeowner’s Association (HOA) communities. Prior to the signing of HB2325, staff provided the recommendation of allowing small animals on lots with a minimum size of 20,000 sq. feet.  HOAs  commonly have regulations that prohibit residents from keeping small animals on their property. HB2325 does not include provisions restricting HOAs from adopting regulations that prohibit chickens. Therefore, it is unlikely properties in HOAs under 20,000 sq. feet will be permitted to keep chickens due HOA regulations. Figure 6 shows a map of properties with lot sizes over 20,000 sq. feet outside of HOAs.     Figure 7: Non-HOA residential properties  The impact of allowing small animals and livestock will likely be nominal as a vast majority of properties in Town are located within HOA communities. Regulation and enforcement of animals in HOA communities is the responsibility of the HOA. The Town is not responsible for enforcement of HOA regulations. Properties outside HOAs will be addressed from a zoning code perspective firstly and legal enforcement secondly. Staff anticipates impacts on Town staff time and resources to be minimal.   Planning and Zoning Commission On August 13, 2023, the Planning and Zoning Commission (Attachment 6) recommended conditional approval of the proposed code amendments, subject to revising the livestock allowances to enable a maximum of four (4) miniature goats (excluding males) on properties 36,000 to 143,999 sq. feet. Miniature goats are defined as goat breeds, such as "Pygmy" "Nigerian Dwarf" measuring no more than twenty-three (23) inches in height at the shoulder at normal stance. Staff conducted additional research efforts regarding miniature goats to identify best practices and existing code standards from other jurisdictions. Findings indicate miniature goats, similar to medium-sized dogs, will have a nominal impact on neighboring properties. Staff supports the condition. D. Summary In summary, the proposed code amendment ensures compliance with new state law provisions, incorporates feedback from the study sessions held with PZC and TC, and provides requirements to assure compatibility with community standards. The changes to the Zoning Code presented in Attachment 1 aim to:  Ensure the Town is compliant with recent changes to state law.1. Ensure the Town is compliant with recent changes to state law.1. Allows the keeping of livestock and small animals as appropriate for non-commercial purposes on detached single-family residential properties.  2. Assure compatibility with neighbors by adopting appropriate regulations.3. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended conditional approval, subject to revising livestock allowances to enable a maximum of four (4) miniature goats (excluding males) on properties 36,000 to 143,999 sq. feet. This condition has been addressed in the proposed code amendment presented to the Town Council. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: Town Council may wish to consider the following motions: I MOVE to APPROVE Ordinance No. (O)24-08, the proposed Zoning Code Amendment to allow the limited keeping of small animals and/or livestock within all Oro Valley zoning districts that accommodate single-family residential homes and related sections of Town code.  OR I MOVE to DENY Ordinance No. (O)24-08, the proposed Zoning Code Amendment to allow the limited keeping of small animals and/or livestock within all Oro Valley zoning districts that accommodate single-family residential homes and related sections of Town code, based on the finding _________________. Attachments Attachment 1 - (O)24-08 Small Animal Husbandry Code Amendment  Attachment 2 - Arizona State House Bill 2325  Attachment 3 - Small Animal Code Amendment PZ TC Study Session Feedback Comments  Attachment 4 - Town Council Nov 1 Study Session Staff Report  Attachment 5 - Small Animal Husbandry Jurisdiction Research Findings  Attachment 6 - PZC 8-13-2024 Draft Minutes  Staff Presentation  ORDINANCE NO. (O)24-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AMENDING ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE CHAPTER 23, ZONING DISTRICTS, AND CHAPTER 31, DEFINITIONS, TO ALLOW THE KEEPING OF SMALL ANIMALS AND/OR LIVESTOCK WITHIN ALL ORO VALLYE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ACCOMMODATE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES WHEREAS, on March 31, 1981, the Mayor and Council approved Ordinance (O) 81-58, which adopted that certain document entitled “Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised” (OVZCR); and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2024, House Bill 2325 (HB 2325) was signed into law, which requires municipalities to allow chickens on detached single-family residential properties that are less than one-half acre; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend OVZCR Chapter 23, Zoning Districts and Chapter 31, Definitions, to ensure the Town is compliant with HB 2325, as well as to allow the keeping of livestock and small animals as appropriate for non-commercial purposes on detached single-family residential properties, and to assure properties remain compatible with neighbors by adopting appropriate standards; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting on August 13, 2024, and voted to conditionally approve the amendments to OVZCR Chapter 23, Zoning Districts and Chapter 31, Definitions; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council have considered the proposed amendments and the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation regarding the changes to OVZCR Chapter 23, Zoning Districts and Chapter 31, Definitions, and finds that they are in the best interest of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona that: SECTION 1. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Chapter 23, Zoning Districts and Chapter 31, Definitions, are hereby amended as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”. SECTION 2. All Oro Valley Ordinances, Resolutions, or Motions and part of Ordinances, Resolutions or Motions of the Council in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or 2 unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. SECTION 4. In compliance with ARS § 9-802, the exhibits to this Ordinance are on file at the Town Clerk’s Office. PASSED AND ADOPTED by Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 18th day of September 2024. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Michael Standish, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date:Date: 3 Exhibit “A” CHAPTER 23 ZONING DISTRICTS Section 23.3 Table of Permitted Uses The Table of Permitted Uses in this Section sets forth the uses permitted within the base zone districts. Table 23-1. Permitted Uses Deletions shown with strikethrough, ADDITIONS shown in all RED CAPS, State law derived ADDITIONS shown in PURPLE CAPS. Page 2 of 11 Single-Family 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 AGRICULTURAL USES Agriculture Commercial Stables C C C 25.1.B.4 COMMERCIAL Farms and Ranches C P C C C C C C 25.1.B.10 SELLING Marketing of Products Raised on the Premises P 25.1.B.18 Deletions shown with strikethrough, ADDITIONS shown in all RED CAPS, State law derived ADDITIONS shown in PURPLE CAPS. Page 3 of 11 Single-Family 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 SMALL ANIMAL HUSBANDRY (Non- Commercial) A A A A A A A A A A A 23.6.A.7 23.7.D.6 23.7.E.7 LIVESTOCK (Non- Commercial) A A A A A A 23.6.A.7 Plant Nursery C C P Deletions shown with strikethrough, ADDITIONS shown in all RED CAPS, State law derived ADDITIONS shown in PURPLE CAPS. Page 4 of 11 Section 23.5 Measurements and Exceptions C. Setbacks 2. Residential Setback Uses Yards, established by required setbacks, shall be open and unobstructed from the ground to the sky except for the following: g. Setbacks for an attached feature of a main or accessory building, as provided in subsections C.2.a through C.2.f of this section, may be further encroached upon by an additional twenty percent (20%) when all of the following applies: i. The nearest property line to the attached feature abuts a property where no building or occupancy could take place such as common areas, riparian or open spaces excluding areas of ingress/egress. ii. A minimum six (6) foot solid wall is added to obscure the view of the building. iii. A minimum of three (3) feet is maintained from the property line. In no case will an element of the main or accessory building be permitted to extend into, or be built above or over, an area intended to remain clear and unobstructed such as a designated environmentally sensitive area or ingress/egress. H. RESIDENTIAL SETBACK REDUCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IF THE SITE IS TOO SMALL TO ACCOMMODATE A CHICKEN COOP OR PEN, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: i. THE SITE MUST BE A DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT IS ONE-HALF ACRE (21,780 SQ. FEET) OR LESS. ii. THE EXTENT OF ANY REDUCTION IS LIMITED TO THE LONGEST DISTANCE FEASIBLE TO ENABLE THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. I h. Residential setback reductions may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator subject to the following: Deletions shown with strikethrough, ADDITIONS shown in all RED CAPS, State law derived ADDITIONS shown in PURPLE CAPS. Page 5 of 11 i. Applicability This code provision shall apply to the following: a) Single-family dwelling units. b) Detached accessory structures. ii. The setback reduction procedure shall not apply to any proposed setback reduction that results in: a) Changes to a subdivision design. Setback reduction requests shall be considered individually on a parcel-by-parcel basis. In no instance shall this code provision be applied as part of the rezoning, final design review or platting process. b) An increase in the permitted lot coverage for a detached accessory structure. c) A change to a development standard that was previously reduced through a separate modification or variance. d) A change to a development standard that was a condition of approval for a rezoning or conceptual site plan. e) A modification of a requirement of an overlay zone, scenic corridor, or the environmentally sensitive lands ordinance including, but not limited to, setbacks (Section 27.10.F.3.b) and flexible design options (Section 27.10.F.2.c). f) An additional setback encroachment than what is permitted in this subsection C.2. g) A change to the setback requirements for multiple frontage lots as defined in subsection C.1.b of this section. iii. All residential setback reduction requests must meet the following standards: a) A front, rear or side yard building setback may be reduced by less than ten percent (10%) to a maximum of five (5) feet from any property line. b) Requests may not be materially detrimental to directly affected properties including safety, views, noise, health, and general welfare as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Deletions shown with strikethrough, ADDITIONS shown in all RED CAPS, State law derived ADDITIONS shown in PURPLE CAPS. Page 6 of 11 c) Requests are subject to conditions, as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator, to mitigate any potential negative impacts. d) All requests must be unopposed by all directly affected properties as defined in subsection C.2.h.iv of this section. iv. All directly affected property owners must be notified by mail and include: a) All property owners adjacent to the applicant’s property for a front yard setback request. b) All property owners abutting the applicant’s property for a side or rear yard setback request. c) Additional properties when it is apparent they will be materially affected by the request as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. v. Determination and action if there is opposition to the request by directly affected property owners: a) Affected property owners have fifteen (15) days after date of mailing to respond; if no response in opposition is received by Town staff, the application shall be considered unopposed. b) If a response in opposition to a setback reduction request is received within the fifteen (15) day comment period by a directly affected property owner, the Planning and Zoning Administrator may meet with the opposing property owner and applicant to reach a consensus. c) If opposition remains, the application must be denied. vi. Review and Appeal Process a) The Planning and Zoning Administrator may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the setback reduction request upon evaluation of code compliance. b) A decision by the Planning and Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment in accordance with Section 22.12. c) The applicant retains the ability to apply for a variance as provided in Section 22.13. Deletions shown with strikethrough, ADDITIONS shown in all RED CAPS, State law derived ADDITIONS shown in PURPLE CAPS. Page 7 of 11 Section 23.6 Property Development Standards for Single-Family Residential Districts A. Common Regulations of R-1 Districts The following property development standards shall apply to all land and buildings in single- family residential districts. Specific lot sizes, setbacks, and criteria which vary among individual single-family residential districts are identified in subsections A through H of this section. 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. Detached Accessory Buildings Except as noted within the development standards for each district and within Section 25.2.A, the following provisions apply. a. Permitted coverage: Ten (10) percent of the total area of rear and side yard. b. Accessory buildings shall not exceed the height of the main building nor be any closer to the front lot line than the main building. c. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES USED FOR SMALL ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OR LIVESTOCK SHALL MEET THE STANDARDS OF SECTION 23.6.A.7. 7. SMALL ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND LIVESTOCK SMALL ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND LIVESTOCK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS: a. SMALL ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND LIVESTOCK SHALL BE PERMITTED AS AN ACCESSORY USE ON DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. b. THE NUMBER OF SMALL ANIMALS AND LIVESTOCK PERMITTED SHALL BE BASED ON THE LOT SIZE OF THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE 23.6.1. Deletions shown with strikethrough, ADDITIONS shown in all RED CAPS, State law derived ADDITIONS shown in PURPLE CAPS. Page 8 of 11 c. NUISANCE PREVENTION: i. SMALL ANIMALS AND LIVESTOCK ARE PROHIBITED FROM RUNNING AT LARGE. ii. MALE FOWL, INCLUDING ROOSTERS, ARE PROHIBITED. iii. SWINE ARE PROHIBITED, EXCEPT POT-BELLIED PIGS. iv. FEED MUST BE STORED IN AN INSECT PROOF AND RODENT-PROOF CONTAINERS. v. COMPOSTED MANURE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A MANNER WHICH PREVENTS MIGRATION OF INSECTS. vi. WATER SOURCES SHALL HAVE ADEQUATE OVERFLOW DRAINAGE. vii. SLAUGHTERING ANIMALS ON-SITE IS PROHIBITED. d. LOCATION: i. SMALL ANIMAL HUSBANDRY IS RESTRICTED TO THE REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY. Table 23.6.1 Cumulative Maximum Number of Animals Permitted Per Lot Size Type of Animal Permitted ≤21,780 sq ft 21,781 – 35,999 sq ft 36,000 – 41,999 sq ft 42,000 – 143,999 sq ft 144,000 – 299,999 sq ft** ≥300,000 sq ft** Small Animal Husbandry Chickens 6 6 6 10 24 24 Ducks, other fowl types, rabbits, and other similar small animals 2 2 4 6 6 Bees Bee boxes 6 8 Livestock Horses, cattle, goats, miniature goats, pot-bellied pigs, sheep, other similar large livestock 4* 4* 6 10 * Miniature goats only (excluding males). **A Conditional Use Permit is needed to increase animal limits as shown in the table for lots with more than 144,0000 square feet. Deletions shown with strikethrough, ADDITIONS shown in all RED CAPS, State law derived ADDITIONS shown in PURPLE CAPS. Page 9 of 11 ii. LIVESTOCK ARE ALLOWED IN THE FRONT, SIDE, OR REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY. e. SETBACKS: i. SMALL ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ENCLOSURES MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MAIN BUILDING SETBACK STANDARDS, EXCEPT FOR PROPERTIES ONE-HALF OR LESS AS FOLLOWS: a. CHICKENS ENCLOSURES MUST BE AT LEAST TWENTY FEET FROM A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. b. SETBACK REDUCTIONS ARE PERMITTED PER SECTION 23.5.C.2.(h). ii. STRUCTURES FOR LIVESTOCK MUST BE KEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK STANDARDS. f. ENCLOSURES: i. SMALL ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND LIVESTOCK MUST BE ENTIRELY CONTAINED WITHIN A FENCE OR STRUCTURE. ii. FOR LOTS LESS THAN 21,780 SQ FEET, THE AREA FOR CHICKENS IS LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF TWO HUNDRED SQUARE FEET AND A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET. iii. ENCLOSURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND MANURE PICKED UP AND DISPOSED OF OR COMPOSTED AT LEAST TWICE A WEEK. iv. ENCLOSURES FOR SMALL ANIMAL HUSBANDRY SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND/OR STREET. D. R-S Residential Service District The provisions of Section 23.4 and the following additional requirements shall apply in this district: 6. SMALL ANIMAL HUSBANDRY a. KEEPING OF CHICKENS IS ONLY PERMITTED ON DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES LESS THAN ONE-HALF ACRE (21,780 SQ FEET) AS A NON- COMMERCIAL ACCESSORY USE. b. THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN SECTION 23.6.A.7 SHALL APPLY. ((O)23-04, 10/18/23; (O)22-01, 01/05/22; (O)18-12, 07/18/18; (O)17-05, 06/07/17; (O)11-15, 05/18/11; (O)11-01, 02/16/11) Deletions shown with strikethrough, ADDITIONS shown in all RED CAPS, State law derived ADDITIONS shown in PURPLE CAPS. Page 10 of 11 E. R-6 Multi-Family Residential District The provisions of Section 23.4 and the following additional requirements shall apply in this district. 7. SMALL ANIMAL HUSBANDRY a. KEEPING OF CHICKENS IS ONLY PERMITTED ON DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES LESS THAN ONE-HALF ACRE (21,780 SQ FEET) AS A NON- COMMERCIAL ACCESSORY USE. b. THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN SECTION 23.6.A.7 SHALL APPLY. CHAPTER 31 DEFINITIONS Barn A building used for THE KEEPING OF SMALL ANIMALS, LIVESTOCK, OR the storage of farm products, feed, and farm equipment and the housing of. BEE BOXES A STRUCTURE USED AS A BEEHIVE TO HOUSE ONE (1) OR MORE BEE COLONIES. Farm An area used for the GRAZING OR RAISING OF ANIMALS OR production of farm products FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. FOWL A BIRD USED TO PRODUCE MEAT OR EGGS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CHICKENS, DUCKS, TURKEYS, AND PEACOCKS. LIVESTOCK AGRICULTURAL ANIMALS SUCH AS COWS, HORSES, GOATS, MINATURE GOATS, POT-BELLIED PIGS, AND SHEEP, OR SIMILAR SIZED ANIMALS (EXCEPT SWINE). MINIATURE GOAT MEASURES NO MORE THAN TWENTY-THREE (23) INCHES IN HEIGHT AT THE SHOULDERS WHEN AT NORMAL STANCE, ALSO KNOWN AS “PYGMY”, “NIGERIAN DWARF”, OR “MINI GOATS.” Deletions shown with strikethrough, ADDITIONS shown in all RED CAPS, State law derived ADDITIONS shown in PURPLE CAPS. Page 11 of 11 Noise Any sound which annoys or disturbs humans or which causes or tends to cause an adverse effect on humans, domesticated animals or livestock. POT-BELLIED PIGS MEASURES NO MORE THAN TWENTY-THREE (23) INCHES IN HEIGHT AT THE SHOULDERS WHEN AT NORMAL STANCE, ALSO KNOWN AS “PYGMIE PIGS” OR “MINI PIGS”. SMALL ANIMAL AGRICULTURAL ANIMALS SUCH AS CHICKENS, DUCKS, RABBITS, OR SIMILAR SIZED ANIMALS FOR PURPOSES OF CARE AND ULTITLY SUCH AS FOOD PRODUCTION. SWINE A HOOVED ANIMAL OF THE SUIDAE FAMILY, SUCH AS A HOG OR DOMESTIC PIG (EXCEPT MINATURE PIGS). 18-1-1 Definitions. M. “Livestock” means neat animals, horses, sheep, goats, swine, mules and asses. ANIMALS SUCH AS COWS, HORSES, GOATS, MINATURE GOATS, POT-BELLIED PIGS, AND SHEEP, OR SIMILAR SIZED ANIMALS. - i - Conference Engrossed backyard fowl; regulation; prohibition State of Arizona House of Representatives Fifty-sixth Legislature Second Regular Session 2024 HOUSE BILL 2325 AN ACT AMENDING TITLE 9, CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 6.1, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 9-462.10; AMENDING TITLE 11, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 11-820.04; RELATING TO MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY ZONING. (TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE) H.B. 2325 - 1 - Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: 1 Section 1. Title 9, chapter 4, article 6.1, Arizona Revised 2 Statutes, is amended by adding section 9-462.10, to read: 3 9-462.10. Backyard fowl regulation; prohibition; exceptions; 4 state preemption; definition 5 A. A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT ADOPT ANY LAW, ORDINANCE OR OTHER 6 REGULATION THAT PROHIBITS A RESIDENT OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENCE 7 ON A LOT THAT IS ONE-HALF ACRE OR LESS IN SIZE FROM KEEPING UP TO SIX FOWL 8 IN THE BACKYARD OF THE PROPERTY. A MUNICIPALITY MAY: 9 1. PROHIBIT A RESIDENT FROM KEEPING MALE FOWL, INCLUDING ROOSTERS. 10 2. REQUIRE FOWL TO BE KEPT IN AN ENCLOSURE LOCATED IN THE REAR OR 11 SIDE YARD OF THE PROPERTY AT LEAST TWENTY FEET FROM A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY 12 AND RESTRICT THE SIZE OF THE ENCLOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF TWO HUNDRED SQUARE 13 FEET WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET. 14 3. REQUIRE THE ENCLOSURE TO BE MAINTAINED AND MANURE PICKED UP AND 15 DISPOSED OF OR COMPOSTED AT LEAST TWICE WEEKLY. 16 4. REQUIRE THAT COMPOSTED MANURE BE KEPT IN A WAY THAT PREVENTS 17 MIGRATION OF INSECTS. 18 5. REQUIRE WATER SOURCES WITH ADEQUATE OVERFLOW DRAINAGE. 19 6. REQUIRE THAT FEED BE STORED IN INSECT-PROOF AND RODENT-PROOF 20 CONTAINERS. 21 7. PROHIBIT FOWL FROM RUNNING AT LARGE. 22 B. NOTWITHSTANDING SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION, A MUNICIPALITY 23 SHALL ENACT AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES AN ENCLOSURE LOCATED IN A 24 RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ON A LOT LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE TO BE SHORTER 25 THAN THE FENCE LINE OF THE PROPERTY. 26 C. AN ORDINANCE THAT IS ENACTED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS 27 SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO AN ENCLOSURE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED ON OR BEFORE 28 THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION. 29 D. THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS IN THIS STATE OUTLINED IN 30 THIS SECTION ARE OF STATEWIDE CONCERN. THIS SECTION PREEMPTS ALL LOCAL 31 LAWS, ORDINANCES AND CHARTER PROVISIONS TO THE CONTRARY. 32 E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "FOWL" MEANS A COCK OR HEN OF 33 THE DOMESTIC CHICKEN. 34 Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 6, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, 35 is amended by adding section 11-820.04, to read: 36 11-820.04. Backyard fowl regulation; prohibition; exceptions; 37 state preemption; definition 38 A. A COUNTY MAY NOT ADOPT ANY LAW, ORDINANCE OR OTHER REGULATION 39 THAT PROHIBITS A RESIDENT OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENCE ON A LOT 40 THAT IS ONE-HALF ACRE OR LESS IN SIZE FROM KEEPING UP TO SIX FOWL IN THE 41 BACKYARD OF THE PROPERTY. A COUNTY MAY: 42 1. PROHIBIT A RESIDENT FROM KEEPING MALE FOWL, INCLUDING ROOSTERS. 43 2. REQUIRE FOWL TO BE KEPT IN AN ENCLOSURE LOCATED IN THE REAR OR 44 SIDE YARD OF THE PROPERTY AT LEAST TWENTY FEET FROM A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY 45 H.B. 2325 - 2 - AND RESTRICT THE SIZE OF THE ENCLOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF TWO HUNDRED SQUARE 1 FEET WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET. 2 3. REQUIRE THE ENCLOSURE TO BE MAINTAINED AND MANURE PICKED UP AND 3 DISPOSED OF OR COMPOSTED AT LEAST TWICE WEEKLY. 4 4. REQUIRE THAT COMPOSTED MANURE BE KEPT IN A WAY THAT PREVENTS 5 MIGRATION OF INSECTS. 6 5. REQUIRE WATER SOURCES WITH ADEQUATE OVERFLOW DRAINAGE. 7 6. REQUIRE THAT FEED BE STORED IN INSECT-PROOF AND RODENT-PROOF 8 CONTAINERS. 9 7. PROHIBIT FOWL FROM RUNNING AT LARGE. 10 B. NOTWITHSTANDING SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION, A COUNTY SHALL 11 ENACT AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES AN ENCLOSURE LOCATED IN A RESIDENTIAL 12 COMMUNITY ON A LOT LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE TO BE SHORTER THAN THE FENCE 13 LINE OF THE PROPERTY. 14 C. AN ORDINANCE THAT IS ENACTED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS 15 SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO AN ENCLOSURE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED ON OR BEFORE 16 THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION. 17 D. THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS IN THIS STATE OUTLINED IN 18 THIS SECTION ARE OF STATEWIDE CONCERN. THIS SECTION PREEMPTS ALL LOCAL 19 LAWS AND ORDINANCES TO THE CONTRARY. 20 E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "FOWL" MEANS A COCK OR HEN OF 21 THE DOMESTIC CHICKEN. 22 Planning Zoning Commission (PZ) and Town Council (TC) Study Session Comments Question/Comment Staff Response TC Side yard setbacks are the smallest and closest to neighbors. Can keeping of animals be limited to rear yards due to setback requirements? Code language has been added restricting animals to rear yards. TC Do we allow slaughter of animals on-site? Code language has been added to restrict slaughtering animals on site. TC How are we calculating the size of the lots, as there are many lots that have unusable space? Lot sizes are measured by calculating the net area within the lot lines. PZ Are setbacks specific to inhabited buildings? Setbacks for keeping small animals or livestock will be measured in accordance with the main building setback standards for the zoning district. Properties less than 21,780 sq. feet have a 20 foot setback from neighboring properties to keep chickens on site, unless approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. PZ Concern about lot sizes.Per HB2325, detach single-family properties on lots less than 21,780 sq. feet are permitted to have up to six chickens. Additionally, staff's research found properties 20,000 sq. feet and greater have sufficient lot area to mitigate nuisances, accommodate setback requirements, and provide enough space to care for animals. TC Concern regarding bees and pot-bellied pigs, if allowed should be limited to larger lots. Staff has revised the proposed animal limits to reflect properties must have a minimum of 144,000 sq. feet to keep pot-bellied pigs and bees on site. Additionally, pot-bellied pigs have reclassified from small animals to livestock. TC Would the number of predatory animals (bobcats, owls, etc.) increase? Development standards have been established to require animals are kept in enclosed areas to address attracting predators. TC Recommendation to amend the proposed quantity limits to reflect even numbers for chickens and others. Staff has revised the proposed animal limits to reflect even numbers. 1: Lot Size and Development Standards 2: Approved Animal Types and Limitations Planning Zoning Commission (PZ) and Town Council (TC) Study Session Comments Question/Comment Staff Response PZ Ducks and geese are not recommended. Surrounding jurisdictions commonly allow variety of fowl types, including ducks and geese. Approved animals will be subject to development standards established to mitigate nuisances. TC How do we handle people who currently have small animals without a permit? How do we enforce they need a special use permit? Zoning enforcement addresses violations on a complaint-basis. Conformance is handled as a voluntary compliance first with the property owner then issuing zoning violations. Additional actions will include process through legal channels. PZ Concern about animals getting loose. Responsibility for animals on the loose falls under Pima County Animal Control (PCAC) through an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Pima County. PZ How are roosters reported?Reporting of animals on a property is handled through zoning enforcement and removal is handled through PCAC. Nuisance complaints are processed through the Town's legal channels and IGA with Pima County. PZ Would animal owers be responsible for fines if OVPD is called to collect animals? PCAC is responsible for collecting and impounding animals at large. Animal owners are responsible for costs of pick-up, impoundment, and any other related costs. TC Conditional Use Permit (CUP) allow for case-by-case review, should CUPs continue rather a code amendment? A CUP would be required should a property owner with lots greater than 144,000 sq feet wish to increase the animal limits for small animals or livestock beyond the limits shown in the proposed code amendment. The CUP process, as outlined in Section 22.5, requires applicants to hold neighbor meetings, consideration by Planning and Zoning Commission, and ultimately approval by Town Council. TC What is the recommendation for Council? Special Use Permits, as outlined in Section 22.14, would considered a restrictive regulations which prohibits property owners on detached single-family residential properties on one-half acre or less from keeping chickens per HB2325. Requiring such permit for similar sized animals and larger lots would created inconsistencies for applying zoning code standards. Staff recommends allowing keeping of small animals and livestock as an accessory use. 4: Conditional Use and Special Use Permits 3: Enforcement Planning Zoning Commission (PZ) and Town Council (TC) Study Session Comments Question/Comment Staff Response TC Suggestions to implement via Special Use Permit and require administrative application, fee, and applicants to receive information on requirements. HB2325 prohibits municipalities from adopting an ordinance or regulation which restricts residents from keeping chickens. Staff recommends ensuring the Town is compliant State law and apply zoning standards to properties greater than one-half acre (21,780 sq. feet) for consistent application of zoning standards. TC Regarding neighbor notification, is there a difference between a CUP and Special Use Permit? The CUP process requires a neighborhood meeting as part of the public participation requirements. Special Use Permits are approved administratively and can include conditions to notify neighbors. TC Concerns about nuisances due to smells, noise, etc. created by pot- bellied pigs. Staff conducted additional research regarding pot-bellied pigs and nuisances. Classification of pot-bellied pigs has been amended from small animals to livestock. Properties must have a minimum of 144,000 sq. feet to keep pot-bellied pigs on site. TC Concerned about adding more animals to the nuisance load for staff. In 2023, Oro Valley Police Department reported 29 animal related excessive noise complaints, which is down from 54 in 2022, and 70 in 2021. Pima County Animal Control reported 108 cases in 2023. Cases are tracked by zip code which includes Oro Valley and surrounding areas. PZ Concerned about smells from animals, what are the nuisance standards? Currently addressed through Town Code for nuisance Section 18-8-1 and Section 6-1-10 property maintenance standards. TC Concerns about neighbor approval and fairness. HB2325 entitles residents to keep chickens on site. Adopting regulations to notify neighbors would constitute a restriction. Staff recommends ensuring the Town is compliant State law and no require notifying neighbors. Moreover, notifying neighbors would be required through the CUP process should property owners on lots greater than 144,000 sq. feet seek extending animal limits for small animals or livestock. PZ Have we received a lot of requests to change the code? Staff receives inquiries from time to time regarding the allowances to keep animals on a property for non-commercial purposes. This code amendment is the first request to amend the Zoning Code. 5: Nuisance 6: Community Awareness Town Council Regular Session Item # 2. Meeting Date:11/01/2023 Requested by:Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development Case Number:2301321 SUBJECT: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING A POTENTIAL ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND PROVISIONS REGARDING THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS FOR FOOD PRODUCTION AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY PURPOSES ON RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES RECOMMENDATION: This item is for information and discussion purposes only. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to discuss and gather feedback on the proposed code amendment to expand the ability to keep small agriculture-type animals (chickens, rabbits, etc.) on larger residential properties and improve associated standards. This amendment originates from a resident’s request to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the May 2, 2023, meeting. As a result, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to formally initiate this project. The meeting recording is available online. Over the last few years, some Arizona jurisdictions have implemented sustainability measures by adding new zoning code standards to allow residents access to a backyard food source and animal husbandry practice, while the Town's zoning codes have not been updated in 20 years. Moreover, Oro Valley currently has the most restrictive minimum lot size (144,000 square feet) for keeping these types of animals. Many southern Arizona jurisdictions permit select agriculture type animals on small to medium-sized residential lots. Current Zoning Code standards only allow the keeping of livestock and small animals for farm and ranch uses on residential properties with lot sizes greater than 144,000 sq. feet (equal to 3.3 acres), as shown in Figure 1. Farm and ranch uses, as defined in Chapter 31 of the zoning code, are intended for larger scale production or commercial basis and permitted by right in the residential zoning district R1-144 and requires a conditional use for the remaining zoning districts R1-7 through R1-72, and R1-300 (Figure 1). Properties in each approved OV zoning district must have a minimum lot size of 144,000 sq. feet or greater to keep poultry, rabbits, or similar sized animals. There are exceptions as properties annexed from Pima County retain site specific allowances via translational zoning. Figure 1: Zoning districts permitted to keep livestock and small animals. This project entails discussing the potential to expand limited allowances and standards to keep small agriculture type animals in appropriately sized properties compatible with neighborhood characteristics in medium to large-lot zoning districts. The proposed code amendment seeks to achieve three potential objectives: 1. Limited expansion of the ability to keep small animals on residential properties less than 144,000 sq. feet to support resident interest in local food production and animal husbandry. 2. Refine existing code to improve agricultural animal related specific standards 3. Distinguish the proposed residential scale keeping of agricultural animals from farm and ranch uses The proposed code amendment primarily focuses on expanding allowances and establishing limits for small animals. Staff is looking for guidance from Town Council prior to drafting code language. Feedback will be used to help develop proposed code amendments and establish standards that are in alignment with the community needs and compatible with Oro Valley’s characteristics. Feedback on the following key items below is needed: Assess interest in allowing the keeping of small animals as a permitted use for residential properties less than 144,000 sq. feet in size Identify appropriate residential zoning districts and minimum property size. Identify small animal types appropriate for Oro Valley. Establish suitable limits for the number of small animals. Establish standards to ensure compatibility with residential properties and mitigate nuisance impacts. Identifying additional stipulations for animal types, when applicable. Planning staff has preliminarily developed proposed parameters based on findings from research efforts and assessment of current code standards. These key topics and amendment parameters are summarized below. Additional details are included in Background or Detailed Information Section of this report. Staff is looking for feedback from Town Council on the following key topics prior to drafting code language. Key Topic #1: Expand Allowances to Keep Small Animals Appropriate of Oro Valley as a Permitted Use Research: Permitted animal types and classification vary widely by jurisdiction. Staff identified ten jurisdictions similar to Oro Valley to identify animal types and limits, as shown in Figure 2 and Attachment 1 - Jurisdiction Research Matrix. Poultry, rabbits and other small animals are currently allowed in Oro Valley for farm and ranch use. It is a permitted use in residential zoning district R1-144, and requires a conditional use permit (CUP) for R1-7 through R1-72, and R1-300. Proposed Amendment Goals and Recommendation: Pursue a comprehensive update to refine existing code language and define permitted small animal types appropriate for Oro Valley and compatible for neighborhood characteristics. Amend the Zoning Code to expand farm and ranch use provisions to allow keeping of animals for food production and animal husbandry. Staff recommends expanding farm and ranch use allowances for residential properties less than 144,000 sq. feet. Figure 2: Permitted small animals by peers and Oro Valley Zoning Code. Key Topic #2: Establish Suitable Limits for Number of Small Animals Research: Staff compared ten peer jurisdictions and identified best practices to establish animal limits. A majority of jurisdictions utilize a limit based on the size of the lot and animal type. Oro Valley Zoning Code establishes limits for livestock as one livestock per 30,000 sq feet. Limitations for poultry and similar small animals are undefined, as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Proposed Amendment Goals and Recommendations: Establish small animal limits compatible with neighborhood characteristics. Define animal limits based on property size and animal size (e.g. small animal or livestock). Staff recommends establishing quantity limits that are based on animal size and appropriate of the size of the property. Key Topic #3: Identify Appropriate Residential Zoning Districts Research: Current zoning code standards permit the keeping of livestock and small animals on properties with minimum lot size of 144,000 sq. feet. Minium lot size thresholds for peer jurisdictions range from 1,000 sq. feet for Tucson and Marana to 35,000 sq. feet for Mesa. Proposed Amendments, Goals and Recommendations: Establish a conservative minimum lot size to ensure compatibility with neighborhood characteristics, while maintaining setback requirements. Staff recommends allowing small animals on residential properties greater than 20,000 sq. feet in zoning districts R1-20 and above. Key Topic #4: Establish Property Standards for Neighborhood Compatibility and Nuisance Control Research: Property standards, such as minimum lot size, setback requirements, property maintenance standards, and screening requirements are keystone zoning code elements used by jurisdictions to mitigate nuisances associated with the keeping of small agricultural type animals. Proposed Amendment Goals and Recommendations: Ensure compatibility with neighborhood characteristics by maintaining property standards. Staff recommends the following property standards: Animals must be kept in the rear and side yards. Coops and pens are subject to the main building setback standards for the zoning district. Animals and enclosures must be maintained to mitigate odor, noise, and other nuisances. Key Topic #5: Identify Additional Stipulations for Animal Types Research: The majority of jurisdictions apply additional stipulations based on specific animal types. This includes prohibiting animals due to noise propensity or requiring additional lot size thresholds. Oro Valley zoning code only specifically restricts swine as an approved animal type. Proposed Amendment Goals and Recommendations: Sharpen existing code language to prohibit roosters, male fowl, hogs. Support best practices for animal husbandry to craft appropriate property standards. Oro Valley’s Zoning Code has not been updated in over 20 years and is relatively restrictive compared to surrounding jurisdictions. Staff is proposing changes to the Zoning Code that are intended to address the findings above and are discussed in detail in the following section. The proposed changes aim to update existing code standards and expand use allowances for larger lots greater than 20,000 sq. feet. Additionally, the code amendment parameters aim to establish standards that are in alignment with Oro Valley’s characteristics. The intent of the proposed amendment is to take a conservative approach that prioritizes compatibility with neighbors. As part of the presentation and discussion, staff will also provide understanding regarding the issues related to allowing keeping animals by right on what is deemed a property of appropriate size versus requiring a use permit to do the same. Staff have received several letters from interested residents which have been included in Attachment 3 - Resident Comment Letters. The findings and proposed goals and amendment recommendations were presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 3, 2023, for discussion and feedback. Once feedback is received from Town Council, planning staff will begin drafting amendments to the Zoning Code. Specific Zoning Code changes will then be presented at a public hearing to the Planning and Zoning Commission and ultimately to Town Council for consideration. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: This code amendment comes from a constituent request to the Planning and Zoning Commission during the May 2, 2023, meeting. The Planning & Zoning Commission formally voted 6-0 to initiate this project to draft a code amendment to potentially allow small agricultural related animals on residential lots. Staff has historically received general inquiries from residents regarding allowances to keep agriculture type animals on residential properties. While the number of inquiries are not tracked it does provide a representative gauge of a potential reoccurring community need. This code amendment does not directly correspond to specific General Plan action items, nor is it a pending project from Town Council's Strategic Leadership Plan. Animal husbandry and backyard farming practice is growing land use trend. Many Pima County jurisdictions have addressed this demand by allowing small animals and farming practices on small to medium-sized residential properties. Oro Valley zoning code standards for animal keeping have not been updated in over 20 years. The proposed code amendment is seeking to expand permitted agricultural uses on residential properties less than 144,000 sq. feet and refine existing standards for farm and ranch uses. Existing Standards: The zoning code currently permits farming and ranching for single-family residential (SFR) zoning district R1-144 and as a conditional use for SFR zoning districts R1-7, R1-20, R1-36, R1-43, R1-72, and R1-300. Figure 1 provides an overview of agriculture type animals permitted for farm and ranch uses by zoning districts. A minimum lot size for 144,000 square feet (equal to 3.3 acres) is required to keep agriculture animals in all of the aforementioned zoning districts. Figure 1: Zoning districts permitted to keep livestock and small animals. Code Amendment Objectives: The proposed amendment would expand Zoning Code provisions to allow small agriculture type animals on residential properties less than 144,000 sq. feet to support resident’s interests and desires for local food production and animal husbandry practices. This demand for “backyard farming” is an evolving land use trend several jurisdictions have implemented to allow residents access to a food source and animal husbandry practices. Many southern Arizona jurisdictions permit agriculture type animals on small to medium-sized residential lots. Additionally, the Town's standards are the most restrictive in Pima County relative to the keeping of small agricultural type animals. Staff is looking for guidance from Town Council prior to drafting code language. Feedback will be used to develop the proposed code amendments and establish standards that are in alignment with the community needs and compatible with Oro Valley’s characteristics. Feedback on the following key items below is needed. Assess interest in allowing the keeping of small animals as a permitted use for residential properties less than 144,000 sq. feet in size Identify appropriate residential zoning districts and minimum property size. Identify small animal types appropriate for Oro Valley. Establish suitable limits for the number of small animals. Establish standards to ensure compatibility with residential properties and mitigate nuisance impacts. Identifying additional stipulations for animal types, when applicable. Key Topic Areas: Planning staff conducted extensive research to gather information from professional resources, reviewed zoning codes of similar jurisdictions such as Flagstaff, AZ, Gilbert, AZ, Scottsdale, AZ, Placer County, CA, and Brighton CO. Additionally, staff conducted interviews with municipality counterparts Tucson, AZ, Sahuarita, AZ, and Marana, AZ for best practice insights. Research and assessment efforts also included identifying areas in Oro Valley's Zoning Code to refine code standards for clarification and cohesiveness. Below is a summary of the findings and proposed amendment goals with detailed information provided in the attachments. Feedback is needed on the following key topic items below: Key Topic #1: Expand Allowances to Keep Small Animals Appropriate for Oro Valley as a Permitted Use. Research: Many Arizona jurisdictions have implemented new zoning code standards to allow residents access to backyard food sources as a means to support sustainability efforts. Standards and allowances vary widely by jurisdictions related to permitted animal types and classification (small animal compared to livestock). Staff identified ten jurisdictions most compatible with Oro Valley to identify animal types and limits, as shown in Figure 2 and Attachment 1 - Jurisdiction Research Matrix. The Town's zoning code have not been updated in 20 years. Currently, Oro Valley allows keeping of poultry, rabbits and similar small animals for farm and ranch uses. Farming and ranching is a permitted use in residential zoning district R1-144, and requires a conditional use permit (CUP) for R1-7 through R1-72, and R1-300 for properties greater than 144,000 sq. feet. Keeping of small animals is a permitted use in small to medium-size residential districts for many peer jurisdictions. Proposed Amendment Goals and Recommendations: Pursue a comprehensive update to refine existing code language and define permitted small animal types appropriate for Oro Valley and compatible for neighborhood characteristics. Amend the Zoning Code to expand farm and ranch use provisions to allow keeping of animals for food production and animal husbandry. Staff recommends expanding farm and ranch use allowances for residential properties less than 144,000 sq. feet. Figure 2: Permitted small animals by peers and Oro Valley Zoning Code. Key Topic #2 : Establish Suitable Limits for Number of Small Animals Research: Staff compared ten peer jurisdictions to identity best practices including establishing animal quantity limits. The majority of jurisdictions (80%) utilized a limit based on the size of the lot and animal type. Other methods include implementing a flat capped amount (30%) or using a point-per-animal unit system (13%). Attachment 2 - Animal Limits Research Findings provides a snapshot summary of the different limit calculations and findings. Oro Valley Zoning Code establishes animal limits for livestock at a rate of one livestock per 30,000 sq feet. Limitations for poultry and similar small animal are undefined, as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Staff utilized existing limits per Town Zoning code, findings from other jurisdictions, and animal care requirements to develop a proposed animal limit matrix as shown in Figure 3. Proposed Amendment Goals and Recommendations: Establish small animal limits compatible with neighborhood characteristics. Define animal limits based on property size and animal size (e.g. small animal or livestock). Staff recommends establishing quantity limits that are based on animal size and appropriate of the size of the property. Figure 3: Proposed limitations on number of animals based on property size. Key Topic #3: Identify Appropriate Residential Zoning Districts Research: Current zoning code standards permits keeping of livestock and small animals on properties with minimum lot size of 144,000 sq. feet. Minium lot size thresholds for jurisdictions range from 1,000 sq feet (Tucson, AZ and Marana, AZ) to 8,000 sq feet (Sahuarita, AZ) and up to 35,000 sq. feet (Mesa, AZ), as shown in Figure 4. The average minimum lot size for peer jurisdictions is approximately 9,000 sq feet. Staff conducted GIS analysis to identify the applicability of this proposed amendment. Specifically, identifying properties in Oro Valley properties with lot sizes over 20,000 sq. feet, as shown in the Figure 5. A key takeaway from the analysis found many properties under 20,000 are located within Homeowner’s Association (HOA) communities. Many HOA regulations prohibit residents from keeping animals, therefore properties under 20,000 sq. feet were removed as potential minimum lot size thresholds. Additional notable takeaways includes the zoning districts displayed in Figure 5 shows the majority of applicable properties are R1-20 and above districts. Proposed Amendments Goals and Recommendations: Establish a conservative minimum lot size to ensure compatibility with neighborhood characteristics, while maintaining setback requirements. Staff recommends allowing small animals on residential properties greater than 20,000 sq. feet in zoning districts R1-20 and above. Figure 4: Minium lot size required to keep small animals. Figure 5: Map of non-homeowner association properties with lots greater than 20,000 sq feet. Key Topic #4: Establish Property Standards for Neighborhood Compatibility and Nuisance Control Research: Property standards, such as minimum lot size, setback requirements, property maintenance standards, and screening requirements are keystone zoning code elements used by jurisdictions to mitigate nuisances. Setback requirements are used to ensure compatibility with neighboring properties and retain neighborhood characteristics. Property standards vary widely by jurisdictions as noted in Attachment 1 - Jurisdiction Research Matrix. In addition to setback requirements, property standards are used to restrict placement of detached structures such as animal coops and pens. Oro Valley Zoning Code restricts detached structures from the front yard in all single-family residential districts except R1-144 and R1-300 due larger lot sizes in these zoning districts. Proposed Amendment Goals and Recommendations: Ensure compatibility with neighborhood characteristics utilizing property standards. Staff recommends the following property standards: Animals must be kept in the rear and side yards. Coops and pens are subject to the main building setback standards for the zoning district. Animals and enclosures must be maintained to mitigate odor, noise, and other nuisances. Key Topic #5: Identify Additional Stipulations for Animal Types Research: The majority of jurisdictions apply additional stipulations based on specific animal types. This includes prohibiting animals due to noise propensity or requiring additional lot miniums thresholds. For example, many jurisdictions prohibit roosters or other male fowl as a permitted animal type due to noise impacts to neighboring properties. Jurisdictions such as Flagstaff, AZ imposed additional limitations on quantity and minium property size for beekeeping. Currently, Oro Valley zoning code only specifically restricts swine as an approved animal type. Proposed Amendment Goals and Recommendations: Sharpen existing code language to prohibit roosters, male fowl, hogs. Support best practices for animal husbandry to craft property standards. The intent of the proposed amendment parameters is to take a conservative approach that prioritizes compatibility with neighbors. Staff is looking for direction from Town Council on the key code elements listed above prior to drafting code language. Planning and Zoning Commission: The proposed amendment parameters were presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 3, 2023, for discussion and feedback. The meeting recording is available online. Comments from the Planning and Zoning Commission included the following topics: Identifying appropriate lot size requirements. Nuisance impacts to neighbors due to odor and noise. Potential impacts on Town staff time and resources. Comments and feedback from the Planning and Zoning Commission will be used to develop specific Zoning Code changes and addressed in the amendment parameters. Planning staff will begin drafting amendments to the Zoning Code once feedback is received from Town Council. SUMMARY: This item is being presented for discussion to obtain feedback from Town Council, specifically the key items listed below: Assess interest in allowing the keeping of small animals as a permitted use for residential properties less than 144,000 sq. feet in size Identify appropriate residential zoning districts and minimum property size. Identify small animal types appropriate for Oro Valley. Establish suitable limits for the number of small animals. Establish standards to ensure compatibility with residential properties and mitigate nuisance impacts. Identifying additional stipulations for animal types, when applicable. Specific Zoning Code changes will then be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and ultimately to Town Council for consideration. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: This item is for information and discussion purposes only. Attachments Attachment 1 Jurisdiction Research Matrix Attachment 2 Animal Limits Research Findings Attachment 3 Resident Comment Letters Staff Presentation Flagstaff - AZGilbert - AZMarana - AZMesa - AZPima County - AZSahuarita - AZTucson - AZPlacer County - CABrighton - COGolden - COPermitted Animals Bees X X X X X X X X X Chicken X X X X X X X X X X Ducks X X X X X X X X X Goats X X X X X X Goats - Miniature X X X X X*X X Goose X X X Ratites X Rabbits X X X X X Sheep X X X X X Pot-bellied Pigs X*X Turkey X X Dimensional & Setbacks Requirements Keeping Animals Minium Lot Area (Sq. Feet)-6,000 1,000 -6,000 8,000 1,000 5,000 -- Side (Feet)10 20 10 30 20 20 10 15 5 10 Rear (Feet)10 20 20 30 20 20 10 10 10 10 Dist. Prop Lines (Feet)10 20 30 -50 -50 --- Dist. Between Buildings (Feet)20 25 100 -20 7 20 -10 - Bees - Dist. Between Buildings --100 ------- Bee - Dist. From Prop Lines -100 60 ------- Animal Coop & Run Requirements Ground Coverage (Sq. feet)--200 -200 16 --120 Height (Feet)--6 15 12 12 12 --6 Dist. BTW Prop Lines (Feet)------10 --- Dist. BTW Buildings (Feet)--20 -50 -20 --- Values with "-" represents standards were not listed in the zoning code. Administrative Approvals Required Allowed Use ------- Site Plan Review - Site Plan Review PZ Conditional Use Permit X --X ------ PZ 4-H Animals**----- Additional Hogs -X -- PZ Exceed Animals ------X -- Approval Neighbors --- X* BOA Additional Chickens -- X Bees -- ** Planning & Zoning approval needed for 4H animals. Animal Keeping Zoning Code Amendment - Jurisdiction Research Attachment 3 - Animal Limits Research Findings Jurisdiction Code Title Code Section Number of Animal Limit - Quantity Max Number of Animal Limit - Point System Findings Animal Limit Rate - Livestock Animal Limit Rate - Small Animals (chickens/fowl, rabbits, rodents) Flagstaff - AZ Backyard Livestock Keeping 10-40.60.070: Animal Keeping X Keeping of small livestock is permitted in all zones. The number of animals is limited by the lot size and requirement to meet containment area dimensional requirements. Livestock is permitted in the Estate and Rural Residential zones. Limits based on lot square feet (sf) thresholds, • 4 large livestock up 79,999 sf. • 5 large livestock up to 119,999 sf. • 6 large livestock up to 159,999 sf. • 7 large livestock up to 160,000 sf. Limits based on lot sf thresholds and type of small animal. Gilbert - AZ Animal Raising - Non-Commercial 5.2.2: Additional Use Regulations - Animals X Animal raising is permitted in single-family residential zones with a minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet (sf). The limit for number of animals is based on lot size thresholds in any combination of permitted animal types. • 1 large livestock animal per 10,000 sf. • 1 small livestock animal per 5,000 sf. Limit of 25 rodents and fowl permitted up to 20,000 sf. 12 additional animals permitted for every 10,000 sf. Marana - AZ Animal Keeping 17-6-7:Animal-keeping X Animal keeping is permitted with conditions in Agricultural, Ranchette, Estate, and Neighborhood residential zoning districts. Setback restrictions and animal limits conditions are established per animal type such as chicken, small livestock, large livestock, or apiary. Animal limits are based on lot size ratio. • 1 large livestock per 10,000 sf in AG, RA, and RR • 1 small livestock per 5,000 sf om AG, RA, and RR No more than 40 chicken or rodents per acre. Mesa - AZ Animal Keeping 11-31-4: Animal Keeping (AG and Accessory to Residential Uses)X The keeping of animals is permitted within agricultural and residential zones in conformance with use restrictions (Section 8- 6-21). Animal limits are established by a point system based on the size of the property. Animal points vary by animal type. • 2 animal points up to 43,560 sf (one acre), with 1 additional animal points for every 10,890 sf. • 1 point per large livestock head • 0.5 point per small livestock head Limit of 10 fowl or rodent for lots up to one-half of acre (21,780 sf), with addition of 10 head for every one-half acre. No limit for properties with 2.5 acres or more. Pima County - AZ T. Food Access 18.09.020: General requirements and exceptions.X Keeping of chickens is permitted in TH, CR-4, CR-5, CMH-1, CMH- 2, and MU zones with minimum of 6,000 sf. Number of chickens limited to 8 chickens per dwelling unit. Written consent from neighbors is required to increase the number of chickens permitted. Livestock such as horses, cattle, sheep, goats, or ratites is permitted in CR-1, CR-2, and SR-2 at a rate of no more than 1 animal per 10,000 sf. • 1 livestock per 10,000 sf in CR-1, CR-2, and SR-2 Limit of 8 chickens per DU in TH, CR-4, CR-5, CMH-1, CMH-2, and MU zones with minimum of 6,000 sf. Sahuarita - AZ Permitted Use X Keeping of livestock and small animals is allowed in Rural Homestead (RH) and R-3 Single Residence (R-3) zoning districts. Limits are established at no more than 24 small animals per 8,000 sf in R-3, limits are not noted for livestock nor for RH. No more than 24 small animals per 8,000 sf in R-3 zoning district. Tucson - AZ 6.6.5. Urban Agriculture Uses and Activities E: Keeping of Food Producing Animals X Maximum number of animals based on animal units and lot size. Units assigned to animals vary based on animal type. Limits based on lot sf thresholds and type of small animal. Animal units are: • chickens (1) • duck (2), • turkey or goose (4), • miniature goat (5). Maximum units for lots: • less than 16,000 sf - 24 units • lots up to 143,999 sf - 36 units • lots 144,000 sf or more - 48 units Placer County - CA Permitted Use 17.56.050: Animal Raising and Keeping X Animal keeping is permitted in single-family residential zones with a minimum lot size of 20,000 sf. A conditional use permit required. Fowl and poultry are limited to 6 animals on minimum lot size of 5,000 sf in RS single family zones, no more than 15 on less than 1 acre lots in AG and RF zones, 24 animals on more than one acre. • 2 large livestock per acre in AG zone • 1 livestock per acre in RF zones • 6 small livestock per acre in AG and RF zones Flat cap on number of animals Brighton - CO Division 10 - Urban Agriculture Sec. 6-4-900: Urban agriculture and small animal husbandry.X Keeping of livestock shall not exceed more than 4 animals per acre. The number of animals for poultry is limited to 6 animals in any combination at one time. Flat cap on number of animals Golden - CO Permitted Use 8.26.060: Backyard Chickens X The maximum number of chickens is 6 chickens and requires permit approval. Conditional use permit required. Flat cap on number of animals D R A F T MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL SESSION August 13, 2024 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE            SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER Chair Clark called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Robert Kellar, Commissioner Joe Nichols, Commissioner William Thomas, Commissioner Sandra Wilson, Commissioner Philip Zielinski, Commissioner Kimberly Outlaw Ryan, Vice Chair Anna Clark, Chair Staff Present:Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner David Laws, Permitting Manager Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Clark led the Commission and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.   CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests.   COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS The Council Liaison was not present.   SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 4, 2024 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES       Motion by Commissioner Joe Nichols, seconded by Commissioner Robert Kellar to approve the June  Motion by Commissioner Joe Nichols, seconded by Commissioner Robert Kellar to approve the June 4, 2024 meeting minutes as written.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   2.PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON TWO ITEMS RELATING TO A PROPOSED COFFEE SHOP DRIVE-THROUGH AND OFFICE/RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT AT THE NE CORNER OF INNOVATION PARK AND TANGERINE: ITEM A: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT TO ENABLE ACCESS ONTO TANGERINE ROAD ITEM B: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COFFEE SHOP DRIVE-THROUGH USE       Senior Planner Kyle Packer provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Location - Background - Item A: Rancho Vistoso PAD Text Amendment - Item B: Conditional Use Permit - Item B: Conditional Use Permit - Traffic - Review Criteria - Summary and Recommendations Paul Oland of Paradigm Land Design, representing the applicant, provided a presentation that included the following: - Original plan of area - Architecture and views of the Starbucks drive-thru - 1985 Planned Area Development map - Noise study Discussion ensued among the Commission, the applicant and staff. Chair Clark opened the public hearing. There were no speaker requests. Chair Clark closed the public hearing.    Motion by Commissioner William Thomas, seconded by Vice Chair Kimberly Outlaw Ryan to recommend approval of Item A - text amendment to the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development to remove the neighborhood policy limiting access from Tangerine Road between Big Wash Bridge and Oracle Road.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried    Motion by Commissioner William Thomas, seconded by Vice Chair Kimberly Outlaw Ryan to recommend approval of Item B - conditional use permit for a drive-through restaurant near the northeast corner of Tangerine Road and Innovation Park Drive, based on the finding it is in conformance with the Zoning Code and Conditional Use Permit criteria.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   3.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ZONING CODE    3.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW THE KEEPING OF SMALL ANIMALS AND/OR LIVESTOCK WITHIN ALL ORO VALLEY ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ACCOMMODATE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND RELATED SECTIONS OF TOWN CODE       Planner Alex Chavez provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Existing Zoning Code - Keys to draft code: research - Keys to draft code: study session - Keys to draft code: state law - Proposed code amendments - Proposed code amendment #1: zoning districts - Proposed Amendment #2: property size and animal types - Proposed Amendment #3: property standards & requirements - Summary & recommendation Chair Clark opened the public hearing. OV residents Ben & Savanna Randall spoke in support of Agenda Item #3. Chair Clark closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff.    Motion by Vice Chair Kimberly Outlaw Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Robert Kellar to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Code Amendment to allow the limited keeping of small animals and/or livestock within all Oro Valley zoning districts that accommodate single-family residential homes and related sections of Town code, with a condition to revise livestock allowances to enable a maximum of four miniature goats, excluding males, on properties 36,000 square feet to 143,999 square feet.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   4.UPDATE ON THE COMMUNITY'S EFFORT TO CREATE THE NEXT 10-YEAR ACTION PLAN, KNOWN AS OV'S PATH FORWARD       Principal Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that included the following: - Phase 1: Let's talk - Importance - Phase 1 - Phase 1 report - Values - Challenges and concerns - Needs for the future - Areas that need alignment - Resident working groups - Next steps Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff.   5.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO INITIATE ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 22, CHAPTER 25, AND OTHER SECTIONS RELATED TO SPECIAL USE PERMITS       Senior Planner Kyle Packer provided background on reasons for updating the code.    Motion by Vice Chair Kimberly Outlaw Ryan, seconded by Commissioner Sandra Wilson to initiate a Zoning Code amendment to Section 22, Section 25, and other related chapters to review and potentially update the standards for Special Use Permits.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   6.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO INITIATE ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 22 AND OTHER RELATED SECTIONS TO REFLECT RECENT STATE LAW CHANGES FOR REZONING APPLICATIONS       Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided background on reasons for updating the code.    Motion by Commissioner Robert Kellar, seconded by Commissioner Joe Nichols to initiate Zoning Code amendments to reflect recent State Law changes relative to 1) processing time frames and 2) legal protest areas for rezoning applications in Chapter 22 and other related sections for future consideration.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Principal Planner Michael Spaeth announced the September meeting has been cancelled and reminded the Commission about the upcoming state planning conference.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Commissioner William Thomas, seconded by Vice Chair Kimberly Outlaw Ryan to adjourn the meeting.    Chair Clark adjourned the meeting at 7:36 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 the13th day of August 2024. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist Public Hearing: Proposed Town Code Amendment to Allow Small Animal Husbandry and Livestock on Residential Properties Town Council September 18, 2024 2 Purpose Proposed code amendment aims to: Ensure compliance with changes to State law. Expand allowances for keeping small animals and livestock. Assure compatibility with neighbors. Review proposed amendments and PZC recommendation. Tonight’s item is for discussion and possible approval. Present Zoning Code changes to Town Council – Public Hearing September 18, 2024 Present Zoning Code changes Planning and Zoning Commission – Public Hearing August 13, 2024 Staff finalized drafting proposed code amendments Governor Hobbs signs House Bill 2325 Backyard Fowl into State law on May 21, 2024 Town Council feedback Study Session on November 1, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission feedback Study Session on October 3, 2023 Staff research and identification of key topics and best practices Planning and Zoning Commission initiated code amendment project May 4, 2023 We are here 3 Existing Zoning Code Standards to Keep Small Animals and Livestock Zoning District Farms and Ranches (Permitted Use) Farm or Ranch Use Min. Property Size (sq. feet) Permitted Animal Types (Farm and Ranch Uses Only) Livestock Limits Small Animals Limits R1-300 C 144,000 (3.3 Acres)CUP CUP R1-144 P 144,000 (3.3 Acres)1 Livestock per 30,000 sq feet.Unlimited R1-72 C 144,000 (3.3 Acres)CUP CUP R1-43 C 144,000 (3.3 Acres)CUP CUP R1-36 C 144,000 (3.3 Acres)CUP CUP R1-20 C 144,000 (3.3 Acres)CUP CUP R1-10 C 144,000 (3.3 Acres)CUP CUP R1-7 C 144,000 (3.3 Acres)CUP CUP P – Permitted Use; C- Conditional Use; CUP – Limits established via conditional use permit conditions. Livestock: Horses, cows, and similar size animals Small Animal: Poultry, rabbits, and similar sized animals. Existing Zoning Code 4 Keys to Drafting Code Amendments: 1.Research Findings Reviewed existing code, Planned Area Development standards, and HOA regulations. Examined standards from 15 peer jurisdictions. Conducted interviews with S. Arizona municipalities. 2.Study Session Feedback Lot size minimums and setback requirements. Approved animal types and limits. Enforcement and nuisance concerns. 3.State Law HB2325 Preempts the Town from restricting residents from keeping up to six chickens. Properties must be detached single-family. Lots must be one-half acre or less. Allowances are only chickens. Least Restrictive Most Restrictive Minium Lot Area (Sq. Feet) Oro Valley - AZ (Current)144,000 Mesa - AZ 35,000* Oro Valley - AZ (Proposed)20,000 Sahuarita - AZ 8,000 Gilbert - AZ 6,000 Pima County - AZ 6,000 Placer County - CA 5,000 Marana - AZ 1,000 Tucson - AZ 1,000 Minimum Lot Size by Jurisdiction *Keeping of livestock on a parcel less than 35,000 square feet permitted by Hearing Officer or Zoning Administrator. Minimum Lot Size by Jurisdiction for Keeping Small Animals* and Livestock Minimum Lot Size Required (Sq. Feet) Oro Valley (Existing Code)144,000 Mesa 35,000 Oro Valley (Proposed Pre-State Law Changes)**20,000 Sahuarita 8,000 Gilbert 6,000 Pima County 6,000 Placer County, CA 5,000 Marana 1,000 Tucson 1,000 *Small animals include chickens, ducks, geese, rabbits, and similar sized animals. **New State law allows up to six chickens on one-half (21,780 sf.) acre or less. 5 Proposed Code Amendments 1.Expand allowances by zoning districts for: Small Animal Husbandry (non -commercial) Livestock (non-commercial) 2.Limit number of small animals and livestock based on property size and animal type. 3.Establish new code requirements to ensure compatibility and mitigate nuisances. Image Source: The Kansas City Star Image Source: OurOneAcreFarm.com – J. Pesaturo Image Source: Online Image Source: Online 6 Proposed Code Amendment #1: Zoning Districts Separate agriculture uses for “Small Animal Husbandry” and “Livestock”. Allowances based on zoning districts and specific to animal type Small animal vs livestock. Properties in purple are required by State law. Proposed Amendments Permitted Uses – Agricultural Uses Zoning Districts Specific Use Category: R1- 300 R1- 144 R1- 72 R1- 43 R1- 36 R1- 20 R1- 10 R1- 7 SDH- 6 R-S R-6 Commercial Stables C C C Farms and Ranches C P C C C C C C Selling of Products Raised on the Premises P Small Animal Husbandry (Non-Commercial) A A A A A A A A A A A Livestock (Non-Commercial) A A A A A A P – Permitted Use; A – Ancillary; C- Conditional Use; CUP – Limits established via conditional use permit conditions. Required by State law for chickens only. 7 Proposed Amendment #2: Property Size and Animal Types Limits are based on animal type and lot size. Establishes limits not defined by Zoning Code. Addresses State law requirements for chickens. Multiple animal type permitted on larger lots. Proposed limits incorporated feedback from the PZC and TC Bee boxes and pot-bellied pigs moved to larger lot minimums. PZC recommended conditional approval Enable a maximum of 4 miniature goats on properties 36,000 sq feet to 143,999 sq feet. Goats measuring less than 23” in height and typically Pygmy and Nigerian Dwarf breeds. 8 Proposed Amendment #3: Property Standards & Requirements Property Standards and Requirements Enclosure location is based on animal size: Small animal husbandry restricted to the rear yard. Livestock are allowed in the front, side, or rear yard. Enclosure setback standards: Small animal husbandry: main building standards. For properties one-half acre or less, chicken enclosures must be at least 20’ from neighbors. •Setback reductions for chicken enclosures must be approved and limited the longest distance feasible. Livestock: detached accessory buildings. Requirements for nuisance prevention: Male fowl, including roosters, are prohibited. Feed must be stored in insect and rodent-proof containers. Enclosures must be maintained, and manure picked up at least twice a week. Zoning Code Standards and Requirements State Law Provisions Chicken Only (21,780 sf. and less) OV Proposed Amendments Small Ag. Animals (21,780 sf. or more) OV Proposed Amendments Livestock (36,000 sf. or more) Small animals and livestock are prohibited from running at large. Yes Yes Yes A fence or structure is required to contain small animals and livestock. Yes Yes Yes Enclosures areas are limited in size. Yes - 200 sf. max. area; 8 ft. max. height Yes - Per Existing Zoning District Standards Yes - Per Existing Zoning District Standards Enclosures are limited in height. Yes - 200 sf. max. area; 8 ft. max. height Yes - Per Existing Zoning District Standards Yes - Per Existing Zoning District Standards 9 Impacts to Oro Valley Applicability of proposed amendment: Many properties under 20,000 sq feet are located within Homeowner’s Association (HOA) communities. HOA regulations commonly prohibit residents from keeping small animals and livestock. State law applies to municipal regulations and does not preempt HOAs from adopting restrictions. Regulation and enforcement: Minimal impact to Town staff time and resources is anticipated. Zoning staff Oro Valley Police Department Pima County Animal Control 10 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation Public Hearing was held on August 13. Commission recommended conditional approval, subject to revising the livestock allowances: “…to enable a maximum of four miniature goats, excluding males, on properties 36,000 square feet to 143,999 square feet.” This condition has been incorporated into the proposed code amendment. “Miniature goats are defined as goat breeds such as "Pygmy" and "Nigerian Dwarf" measuring no more than twenty-three (23) inches in height at the shoulder at normal stance.” Left: Saanen doe, full size goat ~ 35” in height. Right: Nigerian Dwarf doe, miniature goat ~ 22” in height. Image Source: Online 11 Summary & Recommendation Proposed code amendments aim to: Ensure the Town is compliant with recent changes to State law. Expand allowances by zoning districts for: •Small Animal Husbandry (non-commercial) •Livestock (non-commercial) Limit number of small animals and livestock based on property size and animal type. Establish new code requirements to ensure compatibility and mitigate nuisances. PZC recommended conditional approval, subject to: “Revising livestock allowances to enable a maximum of four miniature goats on properties 36,000 sq feet to 139,999 sq feet.”    Town Council Regular Session 3. Meeting Date:09/18/2024   Requested by: Councilmember Solomon and Councilmember Greene  Submitted By:Mike Standish, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RESTORATION OF THE EL CONQUISTADOR GOLF COURSE 5TH HOLE RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: This item was requested by Councilmember Solomon and Councilmember Greene. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to... Attachments Exhibit 1  Legend � Decomposed Granite Locations Cart Path Tee_Boxes Golf_Course � Tee Boxes exluded from granite covering Golf Course Property Golf Course CONQUISTADOR GOLF COURSE 2" Thick Asphalt (PAG2) with 4" thickened edge for new cart path. Roughly 5542 SY/535 Tons of 1/4" Decomposed Granite - Desert Brown. Subgrade of asphalt rolled and compacted with steel wheels and plate tamps. Total Cost: $53,842.09 Conquistador Golf Course Hole #5 Decomposed Granite Covering HOLE #5 OPTIONS Option 1 = Short Asphalt path with turnaround, 1/4 Desert Brown, $53,842.09 Option 2 = Short Asphalt path with turnaround, 1/2 Coronado Brown, $84,674.13 Option 3 = Long dirt path with edging to border dirt path (Terrace Board), 1/4 Desert Brown, $48,803.47 Option 4 = Long dirt path with edging to border dirt path (Terrace Board), 1/2 Coronado Brown, $80,186.51 Option 5 = Remove Ladies Tee Box, Spread DG over old Tee Box as well, 1/4 Desert Brown, $46,799.24 Option 6 = Remove Ladies Tee Box, Spread DG over old Tee Box as well, 1/2 Coronado Brown, $79,603.91