Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1417) Town Council Meeting Regular & Study Session September 16, 2020 1 Be back at 8:08 p.m. 2 3 Town Council Meeting Announcements 4 Upcoming Meetings 5 6 Fiscal Year 2019/20 Financial Update Through June 2020 September 16, 2020 7 Note: Revenues and expenditures listed in this report are preliminary, unaudited and subject to change based upon adjusting entries, as necessary. 8 GENERAL FUND REVENUES 9 GENERAL FUND SALES TAXES Holiday shopping * Does not include cable franchise fees 10 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $1.8M added to fund balance for FY2019/20 Estimated year-end fund balance: $21.4M Figure represents 51% of budgeted expenditures Current Town policy is 25% 11 GENERAL FUND 12 Revenues HIGHWAY FUND State shared highway user (HURF) revenues totaled $3.7M, or $90,000 over budgeted amounts. Figure includes the one time allocation of $198,000 Expenditures Highway Fund expenditures just under budget by $12,000 or 0.3% Utilization of $53,343 of fund balance for FY2019/20 Budgeted usage of fund balance was $337,241 Estimated year-end fund balance: $813,563 13 HIGHWAY FUND 14 COMMUNITY CENTER FUND Revenues Year-end contracted revenues over budget by 1.3%, or $42,000 due to golf revenues, member dues, trail and cart fees Town operating revenues below budget by 35.5% or $372,000 due to facility closures caused by COVID-19 Half-cent sales tax revenues over budget by 4.3%, or $106,000, due mainly from strong online collections and better than anticipated retail collections Expenditures Contracted expenditures below budget by 3.1%, or $153,000, mainly due to personnel savings Town operating expenditures below budget by 14.41%, or $148,000 due to personnel savings as well as reductions in O&M costs $408,438 added to fund balance for FY2019/20 Estimated year-end fund balance of $904,370 15 COMMUNITY CENTER FUND 16 Questions? 17 18 Final Plat for Capella Planned Area Development W of La Cholla Blvd. between Lambert Ln. and Naranja Dr. Town Council September 16, 2020 19 Purpose Requirement for open space designations Proposed Final Plat 207 Acres ~150-acres designated for future development and access ~60-acres designated as open space Public trail easement Conforms to previously approved site design and zoning requirements Discussion and possible action 20 Location 21 Final Plat Approved Land Use Plan 22 Summary and Recommendation In conformance with: Previously approved site design Town Zoning Code Staff recommends approval 23 Approved ESOS Plan 24 Approved Capella Trails Plan 25 26 Final Plat for Capella Parcel M W of La Cholla Blvd. between Lambert Ln. and Naranja Dr. Town Council September 16, 2020 27 Purpose Proposed Final Plat 48 residential lots subdivided on 24-acres ~9.7-acres designated as natural open space Construction of a public trail Conforms to previously approved site design and zoning requirements Discussion and possible action 28 Location 29 Final Plat Approved Tentative Development Plan 30 Summary and Recommendation In conformance with: Previously approved site design Town Zoning Code Staff recommends approval 31 Approved Capella Trails Plan 32 33 Proposed Code Amendments to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) Town Council September 16, 2020 34 Need and benefit of pre-grading The Town’s lack of available “ready-to-build” sites 2 The Town’s current approach does not meet employers needs and has us overlooked by national/global site selectors. Due to the lack of available ready to build sites, the Town has experienced: Loss of 2-5 leads a month Historically a low absorption rate of Tech-Park land Owners requesting to convert tech park land to residential or develop non-employment uses such as senior care facilities Experience has shown, a change is needed to attract employers to Oro Valley. 35 Need and benefit of pre-grading Checklist provided by a potential employment user Major requirements (highlighted in yellow): Location and site ownership Site Size: Minimum of 20 acres Topography: Generally flat (nominal leveling required) Timing: Shovel-ready. Only requires project specific approvals Pre-grading fulfills timing requirement 3 The checklist on the screen was provided to the Town by a potential employer. Major requirements include…. Employment users need a minimum of 20 acres that can be developed efficiently. Specifically they are looking for shovel-ready sites that only require project specific approvals. This is so they occupy a custom-building within 12 months, which is a major requirement the Town’s current process cannot meet. Without this, the Town will continue to lose employer leads. 36 Current and proposed process Current process: Discourages property owners to create “ready-to-build” sites Does not meet an employer’s time requirements Removes the Town from consideration by employers Proposed process: Allows site work to be completed earlier in the process Site design still reviewed but at more appropriate time Meets employers requirements and positions Town for consideration Minimum 16 months *Minimum 10 months for employer 4 Current process is shown on the screen. This includes information seen before but has now been extended to show the full development process from concept to occupancy. The main issue is requiring site design plan review before you can grade a site. Unless a tenant is known, site design is a guess and will likely be done twice. As such, the current process discourages pre-grading Process takes too much time for an employer to consider the Town. Same elements are required for the proposed process. The only difference is site plan approval is not required until after a site is per-graded. More appropriate time in process for employer. Meets time requirements and is efficient for a property owner to create ready to build sites. 37 Proliferation of pre-grading Individual site review Criteria added to approve requests on a case-by-case basis Focus on ability to develop site and view impacts Viability of economic development Evidence of ability to develop within 5 years of permit issuance Revegetation after 10 years (2 year extensions may be approved) Impacts to views Evaluated through a required visual analysis Ability to add conditions to minimize potential view impacts 5 Already discussed how the proposed code significantly limits the ability to remove plants before site plan approval from a Town-wide allowance to only applicable EEZ sites. Changes have been made to address TC concerns regarding the proliferation of pre-grading. Specifically, a criteria has been added to approve requests on a case-by-case basis. Applicants must show evidence of their ability to develop a site within 5 years. Revegetation is required after 10 years. Extensions may be approved in 2 year increments if a development is pending. Applicants must also provide a visual analysis for staff to evaluate the view impacts of each site. Conditions may be added to further minimize impacts such as larger buffer yards, more trees, etc. 38 Appearance of pre-graded sites Requiring decomposed granite as ground cover in addition to enhanced landscape and buffer yards (25’-150’) around site Decomposed granite at Big Horn Commerce 6 As previously discussed, proposed code requires more landscaping and buffer yards than the current code for pre-graded sites. However, to address Council’s concerns about the appearance of these sites, a change has been made to require decomposed granite as the ground cover. Code requires ground cover to control dust and stabilize a graded site. Ground covers range from hydro-seeding to decomposed granite. DG, is the gravel one typically sees in front yards or parking islands and is the most visually aesthetic of the options. The example shown on the screen is Big Horn Commerce, which is a site recently graded near Oracle and Tangerine. 39 Visual Analysis – View 1 from subdivision homes Innovation Park Before After 7 View 1- from existing homes west of Innovation Park that are located roughly 12 football fields away 40 Visual Analysis – View 2 from Rancho Vistoso bridge Innovation Park Before After Innovation Park Rancho Vistoso Slope to remain undisturbed 8 View 2- From bridge on Rancho Vistoso towards sites within Innovation Park. 41 Visual Analysis – View 3 from Vistoso Commerce Loop Before After Gradeable area is behind 40’ of dense vegetation Vistoso Commerce Loop Rancho Vistoso Blvd. 3 9 View 3- From Vistoso Commerce Loop towards EEZ site. 42 Visual Analysis – Photos of nearby homes Gradeable area not visible from homes All single-story Blocked by existing walls 150’ buffer required Vistoso Commerce Loop 150’ no grade area Homes along the western side. Portion of the 150’ no grade area Homes abutting site. 10 As you are aware, there is one site abutting residential. As shown, the gradeable area will not be visible to surrounding homes. All homes are single-story and blocked by an existing wall. 43 Visual Analysis – View 4 from Tangerine Rd. Before After Tangerine Rd. 4 25’-50’ enhanced buffer yard 11 View 5 is from Tangerine Road looking northwest towards Innovation Park. Site is visible from road but views are minimized through the required landscape buffer yards. 44 Visual Analysis – View 5 from Tangerine Rd. bridge Before After Tangerine Rd. 5 6 football fields 12 View 6- From Tangerine Road looking northeast. Sites are over 6 football fields away. 45 Visual Analysis – View along Oracle Road 100’ designated Open Space area along Oracle Road Views blocked by topography Gradeable area is behind the hill and 100’ wide open space area. 13 View 4- Photo of sites along Oracle Road and in Innovation Park. These sites include rough terrains, which blocks the view of the gradeable areas. Additionally, a 100’ open space area is required along Oracle Road. 46 Visual Analysis – View from Steam Pump Village/Oracle Before After Gradeable area is behind dense vegetation Oracle Road 14 View 7- View from Oracle Road to the Foothills Business Park. Vegetation along Oracle to remain. Additional trees planted as needed to fill in gaps. 47 Visual Analysis – View from homes behind lots Views blocked by existing building. Oracle Road 15 The pre-graded lots will not be visible from the homes located behind the Foothills Business Park. The existing buildings block the views of the lots from the homes and their community pool. 48 Visual Analysis – View from Oracle Road 100’ buffer along Oracle Rough terrain reduces visibility and amount of gradeable area Oracle Road Oracle Road El Conquistador Way 16 View 8- From Oracle Road to TP site near Oracle and El Conquistador Way. Vegetation along Oracle to remain. 49 Rancho Vistoso Potential Areas for Pre-grading 17 Oracle Rd. Tangerine Rd. Innovation Dr. Rancho Vistoso 1 2 3 5 7 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 4 18 19 20 21 22 50 La Cañada Dr. Tangerine Rd. Potential Areas for Pre-grading (cont.) 18 Oracle Rd. Oracle Rd. 23 26 25 24 51 Existing Appeal Process Administrative decisions appealable by any aggrieved person within 30 days Administrative decisions include site plan approvals Aggrieved person must show material harm was caused by decision Appeals considered by the Board of Adjustment 19 52 Example of a Sign Criteria 20 53 Public outreach requirements Notification regarding plant removal and earthwork done before site plan approval will be sent out separately Existing code exempts all EEZ properties from conducting public outreach Requires a public open house at the beginning stages of site planning for properties within 150’ of a residence Oracle Rd. Tangerine Rd. La Cañada Dr. EEZ sites Requires public outreach 21 As discussed with Council, notification regarding plant removal and earthwork done before site plan approval will be sent out separately All EEZ sites are currently exempt from any public outreach requirements- yet code will require all those within 150’ to conduct open house early in the development process. 54 Targeted Technologies Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), AI, 3D, I of T, VR Bioinformatics 3PL and Redundant Supply Chains 5G Technology and expanded IT capabilities within commercial business corridors Precision Cancer Diagnostics Research and Development/Academic and Commercial Tele Health/Tele Medicine/Tele Veterinarian Services Translational Genomics 22 55 Targeted Industries Advanced business services Aerospace and defense Engineering Environmental Sciences Information technology/software Life and bio-sciences Research & Development Ubiquitous Mobile Super Computing 19 23 56 Sampling of Site Selectors Atlas Insight CBRE Cushman & Wakefield Deloitte Ernst & Young (EY) Foote Consulting Grella Partnership Strategies Grubb and Ellis Hickey and Associates JLL KPMG McEnroe Newmark Knight Frank (NFK) Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) Site Selection Group Wadley Donovan Gutshaw Consulting (WDGC) 20 24 57 SITE SELECTORS FUNCTION Analyze client requirements Research regions/communities best locations Align interest of companies to communities Negotiate mutual considerations SITE SELECTION FACTORS Labor/Demographics Finance/Operating Costs/Risk Management Operating Environment/Regulators Facilities/Sites Transportation/Logistics Tax Structure/Incentives Utility Infrastructure Quality of life/Education, Safety/Business Climate 21 25 58 CLIENT CONSIDERATIONS Proximity to customers/ suppliers Proximity to labor/logistics R.O.I. – Cost Containment Risk Management Sustained Profitability NPV – 20 years forward SITE SELECTION PHASES Initial location decision criteria Initial screening Detailed location assessments Field visits or “short list” locations/site Negotiation/selection of final sites Completion of CRE/Incentive Agreement Site Acquisition Public Announcement 22 26 59 60 Taking a short break. We’ll be back at 8:08 61 Noise Abatement and Convenience Use Separation Code Amendments Town Council Public Hearing September 16, 2020 62 Thank you and good evening. Purpose Zoning Code Amendments: Part I: Noise abatement Proposed amendment uses best practices and both Federal and International standards Part II: Convenience use separation Allow for customization by Town Council on a case by case basis The purpose for this item is to discuss a proposed code amendment to the Town’s Zoning Code. The amendment has two related components: 1. The first is to update the Town’s Noise Abatement Standards. This amendment is included on both the Town’s Strategic Plan and the Planning Division Workplan, in fact, it has been on the Workplan for some time. 2. The second relates to separation requirements for convenience uses. Please note, we have several development applications awaiting both of these amendments. During my presentation: - As I go through both parts of the proposed amendment - I want to highlight the 3 primary objectives of the noise code component, which include: - Enabling the ability to address noise impacts Proactively vs. Reactively - Detail how the existing standard is unusable and one-size fits all and how the proposed amendment addresses both - Also, detail how the proposed amendment uses best practices and standards - I am going to discuss how the proposed amendments would work in real world scenarios - I will cover General Plan Conformance - And finally, will provide a summary for discussion. 63 Part I: Noise abatement - Applicability New “noise generating” development only Drive-thru restaurants Gas stations Auto repair facilities Car washes Live entertainment I’d also like to quickly distinguish who these standards would apply too. The proposed amendment would only apply to new “noise generating” uses. They would not apply to any use/building already constructed and in use. Noise generating uses include, among others: Drive-thru restaurants Gas stations Auto repair facilities Car washes Live entertainment 64 Part I: Noise abatement - Objectives As was discussed in the staff report, there several very specific objectives of the first component of the proposed amendment to address existing issues First, the current standard is an inefficient way of evaluating noise during the design review phase of a project. It is reactive rather than proactive. This amendment will allow staff to addresses potential noise impacts to identify possible mitigation measures early in the process. Second, the existing code requirement for noise is to “…not exceed 40 dbs at the property line”! Again, this threshold is often less than the baseline background noise present on a site. A standard for commercial uses which is entirely impractical! Lastly, the standard is 40 db regardless of where the noise is being measured. A “one-size-fits-all” standard is overly simplistic. A noise standard for gas stations should not be the same for the standard applied to residential neighborhoods. The standards should take into account things like, hours of operation, the type of use and the location or context of the noise. All things the current standard omits. 65 Cool Drive Oracle Road Multi-family 55 decibels Commercial 65 decibels Commercial 65 decibels Commercial 65 decibels Now I’d like to quickly demonstrate how the 1st component of the proposed amendment would work. If NH was a new use, as part of the design phase, a Noise Study would be required. In that study, the applicant would have to demonstrate that the anticipated noise would meet the noise standards shown in Table 25-1.A on the previous slide. As an example, I’ve pulled the maximum allowed decibels (1 hour average) for the nearby land uses. The levels are the 7pm – 10pm limits. If the use would exceed these limits, or any others in the table, the design would have to implement mitigation measures to meet these requirements. 66 Part I: Noise abatement – What is a reasonable standard? General Plan Noise Consultant Federal Guidelines American National Standards Institute (1983 – 2007) Acoustical Society of America (2012) International Standards International Organization for Standardization (2003) World Health Organization Research of other jurisdictions – Arizona and California Now, with regard to the 2nd objective. Earlier we demonstrated just how unusable the existing standard is. So the next question is, what a reasonable standard? To determine this, staff first evaluated the YV, OF General Plan for guidance regarding balancing economic development goals with the needs of the community. Secondly, as mentioned previously, we hired a noise consultant (the first community to do so) to help develop a more thorough and advanced noise standard. As such Mr. Lance Willis helped develop a standard that is based on best practices and guidelines, both Federal and International that more precisely measures the various types of noise. Lastly, we evaluated other jurisdictions throughout Arizona and California. 67 Part I: Noise abatement – Proposed amendment Now I’d like to discuss how the amendment address the 3rd objective The 1st and 2nd columns now take into account context and time of day, no longer being a one-size fits all approach. The first column represents the land use of the receiving property while the The second column takes into account the time of day The last three columns are standards for different types of noises using different ways of measuring each. This is a much more thorough and precise way of addressing noise impacts. Again, these standards are for New development only. The table will be used to evaluate new development applications only as part of a required Noise Study. Lastly, there are some exemptions from these standards like emergency vehicles or Town events. Ultimately, these standard are much more realistic and reasonable. 68 Part II: Convenience use separation – Convenience uses What is a convenience use? Gas Stations Drive-thru restaurants Car washes Convenience Markets Existing separation requirements: Section 25.1.B.6: Convenience Uses a. “…250 feet from any property used/intended for residential b. “…500 feet from any school or park” Now for Part II: Convenience Use Separation First what is a convenience use? “A use by which the method of operation produces a moderate or high level of traffic and impacts on surrounding uses.” These include, drive-thru restaurants, gas stations, car washes and convenience markets These uses, by code, have separation requirements from certain uses as shown on screen: First, they must be a minimum of 250 ft from residential properties And secondly, they must be a minimum of 500 feet from any school or park While these separation requirements are necessary, in some situations they may prove to be redundant. 69 Part II: Convenience use separation – Proposal Major barriers Arterial intersections Existing buildings Topography Diminish potential impacts Noise Visual Lighting Odors This is where the proposed code amendment comes in. In certain instances they may be redundant when major barriers exist between the two uses. Major barriers include things like: - wide arterial intersections - Existing buildings between the uses - hillsides or other topographical features - among others Typically, these major barriers inherently diminish potential impacts, including: - noise - visual impacts - lighting - odor The existence of these barriers can make the separation requirements redundant. The proposed amendment allows Town Council to consider these major barriers to determine if a reduction in the separation requirements could be appropriate. Any reduction will necessarily need to consider a balance between flexibility and protecting neighbors. 70 Summary and Recommendation Part I – Noise Abatement Proposed amendment uses best practices and both Federal and International standards Part II – Convenience Uses Allow for customization by Town Council on a case by case basis Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval In summary, the first part of the proposed code amendment addresses several objectives that fix current issues with the existing standard. Those include: Establishing a proactive vs. reactive approach to dealing with noise generating uses Eliminates the unusable existing standard that is no longer one-size fits all. The amendment takes into account context and time of day making it a more reasonable and enforceable requirement. Further, it address an item on both the Town’s Strategic Plan and Planning Division workplan The second part provides some flexibility for convenience uses while maintaining a balance for neighboring property owners. The proposed amendments are in conformance with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan We’ve also reached out to the Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce who….. As a reminder, this item is for discussion only. Mr. Lance Wills is also here to answer questions as needed. 71 Town Parks 72 Part I: Noise abatement – What is a reasonable standard? Staff conducted a thorough analysis of other jurisdictions in southern Arizona to evaluate their noise standards. The proposed amendment that you will see on the next slide is much more in-line with these jurisdictions than the existing standard. These standards are “right sized” based on national and international standards Lastly, staff and Mr. Willis conducted several site visits to evaluate the proposed standards. We visited both a drive-thru restaurant and a venue with live music. The new standards are much more reasonable, while still protecting adjoining property owners. 73 General Plan Goal D – “A community with a wide range of services, amenities, shopping and dining” Goal X – “Effective transitions between differing land uses…” Policy LU.6 – “Maintain the small-town, neighborly character and improve the design and safety of the built environment” The proposed code amendments support a number of Your Voice, Our Future General Plan goals and policies, including those focused on expanding economic activity while balancing the needs of neighbors. 74 Part I: Noise Abatement – Proactive vs. Reactive Design of New Development Zoning Code Proactive Noise Study Mitigation measures Increased setbacks and/or bufferyards Orientation of the building Acoustic insulation Noise Complaint Process Town Code Reactive Nuisance noise Existing or newly built development Reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit, if applicable Town Code 10-1-4 Noise A. No person shall negligently make, cause, or permit unreasonable noise. D. Factors that may be considered in determining the reasonableness of the noise are, but not limited to: 1. The level, character, frequency and duration of the noise; 2. The necessity of the noise; 3. The proximity of the source to inhabited structures; 4. Hardship to the perpetrator if noise discontinued or limited; 5. Character and zoning of neighborhood; 6. Time of noise Now that we’ve established what type of uses these standards would apply to I’d like to address the 1st objective, being proactive rather than reactive The current code is reactive in that the decibel standard is only considered when a complaint is received. Because this standard is unusable as I mentioned earlier, the OVPD who responds uses the “nuisance noise standards” in Town code to evaluate noise complaints. Those are shown in the box on the screen for reference. While this will still be the case for existing uses/buildings, the code amendment allows staff to be proactive and address the potential noise standards early in the design review phase of the process through a noise study. This would allow us to identify and incorporate mitigation measures early in the process which could include: Increased setbacks or bufferyards Changing the orientation of the building Acoustic insulation . 75 Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2020 and July 7, 2020 Receiving Use Enforcement of noise violations Loudness of increases in decibel levels Recommends approval The proposed amendment was considered by the Planning and Zoning commission in June and July of this month. The focus of the discussion was providing more information on how the proposed amendment would work and a better understanding of decibel increases. 76 Part I: Noise Abatement – 40 db limit is unusable To demonstrate another way how unusable the existing standard is, I’ve included the image shown on-screen. Many of you will recognize that this is McDoanld’s drive-thru on the northeast corner of Oracle Road and Magee. In an effort to take a measurement of the noise generated by the speaker box, the background noise alone was about 68dbs (if you can make out the number on the scale) . Again well beyond the existing 40 db threshold. 77 78 Taking a short break. We’ll be back at 79 Study Session: Code Amendment to update the required findings for variances Town Council September 16, 2020 80 Purpose Proposed code amendment to update the required findings for a variance request Further alignment with State and case law Provides clear and consistent guidance for applicants, staff and the Board of Adjustment Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval Information and discussion only 2 81 Background Variances allow modifications to utilize existing zoning standards Board of Adjustment Established by State law as a quasi-judicial board Appeals heard by superior court rather than Town Council Legalistic approach to cases Findings established in State law Board must find the request meets all the required findings 3 82 Required findings Established in State law Many jurisdictions tailor the findings Creates potential for conflicts with State law Additional direction from case law Applying the findings in conformance with State law Proposed amendment is a legal effort to better align findings with State and case law 4 83 Proposed Amendment to Finding #1 Purpose: Clearly define a special circumstance State law- defines special circumstance as a condition only applicable to the property New information (per case law)- Existing building configuration is included when it is a result of the land conditions Existing: That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district. Proposed: That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property STRICTLY RELATED TO its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other properties in the district. EXISTING BUILDING CONFIGURATION SHALL BE INCLUDED ONLY WHEN CONSTRAINSTED BY THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY. 5 84 Example for Finding #1 6 85 Proposed Amendment to Finding #2 Purpose: Define special circumstance and owner State law- explicitly applies the special circumstances in finding 1 to finding 2 New information (per case law)- owner includes past and present Existing: That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant. Proposed: That THE special circumstances OR CONDITIONS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION C.1 OF THIS SECTION, were not created by A PREVIOUS OR CURRENT owner. 7 86 Proposed Amendment to Finding #3 Purpose: Clarify what constitutes a “right” by adding language verbatim of State law State law- specifies the preservation of rights are those that are enjoyed by others in the same classification and within the same zoning district Existing: That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Proposed: That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation of PRIVILEGES and rights ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES OF THE SAME CLASSIFICATION AND WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. 8 87 Proposed Amendment to Finding #4 Purpose: Clarify conditions may be imposed by a jurisdiction by adding language verbatim of State law State law- gives jurisdictions the ability to impose conditions to assure the granting of a variance is not a special privilege Existing: That any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located. Proposed: That any variance granted IS SUBJECT TO such conditions as will assure the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such the property is located. 9 88 Example for Finding #4 10 89 Finding #5 Purpose: Protect public health, safety and welfare Not in State law for variance applications Legally defensible as a constitutional police power Existing: That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general. Proposed: No changes 11 90 Additional Guidance General Plan Supported by the General Plan as a legal effort to better align with State law Board of Adjustment Presented during a study session Feedback minimal with no outstanding questions or suggestions 12 91 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended for approval on August 11, 2020 Discussed alignment with State Law 13 92 Summary Update required findings for a variance request to better align with State and case law Defines special circumstance applicable to finding 1 and finding 2 Defines owner as previous and current Clarifies what constitutes a “right” by adding language verbatim of State law Gives the ability for the Board to apply conditions Necessary for clear and consistent guidance for applicants, staff and the Board of Adjustment Information and discussion purposes only 14 93 Finding #1 Comparison between OV Zoning Code and State Law State Law: A board of adjustment shall: Hear and decide appeals for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance only if, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district. Any variance granted is subject to conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Existing code: That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district; and Proposed code: That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property STRICTLY RELATED TO its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other properties in the district. EXISTING BUILDING CONFIGURATION SHALL BE INCLUDED ONLY WHEN CONSTRAINED BY THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY. 15 94 Finding #2 Comparison between OV Zoning Code and State Law State Law: A board of adjustment may not: Grant a variance if the special circumstances applicable to the property are self-imposed by the property owner. Existing code: That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant; and Proposed code: That THE special circumstances OR CONDITIONS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION C.1 OF THIS SECTION, were not created by A PREVIOUS OR CURRENT owner. 16 95 Finding #3 Comparison between OV Zoning Code and State Law State Law: A board of adjustment shall: Hear and decide appeals for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance only if, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district. Any variance granted is subject to conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Existing code: That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and Proposed code: That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation of PRIVILEGES and rights ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES OF THE SAME CLASSIFICATION AND WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. 17 96 Finding #4 Comparison between OV Zoning Code and State Law State Law: A board of adjustment shall: Hear and decide appeals for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance only if, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district. Any variance granted is subject to conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Existing code: That any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located; and Proposed code: That any variance granted IS SUBJECT TO such conditions as will assure the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such the property is located. 18 97 98 Taking a short break. We’ll be back at 99 Study Session: Proposed Process for Administrative Review of Minor Setback Reductions Town Council September 16, 2020 Thank you Mr. Mayor. Good evening. My name is Hannah Oden and I am a senior planner with the Town of Oro Valley. 100 Purpose Process for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions Information and discussion only The purpose of this presentation is to provide information and gather feedback regarding a proposed zoning code amendment that was initiated by Planning and Zoning Commission last month. The proposed code amendment would provide a fair, balanced, and time tested process for administrative review and potential approval of minor building setback reduction requests without the requirement to go through the legal framework of a variance process. I’ll walk us through the proposed amendment during this presentation. Proposed zoning code amendments require a recommendation by planning and zoning commission with final action by Town Council. However, this proposed code amendment is being presented today for discussion and feedback purposes only as part of a study session. The complete proposed code amendment can be found in attachment 1 of your packets. 101 Oro Valley Estates Background All setback reductions considered by the Board of Adjustment Requests often minor Five legalistic findings must be met Requests often denied due to five legalistic findings Code amendment would provide process for administrative approval of minor setback reductions only 2.5’ To start, I’m going to provide some background information before discussing the proposed code amendment in more detail. All building setback reductions, no matter how minor, must be considered by the BOA as a variance case. The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial board which has the power to alter property rights or consider administrative decision appeal within the bounds of the law. A variance is when the BOA provides a modification of the provisions of the Zoning Code when five legalistic findings have been satisfied. This proposed code amendment is an effort to build on the proposed code amendment related to variance criteria that you hard earlier this evening. Often, these setback reduction requests are minor with no impact to surrounding properties. However, the five legalistic findings per state law and the zoning code that must be satisfied for all variance requests are intentionally strict and difficult to meet. For this reason, even variance setback reduction requests that are minor with no negative impacts are often denied because all five required legalistic findings have not been met. A recent case considered by the BOA illustrates this situation well as shown on this slide. An applicant was requesting a setback reduction to construct an attached garage at their home. The request was for a 2.5’ setback reduction. Even though the request was minor with no negative impacts and was supported by neighbors, both staff and the BOA found that the request did not meet all required variance findings and the request was ultimately denied. Minor setback reduction requests are also something oro valley residents ask Town staff about during home construction projects. While these inquiries often do not result in a variance application, it does illustrate a community need. The proposed code amendment would provide a process for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reduction requests only such as the one described. Requests would be subject to specific criteria which I will describe later in the presentation. 102 Oro Valley Estates Background Jurisdictions in Arizona that have a process for minor setback reductions: City of Scottsdale City of Sedona City of Flagstaff Town of Gilbert Town of Sahuarita Pima County City of Tucson State Law While developing this proposed zoning code amendment, staff turned to other state jurisdictions to research. A number of jurisdictions in Arizona, as shown on this slide, have allowances for administrative review and potential approval setback reductions in their zoning codes and were used as the framework for crafting this proposed amendment. While the process differs between jurisdictions, all have been able to successfully implement a process that allows for administrative review and approval of minor building setback reductions, when warranted, and based on specific criteria. Staff examined the content of these processes for the key components that have been incorporated into this proposed code amendment. Furthermore, staff referenced state law for this proposed amendment, which allows setback reductions less than 10% to be eligible for administrative approval. I will discuss later in the presentation. 103 Key Amendment Components Single-family residential properties for individual homeowners only Reduction less than 10%, no closer than 5 feet from any property line Requests must be unopposed by affected properties Standards for approval to ensure no negative impacts Administrative decisions are subject to existing Board of Adjustment appeal process The proposed amendment has several key components which I would like to briefly describe. First, this amendment would only apply to single family residential properties for individual homeowners. It does not apply to large homebuilders constructing an entire residential subdivision. In short, this process may not be used for multiple properties as one application and are considered on a case by case basis. The intent is to help individual homeowners. Second, the setback reduction must be less than 10% and may not result in a setback that is closer than 5 feet to any property line. As mentioned in the previous slide, state law limits setback reductions to less than ten percent to be eligible for administrative review and approval. Third, for a setback reduction request to be eligible for administrative approval, it must be unopposed by directly affected property owners. Fourth, staff is proposing specific standards that all requests must meet to be eligible for this process. These standards are strict to ensure no negative impacts to surrounding properties. Jurisdictions in Arizona that allow for administrative relief of setback reductions have similar standards that must be satisfied for approval. Lastly, the proposed amendment uses the existing appeal process for administrative decisions in the Zoning Code that requires appeals to be considered by the Board of Adjustment. 104 Proposed Amendment: Applicability and Allowances Single-family dwelling units Main building and detached accessory structures Individual lot owners, not entire subdivisions Does not further reduce setbacks where reductions have already been provided I will now go through the specifics of the proposed code amendment and will start with applicability and allowances. This proposed amendment would apply to single family residences for both the main building and detached accessory structures, such as a home addition or detached garage. As mentioned previously, setback reduction requests would be considered individually on a parcel by parcel basis for single family residences. It would not apply to setback reductions for multiple properties as part of an entire subdivision requested by a major homebuilder. Lastly, there are existing sections in the zoning code where setback relief is already granted in the form of an allowed encroachment in certain instances. This proposed amendment would not allow for further setback reductions to be granted where the code already provides relief. 105 Proposed Amendment: Standards Up to a 10% setback reduction and no closer than 5 feet to any property line Unopposed from directly affected property owners May not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties, subject to conditions Next, I’ll discuss the standards that all minor setback reduction requests must meet to be eligible for this process. Setback reductions must be less than 10% and may not result in a setback that is closer than 5 feet to any property line. As mentioned previously, state law limits administrative approval of setback reductions to less than 10%. The proposed process would apply to all zoning districts that permit single-family dwelling units. The table on this slide shows single-family zoning districts and illustrates what a 10% setback reduction would look like for front, side, and rear setbacks. Again, setback reduction requests for administrative review and potential approval must be less than 10% per state law, so any setback reduction request would in reality be less than what the table depicts. For instance, in an R1-36 zoning district (HIT ENTER), a maximum front setback reduction would result in a less than 3 foot reduction from 30 feet, so the resulting reduced setback would be greater than 27 feet. The maximum setback reduction that would result from this proposed process would be less than 5’ in the larger lot zoning districts where setbacks are greater. All requests must also be unopposed by directly affected property owners, which means no written response in opposition is received by Town staff. I will discuss this in more detail in the following slides. Lastly, similar to variance findings, setback reduction requests may not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties and are also subject to conditions, as determined by the PZA, to limit any potential negative impacts. This would include conditions such as screening and exterior color limitations. The purpose of this latitude to address any unforeseen circumstances. 106 Proposed Amendment: Noticing Affected Property Owners Properties “adjacent” to or “abutting” the subject property Additional properties as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator Notice provided by the Town to affected property owners 15-day comment period Next, I’ll discuss how the proposed code amendment defines directly affected property owners. Property owners adjacent to the applicant’s property are considered to be directly affected. This includes properties both next to and near the subject property, such as properties directly across the street. However, if a setback reduction request is in the side or rear yard and only affects abutting properties, which are those sharing a property line, then only abutting properties would be considered directly affected. On this slide, the subject property is outlined in yellow. Abutting properties are those outlined in blue. Adjacent properties would include both the abutting properties as well as the two parcels outlined in red across the street. The proposed code amendment would also allow the PZA to include additional properties if it is determined that they would be materially affected by a setback reduction request. Once an eligible setback reduction request is received, the Town will notify directly affected property owners by mail. The notice will provide detailed information about the request and will be accompanied by a 15-day comment period when directly affected property owners may provide written comments to the Town either in support or opposition of the request. 107 Proposed Amendment: Opposition If no negative responses are received, application may move forward subject to other standards Conditions may be added to address opposition, reach consensus Request must be denied if opposition remains This brings us to the next part of the proposed code amendment regarding potential opposition by directly affected property owners. Again, directly affected property owners have 15 days to respond after notices are mailed. If no response in opposition is received by the Town, the application is considered unopposed and may continue through the review process and is still subject to the standards discussed previously. However, if written opposition is received by the Town within the 15 day comment period, the PZA may add conditions to a setback reduction request, such as screening or a height limit, to address the opposition. The proposed code amendment would also allow the PZA to meet with the applicant and affected property owner in opposition to reach a consensus. This could include modifying the request or adding conditions to mitigate for any impacts. If opposition still remains from a directly affected property owner, the request must be denied. 108 Proposed Amendment: Review and Appeal Process Planning and Zoning Administrator has review and decision authority only if request meets standards Appeals to the Board of Adjustment, uses existing process If denied, applicant may have request considered as a variance case by the Board of Adjustment Lastly, I will discuss the review and appeal process included in the proposed code amendment. The amendment gives the PZA review and decision authority of setback reduction requests. They may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application based on the requirements of this process. Similar to other jurisdictions in Arizona who have a setback reduction allowance, any appeals to the PZA decision would be deferred to the BOA. This would follow the current process for appeals of administrative decisions that exists in the Zoning Code. All administrative decisions may be appealed to the BOA by aggrieved parties. And, if a request is denied, the applicant still retains the ability to have their case considered by the BOA as a variance case and would be subject to all variance criteria. 109 Additional Guidance General Plan Community Goal H: Increased opportunities for residents to provide meaningful input on Town decisions and planning. Development Goal X: Effective transitions between differing land uses and intensities in the community. Board of Adjustment Presented during a study session Supportive of the request Feedback minimal with no outstanding questions Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended for approval All proposed code amendments are reviewed for conformance with the general plan. Staff finds that the proposed code amendment is supported by the general plan by providing directly affected property owners opportunity to provide comments and input regarding a proposed setback reduction request. Furthermore, the proposed code amendment is supported by the general plan by ensuring any proposed transitions resulting from a minor setback reduction request are acceptable to neighbors. The proposed code amendment supports compatibility with existing town development and does not conflict with any General Plan Goal or Policy. The proposed code amendment was presented to the BOA during a study session last month. The Board was supportive of the proposed amendment and had questions regarding the 15-day neighboring property owner notices for a minor setback reduction request, the timing of this zoning code amendment consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council, and the number of situations this process would apply to. There were no outstanding questions or concerns. Earlier this month, this proposed code amendment was considered by the PZC at a public hearing. Overall, the commission was supportive of the proposed amendment and it was recommended for approval with a condition recommended by staff to clarify one part of the proposed code language, which simply served a housekeeping purpose. 110 Summary Provides process for administrative review of minor setback reductions only Subject to specific standards Less than 10% reduction Unopposed by directly affected property owners Not materially detrimental to surrounding properties, subject to conditions All decisions appealable to Board of Adjustment Information and discussion only In summary, the proposed code amendment would provide a process for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions only, when warranted, and based on specific standards. The intent is to provide flexibility in the code for a fair, balanced, and time tested process when setback reduction requests are minor without the need to go through the extensive legal framework of a variance process. Reductions would be limited to less than 10% and would be subject to strict standards to ensure that there are no negative impacts to surrounding properties. Again, all eligible requests must be unopposed by directly affected neighbors. This proposed code amendment is presented to Town Council today for discussion and feedback purposes only. Ultimately, the proposed code amendment will be subject to action by Town Council at a subsequent public hearing. This concludes my presentation and I am happy to answer any questions about the proposed code amendment. Thank you. 111 Planning Commission Recommendation Recommended for approval with revised code language to proposed Section 23.5.C.2.h.iii: A FRONT, REAR OR SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK MAY BE REDUCED BY LESS THAN TEN (10) PERCENT TO A MAXIMUM OF FIVE (5) FEET FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE. 112 113 Taking a short break. We’ll be back at 114 Thanks for watching! 115 Public Outreach Results Total of 4 informational videos for two projects 2,625 views 1,371 questions and comments generated Social Media Outreach 1,526 people reached by Facebook 5,168 people reached by Nextdoor Two Interactive Zoom Meetings 408 total participants 75 people able to provide a comment or ask a question Typical in-person neighborhood meetings have 50-100 attendees 116