Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1414)         AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION OCTOBER 7, 2020 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING Join Zoom Meeting: https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/95572587385?pwd=THVueWFQOVlSSm1YQmkwM0tBMWlTUT09 To attend via phone only, dial 1-669-900-6833 then enter Meeting ID: 95572587385, then enter Passcode: 842846   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   COUNCIL REPORTS   TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT   The Mayor and Council may consider and/or take action on the items listed below: 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 - Fire Prevention Month     2.Presentation and update by President/CEO Brent DeRaad of Visit Tucson   3.Presentation and possible discussion of the Town's Fiscal Year 2020/21 Financial Update through July 2020   CONSENT AGENDA  (Consideration and/or possible action)   A.Minutes - September 9, September 16 and September 23, 2020   B.Resolution No. (R)20-48, approving a two-year extension of the Budget and Finance Commission   C.Request for approval of a Final Plat for the Shannon 80 residential subdivision, located on the east side of Shannon Road and immediately south of Ironwood High School   D.Request to initiate a General Plan Amendment and rezoning for the Westward Look Resort located at the Ina Road and Westward Look Drive intersection   REGULAR AGENDA   1.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR A SERIES 12 (RESTAURANT) LIQUOR LICENSE FOR THE LANDING, LOCATED AT 8195 N. ORACLE ROAD, STE #105   2.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE FOR FURTHER CONFORMANCE WITH STATE LAW A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-49, DECLARING THE PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.13 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O) 20-08, AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.13 AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE    3.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 23.5 FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL PROCESS FOR MINOR BUILDING SETBACK REDUCTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-50, DECLARING THE PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 23.5 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-09, AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 23.5 AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE   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:  9/30/20 at 5:00 p.m. by pp 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.    INSTRUCTIONS TO SPEAKERS   Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted Public Hearing. However, those items not listed as a Public Hearing are for consideration and action by the Town Council during the course of their business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. In accordance with Amendment #2 of the Mayoral Proclamation of Emergency issued on March 27, 2020, the following restrictions have been placed on all public meetings until further notice: 1. In-person attendance by members of the public is prohibited. 2. Members of the public can either watch the public meeting online https://www.orovalleyaz.gov/town/departments/town-clerk/meetings-and-agendas or, if they would like to participate in the meeting (e.g. speak at Call to Audience or speak on a Regular Agenda item), they can attend the meeting and participate via the on-line meeting application, Zoom, https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/95572587385?pwd=THVueWFQOVlSSm1YQmkwM0tBMWlTUT09, or may participate telephonically only by dialing 1-669-900-6833 then enter Meeting ID: 95572587385, then enter Passcode: 842846 prior to or during the posted meeting. 3. If a member of the public would like to speak at either Call to Audience or on a Regular Agenda item, it is highly encouraged to email your request to speak to Bluecard@orovalleyaz.gov and include your name and town/city of residence in order to provide the Mayor/Chair with advance notice so you can be called upon more efficiently during the Zoom meeting. 4. All members of the public who participate in the Zoom meeting either with video or telephonically will enter the meeting with microphones muted. For those participating via computer/tablet/phone device, you may choose whether to turn your video on or not. If you have not provided your name to speak prior to the meeting as specified in #3 above, you will have the opportunity to be recognized when you “raise your hand.” Those participating via computer/tablet/phone device can click the “raise your hand” button during the Call to the Public or Regular Agenda item, and the Chair will call on you in order, following those who submit their names in advance. For those participating by phone, you can press *9, which will show the Chair that your hand is raised. When you are recognized at the meeting by the Chair, your microphone will be unmuted by a member of staff and you will have three minutes to speak before your microphone is again muted. 5. If a member of the public would like to submit written comments to the Town Council for their consideration prior to the meeting, please email those comments to mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov no later than sixty minutes before the public meeting. Those comments will then be electronically distributed to the public body prior to the meeting. If you have questions, please contact Town Clerk, Mike Standish, at 520-229-4700 or email at mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov Thank you for your cooperation    Town Council Regular Session 1. Meeting Date:10/07/2020   Proclamation - Fire Prevention Month Subject Proclamation - Fire Prevention Month Summary Attachments Proclamation     Town Council Regular Session 2. Meeting Date:10/07/2020   Presentation by Brent DeRaad of Visit Tucson Subject Presentation and update by President/CEO Brent DeRaad of Visit Tucson Summary Attachments Presentation  Oro Valley Town Council Oct. 7, 2020 COVID-19 U.S. Travel Impacts •Jobs: 8 million travel jobs lost, 3 million back •GDP:$505 billion travel-related reduction •Taxes:$81 billion in lost travel tax revenue •Room Sold—January-August: 546 million (2020) vs. 868 million (2019): -37% •Room Revenue—January-August: $59 billion (2020) vs. $115 billion (2019): -49% Sources: U.S. Travel Association and STR, September 2020 Metro Tucson Lodging 2012 2019 *2020 •Occupancy:57%67%49% •Average Rates:$89 $115 $110 •RevPAR:$50 $77 $54 •Room Revenue:$295M $433M $198M Source: STR, 2012-20 * Reflects January-August 2020 lodging data Metro Tucson Travel—Current Status Lodging (January-August 2020) •48.7% occupancy—4th in comp set, 12th last year •$109.87 ADR—7th in comp set, 12th last year •$53.52 RevPAR—6th in comp set, 13th last year •Comp Set: Albuquerque, Austin, Colo Springs, Denver, Las Vegas, Palm Springs, Phoenix, Portland, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Fe, Scottsdale, Seattle •U.S. averages: 44.4% occupancy; $107.17 ADR; and $47.54 RevPAR Source: STR, Sept. 18, 2020 Pima County Travel Impacts-Pre-COVID-19 •$2.6 billion –annual visitor spending •25,000 –jobs •$81 million –local taxes •7.1 million –domestic overnight visitors—top feeders are Phoenix, LA, SF, Chicago and NY Sources: Dean Runyan Associates, July 2020; Longwoods International/Tourism Economics, 2020 Tourism Recovery Plan--Overview •Created in March •3 goals, 13 strategies, 122 tactics •Completed 43 tactics (35%)—mostly early recovery initiatives •55 tactics (45%) underway—longer-term programs •No progress on 24 tactics (20%)—mostly international marketing Visit Tucson’s Status •DMO: 501(c)(6); no PPP; bed-tax funding-Oro Valley, Tucson & Pima County; cut FTEs from 43 to 31. •2019-20 Revenue: $1 million cut to $9.2 million. •2020-21 Revenue: $7.5 million; $500,000 in CRF. •2021-22 Revenue: $5-$6 million; strong cash now, will use reserves, seeking new funding. Travel Sentiment •Consumer confidence is key. •Sentiment follows number of COVID-19 cases. •57% wouldn’t fully enjoy travel now. •30% confident in traveling safely, 24% somewhat confident, 46% not confident. Source: Destination Analysts, Wave 28, Sept. 21, 2020 Tucson/Southern Arizona Travel Recovery •Meetings/Sports/Events: 40-50% of our business. •Flights: TUS at 50% of last peak season’s service? •Borders: must reopen to “non-essential” travelers. •Market/Promote/Sell: fierce competition. Keep focus statewide, drive markets & cities with nonstop service to TUS. •Messaging: Wide Open Spaces; safety protocols; food. Oro Valley’s ROI •$36-to-$1 in 2019-20 ($10.8M economic impact meetings/sports) •$250,000 economic impact from ‘21 USAAS (Synchro) Senior/Junior Swimming Championships •$275,000 VT investment is roughly 20-25% of Town’s annual bed-tax revenue •Visitors typically spend more on sales taxes than bed taxes Oro Valley/Visit Tucson-Next Steps •Meetings/sports bookings •Leisure marketing •Westward Look annexation •Videos: 1) Only in Oro Valley; 2) expanded OVAC video with meet footage and interviews    Town Council Regular Session 3. Meeting Date:10/07/2020   Presentation and possible discussion of the Town's Fiscal Year 2020/21 Financial Update through July 2020 Subject Presentation and possible discussion of the Town's Fiscal Year 2020/21 Financial Update through July 2020 Summary This financial update is intended to provide an overview and status of revenues and expenditures for the Town’s selected funds through July 2020 for fiscal year 2020/21. Funds included in this financial update are the General Fund, Highway Fund and Community Center Fund. All amounts are preliminary, un-audited and subject to change based upon adjusting entries, as necessary.   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:   The Town continues to navigate the global pandemic that is shaping and significantly changing financial forecasts. The Town has begun to see the effects of this on revenues, although not to the degree that was earlier anticipated. Reserves continue to be strong and the Town is continuing to streamline operations, improve efficiencies and cut costs, all while maintaining service levels to the greatest degree possible. General Fund Overall, General Fund revenues and expenditures are trending as expected through July 2020 (See Attachment A). Revenues total $3.1 million or 7.2% of budget, while expenditures are modestly below budget at $2.5 million or 5.5% of the total budget. Due to limited data and potential economic volatility, year-end estimates largely mirror budget figures at this time.   Highway Fund Revenues and expenditures for the Highway Fund are trending as expected through July 2020 (See Attachment B). Revenues total $296,000 or 8.0% of budget while expenditures total $56,000 or 1.4% of budget. Community Center Fund Current revenues and expenditures for the Community Center Fund are largely as expected through July (See Attachment C-1 & C-2). Revenues are 6.4% of budget while expenditures are at 7.9% of budget. At this point in time, year-end estimates largely mirror budget figures.   BACKGROUND AND DETAILED INFORMATION:   GENERAL FUND Attachment A shows General Fund revenues and expenditures through July, as well as year-end estimates for each category. The estimated year-end projections in the General Fund are as follows:   Revenues:                                                                                           $43,350,386 Less: Expenditures:                                                                                      ($44,525,285)   Preliminary Estimated Decrease in Fund Balance: ($1,174,899)* *The estimated change in fund balance is primarily due to planned use of reserves to fund one-time projects and programs in FY 2020/21. General Fund Revenues Local sales tax collections in the General Fund total nearly $1.8 million or 10.2% of the budget amount of $18.1 million, and are modestly stronger than anticipated. Construction sales tax collections total $643,000 through July 2020. This figure is $126,000 or 24.3% higher than collections from July 2019. Retail collections total $647,000, which is $92,000 or 16.6% higher than July 2019 collections. However, both restaurant/bar collections as well as bed tax collections are down 10.3% and 22.4% respectively compared to July 2019 amounts. Please see Attachment E for detailed information on General Fund local sales tax collections.   License and permit revenues total $156,000 or 9.8% of the budget amount of $1.6 million, Single Family Residential (SFR) permits are a large portion of this revenue piece. For FY2020/21, the Town has budgeted 225 SFR permits. Through July, the Town has issued 28 SFR permits.   State shared revenues total $891,000 million or 6.8% of the budget amount of $13.2 million. These revenues sources are comprised of state shared sales taxes, state shared income taxes and auto-lieu fees. At this point in time, they are all forecasted to be at budgeted levels.     Charges for services revenues total $123,000 or 5.5% of the budget amount of $2.2 million. A large portion of these revenues are associated with Parks & Recreation program revenues. As anticipated, these revenues sources are currently lagging with facility closures due to COVID-19.   Note that for Federal grant revenues, the $5.3 million of AZ Cares funding allotted to Oro Valley, was received and recorded in the month of August. General Fund Expenditures General Fund expenditures are trending as expected through July 2020 and are estimated to come in near budgeted levels at this time with minor personnel and O&M savings. Departments continue to be mindful of spending, and many large one-time costs have been deferred until the Town is confident revenues can support these expenditures. The General Fund is expected to end the fiscal year with a total fund balance of $20.2 million, or 45.3% of budgeted expenditures.   HIGHWAY FUND Highway Fund Revenues State shared highway user funds total $294,000 or 8.5% of the budget amount of $3.5 million. At this point in time, these revenues are estimated to come in at budgeted levels.   State grant revenues are reimbursable costs by the RTA related to the La Cholla Road widening project.   Highway Fund Expenditures Highway Fund expenditures are currently below budget at $56,000 or 1.4% of the adopted budget of $3.9 million. This is expected as the Pavement Preservation Program does not begin until the fall.   Highway Fund expenditures are estimated to come in on budget at this time. The Highway Fund is expected to end the fiscal year with a fund balance of approximately $628,000.   COMMUNITY CENTER FUND Attachment C-1 shows the consolidated financial status of the Community Center Fund with all revenues and expenditures from contracted and Town-managed operations. Attachment C-2 shows the monthly line item detail for the contract-managed operations, specifically revenues and expenditures associated with the golf, food and beverage operations. The totals in the revenue and expenditure categories in Attachment C-2 tie to the contracted operating revenues and expenditures in Attachment C-1. Community Center Fund Revenues Revenues in the Community Center Fund through July 2020 total $456,000 or 6.4% of the budget amount of $7.1 million.   Contracted operating revenues from the new golf operator total $239,875. This is approximately $60,600 or 33.8% higher than July 2019.   Due to facility closures and issuance of refunds for various rentals and member dues, Town operating revenues for July are ($5,573).   Local sales tax revenues for July total $220,000 or 8.8% of the budget amount of $2.5 million. These collections are currently estimated to come in at budgeted levels.   Community Center Fund Expenditures Expenditures in the Community Center Fund total $540,000 or 7.9% of the budget amount of $6.9 million.   Contracted operating expenditures from the new golf operator total $363,690. Compared to July 2019, this is approximately $27,000 or 7.0% lower than July 2019. At this time, the Community Center Fund is projected to end the fiscal year nearly on budget, with an ending fund balance of $1,112,597.   Please see Attachments A and B for additional details on the General Fund and Highway Fund. See Attachments C-1 and C-2 for additional details on the Community Center Fund. See Attachment D for a fiscal year-to-date consolidated summary of all Town Funds. See Attachment E for a breakdown of monthly local sales tax collections for the General Fund. Attachments Attachment A - General Fund  Attachment B - Highway Fund  Attachment C1 - Community Center Fund  Attachment C2 - Cash Flow Statement  Attachment D - Summary All Funds  Attachment E - General Fund Sales Tax  Staff Presentation  ATTACHMENT A July YTD Financial Status General Fund % Budget Completion through July --- 8.3% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget REVENUES: LOCAL SALES TAX 1,846,071 18,128,304 10.2%18,128,304 0.0% LICENSES & PERMITS 155,577 1,592,500 9.8%1,592,500 0.0% FEDERAL GRANTS 27,528 5,790,969 0.5%5,790,969 0.0% STATE GRANTS 5,256 75,000 7.0%75,000 0.0% STATE/COUNTY SHARED 890,666 13,194,438 6.8%13,194,438 0.0% OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL - 1,672,000 0.0%1,672,000 0.0% CHARGES FOR SERVICES 123,256 2,239,675 5.5%2,239,675 0.0% FINES 10,295 125,000 8.2%125,000 0.0% INTEREST INCOME 78,434 150,000 52.3%150,000 0.0% MISCELLANEOUS 92 262,500 0.0%262,500 0.0% TRANSFERS IN - 120,000 0.0%120,000 0.0% TOTAL REVENUES 3,137,175 43,350,386 7.2%43,350,386 0.0% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget EXPENDITURES: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 313,691 5,234,433 6.0% 5,219,066 -0.3% CLERK 20,198 428,524 4.7%428,524 0.0% COMMUNITY & ECON. DEV.109,012 2,779,661 3.9%2,775,447 -0.2% COUNCIL 65,607 197,019 33.3%197,019 0.0% GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 199,494 5,251,466 3.8%5,251,466 0.0% LEGAL 28,064 870,592 3.2%870,592 0.0% MAGISTRATE COURT 30,247 864,826 3.5%864,826 0.0% MANAGER 35,605 1,028,734 3.5%999,974 -2.8% PARKS & RECREATION 143,695 3,478,517 4.1%3,473,732 -0.1% POLICE 608,541 16,956,228 3.6%16,956,228 0.0% PUBLIC WORKS 103,977 4,898,891 2.1%4,898,891 0.0% TRANSFERS OUT 815,377 2,589,520 31.5%2,589,520 0.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,473,508 44,578,411 5.5%44,525,285 -0.1% SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)663,667 (1,228,025) (1,174,899) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE **21,375,594 Plus: Surplus / (Deficit)(1,174,899) ENDING FUND BALANCE ***20,200,695 * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision ** Beginning fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision *** Ending fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision FY 2020/2021 Year End Estimate * Budget Year End Estimate * Actuals thru 07/2020 Actuals thru 07/2020 Budget ATTACHMENT B 9/28/2020 July YTD Financial Status FY 2020/2021 % Budget Completion through July --- 8.3% Actuals thru 07/2020 Budget % Actuals to Budget Year End Estimate * YE % Variance to Budget REVENUES: STATE GRANTS - 210,000 0.0%210,000 0.0% STATE/COUNTY SHARED 294,016 3,458,929 8.5%3,458,929 0.0% INTEREST INCOME 1,585 5,000 0.0%5,000 0.0% MISCELLANEOUS 100 2,000 5.0%2,000 0.0% TOTAL REVENUES 295,701 3,675,929 8.0%3,675,929 0.0% Actuals thru 07/2020 Budget % Actuals to Budget Year End Estimate * YE % Variance to Budget EXPENDITURES: TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 55,428 3,512,881 1.6%3,512,881 0.0% STREET MAINTENANCE 143 348,220 0.0%348,220 0.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 55,571 3,861,101 1.4%3,861,101 0.0% SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)240,130 (185,172) (185,172) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE **813,563 Plus: Surplus / (Deficit)(185,172) ENDING FUND BALANCE ***628,391 * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision ** Beginning fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision *** Ending fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision - Highway Fund ATTACHMENT C-1 July YTD Financial Status % Budget Completion through July --- 8.3% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget REVENUES: CONTRACTED OPERATING REVENUES Golf Revenues, Trail and Cart Fees 110,810 1,567,840 7.1%1,567,840 0.0% Member Dues 93,848 850,000 11.0%850,000 0.0% Food & Beverage 24,734 760,776 3.3%760,776 0.0% Merchandise & Other 10,483 325,933 3.2%325,933 0.0% 239,875 3,504,549 6.8%3,504,549 0.0% TOWN OPERATING REVENUES Daily Drop-Ins 295 30,000 1.0%30,000 0.0% Member Dues (1,130) 707,000 -0.2%700,000 -1.0% Recreation Programs - 160,000 0.0%150,000 -6.3% Swim Team/Swim Lessons - 8,000 0.0%8,000 0.0% Facility Rental Income (4,738) 50,500 -9.4%50,500 0.0% Concession Sales - 100 0.0%100 0.0% (5,573) 955,600 -0.6%938,600 -1.8% OTHER REVENUES Local Sales Tax 220,261 2,492,960 8.8%2,492,960 0.0% Real Property Rental Income - 19,502 0.0%19,502 0.0% Interest Income 1,221 1,000 0.0%5,000 0.0% Miscellaneous - 125,000 0.0%125,000 0.0% 221,482 2,638,462 8.4%2,642,462 0.2% TOTAL REVENUES 455,784 7,098,611 6.4%7,085,611 -0.2% % Actuals YE % Variance to Budget to Budget EXPENDITURES: CONTRACTED OPERATING EXPENDITURES Personnel 109,851 1,847,606 5.9%1,847,606 0.0% Operations & Maintenance 221,522 2,353,434 9.4%2,353,434 0.0% Equipment Leases 32,317 294,792 11.0%294,792 0.0% 363,690 4,495,832 8.1%4,495,832 0.0% TOWN OPERATING EXPENDITURES Personnel 16,526 762,713 2.2%762,713 0.0% Operations & Maintenance 1,873 216,037 0.9%216,037 0.0% 18,399 978,750 1.9%978,750 0.0% CAPITAL OUTLAY - 1,124,500 0.0%1,124,500 0.0% TRANSFERS OUT 158,302 278,302 56.9%278,302 0.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 540,391 6,877,384 7.9%6,877,384 0.0% SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)(84,607) 221,227 208,227 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE **904,370 Plus: Surplus / (Deficit)208,227 ENDING FUND BALANCE ***1,112,597 * Year-end estimates are subject to further revision ** Beginning fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision *** Ending fund balance amounts are estimates and are subject to further revision FY 2020/2021 Actuals thru 07/2020 Budget Year End Estimate * Community Center Fund Actuals thru 07/2020 Budget Year End Estimate * ATTACHMENT C-2 July 2020 Aug. 2020 Sept. 2020 Oct. 2020 Nov. 2020 Dec. 2020 Jan.2021 Feb. 2021 Mar. 2021 April 2021 May 2021 June 2021 YTD FY 2021 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget REVENUES: Green Fees 104,791 104,791 Cart Fees 18,898 18,898 Driving Range 1,644 1,644 Golf Cards/Pases (709) (709) Pro Shop Sales 11,834 11,834 Other Golf Rev.4,015 4,015 Clinic/School Rev.360 360 Monthly Dues 74,950 74,950 Misc. & Discounts (642) (642) Food & Beverage 24,734 24,734 - TOTAL REVENUES:239,875 - - - - - - - - - - - 239,875 3,504,548 COST OF SALES: Pro Shop 9,815 9,815 Food & Beverage 8,569 8,569 TOTAL COST OF SALES:18,384 - - - - - - - - - - - 18,384 413,899 GROSS INCOME:221,491 - - - - - - - - - - - 221,491 3,090,649 EXPENDITURES: Personnel 109,851 109,851 Golf Operations 5,503 5,503 G&A 30,792 30,792 Maintenance 148,148 148,148 Sales & Marketing 1,284 1,284 Food & Beverage 1,521 1,521 Golf Cart Leases 13,041 13,041 Equipment Leases 19,277 19,277 Other Expenses 12,590 12,590 Insurance - P&C 3,300 3,300 TOTAL EXPENDITURES:345,306 - - - - - - - - - - - 345,306 4,081,933 NET INCOME:(123,815) - - - - - - - - - - - (123,815) (991,284) El Conquistador Cash Flow Statement ATTACHMENT D Consolidated Year-to-Date Financial Report through July, 2020 FY 2020/2021 FY 20/21 Capital Leases/Left in Accounts Est. Begin Bal.Transfer Out Thru July 2020 General Fund 21,375,594 3,137,175 3,137,175 815,377 1,032,902 622,784 2,445 2,473,508 22,039,261 Highway Fund 813,563 295,701 295,701 49,390 6,181 55,571 1,053,693 Seizure & Forfeiture - Justice/State 244,193 79,543 79,543 22,273 3,760 26,033 297,703 Community Center Fund 904,370 455,784 455,784 190,619 126,377 223,395 540,391 819,763 Municipal Debt Service Fund 169,720 19 1,076,200 1,076,219 2,550 1,086,011 1,088,561 157,378 Oracle Road Debt Service Fund 6,841 11 11 - 6,852 Alt Water Rscs Dev Impact Fee Fund 10,202,941 - - 10,202,941 Potable Water System Dev Impact Fee Fund 6,387,569 - - 6,387,569 Water Resource System & Dev. Impact Fee Fund - 315,376 315,376 - 315,376 Townwide Roadway Dev Impact Fee Fund 2,875,534 42,672 42,672 - 2,918,206 Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Fund 792,111 25,207 25,207 - 817,318 Police Impact Fee Fund 104,969 8,853 8,853 100,000 100,000 13,822 Capital Fund 2,450,431 57,602 57,602 74,802 74,802 2,433,231 PAG/RTA Fund 382,519 2,344 2,344 - 384,863 Water Utility 16,274,740 1,153,813 3,488 1,157,301 2,521 126,274 521,697 21,453 671,945 16,760,096 Stormwater Utility 781,709 150,696 150,696 31,213 15,441 46,654 885,751 Benefit Self Insurance Fund 2,043,728 311,139 311,139 340,757 340,757 2,014,110 Recreation In-Lieu Fee Fund 16,100 25 25 - 16,125 Total 65,826,632 6,035,960 1,079,688 7,115,648 1,108,517 1,366,156 1,755,078 102,460 - 1,086,011 5,418,222 67,524,058 Total OutPersonnelO&M Capital ContingencyFundRevenueOther Fin Sources/ Tfrs Total In Debt Service ATTACHMENT E General Fund Local Sales Tax Collections FY 2020/21 CATEGORY JULY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE TOTAL Construction Sales Tax 643,435 643,435 Utility Sales Tax 267,771 267,771 Retail Sales Tax 647,068 647,068 Bed Tax 42,564 42,564 Restaurant & Bar Sales Tax 127,814 127,814 All Other Local Sales Tax *117,419 117,419 TOTAL 1,846,071$ 1,846,071$ FY 2019/20 CATEGORY JULY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE TOTAL Construction Sales Tax 517,637 462,244 615,858 617,534 412,787 459,531 281,257 380,036 315,236 504,767 492,156 511,642 5,570,685 Utility Sales Tax 234,537 311,362 320,239 325,272 244,544 210,285 218,262 264,950 224,019 198,472 192,478 226,165 2,970,585 Retail Sales Tax 555,057 542,964 524,735 491,087 630,262 661,184 892,958 582,264 553,726 630,299 560,570 634,962 7,260,068 Bed Tax 54,830 91,322 99,278 104,342 120,624 123,846 109,383 142,745 100,338 51,680 14,780 21,154 1,034,323 Restaurant & Bar Sales Tax 142,433 139,049 154,388 151,118 150,996 176,520 173,479 175,764 138,125 129,206 93,589 119,171 1,743,839 All Other Local Sales Tax *46,762 59,797 66,191 63,774 119,804 155,857 181,405 158,895 123,624 111,669 101,265 108,652 1,297,696 TOTAL 1,551,256$ 1,606,738$ 1,780,689$ 1,753,127$ 1,679,017$ 1,787,223$ 1,856,744$ 1,704,654$ 1,455,069$ 1,626,093$ 1,454,838$ 1,621,747$ 19,877,196$ * Note: Does not include cable franchise fees or sales tax audit revenues Fiscal Year 2020/21 Financial Update Through July 2020 October 7, 2020 GENERAL FUND REVENUES REVENUE SOURCE Budget Actuals Thru 07/2020 % of Budget Notes Local Sales Taxes 18,128,304$ 1,846,071$ 10.2% Trending slightly better than expected due to strong construction, retail and online collections State Shared Revenues 13,194,438 890,666 6.8%Trending as expected Charges for Services 2,239,675 123,256 5.5% Slightly below budgeted levels partially due to seasonality of revenue sources as well as facility closures Licenses & Permits 1,592,500 155,577 9.8%Trending as expected; 28 SFRs in July All Other 8,195,469 121,605 1.5% Includes grants, other intergov. revenue, transfers and misc. revenue; below budget due to timing of transfers and grant revenues received TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 43,350,386$ 3,137,175$ 7.2%Expected to end on budget at this point in time GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE CATEGORY Budget Actuals Thru 07/2020 % of Budget Notes Personnel 28,976,810$ 1,032,902$ 3.6% Slightly below budget due to personnel vacancy savings and temporary hiring freezes Operations & Maintenance 12,271,081 622,784 5.1% Slightly below budget at this time but expected to be at or near budget later in the fiscal year Capital 738,000 2,445 0.3% Below budget at this time but expected to be at budgeted levels later in the fiscal year Transfers Out 2,589,520 815,377 31.5%Trending as expected; current transfers are related to debt service payments TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 44,575,411$ 2,473,508$ 5.5%Expenses expected to end about on budget at this point in time GENERAL FUND Revenues HIGHWAY FUND State shared highway user (HURF) revenues total $294,000 for July, or 8.5% of budget Expected to come in at budgeted levels at this time Expenditures Highway Fund expenditures total $55,500, or 1.4% of budget for July Budgeted construction projects and pavement preservation will commence later in the fiscal year Expenditures expected on budget at this time HIGHWAY FUND COMMUNITY CENTER FUND Revenues Contracted revenues at 6.8%, or $240,000. Some seasonality and overall as trending as expected Town operating revenues sharply below budget due to refunds and facility closures related to COVID-19 Half-cent sales tax revenues trending as expected at $220,000 or 8.8% of budget Expenditures Contracted expenditures trending as expected at $364,000 or 8.1% of budget Town operating expenditures below budget related COVID-19 facility closures COMMUNITY CENTER FUND Questions?    Town Council Regular Session A. Meeting Date:10/07/2020   Requested by: Mike Standish Submitted By:Michelle Stine, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: Minutes - September 9, September 16 and September 23, 2020 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 9, September 16 and September 23, 2020 minutes. Attachments 9-9-20 Drat minutes  9-16-20 Draft Minutes  9-23-20 Draft Minutes  D R A F T   MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL SESSION SEPTEMBER 9, 2020 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING              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.   SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor      Melanie Barrett, Vice-Mayor      Josh Nicolson, Councilmember      Rhonda Piña, Councilmember      Bill Rodman, Councilmember      Steve Solomon, Councilmember    Absent: Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember EXECUTIVE SESSION - Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (4) and (7) regarding Town golf operations at the 9 hole El Conquistador Resort Course, including Memorandum of Understanding thereon and lease thereof    Mayor Winfield announced that the following staff members would be joining Council in the Executive Session:Town Attorney Gary Cohen, Legal Services Director Tobin Sidles, Town Manager Mary Jacobs, Assistant Town Manager Chris Cornelison and Town Clerk Mike Standish.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Josh Nicolson to go into Executve Session at 5:03 p.m. pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (4) and (7) regarding Town golf operations at the 9 hole El Conquistador Resort Course, including Memorandum of Understanding thereon and lease thereof   Vote: 6 - 0 Carried    Councilmember Jones-Ivey joined the meeting at 5:04 p.m.   RECONVENE SPECIAL SESSION    Mayor Winfield reconvened the Special Session at 6:55 p.m.   9/9/20                                Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Special Session                             1     SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.Approval of any direction to the Town Attorney and necessary staff as discussed in executive session       Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve the direction given in Executive Session to the Town Attorney and necessary staff as discussed in Executive Session.   Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Steve Solomon to adjourn the meeting at 6:58 p.m.   Vote: 7 - 0 Carried                                                                     ________________________________                                                                 Michelle Stine, MMC                                                                 Deputy Town Clerk I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the special session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 9th day of September 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of ____________________, 2020. ___________________________ Michael Standish, CMC Town Clerk 9/9/20                                Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Special Session                             2     D R A F T   MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR AND STUDY SESSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING            REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor Melanie Barrett, Vice-Mayor Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember Bill Rodman, Councilmember Steve Solomon, Councilmember Absent: Josh Nicolson, Councilmember Rhonda Piña, Councilmember EXECUTIVE SESSION - 1. Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(1) and (A)(3) Personnel matter -Town Manager's annual performance review 2. Pursuant to A.R.S §38-431.03(A)(3), (A)(4) and (A)(7) regarding potential contract negotiations pertaining to the Oro Valley Marketplace *3. Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (4) and (7) regarding Town golf operations at the 9 hole El Conquistador Resort Course, including Memorandum of Understanding thereon and lease thereof    Mayor Winfield recommended that Executive Session item #1 be rescheduled to a future Council meeting, date not specified. Mayor Winfield announced that the following staff members would be joining Council in the Executive Session: Town Attorney Gary Cohen, Legal Services Director Tobin Sidles, Town Manager Mary Jacobs, Assistant Town Manager Chris Cornelison and Town Clerk Mike Standish.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, To go into Executive Session at 5:02 p.m. Pursuant to A.R.S §38-431.03(A)(3), (A)(4) and (A)(7) regarding potential contract negotiations pertaining to the Oro Valley Marketplace and Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (4) and (7) regarding Town golf operations at the 9 hole El Conquistador Resort Course, including Memorandum of Understanding thereon and lease thereof  Vote: 5 - 0 Carried    Councilmember Nicolson joined the Zoom meeting.   RECONVENE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield reconvened the Regular Session at 6:09 p.m.   ROLL CALL    Present: Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor Melanie Barrett, Vice-Mayor Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember Josh Nicolson, Councilmember Bill Rodman, Councilmember Steve Solomon, Councilmember Absent: Rhonda Piña, 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.   COUNCIL REPORTS    No Council reports received.   TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT    Town Manager Mary Jacobs reported that the OVsafesteps was fully operational. OVsafesteps was a business assistance program that would financially benefit local businesses that were struggling during the pandemic. Citizens can visit www.ovsafesteps.com for more information.   ORDER OF BUSINESS    Mayor Winfield reviewed the order of business and stated that the order would stand as posted. Mayor Winfield provided the guidelines for participation in the Town Council's Regular and Study Session Zoom meeting.   INFORMATIONAL ITEMS    There were no Informational Items.   CALL TO AUDIENCE    No comments were received.   PRESENTATIONS   1.Proclamation - Diaper Need Awareness Week         Mayor Winfield proclaimed the week of September 21 through September 27, 2020 as Diaper Need Awareness Week. Mr. Shannon Roberts, CEO of the Diaper Bank of Southern Arizona, accepted the proclamation.   2.Presentation from Tom McKinney, CEO of Interfaith Community Services, regarding their annual food drive       Mr. Tom McKinney, CEO of Interfaith Community Services, provided an overview of their annual food drive and thanked the Town and its staff for their continued assistance.   3.Presentation and possible discussion of the Town's Fiscal Year 2019/20 Financial Update through June 2020 (year-end, unaudited)       Finance and Budget Administrator Wendy Gomez provided an update on the Town's Fiscal Year 2019/20 Financial Update through June 2020 and included the following: General Fund Revenues General Fund Sales Taxes General Fund Expenditures General Fund Highway Fund Community Center Fund   4.Presentation and recognition of the following awards received by the Town of Oro Valley: Town of Oro Valley General Plan Amendment Public Outreach 2020 Award by the Arizona Planning Association 2020 Project of the Year, in the category of Transportation Projects less than $5 million, for the Roundabout located at La Canada and Moore Road by the Arizona Public Works Association 2020 Youth Enrichment Award for the Art + STEM = STEAM program at Steam Pump Ranch by the Arizona Parks and Recreation Association       Town Manager Mary Jacobs provided a brief overview of each award and recognized key staff for their assistance with each project. Planning Division Manager Bayer Vella accepted the recognition on behalf of his staff for the 2020 Town of Oro Valley General Plan Amendment Public Outreach by the Arizona Planning Association. Public Works Director Paul Keesler accepted the recognition on behalf of staff and stakeholders for receiving the Project of the Year Award, in the category of Transportation Projects less than $5 million, for the Roundabout located at La Canada and Moore Road by the Arizona Public Works Association. Parks and Recreation Director Kristy Diaz-Trahan accepted the recognition on behalf of staff for the 2020 Youth Enrichment Award for the Art + STEM = STEAM program at Steam Pump Ranch by the Arizona Parks and Recreation Association.   CONSENT AGENDA   A.Minutes - September 2, 2020      B.Request for approval of a Final Plat for the Capella Planned Area Development, for 199 acres located west of La Cholla Boulevard between Lambert Lane and Naranja Drive, and 8.2-acres located on the northwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive      C.Request for Final Plat approval of a 48-lot residential subdivision located within the Capella Planned Area    C.Request for Final Plat approval of a 48-lot residential subdivision located within the Capella Planned Area Development, approximately 1/4 mile west of La Cholla Boulevard between Lambert Lane and Naranja Drive      D.Resolution No. (R)20-44, authorizing and approving a task force agreement between the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Town of Oro Valley for the participation of one (1) Oro Valley Police Officer in the Phoenix HIDTA Task Force      E.Resolution No. (R)20-45, authorizing and approving a task force agreement between the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Town of Oro Valley for the participation of two (2) Oro Valley police officers in the DEA Tucson Task Force      F.Approval of any direction to the Town Attorney and necessary staff as discussed in executive session       Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to approve Consent Agenda items (A) - (F).  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried   REGULAR AGENDA   1.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-47, DECLARING THE PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.10, SECTION 24.9, SECTION 27.9 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE RELATED TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-05, AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.10, SECTION 24.9, SECTION 27.9 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE       Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Resolution No. (R)20-47, declaring the proposed code amendments to the Economic Expansion Zone, Section 24.9 and other associated sections of code in Attachment 1 and filed with the Town Clerk, a public record  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried    Town Manager Mary Jacobs provided a brief overview of item #1B. Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. The following individual spoke regarding item #1B. Oro Valley resident and President and CEO of the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce Dave Perry Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #1B.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Ordinance No. (O)20-05, amending the Zoning Code Section 22.10, Section 24.9, Section 27.9 and other associated sections of the code related to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) subject to the following additional community protections, to ensure use of pre-grading is limited and sites are re-landscaped in a timely manner if necessary: Applicants for pre-grading within EEZ must demonstrate the ability to develop the subject area within five years of permit issuance by documenting how the site meets a specific potential employer need and interest in Southern Arizona. All pre-graded sites must be revegetated after five years. A one time administrative extension may be granted upon submittal of a construction contract indicating site development within two years. Mayor Winfield made a voluntary motion to amend his main motion to remove the word "construction" from the last condition. Seconded by Councilmember Jones-Ivey.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Ordinance No. (O)20-05, amending the Zoning Code Section 22.10, Section 24.9, Section 27.9 and other associated sections of the code related to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) subject to the following additional community protections, to ensure use of pre-grading is limited and sites are re-landscaped in a timely manner if necessary: Applicants for pre-grading within EEZ must demonstrate the ability to develop the subject area within five years of permit issuance by documenting how the site meets a specific potential employer need and interest in Southern Arizona. All pre-graded sites must be revegetated after five years. A one time administrative extension may be granted upon submittal of a contract indicating site development within two years.  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried    Mayor Winfield recessed the meeting at 7:58 p.m. Mayor Winfield reconvened the meeting at 8:07 p.m.   2.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO THE NOISE ABATEMENT STANDARDS, ONLY FOR NEW AND SPECIFIC LAND USE TYPES, AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE USES OF THE ZONING CODE A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-46, DECLARING THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 25.1, SECTION 31 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-07, AMENDMENTS TO THE NOISE ABATEMENT STANDARDS IN SECTION 25.1.A.3 AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE USES IN SECTION 25.1.B.6 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE       Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Resolution No. (R)20-46, declaring the proposed code amendment a public record.  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried    Planning Principal Planner Michael Spaeth presented item #2B and included the following: Purpose Part I: Noise abatement - Applicability Part I: Noise abatement - Objectives Part I: Noise abatement - What is a reasonable standard? Part I: Noise abatement - Proposed amendment Part II: Convenience use separation - Convenience uses Part II: Convenience use separation - Proposal Summary and Recommendation Town Parks Part I: Noise abatement - What is a reasonable standard? General Plan Part I: Noise Abatement - Proactive vs. Reactive Planning and Zoning Commission Part I: Noise Abatement - 40 db limit is unusable    Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. The following individual spoke regarding item #2B. Oro Valley resident Timothy Bohen Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #2B.    Vice Mayor Barrett left the Zoom meeting.    Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Ordinance No. (O)20-07, based on a finding it is in conformance with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan  Vote: 4 - 1 Carried  ABSTAIN: Councilmember Josh Nicolson    Vice Mayor Barrett rejoined the Zoom meeting.   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS    No future agenda items were requested.   ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR SESSION    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to adjourn the Regular Session at 9:17 p.m.  Vote: 5 - 1 Carried  ABSTAIN: Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett   STUDY SESSION   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the Study Session to order at 9:18 p.m.   STUDY SESSION AGENDA   1.DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 22.13 AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS UPDATING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE       Principal Planner Milini Simms presented Study Session item #1 and included the following: Purpose Background Required findings Proposed Amendment to Finding #1 Example for Finding #1 Proposed Amendment to Finding #2 Proposed Amendment to Finding #3 Proposed Amendment to Finding #4 Example for Finding #4 Finding #5 Additional Guidance Planning and Zoning Commission Summary Comparison between OV Zoning Code and State Law    Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding Study Session item #1.   2.DISCUSSION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 23.5 FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL PROCESS FOR MINOR BUILDING SETBACK REDUCTIONS       Senior Planner Hannah Oden presented Study Session item #2 and included the following: Purpose Background Key Amendment Components Proposed Amendment: Applicability and Allowances Proposed Amendment: Standards Proposed Amendment: Noticing Affected Property Owners Proposed Amendment: Opposition Proposed Amendment: Review and Appeal Process Additional Guidance Summary Planning Commission Recommendation    Oro Valley resident Tracey Alexander spoke regarding Study Session item #2. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding Study Session item #2.   ADJOURNMENT    Mayor Winfield adjourned the meeting at 9:57 p.m.     ________________________________ 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 and study session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 16th day of September 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of ____________________, 2020. ___________________________ Michael Standish, CMC Town Clerk D R A F T   MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2020 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING            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.   SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember Josh Nicolson, Councilmember Rhonda Piña, Councilmember Bill Rodman, Councilmember Steve Solomon, Councilmember Absent: Melanie Barrett, Vice-Mayor EXECUTIVE SESSION - Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (A)(4) and (A)(7) regarding Town golf operations at the 9 hole El Conquistador Resort Course, including Memorandum of Understanding thereon and lease thereof    Mayor Winfield announced that the following staff members would be joining Council in the Executive Session: Town Manager Mary Jacobs, Assistant Town Manager Chris Cornelison, Town Attorney Gary Cohen and Town Clerk Mike Standish.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Rhonda Piña to go into Executive Session at 5:02 p.m. pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (A)(4) and (A)(7) regarding Town golf operations at the 9 hole El Conquistador Resort Course, including Memorandum of Understanding thereon and lease thereof  Vote: 5 - 1 Carried  OPPOSED: Councilmember Josh Nicolson    Vice Mayor Barrett joined the Executive Session meeting.   RECONVENE SPECIAL SESSION    Mayor Winfield reconvened the Special Session at 6:17 p.m. 9/23/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Special Session 1    SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.Approval of any direction to the Town Attorney and necessary staff as discussed in executive session       Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Steve Solomon to direct the Town Manager and Town Attorney to proceed, at HSL's request, with formalizing a written modification of the February Memorandum of Understanding between the Town and HSL so that the date by which HSL exercises its Discontinued Facility Lease is extended from October 1, 2020 to January 31, 2021.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to adjourn the meeting at 6:19 p.m.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried     ________________________________ Michelle Stine, MMC Deputy Town Clerk I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the special session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 23rd day of September 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of ____________________, 2020. ___________________________ Michael Standish, CMC Town Clerk 9/23/20 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Special Session 2     Town Council Regular Session B. Meeting Date:10/07/2020   Requested by: Mayor Winfield & Councilmember Nicolson  Submitted By:Mike Standish, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R)20-48, approving a two-year extension of the Budget and Finance Commission RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Town Council established the Budget and Finance Commission at their January 9, 2019 regular Town Council meeting by adopting Resolution No. (R)19-01.  This resolution outlined the makeup and operating procedures for the commission as well as setting a sunset provision with the option to renew the commission in two years.  Should Council choose to renew the Budget and Finance Commission for an additional two years, the Town Council would have to take action prior to January 9, 2021. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: This item was requested by Mayor Winfield and Council Member Nicolson. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (approve or deny) Resolution No. (R)20-48, approving a two-year extension of the Budget and Finance Commission. Attachments (R)20-48 Renewing BFC  R19-01 Establishing the Budget and Finance Commission  RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-48 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, EXTENDING THE BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMISSION’S SUNSET PROVISION FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO YEARS; AND DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER, TOWN CLERK, TOWN LEGAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, OR THEIR DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND AGENTS TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mayor and Council adopted Resolution (R) 19-01, Establishing the Budget and Finance Commission; and WHEREAS , There is a sunset provision with an option for Mayor and Council to renew the Budget and Finance Commission for an additional two years; and WHEREAS, Mayor and Council desire to extend the Budget and Finance Commission’s sunset provision for an additional two years with the option of renewing that provision for an additional two years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, that: SECTION 1. The Budget and Finance Commission’s sunset provision is hereby extende d for an additional two years. SECTION 2. The Town Manager, 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 7th day of October, 2020. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY _____________________________ Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM : ______________________________ Michael Standish, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: Date:________________________ RESOLUTION NO.(R)19-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL ESTABLISHING A BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMISSION,AND ESTABLISHING THE TASKING AND OPERATIONS OF SAID COMMISSION BY ADOPTING THE DOCUMENT KNOWN AS THE OPERATING PROCEDURES ORO VALLEY BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMISSION" AND MAKING SUCH DOCUMENT A PUBLIC RECORD; AND DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER, TOWN CLERK,TOWN LEGAL SERVICES DIRECTOR,OR THEIR DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND AGENTS TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS RESOLUTION WHEREAS,the Mayor and Council desire to establish a Budget and Finance Commission in order to provide the elected body with external citizen advice and evaluation of key issues related to the financial operation of the Town of Oro Valley; and WHEREAS, the Budget and Finance Commission will consist of qualified individuals with a background in financial management selected by the Mayor and Council after an external recruitment of interested residents;and WHEREAS, the Town Council has identified areas in which the Budget and Commission could be of particular benefit to the elected body in the conduct of its official responsibilities relating to the short and long-term financial health of the organization by adopting the attached Operating Procedures for the Budget and Finance Commission;and WHEREAS,The Town Council desires to provide for staggered terms in the future for this new Commission. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley,Arizona as follows: Section 1. That the Town Council hereby establishes the Oro Valley Budget and Finance Commission and specifies the advisory responsibilities of said commission by adopting that certain document known as the Operating Procedures Oro Valley Budget and Finance Commission", attached as Exhibit"A,"attached hereto and declared a public record. Section 2. That initial interviews and recommendations to the Town Council of Budget and Finance Commission members shall be conducted by the Mayor and two Councilmembers of the Mayor's choosing. Subsequent Commission members shall be selected following the process specified in the Town Council's Parliamentary Rules and Procedures. Section 3. That two of the five members of the Budget and Finance Commission shall be assigned three-year initial terms established by lot drawn by the Mayor in order to provide for staggered terms after the commission's first year. Section 4.That the Town Manager, 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 5.That there be a sunset provision with the option by the Town Council to renew in two years;and PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley,Arizona this 9t"day of January,2019. TO A N OF ORO VALL ' 4rLrr______ h C. nfield,M.yor ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: AL ' --1,_Vr-(944' , r Michael Standish,Town Clerk Tobin Sidles,Legal Services Director Date: 1 /i5(N h Date: i r(5/) EXHIBIT "A" OPERATING PROCEDURES ORO VALLEY BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMISSION BE IT DIRECTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley that the Operating Procedures of the Budget and Finance Commission shall be as follows: MEMBERSHIP The Budget and Finance Commission shall be composed of five members who shall be residents of the Town. All members of the Commission shall have a background or experience in accounting,finance,banking,investments or other related business administration area. The members of the Budget and Finance Commission shall be appointed by the Town Council. Appointments shall be for a period of two years,with terms of members so staggered that the terms of no more than three members shall expire in any one year.Upon initial formation,two of the five appointments shall be for a period of three years in order to allow for staggered terms thereafter. Vacancies for any reason shall be filled by appointment by the Council for the remainder of the unexpired term. The term of all members shall extend until their successors are appointed. If a member misses three consecutive regular meetings,a letter of inquiry requesting a response shall be sent by the Town Clerk. If the response received is indicative of a continuation of frequent absences,the Budget and Finance Commission may request by a majority vote that the Town Council appoint a new person to complete the term. OFFICERS The Budget and Finance Commission shall elect a Chair and Vice-Chair from among its own members in February of each year who shall serve for a period of one year. The Chair shall preside at all meetings and exercise all the usual rights,duties and prerogatives of the head of any similar advisory body. The Vice-Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair in the absence or disability of the Chair. If both Chair and Vice-Chair are absent from a meeting,the senior member of the Committee shall preside. Vacancies in officer positions created by any cause shall be filled for the unexpired term by a new election at the next available meeting of the Commission. MEETINGS Regular meetings of the Budget and Finance Commission shall be held at the Oro Valley Town Hall on at least a quarterly basis,but can be held more frequently as determined by the Commission,at such day and time as is determined by the advisory body. Such meetings shall be duly noticed in accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes. If a quorum is not present at a regular or special meeting,such meeting will be continued to a specific day and time,or the Commission's next regular meeting. SCOPE The Budget and Finance Commission advises the Town Council on policy related issues associated with the elected body's fiduciary responsibilities,including review of the Town Manager's recommended budget,review the Town's annual financial audit,and other financial policy matters as may be tasked from time to time. The Commission may assist in the selection of the Town's independent auditor in accordance with Town procurement policies,and may also study and make recommendations to Town Council on topic-specific items as periodically requested by resolution of the Town Council or by written request of the Town Manager. POWERS AND DUTIES The Budget and Finance Commission performs the following duties: A. Review of the Town Manager's Recommended Budget and 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan On an annual basis,the Town Manager is required by ordinance to submit a recommended budget and capital plan for the fiscal year to the Town Council for consideration and final approval. Members of the Budget and Finance Commission shall be provided with a copy of the Town Manager's Recommended Budget and Capital Improvement Plan when said document is delivered to the Town Council,and shall review and submit any recommendations to the Council. B. Town's Annual Financial Audit On an annual basis,the Budget and Finance Commission shall be presented the results of the Town's financial audit performed by an independent certified public accounting firm. The Commission may make a recommendation to the Council with respect to Council acceptance of the audit. The Town Manager shall offer the Budget and Finance Commission an appropriate role in the selection of the Town's independent audit firm when these services go out to bid by the Town,all in conformance with the Town's procurement policies. C. Review Annual 5-Year Financial Forecast As part of the annual Town budget preparation cycle,the Town Council's financial policies stipulate that the Town Manager is responsible for preparing and presenting a minimum five-year financial forecast of projected revenues and expenditures.The Budget and Finance Commission shall be provided with a copy of the annual forecast at such time as the document is provided to the Town Council,and shall review and submit any comments and recommendations to the Town Council. E. Other Specific Task/Projects The Budget and Finance Commission may also study and make recommendations to Town Council on topic-specific items as requested from time to time by resolution of the Town Council or by written request of the Town Manager. AMENDMENTS These rules shall only be amended following a majority recommendation of the Budget and Finance Committee to the Town Council,which shall only become effective upon approval by the Town Council at a regular meeting. ALL OTHER PROCEDURES The Budget and Finance Commission shall follow all other Town policies and responsibilities as established by the Town Council,Town Code or Arizona Revised Statues related to advisory bodies duly established by the Oro Valley Town Council.    Town Council Regular Session C. Meeting Date:10/07/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Submitted By:Milini Simms, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 2000437 SUBJECT: Request for approval of a Final Plat for the Shannon 80 residential subdivision, located on the east side of Shannon Road and immediately south of Ironwood High School RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval, subject to the condition in Attachment 1. Final plat review is primarily an administrative function because the design was previously approved by Town Council. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this request is to consider a Final Plat for the Shannon 80 residential subdivision, located on the east side of Shannon Road and immediately south of Ironwood High School. Final Plats are legal documents used to formally subdivide the property to sell the individual lots. The proposed Final Plat (see Attachment 2) consists of 80 detached single-family residential lots on approximately 76 acres (see image to the right). The design includes one gated access from Shannon Road and conservation of 66% (50 acres) of the site as permanent open space. Protection of this open space, including preservation of Ironwood Trees and significant Saguaros, drainage and specific roadway improvements to Shannon Road and Owl Vista Place were all notable conditions of the approved rezoning. Improvements to Shannon Road and Owl Vista Place (private road) have been approved through final design review and must be completed prior to the subdivision's public opening for home sales. Per a rezoning condition (Sheet 11, General Note 13), an easement for the Owl Vista residents for maintenance and access is included on the plat. However, upon further discussions with the applicant and residents, the future Shannon 80 HOA will assume all maintenance responsibility for the drainage structures requiring off-site easements for access. Information has been added to the plat to describe this arrangement and a condition is included in Attachment 1, requiring all the agreed upon off-site easements be recorded, prior to issuance of a Type 2 grading permit. In summary, the Final Plat for the Shannon 80 subdivision meets Town requirements and conforms to the approved rezoning tentative development plan (site design). Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the condition in  Attachment 1.         BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The Final Plat for Shannon 80 (see Attachment 2) requires Town Council approval prior to being recorded with Pima County. Final plat review is primarily an administrative function because the design was previously approved by Town Council.  In 2017, the Town Council approved a Type 1 (Major) General Plan Amendment and rezoning, with an accompanying Tentative Development Plan (site design), for the Shannon 80 subdivision. There were several rezoning conditions applicable to the development, which are captured through general notes on the plat. Notable conditions include the following:   Protection of environmental resources (66% of the site) as permanent open space. The final plat includes a conservation easement and language for ongoing protection. This also includes preservation of significant Saguaros and Ironwood trees (including preserving the Saguaro near the entrance in place).  Improvements to reduce stormwater run-off and existing drainage issues on Owl Vista Place (private road). The design plans include drainage improvements on the Shannon 80 site and to Owl Vista Place. As noted on the plat, improvements to Owl Vista Place must be completed, prior to the subdivision opening for public sales.  Per the rezoning approval, an easement for maintenance of the private road and associated drainage structures must be dedicated on the plat (Sheet 11, General Note 13). This condition has been expanded upon to further establish maintenance responsibilities based on arrangements made between the applicant and residents. Notably, the Shannon 80 HOA is assuming all maintenance responsibility of the drainage structures which requires off-site easements for access. As such, an easement is provided on the plat for access and roadway surface maintenance and a condition is included in Attachment 1, requiring all agreed upon off-site easements be recorded prior to issuance of a Type 2 grading permit.  Improvements to Shannon Road were approved by staff and must be completed, prior to the subdivision's public opening for home sales. The applicant will coordinate with Town staff on the exact timing for construction. Proposed Improvements:  Approximately 76 acres subdivided into 80 single-family residential lots Minimum lot size: 8,750 s.f. Average lot size:10,064 s.f. Gated community with access from Shannon Road Maximum building height: Single-story (18' for flat roof homes and 23' for pitched-roof homes)  Approximately 50.5 acres (66%) of open space along the west and south portions of the subdivision Previous Approvals:  2017: Type 1 (Major) General Plan Amendment and Rezoning (from R1-144 to R1-36) 2020: Final site designs approved In summary, the Final Plat for the Shannon 80 subdivision conforms to the design approved during the rezoning process. Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the condition in Attachment 1.  FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (APPROVE or DENY) the Final Plat for the Shannon 80 residential subdivision, subject to the condition in Attachment 1, based on the finding that it meets Town requirements. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1- CONDITION OF APPROVAL  ATTACHMENT 2- FINAL PLAT  Shannon 80 Final Plat Condition of Approval 1. To satisfy a condition of rezoning, off-site easements for the ongoing maintenance of Owl Vista Place and associated drainage structures shall be recorded, prior to the issuance of a Type 2 Grading Permit. W LAMBERT LNN SHANNON RDW NARANJA DR N LA CHOLLA BLN LA CHOLLA BL9-16-2 0 WLB The Group        “”       9-16-2 0 WLB The Group 9-16-20 WLB The Group INDEX MAP WLB The Group 9-16-20 INDEX MAP WLB The Group 9-16-2 0 INDEX MAP WLB The Group 9-16-20 INDEX MAP WLB The Group 9-16-2 0 INDEX MAP WLB The Group 9-23-2 0 INDEX MAP 9-16-20 WLB The Group 9-16-20WLB The Group 9-22-20WLB The Group    Town Council Regular Session D. Meeting Date:10/07/2020   Submitted By:Michael Spaeth, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 2002360 SUBJECT: Request to initiate a General Plan Amendment and rezoning for the Westward Look Resort located at the Ina Road and Westward Look Drive intersection RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends initiation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to consider initiation of General Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications for the Westward Look Resort located at the Ina Road and Westward Look Drive intersection, adjacent to the Town's southern boundary (Attachment 1). The request would only waive the fees associated with both applications. The applicant is still responsible for generating the documents and studies to meet all General Plan Amendment and Rezoning requirements. Analysis of both applications will be conducted following formal submittal.  Initiation of these items does not commit Town Council final decision-making regarding the merits of the proposed changes. The merits of the proposal will be discussed, as required by State law, at a duly noticed public hearing after a formal submittal is made. Any future zoning action is dependent upon Town Council approval of the associated annexation proposal.  Staff recommends approval of the initiation request.   BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: This request is to initiate the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications for the Westward Look Resort property (Attachment 1) to accompany the anticipated annexation proposal.  In the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning pre-applications, the property owner is proposing the following:   General Plan Amendment: Low-density Residential-1 to Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO) for a portion of the site and; 1.  Rezoning from Pima County CR-1 to Planned Area Development (PAD)2. The aforementioned applications seek to enable future development for the vacant properties fronting Ina Road and apply appropriate zoning to the existing open space and resort areas of the property. Any future zoning action is dependent upon Town Council approval of the associated annexation proposal. A 2nd neighborhood meeting is scheduled for October 15th and public hearings for both applications are tentatively scheduled for December 2020 and January 2021.  The initiation will waive only the fees associated with both applications. The applicant will still be responsible for generating all associated documentation and studies to meet Town standards (e.g. Traffic, Drainage, Site Resource Inventory, etc.) and other related General Plan Amendment and Rezoning requirements. Analysis of the applications will be conducted following formal submittal. Staff recommends initiation of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to initiate the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications for the Westward Look Resort. OR I MOVE to NOT initiate the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications for the Westward Look Resort. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 - LOCATION MAP  LOCATION MAP WESTWARD LOOK RESORT (2002360) Attachment 1    Town Council Regular Session 1. Meeting Date:10/07/2020   Requested by: Mike Standish Submitted By:Michelle Stine, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR A SERIES 12 (RESTAURANT) LIQUOR LICENSE FOR THE LANDING, LOCATED AT 8195 N. ORACLE ROAD, STE #105 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this liquor license to the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control for the following reasons: 1. No protests to this license have been received.  2. The necessary background investigation was conducted by the Police Department.  3. The Police Department has no objection to the approval of the Series 12 Liquor License.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application for a new Series 12 (Restaurant) Liquor License has been submitted by Agent Thomas Robert Aguilera for The Landing, located at 8195 N. Oracle Road, #105. Mr. Aguilera has submitted all necessary paperwork to the Town of Oro Valley and the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, and has paid all related fees associated with applying for the liquor license ($500 Application Processing Fee). The Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control (DLLC), authorized by Arizona Revised Statutes Title 4, is responsible for reviewing and processing state liquor applications. After meeting the DLLC's application and review requirements, the liquor license application is sent to the jurisdiction in which it is located for a public hearing and a recommendation from the local governing body. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The restaurant (series 12) liquor license is a non-transferable, on-sale retail privileges liquor license and allows the holder of the license to sell and serve spirituous liquor solely for consumption on the premises of an establishment, which derives at least 40% of its gross revenue from the sale of food. Failure to meet the 40% food requirement shall result in revocation of the license. In accordance with Section 4-201 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, the application was posted for 20 days on the premises of the applicant's property, ending September 17, 2020. No protests were received during this time period.  Police Chief Kara Riley completed a standard background check on The Landing and Agent Thomas Robert Aguilera. Chief Riley has no objection to the approval of the Series 12 (Restaurant) License. FISCAL IMPACT: Per Ordinance No. (O)11-16, the Town of Oro Valley charges a $500 liquor license application processing fee to Per Ordinance No. (O)11-16, the Town of Oro Valley charges a $500 liquor license application processing fee to cover the costs incurred by the Town to process the application.  Per Section 8-2-6 Schedule of the Oro Valley Town Code, persons licensed by the State of Arizona to deal in spirituous liquor within the Town shall pay an annual license fee of $80 to the Town.  SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (RECOMMEND or DENY) approval of the issuance of a Series 12 Liquor License to the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control for Thomas Robert Aguilera for The Landing, located at 8195 N. Oracle Road, Ste #105.   Attachments Series 12 Description  PD Approval  Application  License Type: Series 12 Restaurant This non-transferable, on-sale retail privileges liquor license allows the holder of a restaurant license to sell and serve spirituous liquor solely for consumption on the premises of an establishment which derives at least forty percent (40%) of its gross revenue from the sale of food. Failure to meet the 40% food requirement shall result in revocation of the license. • State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control Created 08/24/2020 @ 08:25:05 AM Local Governing Body Report LICENSE Number: Name: State: Issue Date: Original Issue Date: Location: Mailing Address: Phone: Alt. Phone: Email: Type: LANDING Pending Expiration Date: 8195 N ORACLE ROAD #105 ORO VALLEY, AZ 85704 USA 2810 N SWAN ROAD #150 TUCSON, AZ 85712 USA (520)622-1557 THOMAS@AGUILERALAWGROUP.COM 012 RESTAURANT AGENT Name:THOMAS ROBERT AGUILERA Gender:Male Correspondence Address:2810 N SWAN ROAD #150 Phone: Alt. Phone: Email: TUCSON, AZ 85712 USA (520)622-1557 THOMAS@AGUILERALAWGROUP.COM OWNER AMFNDMENT Co Page I of 4    Town Council Regular Session 2. Meeting Date:10/07/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Submitted By:Milini Simms, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 2001623 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE FOR FURTHER CONFORMANCE WITH STATE LAW A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-49, DECLARING THE PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.13 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O) 20-08, AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.13 AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE  RECOMMENDATION: Item A (Attachment 1) is an administrative function. Item B (Attachment 2) was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission as a legal exercise to further align the variance findings with State law. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Item A (Attachment 1) is solely an administrative function declaring the proposed code amendment a public record. Item B: A proposed zoning code amendment to update the required findings for variance cases to further alignment with State law (Attachment 2). The proposed code amendment was discussed with Town Council during a study session on September 16, 2020 (for draft minutes, see Attachment 3). The discussion did not generate any changes to the proposed code amendment and staff clarified the variance process is available to any landowner (commercial or residential). For more information regarding the variance process, please see the study session staff report, Attachment 4. Using legal case law (Attachment 5) in unison with comparing other jurisdictions' findings (Attachment 6), the proposed code amendment adds language that is mostly verbatim with State law to clarify the following:  Finding 1: Defines a special circumstance as only applicable to the property with regard to its shape, size and topography, location and surroundings. Building configuration may also be included as a special circumstance but only when the location was a result of other conditions related to the property. For example, when the home has to be built at the rear of the lot as that is the only level area of the property.  Finding 2: Defines owners, as anyone past or present that created the special circumstance. As clarified by case law, future owners should not be in a "better" position to be granted a variance than the person who created the special circumstance. Finding 3: Clarifies the preservation of privileges and rights as only those enjoyed by other properties of the same classification and within the same zoning district Finding 4: Clarifies a variance may be subject to conditions  to ensure the granting of it does not create a special privilege. In summary, the proposed code amendment is necessary to provide guidance to applicants, staff and the Board of Adjustment for consistent application of the findings in conformance of law.  The proposed code amendment is supported by the General Plan as a legal effort to be in more alignment with State law. The code amendment was discussed with the Board of Adjustment (for minutes, see Attachment 7) and recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission (for minutes, see Attachment 8).  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The proposed code amendment (Attachment 2) is a legal effort to revise the Town's findings to further align with State law. For more information about the variance process, please see the study session staff report,  Attachment 4.  This section of code has not been updated to reflect State law in the past 15 years and the Town's findings are significantly different from those required by law. Several jurisdictions tailor the findings for consistency with their codes (Attachment 6). However, several court rulings have been issued (as recently as 2017) adding more clarity for how to apply the findings (Attachment 5) to meet the law. The Town Council discussed the proposed code amendment at a study session on September 16, 2020 (for draft minutes, see Attachment 3). The discussion did not generate any additional changes to the code amendment. As previously reported, the existing findings and proposed changes are provided below.  DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS The existing code language is provided below in italics, followed by the proposed code language (revisions are shown in bold CAPS) and staff commentary.  A variance from the provisions of this Code shall not be authorized unless the Board shall find upon sufficient evidence:  1. 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 CONSTRAINED BY THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY. Rationale:   State law defines special circumstances are only applicable to the property's size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. Court rulings have included building configuration as a special circumstance but only when it is a result of the property's size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. For example, when washes or steep slopes constrain the buildable area of a lot. The proposed language reflects this new information by adding building configuration to the list of special circumstances. 2. That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant.  Proposed: That THE special circumstances OR CONDITIONS AS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION C.1 OF THIS SECTION, were not created by A PREVIOUS OR CURRENT owner. Rationale:  State law explicitly states the same special circumstances mentioned above (finding 1) apply to this finding as well. Court rulings have clarified the "owner" includes both current and previous owners. F uture owners should not be in a "better" position to be granted a variance than the person who created the situation. To add clarity, the proposed language refers to the first finding and the owner as anyone, past or present. 3. 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.  Rationale:  Although implied, the existing code does not provide context for what constitutes a substantial property right. This is important to consider since property rights vary between areas and zoning districts. State law specifies these rights are those enjoyed by other properties with the same classification and within the same zoning district . The new language (in bold caps) is verbatim of State law. 4. 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 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.  Rationale:  As established in State law, the intent of this finding is provide jurisdictions the ability to apply conditions to make sure the granting of a variance does not result in a special privilege given to one property. For instance, granting a variance to reduce a setback with landscaping conditions to screen the new building is appropriate. To meet the intent of State law, the word "imposes" has been replaced with " is subject to," which is verbatim of the law.  5. 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 Rationale:  Although not established in State law for variance applications, this finding is legally defensible as a constitutional police power function to protect public health, safety and welfare.  GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed code amendment is supported by the General Plan as a legal effort to better align with State law.  PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, the proposed code amendment was discussed with the Board of Adjustment to gather their feedback.The Board had minimal comments and did not suggest any changes to the proposed code amendment (for minutes, see Attachment 7). Subsequently, a public hearing was held on August 11, 2020 with the Planning and Zoning Commission. During which, the Commission discussed the code amendment's alignment with State Law and recommended approval (for minutes, see Attachment 8).  PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Public Notice has been provided as follows:  All HOAs in Town were notified of this hearing Public hearing notices were posted:  In the Territorial Newspaper At Town Hall On the Town website  SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION In summary, the proposed code amendment (Attachment 2) is solely a legal effort to update the findings for variances for alignment with State law. The proposed code amendment includes the following:  Definition of a special circumstance to only apply to the property or building when its location has resulted from special property conditions  The same special circumstances apply to the first two findings  Defines owner as both past and present  Clarifies a property right as one enjoyed by property owners within the same classification and zoning district Clarifies the ability for jurisdictions to apply conditions of approval  The proposed code amendment was discussed during a study session with Town Council on September 16, 2020. The discussion did not generate any changes to the proposed code amendment and staff clarified the variance process is available to any landowner (commercial and residential). In summary, the proposed code amendment is supported by the General Plan as a legal effort to better align with State law and was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.  FISCAL IMPACT: N/A   SUGGESTED MOTION: The Town Council may want to consider the following motions: Item A: I MOVE to (APPROVE or DENY) Resolution No. (R)20-49, declaring the proposed code amendment to Section 22.13 and other associated sections of the code in Attachment 1 and filed with the Town Clerk, a public record. Item B: I MOVE to (APPROVE or DENY) Ordinance No. (O)20-08, amending the Zoning Code Section 22.13 and other associated sections to further align the variance findings with State Law.   Attachments (R)20-49 RESOLUTION  (O)20-08 ORDINANCE  ATTACHMENT 3- TC STUDY SESSION DRAFT MINUTES  ATTACHMENT 4- TC STUDY SESSION REPORT  ATTACHMENT 5- STATE LAW AND CASE SUMMARIES  ATTACHMENT 6- COMPARISON OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS  ATTACHMENT 7- BOA MINUTES 8.10.2020  ATTACHMENT 8- PZC MINUTES 8.11.2020  Staff Presentation  1 RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-49 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, DECLARING AS A PUBLIC RECORD THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT ENTITLED CHAPTER 22, REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES, SECTION 22.13, VARIANCES AND CHAPTER 31, DEFINITIONS, ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT “A” AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, that certain document entitled Chapter 22, Review and Approval Procedures, Section 22.13 Variances and Chapter 31, Definitions, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, three copies of which are on file in the O ffice of the Town Clerk, is hereby declared to be a public record, and said copies are ordered to remain on file with the Town Clerk. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 7th day of October, 2020. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM : Michael Standish, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: Date: 2 EXHIBIT “A” Code Amendment to Section 22.13 and Chapter 31 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised: Additions shown in CAPS and deletions shown with strikethrough. Section 22.13 Variances A. Application Application for a variance of zoning regulations shall be made to the BOA in the form of a written application. Said application shall be filed with the Town Clerk upon forms provided by the BOA and shall be accompanied by: 1. Plans and description sufficient to indicate the nature of the project involved and the proposed use with ground plans and elevations of all proposed buildings. 2. Evidence satisfactory to the BOA of the ability and intention of the applicant to proceed with actual construction work in accordance with said plans within six (6) months after issuance of the variance. 3. A filing fee according to the fee schedule adopted by the Town Council. The owner of a nonconforming sign shall not be required to pay a filing fee when applying fo r a variance from the ordinance that renders the sign nonconforming. 4. From the time of filing the application until the time of such hearing, the application and all maps, plans and other accompanying data shall be available for public inspection during office hours at the office of the Town Clerk. B. Hearings and Notice 3 Upon receipt in proper form of any such application, the BOA shall proceed to hold a public hearing upon said application not more than thirty (30) days, nor less than fifteen (15) day s, after such filing, at which time all persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard. Such BOA shall cause one (1) notice of such hearing to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town and one (1) notice to be posted on the subject property, giving at least fifteen (15) days’ notice of said hearing, and the time and place where said hearing will be held. Said notice, both as published and posted, shall also show the nature of the variance or exception requested and state that anyone wanting to protest may appear in person or by writing. All property owners within three hundred (300) feet must be notified. C. Findings A variance from the provisions of this Code shall not be authorized unless the Board shall find upon sufficient evidence: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including 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; and 2. That THE special circumstances OR CONDITIONS AS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION C.1 OF THIS SECTION were not created by the A PREVIOUS OR CURRENT owner or applicant; and 3. That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property PRIVILEGES AND rights ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES OF THE SAME CLASSIFICATION IN THE SAME ZONING D ISTRICT; and 4. That any variance granted imposes IS SUBJECT TO 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 vicinit y and zone in which such property is located; and 5. 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. 4 D. Action The Board shall prescribe, in connection with any variance, such conditions as the Board may deem necessary in order to fully carry out the provisions and intent of this Code. Such conditions may include, among other things, a limitation of the time for which s uch variance shall be valid. Violation of any such condition shall be a violation of this Code and such violation shall render the variance null and void. E. Review Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Board after hearing on application made by any taxpayer or municipal officer may petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Board’s decision pursuant to A.R.S. Section 9 -465 (1956) as amended. Chapter 31 Definitions Variance A modification of the literal provisions of this zoning code granted by the Board of Adjustment upon a finding that strict enforcement of the provisions would cause undue hardship owing to circumstances unique to the individual property for which the variance is granted. and not caused by the applicant for said variance. ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AMENDING CHAPTER 22, REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES, SECTION 22.13, VARIANCES AND SECTION 31, DEFINITIONS, OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONIN G CODE UPDATING THE REQUIRED FINDING FOR A VARIAN CE; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES AND RULES OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; PRESERVING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES THAT HAVE ALREADY MATURED AND PROCEEDINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEGUN THEREUNDER WHEREAS, on March 13, 1981, the Mayor and Council approved Ordinance (O)81-58, which adopted that certain document entitled “Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR); and WHEREAS, review of Section 22.13, Variances and Section 31, Definitions showed that these sections needed to be updated to align with state law; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Section 22.13, Variances and Section 31, Definitions, updates the required findings for variance cases and aligns the findings with state law ; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a mee ting on August 11, 2020 and voted to recommend approval of amending Section 22.13, Variances and Section 31, Definitions ; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council have considered the proposed amendments and the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation regarding an updating the required findings for variance cases, and finds that they are consistent with the Town's General Plan and other Town ordinances and are in the best interest of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the M ayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley that: SECTION 1. that certain document entitled Section 22.13, Variances and Section 31, Definitions, of the Oro Valley Zoning Code, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and incorporated by reference, and declared a public record on October 7th is hereby adopted. SECTION 2. All Oro Valley ordinances, resolutions or motions and parts of ordinances, resolutions or motions of the Council in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona , this 7th day of October, 2020. 2 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” Code Amendment to Section 22.13 and Chapter 31 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised: Additions shown in CAPS and deletions shown with strikethrough. Section 22.13 Variances A. Application Application for a variance of zoning regulations shall be made to the BOA in the form of a written application. Said application shall be filed with the Town Clerk upon forms provided by the BOA and shall be accompanied by: 1. Plans and description sufficient to indicate the nature of the project involved and the proposed use with ground plans and elevations of all proposed buildings. 2. Evidence satisfactory to the BOA of the ability and intention of the applicant to proceed with actual construction work in accordance with said plans within six (6) months after issuance of the variance. 3. A filing fee according to the fee schedule adopted by the Town Council. The owner of a nonconforming sign shall not be required to pay a filing fee wh en applying for a variance from the ordinance that renders the sign nonconforming. 4. From the time of filing the application until the time of such hearing, the application and all maps, plans and other accompanying data shall be available for public ins pection during office hours at the office of the Town Clerk. B. Hearings and Notice Upon receipt in proper form of any such application, the BOA shall proceed to hold a public hearing upon said application not more than thirty (30) days, nor less than fifteen (15) days, after such filing, at which time all persons s hall be given an opportunity to be heard. Such BOA shall cause one (1) 4 notice of such hearing to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town and one (1) notice to be posted on the subject property, giving at least fifteen (15) days’ noti ce of said hearing, and the time and place where said hearing will be held. Said notice, both as published and posted, shall also show the nature of the variance or exception requested and state that anyone wanting to protest may appear in person or by writing. All property owners within three hundred (300) feet must be notified. C. Findings A variance from the provisions of this Code shall not be authorized unless the Board shall find upon sufficient evidence: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including 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 INCLUD ED ONLY WHEN CONSTRAINED BY THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY; and 2. That THE special circumstances OR CONDITIONS AS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION C.1 OF THIS SECTION were not created by the A PREVIOUS OR CURRENT owner or applicant ; and 3. That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property PRIVILEGES AND rights ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES OF THE SAME CLASSIFICATION IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT; and 4. That any variance granted imposes IS SUBJECT TO 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 5. 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. D. Action The Board shall prescribe, in connection with any variance, such conditions as the Board may deem necessary in order to fully carry out the provisions and intent of this Code. Such conditions may include, among other things, a limitation of the time for which such variance shall be valid. Violation of any such condition shall be a violation of this Code and such violation shall render the variance null and void. 5 E. Review Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Board after hearing on application made by any taxpayer or municipal officer may petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Board’s decision pursuant to A.R.S. Section 9-465 (1956) as amended. Chapter 31 Definitions Variance A modification of the literal provisions of this zoning code granted by the Board of Adjustment upon a finding that strict enforcement of the provisions would cause undue hardship owing to circumstances unique to the individual property for which the variance is granted . and not caused by the applicant for said variance. D R A F T   MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR AND STUDY SESSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING            REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor Melanie Barrett, Vice-Mayor Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember Bill Rodman, Councilmember Steve Solomon, Councilmember Absent: Josh Nicolson, Councilmember Rhonda Piña, Councilmember EXECUTIVE SESSION - 1. Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(1) and (A)(3) Personnel matter -Town Manager's annual performance review 2. Pursuant to A.R.S §38-431.03(A)(3), (A)(4) and (A)(7) regarding potential contract negotiations pertaining to the Oro Valley Marketplace *3. Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (4) and (7) regarding Town golf operations at the 9 hole El Conquistador Resort Course, including Memorandum of Understanding thereon and lease thereof    Mayor Winfield recommended that Executive Session item #1 be rescheduled to a future Council meeting, date not specified. Mayor Winfield announced that the following staff members would be joining Council in the Executive Session: Town Attorney Gary Cohen, Legal Services Director Tobin Sidles, Town Manager Mary Jacobs, Assistant Town Manager Chris Cornelison and Town Clerk Mike Standish.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, To go into Executive Session at 5:02 p.m. Pursuant to A.R.S §38-431.03(A)(3), (A)(4) and (A)(7) regarding potential contract negotiations pertaining to the Oro Valley Marketplace and Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (4) and (7) regarding Town golf operations at the 9 hole El Conquistador Resort Course, including Memorandum of Understanding thereon and lease thereof  Vote: 5 - 0 Carried    Councilmember Nicolson joined the Zoom meeting.   RECONVENE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield reconvened the Regular Session at 6:09 p.m.   ROLL CALL    Present: Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor Melanie Barrett, Vice-Mayor Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember Josh Nicolson, Councilmember Bill Rodman, Councilmember Steve Solomon, Councilmember Absent: Rhonda Piña, 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.   COUNCIL REPORTS    No Council reports received.   TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT    Town Manager Mary Jacobs reported that the OVsafesteps was fully operational. OVsafesteps was a business assistance program that would financially benefit local businesses that were struggling during the pandemic. Citizens can visit www.ovsafesteps.com for more information.   ORDER OF BUSINESS    Mayor Winfield reviewed the order of business and stated that the order would stand as posted. Mayor Winfield provided the guidelines for participation in the Town Council's Regular and Study Session Zoom meeting.   INFORMATIONAL ITEMS    There were no Informational Items.   CALL TO AUDIENCE    No comments were received.   PRESENTATIONS   1.Proclamation - Diaper Need Awareness Week         Mayor Winfield proclaimed the week of September 21 through September 27, 2020 as Diaper Need Awareness Week. Mr. Shannon Roberts, CEO of the Diaper Bank of Southern Arizona, accepted the proclamation.   2.Presentation from Tom McKinney, CEO of Interfaith Community Services, regarding their annual food drive       Mr. Tom McKinney, CEO of Interfaith Community Services, provided an overview of their annual food drive and thanked the Town and its staff for their continued assistance.   3.Presentation and possible discussion of the Town's Fiscal Year 2019/20 Financial Update through June 2020 (year-end, unaudited)       Finance and Budget Administrator Wendy Gomez provided an update on the Town's Fiscal Year 2019/20 Financial Update through June 2020 and included the following: General Fund Revenues General Fund Sales Taxes General Fund Expenditures General Fund Highway Fund Community Center Fund   4.Presentation and recognition of the following awards received by the Town of Oro Valley: Town of Oro Valley General Plan Amendment Public Outreach 2020 Award by the Arizona Planning Association 2020 Project of the Year, in the category of Transportation Projects less than $5 million, for the Roundabout located at La Canada and Moore Road by the Arizona Public Works Association 2020 Youth Enrichment Award for the Art + STEM = STEAM program at Steam Pump Ranch by the Arizona Parks and Recreation Association       Town Manager Mary Jacobs provided a brief overview of each award and recognized key staff for their assistance with each project. Planning Division Manager Bayer Vella accepted the recognition on behalf of his staff for the 2020 Town of Oro Valley General Plan Amendment Public Outreach by the Arizona Planning Association. Public Works Director Paul Keesler accepted the recognition on behalf of staff and stakeholders for receiving the Project of the Year Award, in the category of Transportation Projects less than $5 million, for the Roundabout located at La Canada and Moore Road by the Arizona Public Works Association. Parks and Recreation Director Kristy Diaz-Trahan accepted the recognition on behalf of staff for the 2020 Youth Enrichment Award for the Art + STEM = STEAM program at Steam Pump Ranch by the Arizona Parks and Recreation Association.   CONSENT AGENDA   A.Minutes - September 2, 2020      B.Request for approval of a Final Plat for the Capella Planned Area Development, for 199 acres located west of La Cholla Boulevard between Lambert Lane and Naranja Drive, and 8.2-acres located on the northwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive      C.Request for Final Plat approval of a 48-lot residential subdivision located within the Capella Planned Area    C.Request for Final Plat approval of a 48-lot residential subdivision located within the Capella Planned Area Development, approximately 1/4 mile west of La Cholla Boulevard between Lambert Lane and Naranja Drive      D.Resolution No. (R)20-44, authorizing and approving a task force agreement between the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Town of Oro Valley for the participation of one (1) Oro Valley Police Officer in the Phoenix HIDTA Task Force      E.Resolution No. (R)20-45, authorizing and approving a task force agreement between the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Town of Oro Valley for the participation of two (2) Oro Valley police officers in the DEA Tucson Task Force      F.Approval of any direction to the Town Attorney and necessary staff as discussed in executive session       Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to approve Consent Agenda items (A) - (F).  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried   REGULAR AGENDA   1.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-47, DECLARING THE PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.10, SECTION 24.9, SECTION 27.9 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE RELATED TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-05, AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.10, SECTION 24.9, SECTION 27.9 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE       Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Resolution No. (R)20-47, declaring the proposed code amendments to the Economic Expansion Zone, Section 24.9 and other associated sections of code in Attachment 1 and filed with the Town Clerk, a public record  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried    Town Manager Mary Jacobs provided a brief overview of item #1B. Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. The following individual spoke regarding item #1B. Oro Valley resident and President and CEO of the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce Dave Perry Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #1B.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Ordinance No. (O)20-05, amending the Zoning Code Section 22.10, Section 24.9, Section 27.9 and other associated sections of the code related to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) subject to the following additional community protections, to ensure use of pre-grading is limited and sites are re-landscaped in a timely manner if necessary: Applicants for pre-grading within EEZ must demonstrate the ability to develop the subject area within five years of permit issuance by documenting how the site meets a specific potential employer need and interest in Southern Arizona. All pre-graded sites must be revegetated after five years. A one time administrative extension may be granted upon submittal of a construction contract indicating site development within two years. Mayor Winfield made a voluntary motion to amend his main motion to remove the word "construction" from the last condition. Seconded by Councilmember Jones-Ivey.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Ordinance No. (O)20-05, amending the Zoning Code Section 22.10, Section 24.9, Section 27.9 and other associated sections of the code related to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) subject to the following additional community protections, to ensure use of pre-grading is limited and sites are re-landscaped in a timely manner if necessary: Applicants for pre-grading within EEZ must demonstrate the ability to develop the subject area within five years of permit issuance by documenting how the site meets a specific potential employer need and interest in Southern Arizona. All pre-graded sites must be revegetated after five years. A one time administrative extension may be granted upon submittal of a contract indicating site development within two years.  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried    Mayor Winfield recessed the meeting at 7:58 p.m. Mayor Winfield reconvened the meeting at 8:07 p.m.   2.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO THE NOISE ABATEMENT STANDARDS, ONLY FOR NEW AND SPECIFIC LAND USE TYPES, AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE USES OF THE ZONING CODE A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-46, DECLARING THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 25.1, SECTION 31 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-07, AMENDMENTS TO THE NOISE ABATEMENT STANDARDS IN SECTION 25.1.A.3 AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE USES IN SECTION 25.1.B.6 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE       Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Resolution No. (R)20-46, declaring the proposed code amendment a public record.  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried    Planning Principal Planner Michael Spaeth presented item #2B and included the following: Purpose Part I: Noise abatement - Applicability Part I: Noise abatement - Objectives Part I: Noise abatement - What is a reasonable standard? Part I: Noise abatement - Proposed amendment Part II: Convenience use separation - Convenience uses Part II: Convenience use separation - Proposal Summary and Recommendation Town Parks Part I: Noise abatement - What is a reasonable standard? General Plan Part I: Noise Abatement - Proactive vs. Reactive Planning and Zoning Commission Part I: Noise Abatement - 40 db limit is unusable    Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. The following individual spoke regarding item #2B. Oro Valley resident Timothy Bohen Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #2B.    Vice Mayor Barrett left the Zoom meeting.    Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Ordinance No. (O)20-07, based on a finding it is in conformance with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan  Vote: 4 - 1 Carried  ABSTAIN: Councilmember Josh Nicolson    Vice Mayor Barrett rejoined the Zoom meeting.   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS    No future agenda items were requested.   ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR SESSION    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to adjourn the Regular Session at 9:17 p.m.  Vote: 5 - 1 Carried  ABSTAIN: Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett   STUDY SESSION   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the Study Session to order at 9:18 p.m.   STUDY SESSION AGENDA   1.DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 22.13 AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS UPDATING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE       Principal Planner Milini Simms presented Study Session item #1 and included the following: Purpose Background Required findings Proposed Amendment to Finding #1 Example for Finding #1 Proposed Amendment to Finding #2 Proposed Amendment to Finding #3 Proposed Amendment to Finding #4 Example for Finding #4 Finding #5 Additional Guidance Planning and Zoning Commission Summary Comparison between OV Zoning Code and State Law    Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding Study Session item #1.   2.DISCUSSION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 23.5 FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL PROCESS FOR MINOR BUILDING SETBACK REDUCTIONS       Senior Planner Hannah Oden presented Study Session item #2 and included the following: Purpose Background Key Amendment Components Proposed Amendment: Applicability and Allowances Proposed Amendment: Standards Proposed Amendment: Noticing Affected Property Owners Proposed Amendment: Opposition Proposed Amendment: Review and Appeal Process Additional Guidance Summary Planning Commission Recommendation    Oro Valley resident Tracey Alexander spoke regarding Study Session item #2. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding Study Session item #2.   ADJOURNMENT    Mayor Winfield adjourned the meeting at 9:57 p.m.     ________________________________ 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 and study session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 16th day of September 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of ____________________, 2020. ___________________________ Michael Standish, CMC Town Clerk Town Council Regular Session Return to the Agenda Go to the Previous Agenda Item Go to the Next Agenda Item Item # 1. Meeting Date:09/16/2020 Requested by:Bayer Vella Submitted By:Milini Simms, Community and Economic Development Case Number:2001623 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 22.13 AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS UPDATING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE RECOMMENDATION: This item is for information and discussion only. It will be scheduled for Town Council consideration at a later date. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to provide background and information about a proposed zoning code amendment to update the required findings for variance cases. This item is solely a legal effort to further align the findings with State law (Attachment 1). Applications for a variance, or modification from the zoning code requirements, are considered by the Board of Adjustment. To grant a variance, the Board of Adjustment must find the request meets all the findings established in State law and Section 22.13.C of the Zoning Code. Updates to reflect State law have not occurred in quite some time and the Town's findings are significantly different from those required by law. Most jurisdictions tailor the findings for consistency with their codes. However, several court rulings (as recent as 2017) have added clarity for how to apply the findings (Attachment 2) in conformance with the law. This makes our differences problematic as they can lead to conclusions that conflict with State law and recent case law. This has been the Town's experience with recent variance applications. Using legal case law in unison with comparing other jurisdictions' findings (Attachment 3), the proposed code amendment adds language that is mostly verbatim with State law to clarify the following: • Finding 1: Defines a special circumstance as only applicable to the property with regard to its shape, size and topography, location and surroundings. Building configuration may also be included as a special circumstance but only when the location was a result of other conditions related to the property. For example, when the home has to be built at the rear of the lot as that is the only level area of the property. • Finding 2: Defines owners, as anyone past or present that created the special circumstance. As clarified by case law, future owners should not be in a "better" position to be granted a variance than the person who created the special circumstance. • Finding 3: Clarifies the preservation of privileges and rights as only those enjoyed by other properties of the same classification and within the same zoning district • Finding 4: Clarifies a variance may be subject to conditions to ensure the granting of it does not create a special privilege. The proposed code amendment is supported by the General Plan as a legal effort to be in more alignment with State law. The code amendment was discussed with the Board of Adjustment (for minutes, see Attachment 4) and recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission (for staff report see Attachment 5 and minutes, see Attachment 6). This item is for information and discussion purposes only. It will be scheduled for Town Council consideration at a later date. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Applications for a variance, or modification from the zoning code requirements, are considered by the Board of Adjustment. To grant a variance, the Board of Adjustment must find the request meets all the findings established in State law and Section 22.13.C of the Zoning Code. This section of code has not been updated to reflect State law in the past 15 years and the Town's findings are significantly different from those required by law. Several jurisdictions tailor the findings for consistency with their codes (Attachment 3). However, several court rulings have been issued (as recently as 2017) adding more clarity for how to apply the findings (Attachment 2) to meet the law. As such, the proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) is a legal effort to revise the Town's findings to align with State law. More information on the existing findings and proposed changes is provided below. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS The existing code language is provided below in italics, followed by the proposed code language (revisions are shown in bold CAPS) and staff commentary. A variance from the provisions of this Code shall not be authorized unless the Board shall find upon sufficient evidence: 1. 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 CONSTRAINED BY THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY. • Rationale: ◦ State law defines special circumstances are only applicable to the property's size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. ◦ Court rulings have included building configuration as a special circumstance but only when it is a result of the property's size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. For example, when washes or steep slopes constrain the buildable area of a lot. ◦ The proposed language reflects this new information by adding building configuration to the list of special circumstances. 2. That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant. • Proposed: That THE special circumstances OR CONDITIONS AS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION C.1 OF THIS SECTION, were not created by A PREVIOUS OR CURRENT owner. • Rationale: ◦ State law explicitly states the same special circumstances mentioned above (finding 1) apply to this finding as well. ◦ Court rulings have clarified the "owner" includes both current and previous owners. Future owners should not be in a "better" position to be granted a variance than the person who created the situation. ◦ To add clarity, the proposed language refers to the first finding and the owner as anyone, past or present. 3. 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. • Rationale: ◦ Although implied, the existing code does not provide context for what constitutes a substantial property right. This is important to consider since property rights vary between areas and zoning districts. ◦ State law specifies these rights are those enjoyed by other properties with the same classification and within the same zoning district. ◦ The new language (in bold caps) is verbatim of State law. 4. 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 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. • Rationale: ◦ As established in State law, the intent of this finding is provide jurisdictions the ability to apply conditions to make sure the granting of a variance does not result in a special privilege given to one property. For instance, granting a variance to reduce a setback with landscaping conditions to screen the new building is appropriate. ◦ To meet the intent of State law, the word "imposes" has been replaced with " is subject to," which is verbatim of the law. 5. 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 • Rationale: ◦ Although not established in State law for variance applications, this finding is legally defensible as a constitutional police power function to protect public health, safety and welfare. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed code amendment is supported by the General Plan as a legal effort to better align with State law. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, the proposed code amendment was discussed with the Board of Adjustment to gather their feedback.The Board had minimal comments and did not suggest any changes to the proposed code amendment (for minutes, see Attachment 4). Subsequently, a public hearing was held on August 11, 2020 with the Planning and Zoning Commission (for staff report, see Attachment 5). During which, the Commission discussed the code amendment's alignment with State Law and recommended approval (for minutes, see Attachment 6). SUMMARY In summary, the proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) is solely a legal effort to update the findings for variances for alignment with State law. This specific section of code has not been updated in quite some time and the Town's findings are too divergent from State and case law. These differences can lead to conclusions on variance applications, which conflict with State and recent case law. As such, the proposed code amendment includes the following: • Definition of a special circumstance to only apply to the property or building when its location has resulted from special property conditions • The same special circumstances apply to the first two findings • Defines owner as both past and present • Clarifies a property right as one enjoyed by property owners within the same classification and zoning district • Clarifies the ability for jurisdictions to apply conditions of approval The proposed code amendment is supported by the General Plan as a legal effort to better align with State law. As such, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval. This item is being provided for information and discussion purposes only. It will be scheduled for consideration by the Town Council at a later date. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: This item is being presented for information and discussion purposes only. It will be scheduled for consideration by the Town Council at a later date. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1- PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT ATTACHMENT 2- STATE LAW AND CASE SUMMARIES ATTACHMENT 3- COMPARISON OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS ATTACHMENT 4- BOA MINUTES 8.10.2020 ATTACHMENT 5- PZC STAFF REPORT 8.11 ATTACHMENT 6- PZC DRAFT MINUTES 8.11.2020 Staff Presentation GO TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE AgendaQuick ©2005 - 2020 Destiny Software Inc. All Rights Reserved. State Law Applicable sections of Arizona Revised Statute §9-462.06 G. A board of adjustment shall: 1. 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. H. A board of adjustment may not: 2. Grant a variance if the special circumstances applicable to the property are self-imposed by the property owner. Applicable Court Rulings and Findings Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment: One of the earliest zoning cases in Arizona was Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment, 22 Ariz.App. 530, 529 P.2d 242(App. Div.2 1974). In 1973, Ivancovich requested that the Tucson Board of Adjustment grant a variance to build a third floor up to 51 feet 4 inches. Several persons who lived in the El Encanto area, which is adjacent to the shopping center, appeared at the hearing to protest granting of the variance. In addition, some sixty persons residing in El Encanto and in the area north of the shopping center, filed protests. In support of the variance Mr. Leon Levy stated that the Levy's Department Store had outgrown its space and needed to expand. As he put it, ‘A business either grows, or it dies.’ Mr. Levy told the Board that the department store then had more than 800 employees with a payroll of over 4 million dollars which made it ‘quite a sizeable industry’ in Tucson. If permitted to build a third story, he stated that Levy's would add in the next three years about 200 employees and an additional million dollars to the payroll. Furthermore, the expansion would cut down the amount of ‘outshopping’ that occurs in Tucson and keep the money in the community. In Ivancovich, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 2, held that In Arizona Boards of Adjustment cannot arbitrarily pick and choose individuals of whom it will or will not require strict compliance with the ordinance, rather, Board must find as a jurisdictional prerequisite to the granting of a variance that the situation or condition of the property in question is extraordinary and exceptional and that application of the zoning requirement would cause peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional and undue hardship. Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment, 22 Ariz.App. 530, 529 P.2d 242(App. Div.2 1974). It is important to note that the Ivancovich, Court went on to hold that it must be shown that zoning ordinances preclude the use of property in question for any purpose to which it is reasonably adapted; such a showing need not be made in the case of area variances, rather, the nature and extent of a showing that warrants an area variance must depend on facts and circumstances of the particular case. Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment, 22 Ariz.App. 530, 529 P.2d 242(App. Div.2 1974). Another important point from the Ivancovich case was that financial considerations alone cannot 1 govern action of city Board of Adjustment on application for variance; such boards are required to take a broader view than the apparent monetary distress of the owner. . Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment, 22 Ariz.App. 530, 529 P.2d 242(App. Div.2 1974). Finally, the power and authority of the Tucson Board of Adjustment to grant variance is to be exercised sparingly and under exceptional circumstances. Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment, 22 Ariz.App. 530, 529 P.2d 242(App. Div.2 1974). The conclusions to be drawn from the Ivancovich case are: 1. All of the variance criteria apply to a variance application; 2. Financial considerations are neither a special circumstance nor an undue hardship; 3. Variances are rarely the method to be used to cure building height needs; 4. Variances are supposed to be the exception, not the rule. Burns v. SPA Automotive, Ltd.: In Burns v. SPA Automotive, Ltd. 156 Ariz. 503, 753 P.2d 193 (App. Div.2 1988), SPA Automotive was a new car dealership seeking variances for a free-standing sign it wished to erect on the new premises of its Porsche–Audi dealership located on McDowell Road in Scottsdale, Arizona. SPA also planned to operate a third dealership at this location. The agreements which SPA entered into with the three automobile manufacturers prohibited the manufacturers' names and logos from being included in a single dealership name. The agreements also required SPA to display the manufacturers' logos individually. Thus, the free-standing sign had to be large enough to meaningfully display three manufacturers' logos. Burns v. SPA Automotive, Ltd. 156 Ariz. 503, 753 P.2d 193 (App. Div.2 1988). The holding in Burns, was then a simple one, “Special circumstances” or “hardship” upon which new car dealership's application for variance for free-standing sign was based were created by dealership, which entered into agreements with three automobile manufacturers prohibiting the manufacturers' names and logos from being included in a single dealership name and requiring the dealership to display the manufacturers' logos individually, and thus, dealership was not entitled to variance. Burns v. SPA Automotive, Ltd. 156 Ariz. 503, 753 P.2d 193 (App. Div.2 1988). The conclusion to be drawn from the Burns case is that Special Circumstances or Hardships that stem from a contract entered into by a property owner have nothing to do with the land and therefore cannot be considered by Arizona Boards of Adjustment. Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix: With regard to Special Circumstances applicable to the land the controlling case is Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 242 Ariz. 547, 399 P.3d 94 (2017). The Pawn 1st case concerns the standards a municipal zoning board applies in considering an application for a zoning variance. Pawn 1st, holds that to obtain an area variance, an applicant must show that strictly applying a zoning ordinance will cause “peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties” that deprive a property of privileges enjoyed by other similarly zoned properties and clarifies that the applicant’s desire to use the property for purposes allowed on other similarly zoned properties does not in itself constitute a self-imposed special circumstance justifying denial of an area variance. In the “Pawn 1st”, the Arizona Supreme Court held that an applicant or owner's selection of a property, even with knowledge that an area variance is required for an intended use allowed on other similarly 2 zoned properties, does not itself constitute a self-imposed special circumstance precluding an area variance. Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 242 Ariz. 547, 399 P.3d 94(2017). In coming to this holding the Arizona Supreme Court states that zoning statutes and local ordinances require city zoning boards of adjustment to consider special circumstances applicable to the property, not the property owner, in issuing variances. Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 242 Ariz. 547, 399 P.3d 94 (2017). However, the opposite was also determined to be true, when a city zoning board of adjustment exceeds its statutory jurisdiction and authority to issue a variance, and its decision is ultra vires and void, if it grants a variance in violation of the prohibition against self-imposition, which prohibits granting variances based on a finding of special circumstances if the circumstances are self-imposed by the property owner. Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 242 Ariz. 547, 399 P.3d 94 (2017). Power and authority of Tucson board of adjustment to grant variance is to be exercised sparingly and under exceptional circumstances. Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment (App. Div.2 1974) 22 Ariz.App. 530, 529 P.2d 242. The conclusions to be drawn from the Pawn 1st case are: 1. Selecting a property that requires a variance to allow a use allowed by the underlying zoning does not make the request for a variance a self-imposed special circumstance or hardship; 2. Once again, Special Circumstances or Hardships must be based on the condition of the land; 3. Arizona Boards of Adjustment are precluded from considering self-imposed special circumstances in their variance determinations. 3 Finding 1 Special circumstances applying to the propertyState law 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.Oro ValleyThat 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; Tucson*That, because there are special circumstances applicable to the property, strict enforcement of the UDC will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district;MaranaSpecial circumstances are inherent to the property pertaining to its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings that deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties of the same classification in the same zoning district.Sahuarita*That, 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 such property privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district such that the property cannot be reasonably developed in conformity with the zoning provision; Flagstaff*That, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of these regulations will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district.SedonaThe subject property has an exceptional shape, topography, building configuration or other exceptional site condition that is not a general condition throughout the zone district;Phoenix**There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, building, or use of the subject property which do not apply to other similar properties in the same zoning district. (Background: Special circumstances or conditions would include, for example: an unusual lot size, shape, or topography. This condition is considered a property hardship and it must be a condition relating to the property that is so unique it cannot be replicated on any other similarly zoned land in the City.) Gilbert**There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings whereby the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district; * / ** duplicate langage used1 Finding 2 Special circumstances not created by the ownerState lawA board of adjustment may not grant a variance if the special circumstances applicable to the property are self‐imposed by the property owner.Oro ValleyThat special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant; Tucson*That such special circumstances were not self‐imposed or created by the owner or one in possession of the property;Marana**The special circumstances applicable to the property may not be self‐imposed or created by the owner. Sahuarita*That such special circumstances were not self‐imposed or created by the owner or person in possession of the property; Flagstaff**The special circumstances applicable to the property are not self‐imposed by the property ownerSedonaThe applicant did not create the hardship by their own actions;PhoenixThe special circumstances or conditions described above were not created by the applicant or owner. The property hardship cannot be self‐imposed. (Background: Owners include current and previous owners) GilbertSuch special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant; */** duplicate langage used2 Finding 3Deprive of privileges enjoyed by other property ownersState lawHear 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.Oro ValleyThat the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; andTucsonThat, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, and surroundings, the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of the UDC;Marana Approval of the variance is necessary to ensure the preservation of privileges and rights enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district without constituting a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone. Sahuarita The unnecessary hardship arises from a physical condition that is unusual or peculiar to the property and is not generally caused to other properties in the zone; FlagstaffThat, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of these regulations will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district.SedonaThe strict application of the Code standards for which a variance is sought would produce undue hardship not related to purposes of convenience or financial burden;PhoenixThe authorization of a variance is necessary in order for the owner or applicant to enjoy reasonable and substantial property rights. (Background: In other words, without the granting of a variance the property cannot be reasonably used. There is no cause for a variance if the property can be used, even if it is in a manner other than that desired by the owner or applicant.) Gilbert The variance does 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; 3 Finding 4 Subject to conditionsState lawHear 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.Oro ValleyThat 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 locatedTucson*That the variance granted is subject to such 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 such property is located;MaranaNot inlcudedSahuarita*The variance granted is subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity and 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;Flagstaff*That a grant of variance will be subject to conditions as will ensure that the adjustment authorized will 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.SedonaNot includedPhoenixNot includedGilbertNot included* duplicate language4 Additional findingsState lawNot applicableOro Valley*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.That the granting of the variance shall not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located;That the proposed variance shall not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase congestion, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood; and,That the variance, if granted, is the minimum variance that will afford relief and is the least modification possible of the UDC provisions that are in question.Marana*The granting of a variance shall not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, adjacent property, or to the public welfare in general. The variance does not allow a use which is not permitted in the zone by the code; The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief; FlagstaffThe variance will not allow the establishment of a use which: (1) is not otherwise permitted in the zoning district; (2) would result in the extension of a non‐conforming use; or, (3) would change the zoning classification of any of the subject property.The variance requested does not harm the public and does not impair the intent or purposes of this Code, goals, and policies, including the specific regulation for which the variance is sought;The variance request will not violate building or fire code requirements or create a safety hazard; andPhoenix*The authorization of a variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to the adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. (Background: A variance which will not be compatible with the surrounding development or will create an adverse impact on other properties cannot be approved.)Gilbert*The variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or the public welfare in general* duplicate languageTucson*SahuaritaSedona5 Southern Arizona City of Tucson 1. That, because there are special circumstances applicable to the property, strict enforcement of the UDC will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district; 2. That such special circumstances were not self-imposed or created by the owner or one in possession of the property; 3. That the variance granted is subject to such 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 such property is located; 4. That, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, and surroundings, the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of the UDC; 5. That the granting of the variance shall not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; 6. That the proposed variance shall not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase congestion, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood; and, 7. That the variance, if granted, is the minimum variance that will afford relief and is the least modification possible of the UDC provisions that are in question. Town of Marana 1. Special circumstances are inherent to the property pertaining to its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings that deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties of the same classification in the same zoning district. 2. Approval of the variance is necessary to ensure the preservation of privileges and rights enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district without constituting a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone. 3. The special circumstances applicable to the property may not be self-imposed or created by the owner. 4. The granting of a variance shall not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, adjacent property, or to the public welfare in general. Town of Sahuarita 1. That, 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 such property privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district such that the property cannot be reasonably developed in conformity with the zoning provision; 2. That such special circumstances were not self-imposed or created by the owner or person in possession of the property; 6 3. The unnecessary hardship arises from a physical condition that is unusual or peculiar to the property and is not generally caused to other properties in the zone; 4. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief; 5. The variance granted is subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity and 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; 6. The variance does not allow a use which is not permitted in the zone by the code; 7. The variance may not be from a condition of approval by the town council. Northern Arizona City of Flagstaff 1. That, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of these regulations will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district. 2. That a grant of variance will be subject to conditions as will ensure that the adjustment authorized will 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. 3. The special circumstances applicable to the property are not self-imposed by the property owner 4. The variance will not allow the establishment of a use which: (1) is not otherwise permitted in the zoning district; (2) would result in the extension of a non-conforming use; or, (3) would change the zoning classification of any of the subject property. City of Sedona 1. The subject property has an exceptional shape, topography, building configuration or other exceptional site condition that is not a general condition throughout the zone district; 2. The strict application of the Code standards for which a variance is sought would produce undue hardship not related to purposes of convenience or financial burden; 3. The applicant did not create the hardship by their own actions; 4. The variance requested does not harm the public and does not impair the intent or purposes of this Code, goals, and policies, including the specific regulation for which the variance is sought; 5. The variance request will not violate building or fire code requirements or create a safety hazard; and 6. The requested variance is the minimum relief necessary from the subject standards of the Code. 7 Central Arizona City of Phoenix 1. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, building, or use of the subject property which do not apply to other similar properties in the same zoning district. (Background: Special circumstances or conditions would include, for example: an unusual lot size, shape, or topography. This condition is considered a property hardship and it must be a condition relating to the property that is so unique it cannot be replicated on any other similarly zoned land in the City.) 2. The special circumstances or conditions described above were not created by the applicant or owner. The property hardship cannot be self-imposed. (Background: Owners include current and previous owners) 3. The authorization of a variance is necessary in order for the owner or applicant to enjoy reasonable and substantial property rights. (Background: In other words, without the granting of a variance the property cannot be reasonably used. There is no cause for a variance if the property can be used, even if it is in a manner other than that desired by the owner or applicant.) 4. The authorization of a variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to the adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. (Background: A variance which will not be compatible with the surrounding development or will create an adverse impact on other properties cannot be approved.) Town of Gilbert 1. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings whereby the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district; 2. Such special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant; 3. The variance does 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; 4. The variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or the public welfare in general 8 Return MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL SESSION August 10, 2020 MEETING HELD VIA ZOOM SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 2:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Dankwerth called the meeting to order at 2:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Helen Dankwerth, Chair Stephen Roach, Vice Chair Octavio Barcelo, Member Mary Murphy, Member Absent: David Perkins, Member Staff Present:Milini Simms, Principal Planner Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Dankwerth recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Board and audience. CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Steve Solomon apologized for missing the last meeting as he had a conflict. He offered his support if the Board wanted to approach a State Law change regarding historical aspects as a component of potential variances. He also expressed his concerns regarding board members being contacted to possibly influence their vote on a recent variance case. SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA 1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JULY 28, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES Motion by Member Octavio Barcelo, seconded by Member Mary Murphy to approve the meeting minutes as written. A roll call vote was taken: Chair Dankwerth: Aye Vice Chair Roach: Aye Member Barcelo: Aye Member Murphy: Aye Vote: 4 - 0 Carried Other: Member David Perkins (ABSENT) 2.DISCUSSION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT UPDATING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE Principal Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Background - Proposed Amendment to Finding #1 - Example for Finding #1 - Proposed Amendment to Finding #2 - Proposed Amendment to Finding #3 - Proposed Amendment to Finding #4 - Example for Finding #4 - Finding #5 - Summary Vice Chair Roach commented how well done the presentation was and asked if a copy could be provided to the Board as a reference tool. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Member Mary Murphy, seconded by Vice Chair Stephen Roach to adjourn the meeting. A roll call vote was taken: Chair Dankwerth: Aye Vice Chair Roach: Aye Member Barcelo: Aye Member Murphy: Aye Vote: 4 - 0 Carried Other: Member David Perkins (ABSENT) Chair Dankwerth adjourned the meeting at 2:27 p.m. 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 Board of Adjustment of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 10th day of August, 2020 I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 10th day of August, 2020. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist GO TO PREVIOUS PAGE GO TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE AgendaQuick ©2005 - 2020 Destiny Software Inc. All Rights Reserved. MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL SESSION August 11, 2020 MEETING HELD VIA ZOOM            SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER Chair Gambill called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Celeste Gambill, Chair Jacob Herrington, Vice Chair Hal Bergsma, Commissioner Neal Herst, Commissioner Ellen Hong, Commissioner Skeet Posey, Commissioner Daniel Sturmon, Commissioner Staff Present:Milini Simms, Principal Planner Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney Attendees: Melanie Barrett, Town Council Liaison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Gambill recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Commission and audience.   CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests.   COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Melanie Barrett provided updates on past and upcoming Planning cases on Town Council meeting agendas. She also noted the council is on summer break during the month of August.   SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JULY 7, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES       Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Neal Herst to approve the meeting minutes for July 7, 2020 as written.    A roll call vote was taken: August 11, 2020 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes 1  A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye    Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   2.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 22.13 AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS UPDATING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE       Principal Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Background - Required Findings - Proposed Amendment to Finding #1 - Example for Finding #1 - Proposed Amendment to Finding #2 - Proposed Amendment to Finding #3 - Proposed Amendment to Finding #4 - Example for Finding #4 - Finding #5 - Additional Guidance - Summary and Recommendation Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. There were no speaker requests. Chair Gambill closed the public hearing.    Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to recommend approval of the zoning code amendment to Section 22.3 and associated sections to update the required findings for a variance for conformance with State law, subject to amending finding 1 to clarify the building as "existing".    Discussion ensued between the Commission and staff. A clarification was pointed out regarding the zoning code section number cited in the motion. Vice Chair Herrington withdrew his motion.    Motion by Commissioner Skeet Posey, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to recommend approval of the zoning code amendment to Section 22.13 and associated sections to update the required findings for a variance for conformance with State law, subject to amending finding 1 to clarify the building as "existing".    A roll call vote was taken: August 11, 2020 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes 2  A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye    Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   3.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO INITIATE A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL OF MINOR BUILDING SETBACK REDUCTIONS       Senior Planner Hannah Oden explained the need for and provided information on Agenda Item #3. Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff. Concerns raised by the Commission regarding the code amendment: - clarification on what is meant by "minor" - limit discretion for staff by making criteria clear and objective - appeal process for decisions Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. Oro Valley resident Tracey Alexander spoke in support of Agenda Item #3. Chair Gambill closed the public hearing. Further discussion ensued among the Commission and staff.    Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to initiate Zoning Code amendments to potentially allow administrative approval of minor building setback reductions.    A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Nay Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Nay Commissioner Sturmon - Aye    Vote: 5 - 2 Carried  OPPOSED: Vice Chair Jacob Herrington  Commissioner Skeet Posey   PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) August 11, 2020 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes 3 PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Principal Planner Michael Spaeth spoke about upcoming cases on the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for September 1, 2020. He noted there is an upcoming neighborhood meeting regarding the First/Tangerine area General Plan Amendment and Rezoning case. He also stated training will be scheduled for Commissioners regarding motions.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to adjourn the meeting.    Chair Gambill adjourned the meeting at 6:49 p.m.     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 Planning and Zoning Commission of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 11th day of August, 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 12th day of August, 2020. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist August 11, 2020 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes 4 Proposed Code Amendment to Update the Required Findings for Variance Requests Town Council October 7, 2020 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 Discussed during a study session with Town Council Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 2 Background and Proposed Amendment Variances are considered by the Board of Adjustment Process available to all property owners (non-residential and residential) Must meet all five findings established by State Law and the Zoning Code All findings must be legally defensible Appeals heard by AZ Superior Court Proposed amendment Legal effort to better align findings with the law Uses language verbatim of State law and incorporates case law Updates to four of the five findings 3 Review Process Board of Adjustment Presented during a study session Feedback minimal with no outstanding questions or suggestions Planning and Zoning Commission Discussed alignment with State Law Recommended for approval Town Council Study Session Applicability of variance process Discussion did not generate any changes 4 Summary and Recommendation 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 Legally necessary and provides guidance for applicants, staff and the Board of Adjustment Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 5    Town Council Regular Session 3. Meeting Date:10/07/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Submitted By:Hannah Oden, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 2001982 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 23.5 FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL PROCESS FOR MINOR BUILDING SETBACK REDUCTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-50, DECLARING THE PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 23.5 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-09, AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 23.5 AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE RECOMMENDATION: Item A (Attachment 1) is an administrative function. Item B (Attachment 2) was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the September 8, 2020 meeting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Item A (Attachment 1) is solely an administrative function declaring the proposed code amendment a public record. Item B: The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed zoning code text amendment for an administrative review and potential approval process of minor building setback reductions (Attachment 2). The proposed zoning code amendment was discussed with Town Council during a study session on September 16, 2020 (for draft minutes, see Attachment 3). This discussion did not generate any changes to the proposed code amendment, and staff clarified when this process would apply in relation to a variance. The study session staff report can be found in Attachment 4. Building setbacks are defined in the Zoning Code. Currently, any building setback reduction, no matter how minor, must be considered as a variance case by the Board of Adjustment. Variance cases require that five (5) specific legalistic findings must be satisfied per State Law and Section 21.6 of the Zoning Code, which are often very difficult to meet unless unique, special circumstances apply to a property. Even if building setback reductions are minor and have no adverse effects to surrounding properties, they are often recommended for denial because the specific legalistic findings have not been satisfied. Many jurisdictions in Arizona allow administrative relief for minor setback modifications, when warranted, based on specific criteria and limitations permitted by State Law. These jurisdictions include Scottsdale, Sedona, Flagstaff, Gilbert, Sahuarita, Pima County, and Tucson (Attachment 5). Staff is proposing a code amendment for a similar allowance in the Town's Zoning Code only when minor setback reduction requests adhere to specific criteria.  Using existing parameters of the Zoning Code and State law in unison with comparing other jurisdictions' allowances for administrative review and approval of minor setback modifications, the proposed code amendment adds language that would allow for administrative review and potential approval of setback reductions when warranted and when specific standards are met.  This proposed code amendment has several key components, which are summarized as follows:  Applies only to single family residential properties for individual homeowners, not entire subdivision developments. Applies only to setback reductions that less than 10 percent (maximum allowance by State law) and may not be reduced to closer than five (5) feet to any property line.  The application must be unopposed by affected property owners for a request to be eligible for this process. The proposed standards that must be met as part of this process are intentionally strict and requests are subject to conditions to ensure there are no negative impacts to surrounding properties. Jurisdictions in Arizona that have a process for administrative approval of setback reductions all use similar standards as part of the approval process. Provides an avenue for appeal or a variance application to the Board of Adjustment. In summary, the proposed code amendment provides a fair, balanced, and time tested process for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions, when warranted, based on specific criteria. The Board of Adjustment considered the proposed code amendment during a study session, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the amendment at the September 8, 2020 meeting. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Currently, any reduction in a building setback, no matter how minor, requires consideration as a variance subject to review and approval by the Board of Adjustment. All variance requests must meet five specific legalistic findings required by State law and Section 21.6 of the Zoning Code. These findings intentionally create a high standard and are often very difficult to meet. Even if the requests have no negative impact to surrounding properties and are minor in nature, they are often recommended for denial because the legalistic variance findings are frequently hard to satisfy.  Other jurisdictions in Arizona have provisions in their zoning codes to allow for administrative review and approval of minor setback modifications based on specific criteria without the need to go through the legal framework of a variance process. Some jurisdictions have criteria similar to the variance findings, while others have tailored the standards for a setback modification approval to their community (Attachment 5). As such, the proposed code amendment (Attachment 2) is an effort to allow a similar avenue for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions, when warranted, based on specific standards. Zoning Code amendments are considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. More information on the proposed changes is provided below.  DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Staff is proposing revising existing code language in Section 23.5.C.2.g to provide clarification and adding a new code section, Section 23.5.C.2.h, related to administrative review and potential approval of setback reduction requests. The complete code amendment can be found in Attachment 2, and a summary and discussion of the proposed changes are described below. Section 23.5.C.2.g This existing code section relates to residential setback uses. It allows for flexibility pertaining to attached features of the main home or accessory structures encroaching into a building setback when certain conditions apply. Staff is proposing modifying the language in this section slightly to provide clarification that this is a setback encroachment allowance and only pertains to specific features. It does not grant an entire building setback reduction along a property line.  The proposed change for this existing code section is minor with the purpose of providing clarification only. It does not result in any substantive change with the applicability or intent of the code.  Section 23.5.C.2.h This is a proposed new code section proposed by staff to provide an avenue for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions. The proposed amendment has several core components which are detailed below: 1. Applicability The proposed code amendment begins with an applicability section which accomplishes the following: Applies only to single family residential properties for individual homeowners, not an entire subdivision. Applies to main structures and detached accessory buildings. Does not allow for additional setback reductions if a variance or separate modification has already been approved. Does not allow for additional setback reductions or encroachment where the code already provides relief. Does not allow for a reduction in setbacks where it conflicts with a development standard that was a condition of approval from a rezoning or conceptual site plan. Rationale: This proposed code section provides clear direction on what the amendment applies to, which is main buildings and detached accessory structures on single family residential properties. It is not intended to allow for "double dipping" where setback relief has already been granted (per code or by a variance) or when specific setbacks have been determined by a condition of approval from a rezoning or conceptual site plan.  2. Standards This sections outlines specific standards that setback reduction requests must meet and includes the following:  Must be less than 10 percent front, rear, or side setback reduction to be eligible for administrative approval. Setback reductions may not be reduced to closer than five feet from a property line. Must be unopposed by affected properties for administrative approval. May not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties. Allows the Planning and Zoning Administrator to apply conditions to requests to mitigate for potential impacts and endure no special privileges are granted. Rationale: State law limits setback modifications to ten percent to be eligible for administrative approval. Staff is proposing using this limit as a standard for setback reductions as it wil meet the intent of the code amendment without being too restrictive. For instance, if a building setback is 30 feet, a setback reduction must be less than ten percent, which would result in a reduction of less than three (3) feet. This allowance would accomplish the intended flexibility of this code amendment without making it impractical by being too restrictive, and must still maintain five (5) feet from any given property line. A table is provided below to illustrate what a 10 percent setback reduction would result in, although in reality, setback reductions would be less than what is shown in the table.    Zoning District Existing Front Reduced Front  Existing Side Reduced Side  Existing Rear Reduced Rear R1-300 50'45' 20'18' 50'45' R1-144 50'45' 20'18' 50'45' R1-72 50'45' 35'31.5' 50'45' R1-43 30'27' 20'18' 40'36' R1-36 30'27' 15'13.5' 40'36' R1-20 30'27' 15'13.5' 30'27' R1-10 25'22.5' 10'9' 25'22.5' R1-7 20'18' 7.5'6.75' 20'18' Another key component of this proposed code section is that all requests must be unopposed by affected property owners to be eligible for the process. This is critical to ensure that all surrounding property owners are both properly notified and that they are not adversely impacted by the request. If there is opposition from affected property owners, this process will not apply.  Similar to a variance, this proposed code language ensures that setback reduction requests are not materially detrimental to surrounding properties and that they are subject to conditions (such as screening) to mitigate for potential negative impacts and not grant special privileges. Like other jurisdictions in Arizona (Pima County, Sahuarita, Sedona, Flagstaff, Gilbert, Scottsdale, and Tucson) who use this process, staff is proposing strict criteria that hold setback reduction requests to a high standard to ensure no adverse effects occur as a result. 3. Noticing of Directly Affected Property Owners The proposed code amendment defines directly affected property owners that must be notified by mail of a setback reduction request. This includes the following:  Property owners adjacent (close to) to the subject property or abutting (sharing a common property line) the subject property depending on the nature of the request.  Other properties deemed to be materially affected by the request as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Rationale: Directly affected property owners are those who will be most impacted by a setback reduction request. This proposed code language encompasses affected property owners as those adjacent to the subject property, which would include those both next to and near the subject property, including those across the street. If the request is for a side or rear setback reduction request, then only abutting properties are considered directly affected. Abutting properties are generally those on either side or behind the subject property, while adjacent properties would include those in front of the subject property. 4. Opposition by Affected Property Owners This proposed code amendment provides direction when opposition is received by affected property owners and includes the following:  After notices are mailed, there will be a 15-day comment period for directly affected property owners to respond. If no response in opposition is received by staff within the 15-day comment period, the application shall be considered unopposed. If written opposition is received, the Planning and Zoning Administrator may add conditions to the request and meet with the affected property owner and applicant to reach a consensus.  If opposition remains, the request must be denied. Rationale: Town staff will be responsible for noticing directly affected property owners by mail which will be accompanied by a 15-day comment period. This will ensure consistency among applications and will provide directly affected property owners the opportunity to provide comments regarding the application.  If comments in opposition are received, the proposed code language provides an avenue for opposition to be addressed, such as adding a condition. However, if opposition remains, the request must be denied as it would not satisfy the requirement for all setback reduction requests to be unopposed by affected property owners. 5. Review and Appeal Process The last component of the proposed code amendment is related to the review and appeal process and includes the following:  Provides the Planning and Zoning Administrator review and approval authority. Decision may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment and allows the applicant to apply for a variance. Rationale: A critical component of this proposed code amendment is that it provides an avenue for aggrieved parties to appeal the administrative decision to the Board of Adjustment. This is similar to the process used in other jurisdictions, and the proposed appeal process would follow the existing process in Section 22.12. Applicants also retain the ability to have their request considered by the Board of Adjustment as a variance case. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed code amendment is supported by the General Plan by providing design flexibility for residents, ensuring there are no negative impacts to affected neighbors, and providing an opportunity for directly affected neighbors to provide input on setback reduction proposals.  PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Public Notice has been provided as follows:  All HOAs in Town were notified of this hearing Public hearing notices were posted:  In the Territorial Newspaper At Town Hall On the Town website  PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, the code amendment was considered at a study session with the Board of Adjustment on August 31, 2020 (see Attachment 6 for meeting minutes). The Board was supportive of the proposed amendment and no changes to the proposed code amendment were requested by the Board. Subsequently, a public hearing was held on September 8, 2020 with the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommended approval of the proposed amendment with a condition that simply served as a housekeeping item to clarify language in the proposed amendment (see Attachment 7 for minutes). SUMMARY The proposed code amendment provides an avenue for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions. The proposed additions to the code would give property owners the ability for a minor setback reduction approval without the need to go through the extensive legal framework of a variance process, which intentionally sets high standards that are often very difficult to meet. The intent of this code amendment is to allow for flexibility, when warranted and based on specific standards, for minor setback reductions that would have no adverse impacts to the surrounding area. The proposed code amendment accomplishes the following:  Applies only to single family residential properties for individual homeowners, not entire subdivision developments. Applies only to setback reductions that are less than ten (10) percent and no closer than five feet to any property line. Requires unanimous support from affected property owners. Uses strict standards and requests are subject to conditions to ensure no negative impacts to surrounding properties.  Uses an existing avenue for appeal to the Board of Adjustment. The proposed code amendment was discussed during a Town Council study session on September 16, 2020. The discussion did not generate any changes to the proposed code amendment and staff clarified when the process would be used in relation to a variance.  In summary, this proposed Zoning Code Amendment is supported by the General Plan and provides a fair, balanced, and time tested process for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions, when warranted, based on specific criteria and was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.  FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: The Town Council may want to consider the following motions: Item A: I MOVE to (APPROVE or DENY) Resolution No. (R)20-50, declaring the proposed code amendment to Section 23.5 and other associated sections of the code in Attachment 1 and filed with the Town Clerk, a public record. Item B: I MOVE to (APPROVE or DENY) Ordinance No. (O)20-09, amending the Zoning Code Section 23.5 and other associated sections for a process for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions.  Attachments (R)20-50 RESOLUTION  Exhibit A  (O)20-09 ORDINANCE  Attachment 3: DRAFT Town Council Study Session Meeting Minutes 9.16.2020  Attachment 4: Town Council Study Session Staff Report 9.16.2020  Attachment 5: Setback Reduction Allowances in Other Jurisdictions  Attachment 6: DRAFT Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes 8.31.2020  Attachment 7: DRAFT Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 9.08.2020  Staff Presentation  C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies \easyPDF 7 \@BCL@E054AEDD\@BCL@E054AEDD.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/011211 RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, DECLARING AS A PUBLIC RECORD THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT ENTITLED CHAPTER 23, ZONING D ISTRICTS, SECTION 23.5, MEASUREMENTS AND EXCEPTIONS, ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT “A” AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, that certain document entitled Chapter 23, Zoning Districts, Section 23.5, “Measurements and Exceptions”, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, three copies of which are on file in the Office of the Town Clerk, is hereby declared to be a public record, and said copies are ordered to remain on file with the Town Clerk. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 7th day of October, 2020. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM : Michael Standish, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: Date: C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies \easyPDF 7 \@BCL@E054AEDD\@BCL@E054AEDD.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/011211 EXHIBIT “A” C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies \easyPDF 7 \@BCL@D01A4003 \@BCL@D01A4003.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/102408 3 EXHIBIT “A” Code Amendment to Section 23.5 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised: A dditions shown in CAPS and deletions shown with strikethrough. Section 23.5.C.2.g Setbacks for an attached feature of a main or accessory building, as provided in SUBSECTIONS A-F of this section, may be further reduced ENCROACHED UPON by an additional twen ty 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. SECTION 23.5.C.2.H RESIDENTIAL SETBACK REDUCTIONS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: 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 I N THE PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies \easyPDF 7 \@BCL@D01A4003 \@BCL@D01A4003.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/102408 4 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 SECTION 23.5.C.2 OF THIS CODE. G) A CHANGE TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIPLE FRONTAGE LOTS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 23.5.C.1.B OF THIS CODE. 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 (10) PERCENT TO A MAXIMUM OF FIVE (5) FEET FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE. B) REQUESTS MAY NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO DIREC TLY AFFECTED PROPERTIES INCLUDING SAFETY, VIEWS, NOISE, HEALTH, AND GENERAL WELFARE AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. 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 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: C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies \easyPDF 7 \@BCL@D01A4003 \@BCL@D01A4003.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/102408 5 A) AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF MAILING TO RESPOND; IF NO RESPONSE IN OPPOSITI ON 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 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 OF THIS CODE. C) THE APPLICANT RETAINS THE ABILITY TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 21.6.J OF THIS CODE. C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies \easyPDF 7 \@BCL@D01A4003 \@BCL@D01A4003.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/121008 ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-09 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AMENDING CHAPTER 23, ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 23.5, MEASUREMENTS AND EXCEPTIONS, OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL PROCESS FOR MINOR BUILDING SETBACK REDUCTIONS; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES AND RULES OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; PRESERVING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES THAT HAVE ALREADY MATURED AND PROCEEDINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEGUN THEREUNDER WHEREAS, on March 13, 1981, the Mayor and Council approved Ordinance (O)81-58, which adopted that certain document entitled “Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR); and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to section 23.5 allows for an administrative review and potential approval process for minor building setback reductions; and WHEREAS, currently, an building setback reduction, no matter how minor, must be considered as a variance case by the Board of Adjustment; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting on September 8, 2020 and voted to recommend approval of amending Section 23.5, Measurements and Exceptions; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council have considered the proposed amendments and the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation regarding an administrative review and potential approval process for minor building setback reductions , and finds that they are consistent with the Town's General Plan and other Town ordinances and are in the best interest of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the M ayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley that: SECTION 1. that certain document entitled Section 23.5, Measurements and Exceptions, of the Oro Valley Zoning Code, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and incorporated by reference, with additions being shown in ALL CAPS and deletions being shown in strikethrough text and declared a public record on October 7th is hereby adopted SECTION 2. All Oro Valley ordinances, resolutions or motions and parts of ordinances, resolutions or motions of the Council in conflict with the provision 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 unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies \easyPDF 7 \@BCL@D01A4003 \@BCL@D01A4003.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/102408 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona , this 7th day of October, 2020. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM : Michael Standish, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Date: Date: C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies \easyPDF 7 \@BCL@D01A4003 \@BCL@D01A4003.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/102408 3 EXHIBIT “A” Code Amendment to Section 23.5 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised: A dditions shown in CAPS and deletions shown with strikethrough. Section 23.5.C.2.g Setbacks for an attached feature of a main or accessory building, as provided in SUBSECTIONS A-F of this section, may be further reduced ENCROACHED UPON by an additional twen ty 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. SECTION 23.5.C.2.H RESIDENTIAL SETBACK REDUCTIONS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: 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 I N THE PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies \easyPDF 7 \@BCL@D01A4003 \@BCL@D01A4003.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/102408 4 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 SECTION 23.5.C.2 OF THIS CODE. G) A CHANGE TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIPLE FRONTAGE LOTS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 23.5.C.1.B OF THIS CODE. 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 (10) PERCENT TO A MAXIMUM OF FIVE (5) FEET FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE. B) REQUESTS MAY NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO DIREC TLY AFFECTED PROPERTIES INCLUDING SAFETY, VIEWS, NOISE, HEALTH, AND GENERAL WELFARE AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. 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 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: C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies \easyPDF 7 \@BCL@D01A4003 \@BCL@D01A4003.doc Town of Oro Valley Attorney’s Office/ca/102408 5 A) AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF MAILING TO RESPOND; IF NO RESPONSE IN OPPOSITI ON 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 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 OF THIS CODE. C) THE APPLICANT RETAINS THE ABILITY TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 21.6.J OF THIS CODE. D R A F T   MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR AND STUDY SESSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING            REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor Melanie Barrett, Vice-Mayor Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember Bill Rodman, Councilmember Steve Solomon, Councilmember Absent: Josh Nicolson, Councilmember Rhonda Piña, Councilmember EXECUTIVE SESSION - 1. Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(1) and (A)(3) Personnel matter -Town Manager's annual performance review 2. Pursuant to A.R.S §38-431.03(A)(3), (A)(4) and (A)(7) regarding potential contract negotiations pertaining to the Oro Valley Marketplace *3. Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (4) and (7) regarding Town golf operations at the 9 hole El Conquistador Resort Course, including Memorandum of Understanding thereon and lease thereof    Mayor Winfield recommended that Executive Session item #1 be rescheduled to a future Council meeting, date not specified. Mayor Winfield announced that the following staff members would be joining Council in the Executive Session: Town Attorney Gary Cohen, Legal Services Director Tobin Sidles, Town Manager Mary Jacobs, Assistant Town Manager Chris Cornelison and Town Clerk Mike Standish.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, To go into Executive Session at 5:02 p.m. Pursuant to A.R.S §38-431.03(A)(3), (A)(4) and (A)(7) regarding potential contract negotiations pertaining to the Oro Valley Marketplace and Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (4) and (7) regarding Town golf operations at the 9 hole El Conquistador Resort Course, including Memorandum of Understanding thereon and lease thereof  Vote: 5 - 0 Carried    Councilmember Nicolson joined the Zoom meeting.   RECONVENE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield reconvened the Regular Session at 6:09 p.m.   ROLL CALL    Present: Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor Melanie Barrett, Vice-Mayor Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember Josh Nicolson, Councilmember Bill Rodman, Councilmember Steve Solomon, Councilmember Absent: Rhonda Piña, 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.   COUNCIL REPORTS    No Council reports received.   TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT    Town Manager Mary Jacobs reported that the OVsafesteps was fully operational. OVsafesteps was a business assistance program that would financially benefit local businesses that were struggling during the pandemic. Citizens can visit www.ovsafesteps.com for more information.   ORDER OF BUSINESS    Mayor Winfield reviewed the order of business and stated that the order would stand as posted. Mayor Winfield provided the guidelines for participation in the Town Council's Regular and Study Session Zoom meeting.   INFORMATIONAL ITEMS    There were no Informational Items.   CALL TO AUDIENCE    No comments were received.   PRESENTATIONS   1.Proclamation - Diaper Need Awareness Week         Mayor Winfield proclaimed the week of September 21 through September 27, 2020 as Diaper Need Awareness Week. Mr. Shannon Roberts, CEO of the Diaper Bank of Southern Arizona, accepted the proclamation.   2.Presentation from Tom McKinney, CEO of Interfaith Community Services, regarding their annual food drive       Mr. Tom McKinney, CEO of Interfaith Community Services, provided an overview of their annual food drive and thanked the Town and its staff for their continued assistance.   3.Presentation and possible discussion of the Town's Fiscal Year 2019/20 Financial Update through June 2020 (year-end, unaudited)       Finance and Budget Administrator Wendy Gomez provided an update on the Town's Fiscal Year 2019/20 Financial Update through June 2020 and included the following: General Fund Revenues General Fund Sales Taxes General Fund Expenditures General Fund Highway Fund Community Center Fund   4.Presentation and recognition of the following awards received by the Town of Oro Valley: Town of Oro Valley General Plan Amendment Public Outreach 2020 Award by the Arizona Planning Association 2020 Project of the Year, in the category of Transportation Projects less than $5 million, for the Roundabout located at La Canada and Moore Road by the Arizona Public Works Association 2020 Youth Enrichment Award for the Art + STEM = STEAM program at Steam Pump Ranch by the Arizona Parks and Recreation Association       Town Manager Mary Jacobs provided a brief overview of each award and recognized key staff for their assistance with each project. Planning Division Manager Bayer Vella accepted the recognition on behalf of his staff for the 2020 Town of Oro Valley General Plan Amendment Public Outreach by the Arizona Planning Association. Public Works Director Paul Keesler accepted the recognition on behalf of staff and stakeholders for receiving the Project of the Year Award, in the category of Transportation Projects less than $5 million, for the Roundabout located at La Canada and Moore Road by the Arizona Public Works Association. Parks and Recreation Director Kristy Diaz-Trahan accepted the recognition on behalf of staff for the 2020 Youth Enrichment Award for the Art + STEM = STEAM program at Steam Pump Ranch by the Arizona Parks and Recreation Association.   CONSENT AGENDA   A.Minutes - September 2, 2020      B.Request for approval of a Final Plat for the Capella Planned Area Development, for 199 acres located west of La Cholla Boulevard between Lambert Lane and Naranja Drive, and 8.2-acres located on the northwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive      C.Request for Final Plat approval of a 48-lot residential subdivision located within the Capella Planned Area    C.Request for Final Plat approval of a 48-lot residential subdivision located within the Capella Planned Area Development, approximately 1/4 mile west of La Cholla Boulevard between Lambert Lane and Naranja Drive      D.Resolution No. (R)20-44, authorizing and approving a task force agreement between the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Town of Oro Valley for the participation of one (1) Oro Valley Police Officer in the Phoenix HIDTA Task Force      E.Resolution No. (R)20-45, authorizing and approving a task force agreement between the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Town of Oro Valley for the participation of two (2) Oro Valley police officers in the DEA Tucson Task Force      F.Approval of any direction to the Town Attorney and necessary staff as discussed in executive session       Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to approve Consent Agenda items (A) - (F).  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried   REGULAR AGENDA   1.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-47, DECLARING THE PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.10, SECTION 24.9, SECTION 27.9 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE RELATED TO THE ECONOMIC EXPANSION ZONE IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-05, AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 22.10, SECTION 24.9, SECTION 27.9 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE       Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Resolution No. (R)20-47, declaring the proposed code amendments to the Economic Expansion Zone, Section 24.9 and other associated sections of code in Attachment 1 and filed with the Town Clerk, a public record  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried    Town Manager Mary Jacobs provided a brief overview of item #1B. Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. The following individual spoke regarding item #1B. Oro Valley resident and President and CEO of the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce Dave Perry Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #1B.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Ordinance No. (O)20-05, amending the Zoning Code Section 22.10, Section 24.9, Section 27.9 and other associated sections of the code related to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) subject to the following additional community protections, to ensure use of pre-grading is limited and sites are re-landscaped in a timely manner if necessary: Applicants for pre-grading within EEZ must demonstrate the ability to develop the subject area within five years of permit issuance by documenting how the site meets a specific potential employer need and interest in Southern Arizona. All pre-graded sites must be revegetated after five years. A one time administrative extension may be granted upon submittal of a construction contract indicating site development within two years. Mayor Winfield made a voluntary motion to amend his main motion to remove the word "construction" from the last condition. Seconded by Councilmember Jones-Ivey.    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Ordinance No. (O)20-05, amending the Zoning Code Section 22.10, Section 24.9, Section 27.9 and other associated sections of the code related to the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) subject to the following additional community protections, to ensure use of pre-grading is limited and sites are re-landscaped in a timely manner if necessary: Applicants for pre-grading within EEZ must demonstrate the ability to develop the subject area within five years of permit issuance by documenting how the site meets a specific potential employer need and interest in Southern Arizona. All pre-graded sites must be revegetated after five years. A one time administrative extension may be granted upon submittal of a contract indicating site development within two years.  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried    Mayor Winfield recessed the meeting at 7:58 p.m. Mayor Winfield reconvened the meeting at 8:07 p.m.   2.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO THE NOISE ABATEMENT STANDARDS, ONLY FOR NEW AND SPECIFIC LAND USE TYPES, AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE USES OF THE ZONING CODE A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)20-46, DECLARING THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 25.1, SECTION 31 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)20-07, AMENDMENTS TO THE NOISE ABATEMENT STANDARDS IN SECTION 25.1.A.3 AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE USES IN SECTION 25.1.B.6 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE       Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Resolution No. (R)20-46, declaring the proposed code amendment a public record.  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried    Planning Principal Planner Michael Spaeth presented item #2B and included the following: Purpose Part I: Noise abatement - Applicability Part I: Noise abatement - Objectives Part I: Noise abatement - What is a reasonable standard? Part I: Noise abatement - Proposed amendment Part II: Convenience use separation - Convenience uses Part II: Convenience use separation - Proposal Summary and Recommendation Town Parks Part I: Noise abatement - What is a reasonable standard? General Plan Part I: Noise Abatement - Proactive vs. Reactive Planning and Zoning Commission Part I: Noise Abatement - 40 db limit is unusable    Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. The following individual spoke regarding item #2B. Oro Valley resident Timothy Bohen Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding item #2B.    Vice Mayor Barrett left the Zoom meeting.    Motion by Councilmember Bill Rodman, seconded by Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey to approve Ordinance No. (O)20-07, based on a finding it is in conformance with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan  Vote: 4 - 1 Carried  ABSTAIN: Councilmember Josh Nicolson    Vice Mayor Barrett rejoined the Zoom meeting.   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS    No future agenda items were requested.   ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR SESSION    Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Bill Rodman to adjourn the Regular Session at 9:17 p.m.  Vote: 5 - 1 Carried  ABSTAIN: Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett   STUDY SESSION   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the Study Session to order at 9:18 p.m.   STUDY SESSION AGENDA   1.DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 22.13 AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS UPDATING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE       Principal Planner Milini Simms presented Study Session item #1 and included the following: Purpose Background Required findings Proposed Amendment to Finding #1 Example for Finding #1 Proposed Amendment to Finding #2 Proposed Amendment to Finding #3 Proposed Amendment to Finding #4 Example for Finding #4 Finding #5 Additional Guidance Planning and Zoning Commission Summary Comparison between OV Zoning Code and State Law    Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding Study Session item #1.   2.DISCUSSION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 23.5 FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL PROCESS FOR MINOR BUILDING SETBACK REDUCTIONS       Senior Planner Hannah Oden presented Study Session item #2 and included the following: Purpose Background Key Amendment Components Proposed Amendment: Applicability and Allowances Proposed Amendment: Standards Proposed Amendment: Noticing Affected Property Owners Proposed Amendment: Opposition Proposed Amendment: Review and Appeal Process Additional Guidance Summary Planning Commission Recommendation    Oro Valley resident Tracey Alexander spoke regarding Study Session item #2. Discussion ensued amongst Council and staff regarding Study Session item #2.   ADJOURNMENT    Mayor Winfield adjourned the meeting at 9:57 p.m.     ________________________________ 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 and study session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 16th day of September 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this _____ day of ____________________, 2020. ___________________________ Michael Standish, CMC Town Clerk    Town Council Regular Session Item # 2. Meeting Date:09/16/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Submitted By:Hannah Oden, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 2001982 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 23.5 FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL PROCESS FOR MINOR BUILDING SETBACK REDUCTIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission will consider this item on September 8, 2020. The commission's recommendation will be reported to Town Council at the September 16, 2020 Study Session. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed zoning code text amendment for a process for administrative review and potential approval of minor building setback reductions (Attachment 1). Zoning Code amendments are considered for recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission and require action by Town Council.  Building setbacks are defined in the Zoning Code. Currently, any building setback reduction, no matter how minor, must be considered as a variance case by the Board of Adjustment. Variance cases require that five (5) specific findings must be satisfied per State Law and Section 21.6 of the Zoning Code, which are often very difficult to meet unless unique, special circumstances apply to a property. Even if building setback reductions are minor and have no adverse effects to surrounding properties, they are often recommended for denial because the specific legalistic findings have not been satisfied. Many jurisdictions in Arizona allow administrative relief for minor setback modifications, when warranted, based on specific criteria and limitations permitted by State Law. These jurisdictions include Scottsdale, Sedona, Flagstaff, Gilbert, Sahuarita, Pima County, and Tucson (Attachment 2). Staff is proposing a code amendment for a similar allowance in the Town's Zoning Code only when minor setback reduction requests adhere to specific criteria.  Using existing parameters of the Zoning Code and State Law in unison with comparing other jurisdictions' allowances for administrative review and approval of minor setback modifications, the proposed code amendment adds language that would allow for administrative review and potential approval of setback reductions when warranted and when specific standards are met.  This proposed code amendment has several key components which are summarized below:  Applies only to single family residential properties for individual homeowners, not entire subdivision developments. Applies only to setback reductions that are 10 percent or less (maximum allowance by State Law) and may not be reduced to closer than five (5) feet to any property line.  The application must be unopposed by affected property owners for a request to be eligible for this process. The proposed standards that must be met as part of this process are intentionally strict and requests are subject to conditions to ensure there are no negative impacts to surrounding properties. Jurisdictions in Arizona that have a process for administrative approval of setback properties. Jurisdictions in Arizona that have a process for administrative approval of setback reductions all use similar standards as part of the approval process. Provides an avenue for appeal or a variance application to the Board of Adjustment. In summary, the proposed code amendment provides a fair, balanced, and time tested process for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions, when warranted, based on specific criteria. The Planning and Zoning Commission will consider this item on September 8, 2020. The Commission's recommendation will be reported to Town Council at the September 16, 2020 Study Session.  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Currently, any reduction in a building setback, no matter how minor, requires consideration as a variance subject to review and approval by the Board of Adjustment. All variance requests must meet five specific findings required by State Law and Section 21.6 of the Zoning Code. These findings intentionally create a high standard and are often very difficult to meet. Even if the requests have no negative impact to surrounding properties and are minor in nature, they are often recommended for denial because the legalistic variance findings are frequently hard to satisfy.  Other jurisdictions in Arizona have provisions in their zoning codes to allow for administrative review and approval of minor setback modifications based on specific criteria without the need to go through the legal framework of a variance process. Some jurisdictions have criteria similar to the variance findings, while others have tailored the standards for a setback modification approval to their community (Attachment 2). As such, the proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) is an effort to allow a similar avenue for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions, when warranted, based on specific standards. Zoning Code amendments are considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. More information on the proposed changes is provided below.  DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Staff is proposing revising existing code language in Section 23.5.C.2.g to provide clarification and adding a new code section, Section 23.5.C.2.h, related to administrative review and potential approval of setback reduction requests. The complete code amendment can be found in Attachment 1, and a summary and discussion of the proposed changes are described below. Section 23.5.C.2.g This existing code section relates to residential setback uses. It allows for flexibility pertaining to attached features of the main home or accessory structures encroaching into a building setback when certain conditions apply. Staff is proposing modifying the language in this section slightly to provide clarification that this is a setback encroachment allowance and only pertains to specific features. It does not grant an entire building setback reduction along a property line.  The proposed change for this existing code section is minor with the purpose of providing clarification only. It does not result in any substantive change with the applicability or intent of the code.  Section 23.5.C.2.h This is a proposed new code section proposed by staff to provide an avenue for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions. The proposed amendment has several core components which are detailed below: Applicability The proposed code amendment begins with an applicability section which accomplishes the following: Applies only to single family residential properties for individual homeowners, not an entire subdivision. Applies to main structures and detached accessory buildings. Does not allow for additional setback reductions if a variance or separate modification has already been approved. Does not allow for additional setback reductions or encroachment where the code already provides relief. Does not allow for a reduction in setbacks where it conflicts with a development standard that was a condition of approval from a rezoning or conceptual site plan. Rationale: This proposed code section provides clear direction on what the amendment applies to, which is main buildings and detached accessory structures on single family residential properties. It is not intended to allow for "double dipping" where setback relief has already been granted (per code or by a variance) or when specific setbacks have been determined by a condition of approval from a rezoning or conceptual site plan.  Standards This sections outlines specific standards that setback reduction requests must meet and includes the following:  May not exceed a ten (10) percent front, rear, or side setback reduction to be eligible for administrative approval. Setback reductions may not be reduced to closer than five feet from a property line. Must be unopposed by affected properties for administrative approval. May not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties. Allows the Planning and Zoning Administrator to apply conditions to requests to mitigate for potential impacts and endure no special privileges are granted. Rationale: State law limits setback modifications to ten percent to be eligible for administrative approval. Staff is proposing using this limit as a standard for setback reductions as it wil meet the intent of the code amendment without being too restrictive. For instance, if a building setback is 30 feet, a ten percent reduction would result in 3 feet, reducing the building setback to 27 feet. This allowance would accomplish the intended flexibility of this code amendment without making it impractical by being too restrictive, and would still maintain five feet from any given property line. A table is provided below to illustrate what a ten percent setback reduction would result in.    Zoning District Existing Front Reduced Front  Existing Side Reduced Side  Existing Rear Reduced Rear R1-300 50'45' 20'18' 50'45' R1-144 50'45' 20'18' 50'45' R1-72 50'45' 35'31.5' 50'45' R1-43 30'27' 20'18' 40'36' R1-36 30'27' 15'13.5' 40'36' R1-20 30'27' 15'13.5' 30'27' R1-10 25'22.5' 10'9' 25'22.5' R1-7 20'18' 7.5'6.75' 20'18' Another key component of this proposed code section is that all requests must be unopposed by affected property owners to be eligible for the process. This is critical to ensure that all surrounding property owners are both properly notified and that they are not adversely impacted by the request. If there is opposition from affected property owners, this process will not apply.  Similar to a variance, this proposed code language ensures that setback reduction requests are not materially detrimental to surrounding properties and that they are subject to conditions (such as screening) to mitigate for potential negative impacts and not grant special privileges. Like other jurisdictions in Arizona (Pima County, Sahuarita, Sedona, Flagstaff, Gilbert, Scottsdale, Tucson) who use this process, staff is proposing strict criteria that hold setback reduction requests to a high standard to ensure no adverse effects occur as a result. Noticing of Directly Affected Property Owners The proposed code amendment defines directly affected property owners that must be notified by mail of a setback reduction request. This includes the following:  Property owners adjacent (close to) to the subject property or abutting (sharing a common property line) the subject property depending on the nature of the request.  Other properties deemed to be materially affected by the request as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Rationale: Directly affected property owners are those who will be most impacted by a setback reduction request. This proposed code language encompasses affected property owners as those adjacent to the subject property, which would include those both next to and near the subject property, including those across the street. If the request is for a side or rear setback reduction request, then only abutting properties are considered directly affected. Abutting properties are generally those on either side or behind the subject property, while adjacent properties would include those in front of the subject property. Opposition by Affected Property Owners This proposed code amendment provides direction when opposition is received by affected property owners and includes the following:  After notices are mailed, there will be a 15-day comment period for directly affected property owners to respond. If no response in opposition is received by staff within the 15-day comment period, the application shall be considered unopposed. If written opposition is received, the Planning and Zoning Administrator may add conditions to the request and meet with the affected property owner and applicant to reach a consensus.  If opposition remains, the request must be denied. Rationale: Town staff will be responsible for noticing directly affected property owners by mail which will be accompanied by a 15-day comment period. This will ensure consistency among applications and will provide directly affected property owners the opportunity to provide comments regarding the application.  If comments in opposition are received, the proposed code language provides an avenue for opposition to be addressed, such as adding a condition. However, if opposition remains, the request must be denied as it would not satisfy the requirement for all setback reduction requests to be unopposed by affected property owners. Review and Appeal Process The last component of the proposed code amendment is related to the review and appeal process and includes the following:  Provides the Planning and Zoning Administrator review and approval authority. Decision may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment and allows the applicant to apply for a variance. Rationale: A critical component of this proposed code amendment is that it provides an avenue for aggrieved parties to appeal the administrative decision to the Board of Adjustment. This is similar to the process used in other jurisdictions, and the proposed appeal process would follow the existing process in Section 22.12. Applicants also retain the ability to have their request considered by the Board of Adjustment as a variance case. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed code amendment is supported by the General Plan by providing design flexibility for residents, ensuring there are no negative impacts to affected neighbors, and providing an opportunity for directly affected neighbors to provide input on setback reduction proposals.  PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Public Notice has been provided as follows:  All HOAs in Town were notified of this hearing Public hearing notices were posted:  In the Territorial Newspaper At Town Hall On the Town website  A study session with the Board of Adjustment was held on August 31 to discuss the proposed code amendment and gather feedback. 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. Staff responded to the questions and no changes to the proposed code amendment were requested by the Board. This proposed code amendment is scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on September 8. Staff will update the Town Council about the discussion and recommendation during the study session.  SUMMARY The proposed code amendment provides an avenue for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions. The proposed additions to the code would give property owners the ability for a minor setback reduction approval without the need to go through the extensive legal framework of a variance process, which intentionally sets high standards that are often very difficult to meet. The intent of this code amendment is to allow for flexibility, when warranted and based on specific standards, for minor setback reductions that would have no adverse impacts to the surrounding area. The proposed code amendment accomplishes the following:  Applies only to single family residential properties for individual homeowners, not entire subdivision developments. Applies only to setback reductions that are ten percent or less and no less than five feet to any property line. Requires unanimous support from affected property owners. Uses strict standards and requests are subject to conditions to ensure no negative impacts to surrounding properties.  Uses an existing avenue for appeal to the Board of Adjustment. This proposed Zoning Code Amendment is supported by the General Plan and provides a fair, balanced, and time tested process for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions, when warranted, based on specific criteria. The Planning and Zoning Commission will consider this item on September 8, 2020. The Commission's recommendation will be reported to Town Council prior to the September 16, 2020 meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: This item is for information and discussion purposes only.  Attachments Attachment 1: Proposed Code Amendment  Attachment 2: Setback Reduction Allowances in Other Jurisdictions  Staff Presentation  JurisdictionSteback Modification AllowanceStandards for Setback Modification ApprovalNotice ProcedureAppeal ProcessPima CountyFront setback may not be reduced to less than 20 feet. Side and rear setbacks are subject to the disretion of the zoning inspector.Standards. The zoning inspector shall grant a modification of the setback requirements or lot coverage limits for accessory structures or accessory buildings only after a finding is made that the following standards have been met:1. The reduced setback or increased lot coverage by accessory structures or accessory buildings will not substantially reduce the amount of privacy that would be enjoyed by nearby residences;2. Significant views of prominent land forms, unusual stands of vegetation, or parks from nearby properties will not be obstructed any more than would occur if the setback was not modified or if the lot coverage limits for accessory structures or accessory buildings were maintained;3. Traffic visibility on adjoining streets will not be adversely affected;4. Drainage from proposed buildings and structures will not adversely affect adjoining properties and public rights-of-way;5. Proposed buildings and structures will not interfere with the optimum air temperature/solar radiation orientation of buildings on adjoining properties; 6. The location or lot coverage of proposed buildings and structures, and the activities to be conducted therein, will not impose objectionable noise levels or odors on adjoining properties.Notice to owners of affected properties. 1. Mailed notice including a sketch plan shall be sent to:a. Property owners adjacent to the applicant's property,b. Property owners within one hundred feet of the applicant's property line but separated by a public or private road or private common area, andc. Property owners determined by the zoning inspector to be affected by the request. The zoning inspector may waive the giving of notice if the applicant submits written consents to the modification signed by all owners of affected property as defined in paragraph 1 above.Appeals heard by the Board of Adjustment.Town of SahuaritaSubject to the discretion of the zoning administrator.Standards. The zoning administrator shall grant a modification of the setback requirements only after a finding is made that the following standards have been met: 1. The reduced setback will not substantially reduce the amount of privacy that would be enjoyed by nearby residences; 2. Significant views of prominent landforms, unusual stands of vegetation, or parks from nearby properties will not be obstructed any more than would occur if the setback were not modified; 3. Does not create a situation where proposed development will block visibility within the required visibility triangle on adjoining streets for either vehicular or pedestrian traffic;4. Drainage from proposed buildings and structures will not adversely affect adjoining properties and public rights-of-way; and5. Does not create a situation where the proposed development will cause trespass lighting or decrease solar access on adjoining properties. [Ord. 2016-107 § 1; Ord. 2015-098 § 1; Ord. 2011-048 § 1. Formerly 18.85.020.]Notice. 1. The applicant must gather signatures of the property owners of record or the authorized agent of the owner, indicating that the applicant provided notice to the owners of potentially affected properties per subsection (C)(2) of this section.a. If signatures are not obtained by the applicant, planning staff shall provide a mailed notice that includes a site plan and application to affected property owners.b. Affected property owners have 15 days after date of mailing to respond; if no response is received by town staff, the application shall continue through the review process.2. Affected property owners include:a. Property owners adjacent to the applicant’s property;b. Property owners within 100 feet of the applicant’s property line but separated by a public or private road or private common area if the application includes a front or side setback modification; andc. Property owners determined by the zoning administrator to be affected by the request.Appeals heard by the Board of Adjustment.City of Sedona25% setback reduction.A minor modification may be approved if the decision-making body finds that the modification:a. Will not create a hardship on adjacent properties;b. Is not necessitated by the applicant’s actions;c. Is subject to conditions to ensure that the modification shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zoning district in which the subject property is located;d. Will not result in adverse impacts unless adequately mitigated;e. Furthers the goals of the Sedona Community Plan or other adopted plans; and/orf. Is of a technical nature and is required to:1. Compensate for an unusual site condition; or2. Protect a sensitive resource, natural feature, or community asset.A minimum of 15 days prior to a decision on a proposed minor modification, the owners of all properties within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property shall be notified by first class mail.Appeals heard by the Board of Adjustment.City of Flagstaff5% or 2 feet, whichever is greater for a setback reduction.The Zoning Code Administrator may approve a minor modification application subject to conditions so long as the development will meet all the other standards or requirements set forth in this Zoning Code which apply to that development, and if the approval would be in compliance with the following findings:a. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including for example its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings;b. Approving a minor modification will not grant special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and the zone in which the property is located;c. The special circumstances applicable to the property are not self-imposed by any person presently having an interest in the property; andd. The requested minor modification will not allow the establishment of a use that is not otherwise permitted in the zone.N/AAppeals heard by the Board of Adjustment.Town of GilbertMaximum setback reduction of ten percent.Findings. Any administrative relief authorized by the Director will be documented with findings to be filed with the appropriate Development Services division case files. The following findings shall establish the rationale for the granting of relief: 1. Relief is necessary due to the physical attributes and conditions of the property and the proposed use or structure including, but not limited to, topography, noise exposure, irregular property boundaries, or other unusual circumstance; 2. There are no alternatives to the requested modification that could provide similar benefits with less potential detriment; Town of Gilbert Land Development Code 3-03-05 Chapter I, Article 5.3– Page 2 3. Granting the relief does not threaten the health or safety of the public or the occupants of the property or would create a change in land use or density that would be inconsistent with the requirements of this Code; 4. Granting the relief does not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the Town; 5. There are no compelling public interests that justify the denial of the requested relief or the imposition of conditions; 6. The applicant’s demonstrated need substantially outweighs any detriment to public needs and interests; and 7. If relief is being requested pursuant to the requirements of State or Federal law, the relief is necessary to reasonably accommodate the needs of an applicant pursuant to the specific requirements of State or Federal law. N/AAppeals heard by the Planning Commission. City of ScottsdaleMaximum setback reduction of ten percent.In making his or her determination, the Zoning Administrator must find that the following criteria have been met: a. That the minor amendment would continue to achieve the purpose of the underlying zoning district. b. That the minor amendment would have no or only negligible visual impact from the street or surrounding properties. c. That the minor amendment would be compatible and in character with existing buildings in the surrounding areas. d. That the minor amendment would not materially impact or limit the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties or properties in the surrounding areas. e. That the minor amendment would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. f. That the minor amendment represents the only minor amendment granted for the property. The Zoning Administrator may grant the minor amendment subject to reasonable terms and conditions to mitigate its impact on adjacent properties and the surrounding development.Within ten (10) days after the Zoning Administrator receives a complete application, the property owner shall send notice, by first class mail, of the application to the property owners within three hundred (300) feet of any lot line of the property on which the minor amendment is being requested.Appeals heard by the Board of Adjustment.City of TucsonN/AFor all modification requests, the PDSD Director may approve a DDO request only if the request meets all of the following findings: a. Is not a request previously denied as a variance;b. Does not modify a conditional requirement or finding to determine whether the use should be allowed in the zone;c. Is not to a condition of approval for a rezoning or Special Exception Land Use application;d. Does not modify a requirement of an overlay zone, such as, but not limited to, Scenic Corridor, Environmental Resource, Major Streets and Routes Setback, or Airport Environs;e. Does not result in deletion or waiver of a UDC requirement;f. The modification applies to property that cannot be developed in conformity with the provisions of this Chapter due to physical circumstances or conditions of the property, such as irregular shape, narrowness of lot, exceptional topographic conditions, or location.g. Does not create a situation where proposed development substantially reduces the amount of privacy that would be enjoyed by nearby residents any more than would be available if the development was built without the modification;h. Does not create a situation where proposed development will block visibility within the required visibility triangle on adjoining streets for either vehicular or pedestrian traffic;i. Does not create a situation where the proposed development will cause objectionable noise, odors, trespass lighting, or similar adverse impacts adjacent properties or development; andj. Does not create a situation where the development will result in an increase in the number of residential dwelling units or the square footage of nonresidential buildings greater than would occur if the development was built without the modification.The affected parties include: owners of real property within fifty (50') feet of the project site boundaries; representatives of the registered NeighborhoodAssociation in whose boundaries the site is located; and, the Council Office in whose Ward thesite is located.Upon accepting the application, the City will send a “Notice of Zoning Application” to affectedparties as identified above.Appeals heard by the Board of Adjustment. D R A F T MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL SESSION August 31, 2020 MEETING HELD VIA ZOOM            SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 3:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER Chair Dankwerth called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Helen Dankwerth, Chair Stephen Roach, Vice Chair Octavio Barcelo, Member Mary Murphy, Member Staff Present:Milini Simms, Principal Planner Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney Attendees: Steve Solomon, Town Council Liaison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Dankwerth recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Board and audience.   CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests.   COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Steve Solomon thanked Member Perkins for his service and stated that he looks forward to working with the new board member when selected.   SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 10, 2020 SPECIAL SESSION MEETING MINUTES       Motion by Member Mary Murphy, seconded by Vice Chair Stephen Roach to approve the August 10, 2020 meeting minutes as written.    A roll call vote was taken: Chair Dankwerth - Aye Vice Chair Roach - Aye Member Barcelo - Aye Member Murphy - Aye    Vote: 4 - 0 Carried   2.DISCUSSION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL OF BUILDING SETBACK REDUCTIONS       Senior Planner Hannah Oden provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Background - Key Amendment Components - Proposed Amendment: Applicability and Allowances - Proposed Amendment: Standards - Proposed Amendment: Noticing Affected Property Owners - Proposed Amendment: Opposition - Proposed Amendment: Review and Appeal Process - Summary Discussion ensued among the Board and staff.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Member Octavio Barcelo, seconded by Member Mary Murphy to adjourn the meeting.    A roll call vote was taken: Chair Dankwerth - Aye Vice Chair Roach - Aye Member Barcelo - Aye Member Murphy - Aye    Vote: 4 - 0 Carried    Chair Dankwerth adjourned the meeting at 3:26 p.m.     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 Board of Adjustment of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 31st day of August, 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 1st day of September, 2020. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist D R A F T MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL SESSION September 8, 2020 MEETING HELD VIA ZOOM            SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER Chair Gambill called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Celeste Gambill, Chair Jacob Herrington, Vice Chair Hal Bergsma, Commissioner Neal Herst, Commissioner Ellen Hong, Commissioner Skeet Posey, Commissioner Daniel Sturmon, Commissioner Staff Present:Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Gambill recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Commission and audience.   CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests.   COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Melanie Barrett provided updates on past and upcoming Town Council agenda items related to Planning cases.   SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 11, 2020 SPECIAL SESSION MEETING MINUTES       Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to approve the August 11, 2020 meeting minutes with the following changes: correct typo/misspelling of the word Vice in the roll call vote for Agenda Items 1 and 2.    A roll call vote was taken:  A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Hearst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye    Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   2.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REVISED SIGN CRITERIA FOR THE MERCADO AT CANADA HILLS SHOPPING CENTER       Senior Planning Technician Patty Hayes provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Subject property - Sign criteria - Wall signs - Monument sign - General Plan - Summary Applicant Barry Kitay spoke regarding the revised sign criteria and stated he is pleased more colors are now provided in the code, as well as examples available for tenant viewing. Discussion ensued among the Commission, applicant and staff.    Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to approve the sign criteria for the Mercado at Canada Hills as depicted in Attachment 1, based on the finding that the criteria is consistent with the Design Standards and Principles of the Zoning Code, with two minor amendments under the Monument Signs heading: (1) Section 2.a. to state that signs and a sign size not to exceed 32 square feet for the fuel center; and, (2) Section b.iv. to state the maximum height of each sign is 8 feet above grade, with extra height allowed for architectural features as allowed by the Oro Valley Zoning Code.    A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Hearst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye    Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   3.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 23.5 FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL PROCESS FOR MINOR BUILDING SETBACK REDUCTIONS       Senior Planner Hannah Oden provided a presentation that included the following:  Senior Planner Hannah Oden provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Background - Key Amendment Components - Proposed Amendment: Applicability and allowances - Proposed Amendment: Standards - Proposed Amendment: Noticing affected property owners - Proposed Amendment: Opposition - Additional guidance - Proposed Amendment: Review and appeal process - Summary - Staff recommendation - Suggested motions Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff. Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. Oro Valley resident Tracey Alexander spoke in support of Agenda Item #3. Chair Gambill closed the public hearing. Further discussion ensued among the Commission and staff.    Motion by Commissioner Neal Herst, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey move to recommend approval of the zoning code amendment to Section 23.5 and associated sections for a process for administrative review and potential approval of setback reductions subject to the condition that Section 23.5.C.2.h.iii be changed to read: a front, rear or side yard building setback may be reduced to less than ten (10) percent to a maximum of five (5) feet from any property line.    A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Nay Commissioner Hearst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye    Vote: 6 - 1 Carried  OPPOSED: Commissioner Hal Bergsma   PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided updates on upcoming neighborhood meetings, the next Commission meeting on October 6, 2020, and an award the Planning Division received for best public outreach effort which will be presented at the Arizona State Planning virtual conference this week.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Hal Bergsma to adjourn the meeting.      Chair Gambill adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m.     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 Planning and Zoning Commission of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 8th day of September, 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 9th day of September, 2020. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist Proposed Process for Administrative Review of Minor Setback Reductions Town Council October 7, 2020 Purpose Process for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions Discussion and possible action 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’ Setback Reduction Oro Valley Estates Use in Arizona 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 Key Amendment Components 1.Single-family residential properties for individual homeowners only 2.Reduction less than 10%, no closer than 5 feet from any property line 3.Requests must be unopposed by affected properties 4.Standards for approval to ensure no negative impacts 5.Administrative decisions are subject to existing Board of Adjustment appeal process 1. Applies to Individual Homeowners Only 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 2, 3 & 4. Reduction Extent, Neighbor Involvement, & Impacts 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 5. 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 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 Feedback minimal with no outstanding questions Planning and Zoning Commission Recommended for approval Town Council Study Session No proposed changes to amendment Summary and Recommendation 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 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommends Approval Discussion and possible action