Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (117)       AGENDA ORO VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD SPECIAL SESSION August 1, 2023 HOPI CONFERENCE ROOM 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE        SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER   ROLL CALL   DEPARTMENT REPORT   COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT ON CURRENT EVENTS   CALL TO AUDIENCE - at this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Board on any issue not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona open meeting law, individual Board 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 Board 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.   SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 21, 2023, REGULAR SESSION MINUTES AND MAY 9, 2023, SPECIAL SESSION MINUTES   2.PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO PRIVATE RECREATION AREA, AMENITY, IN-LIEU FEE OPPORTUNITIES, AND OTHER RELATED REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, MULTI-FAMILY, AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS.   ADJOURNMENT   POSTED: 07/28/2023 at 5:00 p.m. by dt When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the Board meeting in the Town Clerk's Office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk’s Office at least five days prior to the Board 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 Board 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. If you wish to address the Board on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete a blue speaker card located on the Agenda table at the back of the room and give it to the Recording Secretary. Please indicate on the speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on, or if you wish to speak during “Call to Audience,” please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. Please step forward to the podium when the Chair announces the item(s) on the agenda which you are interested in addressing. 1. For the record, please state your name and whether or not you are a Town resident. 2. Speak only on the issue currently being discussed by the Board. Please organize your speech, you will only be allowed to address the Board once regarding the topic being discussed. 3. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. 4. During “Call to Audience”, you may address the Board on any issue you wish. 5. Any member of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present. Thank you for your cooperation. “Notice of Possible Quorum of the Oro Valley Town Council, Boards, Commissions and Committees: In accordance with Chapter 3, Title 38, Arizona Revised Statutes and Section 2-4-4 of the Oro Valley Town Code, a majority of the Town Council, Board of Adjustment, Historic Preservation Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Stormwater Utility Commission, and Water Utility Commission may attend the above referenced meeting as a member of the audience only.”    Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 1. Meeting Date:08/01/2023   Submitted By:Casey Wilson, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 21, 2023, REGULAR SESSION MINUTES AND MAY 9, 2023, SPECIAL SESSION MINUTES RECOMMENDATION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: FISCAL IMPACT: SUGGESTED MOTION: Attachments Draft minutes 2-21-23  PRAB Special Session Minutes 5-9-23  D R A F T MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR SESSION February 21, 2023 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE            REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Casey Wilson called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Cheryl Horvath, Member Joanne Moothart, Member Antonia Landau, Member Philip Saletta, Member Emily Veres, Member Matthew Wood, Chair Gary Temple, Vice Chair Staff Present:Joyce Jone-Ivey, Council Liaison Joe Andrews , Deputy Town Attorney Kristy Diaz-Tahan, Parks and Recreation Director Casey Wilson, Recording Secretary Attendees: George Radnovich, Sites with Southwest COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS    Ms. Joyce Jones-Ivey welcomed the new and returning board members. She briefed the board on recent council updates. She reported that Project Graduation needs volunteers.   REGULAR SESSION AGENDA   1.INTRODUCTION OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS    Ms. Diaz-Trahan welcomed Gary Temple and Phillip Saletta back to the board and new member Emily Veres. They each introduced themselves. At this time Agenda Items 5 and 6 were moved up to accommodate the lack of Chair and Vice Chair.   2/21/23 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 1 2.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE MAY 17, 2022 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES, AUGUST 16, 2022 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES, AND NOVEMBER 15, 2022 SPECIAL SESSION MEETING MINUTES.       Motion by Vice Chair Gary Temple, seconded by Member Joanne Moothart to elect Matthew Wood Chair  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   3.VISTOSO TRAILS NATURE PRESERVE, MASTER PLAN FIRST DRAFT, PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION       Mrs. Kristy Diaz-Trahan introduced George Radnovich, an owner of Sites Southwest who provided an update and a progress report. The theme as part of this master plan’s goals incorporates “keep it simple & natural”. He provided several slides of options and next steps. Phil Zielinski, an Oro Valley resident offered his opinion of the nature preserve. He would like to see access points that don’t require parking. He noted that Worldmark property might adjoin the preserve easily. He was in favor of dark skies. Patricia Sturman, an Oro Valley resident, a member of the board of Preserve Vistoso, was concerned how the priorities of the master plan are determined. Marcia Seiben, an Oro Valley resident, wasn’t aware of the community engagement efforts and objects to the number of trails. Ned Hammond, an Oro Valley resident, was concerned about fires. He was in favor of appropriate resting places along the paths. He also wants to help in any way he can. He is in favor of natural open space. Joe Plsconski , an Oro Valley resident commented on the documents that are posted to the website. He is not in favor of extra paths. He is in favor of simple and natural. He objects that his back yard may end up backing up to a new path. Dick Surowie, an Oro Valley resident thanked the board for volunteering. He is in support of a water feature. He felt the designs as offered were too grandiose. He also does not care for the versions of the ponds being split up. He would like to see a traffic study prior to parking lot placement. He wants to be sure that motor vehicles do not have access to the preserve. Chuck Davis, an Oro Valley resident is concerned about security of the area and asked to be sure the police department has input. Vistoso Highlands is an issue with traffic, he is not in favor of a parking lot and offered other areas for consideration. Richard Cerri, an Oro Valley resident, does not agree with parking lot and drop off locations on Vistoso Highlands as the care of wildlife for an area that is already too heavily travelled. He offered alternatives. Gail Cerri? Siri, an Oro Valley resident, would like to know how comments were incorporated into the plan. William Thomas, an Oro Valley resident, would like the trails reconsidered. He is in favor of one large water feature. Laura Smith, an Oro Valley resident, is concerned about dirt bikes, go carts and golf cars on the preserve and how this will be policed in the future. Marlene Skibbe, an Oro Valley resident, wants to preserve the land. Adding more paths disturbs the birds and wildlife, creates places for more litter, and impacts security and privacy. John Davis, an Oro Valley Resident, is concerned about security of his gated community and access points to the preserve. Millie Leirman, an Oro Valley resident, is thankful for what has been done, is interested in the Friends group, and concerned about re-vegetation and offered comments on how this can take place. She suggested a community garden on the property. The Board then discussed the topic. Mr. Temple had questions about the pond and financing. Mr. Wood noted that people are in favor of the pond, he is aware of the dirt bikes as well. Mr. Saletta said that the priority should be with invasive species as native species attracts wildlife. He noted the Sweetwater area of the Santa Cruz River is a beautiful amenity for wildlife. Ms. Landau was concerned about how the nighttime sky programs would be promoted. Ms. Veres is concerned about safety and policing of the area for mishaps mid-trail. She is in favor of the reflection points and seating; she is also concerned about parking and access points. Ms. Diaz-Trahan and Mr. Radnovich answered or clarified each of the questions or comments and asked for additional clarification and direction from the Board. There was a short break from 8:15 until 8:19. 2/21/23 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 2   4.PROGRESS UPDATE, PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ORO VALLEY $25 MILLION PARK BOND PROJECT APPROVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL, RESOLUTION NO. (R)21-47 ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2021       Mrs. Kristy Diaz Trahan provided an update on the park bond project. There were questions asked and answered.   5.ELECTION OF PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD CHAIR    Motion by Vice Chair Gary Temple, seconded by Member Joanne Moothart to elect Matthew Wood as Chair.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   6.ELECTION OF PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD VICE CHAIR    Motion by Member Joanne Moothart, seconded by Vice Chair Gary Temple to elect Gary Temple as Vice Chair  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   DIRECTOR'S REPORT    Hot Coco 5K was a successful start to 2023 there were over 300 participants Arizona heroes memorial grounding breaking is on Tuesday February 28 at 11 a.m Move across 2 ranges on February 25, 2023 is sold out and volunteers are needed Steam Pump Ranch concert series is starting back on April 8th, 2023 Eggstravaganza at James D. Kreigh park will be held on April 1st, 2023 Celebrate Oro Valley will be held at Steam Pump Ranch on April 8th, 2023   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS    No future agenda items were discussed.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Member Philip Saletta, seconded by Member Antonia Landau  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried     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 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 21st day of February, 2023. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 21st day of February 2023. 2/21/23 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 3 ___________________________ Casey Wilson Senior Office Specialist 2/21/23 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 4 D R A F T MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD SPECIAL SESSION May 9, 2023 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE            SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER   ROLL CALL Present: Cheryl Horvath, Member Antonia Landau, Member Joanne Moothart, Member Philip Saletta, Member Gary Temple, Vice Chair Emily Veres, Member Matthew Wood, Chair Staff Present:Joyce Jones-Ivey, Council Liaison Kristy Diaz-Trahan, Parks and Recreation Director Joe Andrews, Deputy Town Attorney Casey Wilson, Recording Secretary Attendees: George Radnovich, Principal, Sites Southwest CALL TO AUDIENCE    Chair Wood opened Call to Audience. No one wished to speak. Chair Wood closed Call to Audience.   COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS    Council Liaison Joyce Jones-Ivey noted that the new Town Manager, Jeff Wilkins, will start July 7th. Council is looking at the FY 23-24 budget with study sessions on the 10th and 11th with public hearings in June. As of May 5th the short-term rental ordinance is in effect. At the last council meeting a policy for schools was adopted. All schools must have an emergency plan in place to be reviewed by the Emergency Response Planner and the Police Department, to be reviewed annually. They are continuing to visit the local businesses with the staff and the president of the Chamber of Commerce. The businesses have been responding positively. She asked everyone to shop locally. She ended with a call for volunteers for Project Graduation.   SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA 5/9/23 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 1 SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO RECOMMEND COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE VISTOSO TRAILS NATURE PRESERVE MASTER PLAN       Chair Wood introduced the item and turned the meeting over to Ms. Diaz-Trahan. She recounted the history of the project and introduced George Radnovich, Principal, Sites Southwest, who provided the attached presentation. Once the presentation was completed, the Board asked a couple questions that were answered by Mr. Radnovich and Ms. Diaz-Trahan. Chair Wood allowed the blue cards at this time. Walda Abbott, an Oro Valley Resident, was concerned about parking and security. Charles Stack, and Oro Valley Resident, spoke in favor of the project and offered his services as a resource and wants collaboration with other local groups. Rosa Dailey, on Oro Valley Resident, spoke as a representative of her street, does not want the driving range improved, especially the ADA portion. She was also concerned about invasive species. Tom Stegman, an Oro Valley Resident, expressed his disappointment in the costs, he would like the property back to a desert condition and preserve, please consider the vegetation and wildlife. Dick Surowiek, an Oro Valley Resident, favors having a pond big enough for water fowl. He does not favor ramadas, viewing platforms or blinds. He cautioned having parking by the pond area. He is disappointed in the timeline. Doug Iverson, and Oro Valley Resident, had suggestions about the ponds, wants the pond to be a highlight. He spoke to costs and how to mitigate some of the costs through volunteers, grants, etc. Larry Marrs, an Oro Valley Resident, he would support the pond being a center point of the property for wildlife. He suggested that trails should be segregated between walkers and bikers and alternate days. The Board asked questions that were addressed by Mr. Radnovich and Ms. Diaz-Trahan.    Motion by Chair Matthew Wood, seconded by Board Member Phillip Saletta to approve recommendation of the Sites Southwest plan for Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve to Council.  Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   2.*PROGRESS UPDATE, PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ORO VALLEY $25 MILLION PARK BOND PROJECT APPROVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL, RESOLUTION NO. (R)21-47       Discussion ensued and members asked questions.   3.PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 23/24 PARKS AND RECREATION BUDGET REQUESTS       There was no discussion and no questions.   DEPARTMENT REPORT    Some items of note include: New activities at Steam Pump Ranch include family camp and parents night out Senior programs include gadget help and Senior single mingle Camps are at capacity Apra conference is in September Ribbon cutting ceremony for BBQ and Bunk house project at Steam Pump Ranch   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 5/9/23 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 2 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS    No future agenda items were presented.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Chair Mattew Wood, seconded by Board Member Antonia Landau to adjourn at 9:00 p.m.    Vote: 7 - 0 Carried     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 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 9th day of May, 2023. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 9th day of May, 2023. ___________________________ Casey Wilson Senior Office Specialist 5/9/23 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 3    Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 2. Meeting Date:08/01/2023   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Submitted By:Milini Simms, Community and Economic Development SUBJECT: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO PRIVATE RECREATION AREA, AMENITY, IN-LIEU FEE OPPORTUNITIES, AND OTHER RELATED REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, MULTI-FAMILY, AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS. RECOMMENDATION: This item is for information and discussion purposes only.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to provide an update and gather feedback on proposed code amendments (Attachment 1) to private recreation areas, including the size, type of amenities and in-lieu fee options applicable to new residential subdivisions, multi-family and mixed-use developments. The proposed code amendment does not apply to public parks.  Examining and updating the Town's private recreation area requirements is an objective in the Town Council's Strategic Leadership Plan (SLP). Specifically, as part of the SLP, the Town Council directed staff to examine methods that would "prioritize larger neighborhood area parks and amenities as outlined in the Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment." Significant community input was collected during the Parks and Recreation Master Planning process, including a town-wide survey. In 2021, 55% of the survey respondents identified neighborhood parks as a need in Oro Valley. This was the third highest need identified in the survey, barely below trails and open space (both 59%).  The  Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) discussed staff's research and key aspects of the proposed code amendment on August 16, 2022 (see Attachment 2 for the staff report for more information). Subsequently, the key findings and code amendment were also discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) and the Town Council. A complete list of the comments and questions with staff responses is included in Attachment 3. To help respond to some of the feedback and gather additional input, board members of HOAs with private parks were surveyed. The survey had 18 responses, representing 24 private recreation areas. Despite the low response rate, the information is helpful in providing some insight about private parks. The survey identified the type of amenities and location as primary determinants of a park's use and benefit to the community. An analysis of the survey responses is included in  Attachment 4. Additionally, feedback from the Southern Arizona Homebuilders Association (SAHBA), Metropolitan Pima Alliance (MPA) and the AZ Multi-family Housing Association has been sought. To date, no changes have been made to the proposed code amendment based on these discussions.  The proposed code amendment aims to meet the objectives of the SLP and incorporate feedback provided from the PRAB, PZC, Town Council and the survey.  SLP: Prioritize larger neighborhood area parks. A. Consolidate recreation areas  Objective: Create adequately sized, meaningful recreation areas that provide a central focal space for gathering, passive and active amenities.  Existing code: There is no mechanism to consolidate the private recreation areas. Finding: This can result in smaller, scattered parks throughout a subdivision or residential development. The utility of a park significantly decreases when it gets too small.  Feedback:  Agreement from all three bodies that larger, consolidated parks are best. However, special circumstances may arise warranting flexibility. All three bodies were concerned with the mechanics and feasibility of requiring adjacent subdivisions to develop larger, shared recreation areas.  Almost half (47%) of the respondents agreed that having one, larger, centrally located private park is better than having multiple, smaller, private park areas spread throughout the development.   Location and accessibility were themes throughout the survey responses. Both were key determinants for the usability of a park. Proposed code and new information:  Requires private recreation areas be consolidated into no more than 2 areas, unless further distribution is warranted and approved by the Town Council. Factors that warrant further distribution include site constraints (e.g., topography, drainage, etc.), improved access or the ability to provide a better variety of amenities.  The requirement for adjacent subdivisions to develop a larger, shared recreation area would only apply to areas where a rezoning or master-planned development (e.g. Rancho Vistos and Capella) result in more than one residential subdivision. An example of a larger, shared recreation area that resulted from the rezoning process is the park between Alterra and Valley Vista. Due to the limited amount of land remaining in Oro Valley, both scenarios are likely to primarily occur if land is annexed into the Town.  B. Increase or establish the size of recreation areas.  Objective:Improve utility and use by creating larger parks with more space for amenities. Existing code:  The zoning code requires 512 sf/ lot of private recreation area for all new residential subdivisions. There is not a clearly defined amount of recreation space required for multi-family and mixed-use developments. Instead, those zoning districts have an open space requirement that allows recreational uses.  Finding: Oro Valley's recreation area size requirement for subdivisions is low compared to some other southern Arizona jurisdictions. Feedback:  Based on a town-wide survey, the Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment identified larger neighborhood parks as a need in the community.  PRAB and Town Council directed staff to ensure the open space requirement for multi-family zoning districts is maintained. The PZC and Town Council guided staff to require rec space for apartments on a per unit basis (similar to single-family subdivisions).  Proposed code and new information:  Increase the amount of private recreation area to 900 sf/lot for all rezoning requests to develop detached single-family homes, attached townhomes or patio homes. Maintain the open space requirement in all multi-family and mixed-use zoning districts but stipulate a portion (ranging from 512 sf/unit - 900 sf/unit depending on housing type) of the open space be a useable recreational area.  Require 400 sf/unit of meaningful recreation space for apartments. This is an increase to the amount of rec space currently provided in apartments.  C. Prioritize high-value recreation areas.  Objective: Increase utility by eliminating very small parks with little space for amenities while providing an equitable alternative for smaller residential projects. Existing code: Town Council may approve an in-lieu in exchange for providing private recreation areas if the subdivision has access to a public park and this alternative approach is beneficial to future residents. In-lieu fees may satisfy a portion or all of the private rec requirement. In-lieu fees are collected once, prior to construction and used for improvements to town park facilities.  Finding: There is no minimum size requirement for private recreation areas in the code. This can result in very small private recreation areas with minimal space to provide a variety of amenities. Private recreation areas less than a 1/4 acre in size have low recreational value. Feedback:  Agreement that very small parks have limited capacity to provide usable and meaningful recreation space. PRAB had concerns about automatically requiring an in-lieu fee instead of a minimum park size. Town Council provided guidance to require in-lieu fees be used to improve or upgrade public park facilities within a 1/2 mile distance from the associated project.  Survey respondents with smaller parks identified the location and type of amenities, including shade structures, as the main determinants of their use. Proposed code and new information:  Requires an in-lieu fee for private recreation areas that are 1/4 acre or less, so no more smaller parks are developed. The ability to request an in-lieu fee for larger subdivisions is maintained but further restricted to only satisfy a portion of the rec area requirement. Requests must show access to a public rec area within a 1/2 mile of the project. Collected in-lieu fees must be used for improvements to the public recreation facility closest to the subject project.  SLP: Provide meaningful amenities.  Objective: Ensure a variety of passive and active amenities for all ages and abilities is provided. Existing code/Finding:   There are no provisions in the Zoning Code to ensure meaningful amenities in private rec areas. Other than indoor rec and a tot-lot, the code does not specify the number or type of amenities required in multi-family or mixed-use developments.   Feedback:  Agreement that a variety of amenities for all ages and abilities are is directly correlated to park use.  The PZC raised concerns about the amount of irrigation needed in larger parks and ensuring there is adequate shade over play areas. All three bodies gave guidance to ensure a variety of amenities are provided to serve future residents' needs. Specifically, PRAB was concerned with having duplicate amenities and the Town Council asked for flexibility to approve comparable amenities not listed in the code. Seating, shading, and pedestrian connectivity were highly ranked as amenities most used and needed in private recreation areas. Nearly all (94%) of the survey respondents found these amenities important to the usefulness of a park.  Landscaping and irrigation (71% of responses) were the highest costs associated with private park maintenance.  Proposed code and new information:  Requires minimum amenities for every private recreation area, such as seating, shade structures, and pedestrian connectivity.  Updates to the menu of active and passive amenities to incorporate more variety, and allow flexibility to use comparable amenities not included on the list. The proposed code also allows the Town Council to replace proposed amenities to reduce duplication and/or improve the variety of amenities provided. Irrigation - Only allows 15% of the total private recreation area to be natural turf, unless a sports field or similar amenity is approved by the Town Council. The 15% of natural turf must be for activity (free play, gathering) and not decorative.  Play area shading - Requires 100% of play equipment and the associated use (fall) zone to be fully shaded. This is an increase from the existing code, which only required the play equipment (or a portion of it) to be shaded.  The proposed code amendment is supported by the General Plan's guiding principles and policies. All zoning code amendments require consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. However, since this code amendment addresses private recreation facilities, it is being presented to PRAB for information and discussion purposes only.  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Review of current recreation area requirements in the Zoning Code was prioritized by the Town Council through the Strategic Leadership Plan FY21/22-22/23 and is supported by the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan.  Town Council Strategic Leadership Plan (SLP): Review Town codes related to recreation amenity requirements for residential subdivisions and recommend updates that will prioritize larger neighborhood area parks and amenities as outlined in the Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment. General Plan Guiding Principle: Provide more parks, recreation and cultural opportunities for all ages. General Plan, Policy CC.2: Provide appropriate park facilities and services for residents of all ages in the community. In coordination with the Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department and PROS Consulting, planning staff conducted extensive research to identify methods to prioritize larger private recreation areas and enhanced amenities for more meaningful recreation areas.The proposed changes prioritize the objectives of the SLP and also achieve greater parity with the requirements of other jurisdictions in southern Arizona, particularly Pima County and Sahuarita. Key findings and associated solutions were presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) and Town Council through study sessions held in 2022 and 2023.  HOA boards responsible for private parks were also surveyed to understand the value of smaller parks, use of amenities and maintenance needs.  The proposed code amendment aims to meet the SLP objectives and incorporate the feedback from all three bodies and the survey. A complete list of the comments and questions received during the study sessions is included in  Attachment 3 with a detailed survey report included in Attachment 4. DETAILED ANALYSIS: Key elements of the proposed code amendments (Attachment 1) are provided below, followed by notable feedback/survey responses in italics and new information addressing the feedback.  SLP Objective 1: Prioritize larger neighborhood area parks. A. Consolidate recreation areas   Objective: Create adequately sized, meaningful recreation areas that provide a central focal space for gathering, passive and active amenities.  Existing code: There is no mechanism to consolidate private recreation areas Finding: The existing code can lead to smaller, scattered parks spread throughout a subdivision or residential development. The utility of a park significantly decreases when it gets too small. Proposed code:  Requires private rec areas to be consolidated into no more than 2 areas for individual residential projects. Require adjacent subdivisions resulting from rezoning or within master-planned areas to have larger, shared recreation areas. Feedback: Agreement from all three bodies that larger, consolidated parks are best. However, guidance was given from PRAB and the Town Council to allow further distribution, if warranted, for projects developing in phases or to locate the recreation area within a 1/2 mile from the residents it is intended to serve. Flexibility to allow further distribution on a case-by-case basis was supported by the survey. Almost half (47%) of the respondents agreed having one larger, centrally located private rec area was better than having several, smaller recreation areas spread throughout the development. The other half (52%) were mostly neutral with some respondents in disagreement. The mechanism and feasibility of requiring adjacent subdivisions, which may be built by different developers with separate homeowner associations, to develop larger, shared recreation areas was a key concern from PRAB, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and Town Council. New information: Flexibility to allow Town Council approval of further distribution when warranted due to topography, to meet or exceed the 1/2 mile distance requirement or to provide a better variety of amenities is included in the proposed code language. The requirement for adjacent subdivisions to develop a larger, shared recreation area would only apply to areas where a rezoning or master-planned development resulted in more than one residential subdivision. Master development plans are already required by code for larger areas that need to be cohesively designed. An example of a recent master planned area is Capella, located near the northwest corner of La Cholla Blvd. and Lambert Lane. The Capella plan lays out the residential, commercial and recreation areas for the entire 207 acre area. These types of developments typically have a master HOA, similar to Rancho Vistoso (also a master-planned community) that is responsible for all of the recreation areas.  An example of a rezoning that resulted in a shared recreation area is the park between the Alterra and Valley Vista subdivisions in Rancho Vistoso. Due to the limited amount of large pieces of land remaining in Oro Valley, both scenarios are only likely to occur through annexations.  B. Increase or establish the size of recreation areas.  Objective: Improve utility and use by creating larger parks with more space for amenities. Existing code:   Requires 1 acre per 85 units (512 sf./unit) for single-family subdivisions. There is no rec requirement for multi-family or mixed-use developments. Rather, the multi-family zoning districts have an open space requirement that may include recreational uses (e.g., a swimming pool).  Finding: Oro Valley's recreation area size requirement for subdivisions is low compared to some other southern Arizona jurisdictions. Proposed code:  Increase the amount of private recreation area for residential subdivisions to 900 sf/unit when a rezoning is required.  Establish the portion of open space that must be useable rec area for townhomes and patio homes, or apartments.  Feedback: Based on a town-wide survey, the Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment identified larger neighborhood parks as a need in the community. Town Council had concern that an increase to the required rec size could be unlawful as a taking. Guidance to ensure the open space requirements for multi-family zoning districts are maintained was received from both PRAB and the Town Council. The PZC and Town Council also guided staff to require rec space for apartments on a per unit basis (similar to single-family homes). New information: The proposed increase from 512 sf/unit to 900 sf/unit will only apply to rezoning applications for compliance with State law. The amount of open space required in each multi-family zoning district is maintained. The proposed code amendment clarifies that a portion of the open space must be usable for recreation with passive (e.g., walking paths) and active (e.g., ball courts) amenities. Upon further research of other Arizona jurisdictions and existing developments within Oro Valley, the recreation requirement for apartments is proposed at 400 sf./unit. This is more than the amount of amenitized rec space historically provided in OV apartments and is more than required by some other jurisdictions. The chart below shows the amount of recreation area required for each housing type. C. Prioritize high-value private recreation areas  Objective: Increase utility by eliminating very small parks with little space for amenities while providing an equitable alternative for smaller residential projects. Existing code: Town Council may approve in-lieu fees to satisfy a portion or all of the recreation area requirements for residential subdivisions. Approval is based on proximity to a public park facility, the amount of the in-lieu fee, and benefit to future residents.  Finding: There is no minimum size requirement for private recreation areas in the code. This can result in small private recreation areas with minimal space to provide a variety of amenities. Private recreation areas less than a 1/4 acre in size have low recreational value. Proposed code:  Require in-lieu fees for private recreation areas that are 1/4 acre or less. This equates to a residential project that has 21 residential units or less or a rezoning with 12 residential units or less. Maintain the ability for Town Council to approve an in-lieu fee for larger subdivisions but restrict it to only satisfy a Maintain the ability for Town Council to approve an in-lieu fee for larger subdivisions but restrict it to only satisfy a portion of the rec area requirement. This ensures some recreation space is installed in residential projects requiring more than 1/4 acre of rec space.  Feedback: Agreement that smaller parks have limited capacity to provide usable and meaningful recreation space. PRAB had concerns about automatically requiring an in-lieu fee rather than a minimum size for a recreation area. Additional concern about the use of in-lieu fees on public facilities further than a 1/2 mile away from the subject project was provided by the Town Council. To help understand the value of mini parks (1/4 acre or less), staff surveyed HOA boards that are responsible for private recreation areas of all sizes. Most (71%) respondents with mini parks stated they were used often - very often because of their location and types of amenities, including shading. Location and the types of amenities, including shading, were also the primary determinants for smaller parks that were rarely used. New Information: Requiring an in-lieu fee for projects that would have private parks smaller than a 1/4 acre ensures enough usable space is available to provide the minimum amenities required (shading, seating, pedestrian connectivity) and a variety of amenities to appeal to residents. It also provides an equitable alternative for smaller residential projects. Smaller projects could range from 3 units to 21 units. Staff finds requiring every project to have a minimum 1/4 acre rec area will have a larger, inequitable impact on a 3-unit project than a 21-unit project.  Lastly, language requiring in-lieu fees to be used for public rec facilities closest to the associated project has been included.  SLP Objective 2: Provide meaningful amenities.  Objective: Ensure a variety of passive and active amenities for all ages and abilities is provided. Existing code/Finding:   There are no provisions in the Zoning Code to ensure meaningful amenities in private rec areas. Other than indoor rec and a tot-lot, the code does not specify the number or type of amenities required in multi-family or mixed-use developments.   Proposed code:  Requires minimum amenities such as seating and shade for every recreation area and updates the menu of active and passive amenities allowed. In addition to the minimum amenities, every recreation area must have at least 1 active and 1 passive amenity. For every additional 1/2 acre, another active or passive amenity must be included. These requirements apply to residential subdivisions, multi-family and mixed-use developments.  Feedback: Agreement that a variety of amenities for all ages and abilities are directly correlated to park use. ??????? PRAB had concerns about duplicate amenities being installed. Similarly, the Town Council provided guidance to allow flexibility to approve comparable amenities unlisted to meet residents' needs (e.g. seniors) and achieve a variety of amenities. The PZC raised concerns about the amount of turf allowed in bigger parks and the amount of shading provided over play areas. Survey respondents identified the type of amenities as a main determinant for a private park's useability. Seating, shading and pedestrian connectivity were very important amenities, supported by 94% of respondents. The PZC's concern with irrigation was verified through the survey as landscaping and irrigation were the highest costs (71% of responses) associated with maintenance of private park areas. New information: The proposed code amendment includes language to allow the Town Council to replace proposed amenities with others or approve comparable amenities not listed in the code in order to achieve a high variety and meet the needs of future residents.  With regards to irrigation, the code amendment maintains the limitation of natural turf (15% of the total recreation area) to private rec areas unless a sports field or similar amenity is approved by the Town Council. The 15% of turf area must be used for activities and not for decorative purposes. Lastly, the code amendment requires all play equipment and the associated use (fall) zones to be fully shaded. This is an increase from the existing code which only requires the play equipment (or a portion of it) to be shaded.  PUBLIC OUTREACH In addition to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council study sessions held last year, HOA board members who currently own private parks were surveyed. Feedback from the study sessions and survey are provided in Attachment 3 and Attachment 4, respectively.  Staff have periodically discussed the amendment with the Southern Arizona Homebuilders Association (SAHBA) and reached out to the Metropolitan Pima Alliance (MPA) and the AZ Multi-Family Housing Association. These conversations are ongoing but to date, no changes have been made to the proposed code based on these discussions.  SUMMARY AND CONLUSION The proposed code amendments provide provisions to priorize larger private recreation areas and enhance amenities to ensure private parks are functional for residents in subdivisions, multi-family and mixed-use developments. The proposed amendment supports the objective of the SLP item adopted by Town Council and incorporates feedback received from the study sessions and survey. All zoning code amendments require consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. However, since this code amendment addresses private recreation facilities, it is being presented to PRAB for information and discussion purposes.  FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: This item is for information and discussion purposes only.  Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 - DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS  ATTACHMENT 2 - PRAB Staff Report 8.16.2022  ATTACHMENT 3 - STUDY SESSION FEEDBACK AND RESPONSES  ATTACHMENT 4 - PRIVATE PARK SURVEY  Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 1 of 21 1 Section 22.9.C. Authorities Section 23.7 Property Development Standards for Multi-Family Residential Districts B. R-4 Townhouse Residential District The provisions of Section 23.4 and the following additional requirements shall apply in this district. 1. Density The minimum gross land area per dwelling unit shall be five thousand four hundred fifty (5,450) square feet. DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY TABLE 22-9B. REVIEW AUTHORITY Planning and Zoning Reviews features related to site, landscape, and architecture design for compliance with applicable zoning requirements, design principles and standards and the general plan Public Works Reviews features related to drainage, floodplains, and roadways for compliance with adopted street and drainage standards Water Utility Reviews features related to water use and infrastructure Parks and Recreation Reviews features related parks and recreation facilities, including trails for compliance with the applicable maps, plans or policies Police Department Reviews features related to public safety and police protection, SUCH AS CONFORMANCE TO CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENT DESIGN (CPTED) ELEMENTS. Fire District Reviews features related to public safety and fire protection for compliance with adopted fire codes Pima County Wastewater Reviews features related to sewage disposal Arizona Department of Transportation Reviews right-of-way and intersection design for land abutting a state highway Utilities and other agencies All applicable utilities and other agencies affected shall review for compliance with their adopted codes Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 2 of 21 2 2. Open Space AND RECREATION Requirements A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the total gross land area of the development shall be set aside AS OPEN SPACE IN THE FOLLOWING PROPORTIONS for recreation uses or other common landscaped areas unless the overall density of the development is less than five (5) units per acre. The Town Council may waive this requirement because of the relationship of the development to an existing public park or recreation area. a. RECREATIONAL SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 26.5 AND THE FOLLOWING: i. All accessory buildings for recreational purposes shall not occupy more than fourteen percent (14%) of the total area reserved for recreation uses and other common landscaped areas. b. THE REMAINDER OF THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED IN COMMON LANDSCAPED AREAS. C. R-4R Resort District The provisions of Section 23.4 and the following additional requirements shall apply in this district. 1. Density a. The minimum gross land area per guest room shall be four thousand two hundred fifty (4,250) square feet. b. The minimum gross land area per dwelling unit shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. c. The total acreage required by subsections B.1.a and b of this section shall not exceed the gross acreage of the property. 2. Open Space AND RECREATION Requirements a. ALL Buildings may cover COVERAGE SHALL NOT EXCEED an aggregate area of twenty-five percent (25%), excluding parking areas. b. SITES DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL USES SHALL PROVIDE RECREATIONAL SPACE, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 26.5. c. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH A RESORT, AND ACCESSIBLE TO RESIDENTS, MAY BE CREDITED TOWARDS THE RECREATION REQUIREMENTS, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 3 of 21 3 D. R-S Residential Service District 3. Open Space AND RECREATION Requirements a. There shall be a minimum of thirty-six percent (36%) of the net lot area in open space. b. Open space shall be provided in the following proportions: i. A minimum of twelve percent (12%) of the net lot area shall be provided as frontage open space to provide a setting for the building, visual continuity within the community and a variety of spaces in the streetscape, except that the frontage open space shall not be required to exceed fifty (50) square feet per one (1) foot on public street frontage excluding drives. Exception: Where a lot has two (2) or more street frontages, there shall be no less than twenty (20) square feet of open space per one (1) foot of street frontage for one (1) street and no less than ten (10) square feet of open space per one (1) foot of street frontage excluding drives for other street(s). In no case shall a building be closer than twenty (20) feet to the front lot line. ii. A private outdoor living space shall be provided adjoining each dwelling unit equal to a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the gross size of the dwelling unit, except that dwelling units above the first story shall provide space equal to a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the gross size of the dwelling unit. Outdoor living space on the ground level may be included in the open space requirements. iii. SITES DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL USES, OR A COMBINATION OF RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, SHALL PROVIDE RECREATIONAL SPACE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 26.5. iv. The remainder of the required open space shall be provided in common open space. E. R-6 Multi-Family Residential District 3. Open Space AND RECREATION Requirements Development of all R-6 zoned property shall provide a minimum of thirty-five percent (35%) of the net lot area as open space in the following proportions: a. Each lot shall contain a minimum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of usable outdoor living space for each dwelling unit, exclusive of front yards. (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5) Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 4 of 21 4 b. SITES DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL USES, OR A COMBINATION OF RESIDENTIAL AND NON- RESIDENTIAL USES, SHALL PROVIDE RECREATIONAL SPACE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 26.5 AND THE FOLLOWING: b. Not less than fifty percent (50%) of said required space shall be provided in a single common area, with a minimum dimension of twenty (20) feet at any point. (MOVED AND REVISED IN SECTION 26.5.C.1). i. Portions of THE REAR AND SIDE yards (excluding the front yards) which are contiguous with, and an integral part of, the outdoor living space may be included in calculating the area and minimum dimensions of such space. THE RECREATION AREA. ii. Pools and paved recreation areas may be developed AS PART OF in the required common space. c. A private outdoor living space shall be provided adjoining each dwelling unit, equal to a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the gross size of the dwelling unit, except that dwelling units above the first story shall provide such space equal to a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the gross size of the dwelling unit. Outdoor living space on ground level may be included in the open space requirement. d. Outdoor living areas shall be reasonably accessible to dwelling units served. (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.C.2). e. Driveways and landscaping within driveway areas shall not be included in calculations of outdoor space. f. The remainder of the required open space shall be provided in AS landscaped or natural open space. 7. Recreational Facilities a. Wherever there is constructed on a lot, or contiguous lots, multiple dwellings which have fifty (50) or more dwelling units, an active outdoor recreational facility shall be provided for the occupants of said units. In addition to the active outdoor recreation area, an indoor recreational facility shall also be provided for the occupants of said dwelling units. The recreational facility may be used as the leasing, sales, or manager’s office, but that use may not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor area. The balance of the facilities shall include group meeting facilities and facilities for exercise, table sports, and games. (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.C.1) b. Wherever there is constructed a multiple dwelling which has twenty (20) or more dwelling units, there shall be provided on the lot site of said multiple dwellings a play area for children. Said play Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 5 of 21 5 area shall be separated from any private access ways and public streets by a fence or wall. The tot lot requirement shall be excluded from a senior citizens development. (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.C.1) Section 26.5 Provision of Recreational Area A. Applicability The provision of recreational facilities shall be required of all residential subdivisions, MULTI-FAMILY OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS, except those located within the R1-36, R1-43, R1-144, and R1-300 Zoning Districts, unless utilizing the lot size reduction flexible design option enabled by Section 27.10. B. Recreational Area Plan Submittal and Approval 1. The developer shall submit a LANDSCAPE AND recreational area plan AS PART OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL PACKAGE. THE RECREATION AREA SHALL to include the minimum improvements for recreational purposes as required by subsection D of this section. 2. The LANDSCAPE AND recreational area plan shall be submitted and reviewed by Town Council concurrently with the preliminary plat. CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND TOWN COUNCIL CONCURRENTLY WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN. 3. Approval of the plan by the Town Council, after THE LANDSCAPE AND RECREATION AREA PLAN SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL AFTER review and recommendations by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (for public recreational areas BEING DEDICATED TO THE TOWN) and the Planning and Zoning Commission (for private recreational areas). APPROVAL OF THE RECREATION AREA PLAN shall be a prerequisite to approval of the final plat OR CONSTRUCTION PLANS. 3. All recreational area plans shall be reviewed by the Oro Valley Police Department (OVPD) for conformance to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) design elements contained in subsection D.5 of this section. (MOVED TO THE TABLE 22-9B) 4. HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION OR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REQUESTS TO MODIFY EXISTING FACILITIES AND AMENITIES modification of facilities and amenities depicted on the approved recreational area plan ARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: a. Modifications deemed necessary and beneficial to provide for the recreational needs of residents THAT MAINTAIN PARITY WITH THE QUANTITY AND TYPE OF AMENITIES PREVIOUSLY APPROVED are REVIEWED AND MAY BE APPROVED subject to approval by the Parks and Recreation Director (RECREATIONAL AREAS DEDICATED TO THE TOWN ONLY) and THE Planning and Zoning Administrator (PRIVATE RECREATIONAL AREAS). Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 6 of 21 6 b. All modifications shall conform CONFORMANCE to the provisions of this code. C. Minimum Recreation Area Standards 1. THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF RECREATION AREA AND PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE ARE ESTABLISHED IN TABLE 26-1 AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: A. RECREATION AREAS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN NO MORE THAN TWO COMMON AREAS. FURTHER DISTRIBUTION MAY BE APPROVED BY TOWN COUNCIL IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY: i. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS SIZE, SHAPE OR TOPOGRAPHY APPLY TO THE PROPERTY ii. THE DISTANCE TO RESIDENTS THE RECREATION AREA IS SERVING MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 26.5.C.2. iii. THE VARIETY OF AMENITIES PROVIDED MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 26.5.D. B. RECREATION AREAS SHALL NOT BE NARROWER THAN SIXTY (60) FEET WIDE AT ANY GIVEN POINT. NARROWER WIDTHS MAY BE APPROVED BY TOWN COUNCIL IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY: i. THE RECREATION AREA IS A TRAIL OR LINEAR PARK ii. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS SIZE, SHAPE OR TOPOGRAPHY APPLY TO THE PROPERTY C. A REZONING OR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT RESULTS IN MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION SHALL PROVIDE LARGER, SHARED RECREATION AREAS. D. LINEAR PARKS, AS DEFINED BY THIS CODE AND DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION D.2.H. OF THIS SECTION, ARE ACCEPTABLE AS A PORTION OF RECREATION AREAS WHEN THEY SERVE TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO AMENITIES AND OPEN SPACE NETWORKS. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 7 of 21 7 TABLE 26-1: RECREATION AREA STANDARDS HOUSING TYPE MINIMUM RECREATION REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM RECREATION REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO REZONING APPLICATIONS DWELLING UNITS, SINGLE- FAMILY 512 SF PER UNIT 900 SF PER UNIT DWELLING UNITS, ATTACHED, INCLUDING TOWNHOMES OR PATIO HOMES 512 SF PER UNIT 900 SF PER UNIT APARTMENTS 400 SF PER UNIT 400 SF PER UNIT A TOT LOT IS REQUIRED FOR APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT HAVE 20 OR MORE, TWO (2) + BEDROOM UNITS, UNLESS THE COMPLEX IS AGE-RESTRICTED FOR SENIORS. AN INDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITY IS REQUIRED FOR APARTMENT COMPLEXES WITH 50 UNITS OR MORE. C. RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, MULTI-FAMILY OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS REQUIRING A RECREATION AREA OF ONE-QUARTER (¼) ACRE OR LESS MUST PROVIDE AN IN-LIEU FEE PER SECTION 26.5.F.1.a. 1. An area shall be devoted to and designated as “recreational area” on the preliminary plat which equals a ratio of one (1) acre to every eighty-five (85) dwelling units. (MOVED TO TABLE 26-1). 2. The Recreational area(s) shall be usable and accessible by all subdivision residents IT IS INTENDED TO SERVE.and shall provide amenities that best serve the needs of the development. THE LOCATION OF RECREATION AREA(S) SHALL MEET ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: a. POSITION WITHIN ONE-HALF (½) MILE, OR A 10-MINUTE WALK FROM ALL RESIDENTS IT IS INTENDED TO SERVE. b. CREATE A CENTRAL FOCAL SPACE THAT IS HIGHLY VISIBLE FOR GATHERINGS, PASSIVE AND ACTIVE ACTIVITIES. c. ACCESSIBLE VIA SIDEWALK, WALKING PATH, TRAIL, BICYCLE OR SHARED USE PATH BY ALL RESIDENTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION, MULTI-FAMILY OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: i. AT LEAST ONE ACCESS ROUTE TO THE RECREATION AREA SHALL COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA). ii. ACCESS ROUTES SHALL BE SHADED TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. iii. ACCESS ROUTE SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE RECREATION AREA PLAN. d. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (CPTED) ELEMENTS: Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 8 of 21 8 i. NATURAL SURVEILLANCE - EMPHASIS ON VISIBILITY OF THE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, ALSO KNOWN AS “EYES ON THE STREET,” TO DETER UNAUTHORIZED USERS AND ACTIVITIES. ii. ACCESS CONTROL - USE OF DESIGN ELEMENTS TO DENY ENTRANCE TO RECREATIONAL FACILITIES TO UNAUTHORIZED USERS AND ACTIVITIES. 3. PASSIVE RECREATION AREAS SHOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN PROXIMITY TO NATURAL OPEN SPACE AREAS AND/OR CONSERVED, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS. 4. RECREATIONAL AREAS SHALL NOT INCLUDE LAND SUCH AS PEAKS, RIDGES, LAND FRAGMENTS, LAND RESTRICTED BY TOWN POLICY, CONDITION OR ORDINANCE, AND LAND DETERMINED UNUSABLE FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES BY TOWN COUNCIL. SHALLOW RETENTION BASINS (FLOOD-PRONE AREAS) MAY BE APPROVED FOR USE AS RECREATION AREAS SUBJECT TO RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE TOWN ENGINEER AND PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. DECISIONS MAY BE APPEALED TO THE TOWN COUNCIL. 3. Upon review and recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, the Town Council may allow environmentally sensitive open space (ESOS) to be credited toward the recreation requirements of this section, to the provisions of the environmentally sensitive lands ordinance (ESLO). The applicant may receive a credit for this property at a one to one (1:1) ratio for a maximum of one hundred percent (100%) of the required recreational area. Credit may be obtained only when the following criteria are met: a. The area shall be determined to contain significant, unique, and desirable environmental, scenic, or cultural features. b. The area shall be delineated as common area, designated with a conservation easement, with ownership to be held in common by the homeowners’ association or the town. c. The area shall be accessible via sidewalk, walking path, trail, and/or bicycle or shared use path by all residents within the project. (SECTION MOVED TO 26.5.D.3.C.) D. Recreational Area Plan Standards IMPROVEMENTS AND AMENITIES 1. Site Location TRAILS a. Recreational areas shall be a focal point for passive and active recreational activities and provide a meaningful place for neighborhood gatherings and activities. Recreation areas shall be placed in a highly visible area of the subdivision that is accessible via sidewalk, walking path, trail, and/or bicycle or shared use path by all residents within the project. (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.C.2) Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 9 of 21 9 b. Linear parks, as defined by this code and described in subsection D.2.h of this section, are acceptable when they serve to improve access to recreational amenities and open space networks. (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.C.1.) c. Passive recreation areas should be located within proximity to natural open space areas and conserved, environmentally sensitive lands. (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.C.2) d. Recreational areas shall not include land, such as peaks, ridges, land fragments, land restricted by Town policy, condition or ordinance, and land determined unusable for recreational purposes by the Mayor and Town Council. Shallow retention basins (flood-prone areas) may be approved for use as recreational areas subject to recommendations by the Town Engineer and Planning and Zoning Administrator. Decisions may be appealed to the Town Council. (MOVED TO 26.5.C.2). A. In cases where a recreational area lies adjacent to a trail identified within the Eastern Pima County Trails System Master Plan and/or the Oro Valley Trails Map and their subsequent updates, a connection shall be provided between the recreational area and said trail. B. TRAILS AND ASSOCIATED SIGNAGE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PIMA REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM MASTER PLAN STANDARDS, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE TOWN’S PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: i. TRAILS SHALL BE POSITIONED IN A MANNER TO AVOID VEGETATION. ii. TRAILS SHALL BE POSITIONED AND CONSTRUCTED TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL OF EROSION AND MAINTENANCE. E. THE USE AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL TRAILS MUST BE STIPULATED IN THE GENERAL NOTES ON THE LANDSCAPE AND RECREATION AREA PLAN, DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR FINAL PLAT. i. PUBLIC TRAIL EASEMENTS MUST BE FOR PERMANENT, NON-MOTORIZED USE, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR. F. DETAILED SCHEMATICS, INCLUDING TRAIL WIDTH AND SURFACE TREATMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH THE LANDSCAPE AND RECREATION AREA PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS. i. PUBLIC TRAIL EASEMENTS MUST BE A MINIMUM OF TWENTY-FIVE (25’) WIDE, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR. 2. Recreational Facilities Improvement Standards RECREATION AREA IMPROVEMENTS AND AMENITIES Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 10 of 21 10 a. Recreational area improvements shall be appropriate to the anticipated needs of the development RESIDENTS. DETAILED SCHEMATICS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH PROPOSED AMENITY WITH THE LANDSCAPE AND RECREATION AREA PLAN final plat. b. Equipment installed within the recreational areas shall comply with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). C. IF PROVIDED, RESTROOM FACILITIES SHALL BE LOCATED IN A HIGHLY VISIBLE AREA AND SHALL BE FREE OF SHRUBS THAT REACH A MATURE HEIGHT GREATER THAN THREE (3) FEET. D. RECREATION AREAS MUST INCLUDE A VARIETY OF AMENITIES TO SUPPORT RESIDENTS OF ALL AGES AND ABILITIES. THE TOWN COUNCIL MAY REQUIRE DIFFERENT AMENITIES TO ACHIEVE MORE VARIETY WITHIN A SUBDIVISION, MULTI-FAMILY OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT. E. EACH RECREATION AREA MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING AMENITIES, AT A MINIMUM: I. SEATING SUCH AS A BENCH, PICNIC TABLE, OR OTHER SIMILAR AMENITY II. TRASH RECEPTABLE AND/OR PET WASTE STATION IV. VEHICLE AND BICYCLE PARKING PER SECTION 27.7 V. SHADE STRUCTURES VI. PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN ALL AMENITIES VII. Provision of AT LEAST one (1) active and one (1) passive amenity AS SPECIFIED IN TABLE 26-2 for the first one-half (1/2) acre or portion thereof. For every additional one-half (1/2) acre (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST HALF not fractions), an additional passive and active AMENITY use shall be provided. up to the maximum provided by the following subsections. A MAXIMUM OF FIVE (5) PASSIVE AND THREE (3) ACTIVE AMENITIES ARE PERMITTED WITHIN A SINGLE RECREATION AREA, UNLESS SUFFICIENT SPACE HAS BEEN PROVIDED AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OR THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR. i. A single park area may contain up to five (5) passive amenities. Examples of passive amenities include turf areas, benches, picnic tables, shade structures, barbecue grills, pathways, etc. (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.D.2.F). ii. A single park area may contain up to three (3) MAJOR amenities. Examples of active amenities include basketball courts, volleyball courts, bocce courts, horseshoe pits, par courses, etc. (MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.D.2.F). Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 11 of 21 11 I. AMENITIES NOT SPECIFIED IN TABLE 26-2, YET COMPARABLE IN USE, ACCESSIBLITY, AND FUNCTION, MAY BE APPROVED BY TOWN COUNCIL. TABLE 26-2: RECREATION AREA AMENITIES ACTIVE AMENITIES PASSIVE AMENITIES SWIMMING POOL BARBECUE GRILLS BALL COURT (BASKETBALL, VOLLEYBALL, PICKLEBALL, TENNIS) BOCCE BALL OR HORESHOE PIT RAMADA PICNIC TABLE PLAYGROUND OR TOT-LOT SWING SET OR STANDALONE PLAY STRUCTURE RECTANGULAR TURF FIELD SMALL TURF AREA OR PAR COURSES WORKOUT/FITNESS EQUIPMENT WALKING PATH COMMUNITY GARDEN DOG PARK G. UNLESS AN AGE-RESTRICTED COMMUNITY FOR SENIORS., TOT LOTS SHALL BE REQUIRED. TOT LOTS SHALL INCLUDE, AT A MINIMUM: I. PLAY EQUIPMENT AREA. II. DRINKING FOUNTAIN. III. SEATING AREA ORIENTED TOWARDS THE PLAY EQUIPMENT. IV. TRASH RECEPTACLE(S). V. BICYCLE PARKING WITH A FOUR (4) BICYCLE MINIMUM CAPACITY. VI. PICNIC TABLE. VII. LIMITED TURF AREA FOR ACTIVITY AREAS ONLY (LESS THAN FIFTEEN PERCENT (15%) OF TOTAL RECREATIONAL AREA) MAY BE PROVIDED. H. Linear parks SHALL may be utilized to satisfy the recreational requirements of this section. Required amenities BE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF TWENTY-FIVE (25’) FEET AT ANY GIVEN POINT AND include, at a minimum: i. A shared use path for pedestrians and bicyclists. ii. Seating area. iii. Landscaping. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 12 of 21 12 iv. Drinking fountain, if located within one hundred (100) feet of a potable water line. v. Trash receptacle(s). vi. Pet waste removal station(s). vii. Exercise stations MAY BE INCLUDED may be located within linear parks. The location of the amenities along a linear park is subject to the approval of the Planning and Zoning Administrator. and PRLCR Director. I. INDOOR RECREATION AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: i. THE INDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITY MAY BE USED AS THE LEASING, SALES, OR MANAGER’S OFFICE, HOWEVER THAT USE MAY NOT EXCEED THIRTY PERCENT (30%) OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA. ii. THE REMAINDER OF THE SPACE SHALL INCLUDE PASSIVE OR ACTIVE AMENITIES SUCH AS GROUP MEETING SPACE OR COMMUNITY RECREATION ROOMS WITH EXERCISE EQUIPMENT, TABLE SPORTS, GAMES, OR OTHER SIMILAR AMENITIES. 3. Credit for Enhanced Amenities OR ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE OPEN SPACE (ESOS) A. Credit for the additional cost of enhanced recreational amenities, including community swimming pools splash pads, skate/BMX parks, fully improved sports fields, and other amenities approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator, may be obtained against the recreation area requirement in subsection C.1 of this section based on the following criteria: i. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate summarizing the following: a) Value of the land and cost of the improvements and amenities that would be required by this code. b) Value of the land and cost of the improvements and enhanced amenities proposed as alternative means of compliance. ii. Credit for the additional cost of the enhanced amenities may be received in the form of a reduction to the required recreation land area. iii. The extent of the credit shall be determined by the value of the enhanced amenity as determined by the Town. The maximum reduction of recreation area requirement is one-half (1/2) acre. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 13 of 21 13 B. Credit for improved indoor recreational space, UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED, may be obtained subject to the following criteria: i. Improved community recreation rooms, community centers, gymnasiums, performance space, or other recreation space accessible to all residents of a development shall receive credit at a ratio of three to one (3:1) against the area requirement contained in subsection C.1 of this section. ii. Each active and passive amenity contained within an indoor recreational space shall receive a credit to the recreational amenity requirements contained in subsections D.2.e.vii, D.2.c, and D.2.d of this section at a one-to-one (1:1) ratio. C. UPON REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD, TOWN COUNCIL MAY ALLOW ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE OPEN SPACE (ESOS) TO BE CREDITED TOWARD THE AMOUNT OF RECREATION AREA BEYOND THE ALLOWANCES PERMITTED IN SECTION 27.10 AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS ORDINANCE (ESLO). THE APPLICANT MAY RECEIVE A CREDIT FOR THIS PROPERTY AT A ONE TO ONE (1:1) RATIO FOR A MAXIMUM OF ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (100%) OF THE REQUIRED RECREATIONAL AREA. CREDIT MAY BE OBTAINED ONLY WHEN THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE MET: i. THE AREA SHALL BE DETERMINED TO CONTAIN SIGNIFICANT, UNIQUE, AND DESIRABLE ENVIRONMENTAL, SCENIC, OR CULTURAL FEATURES. ii. THE AREA SHALL BE DELINEATED AS A COMMON AREA, DESIGNATED WITH A CONSERVATION EASEMENT, WITH OWNERSHIP TO BE HELD IN COMMON BY THE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY OR THE TOWN. iii. THE AREA SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE VIA SIDEWALK, WALKING PATH, TRAIL, AND/OR BICYCLE OR SHARED USE PATH BY ALL RESIDENTS WITHIN THE PROJECT. g. When appropriate to the needs of the residents, tot lot amenities shall be required. Tot lots shall include, at a minimum:(MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.D.2.G) i. Play equipment area. ii. Drinking fountain. iii. Seating area (may include benches or seat walls) oriented towards the play equipment. iv. Trash receptacle(s). Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 14 of 21 14 v. Bicycle parking with a four (4) bicycle minimum capacity. vi. Picnic table. vii. Limited turf area for activity areas only (less than fifteen percent (15%) of total recreational area) may be provided. gh. Linear parks may be utilized to satisfy the recreational requirements of this section. Required amenities include, at a minimum: :(MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.D.2.H) i. A shared use path for pedestrians and bicyclists. ii. Seating area. iii. Landscaping. iv. Drinking fountain, if located within one hundred (100) feet of a potable water line. v. Trash receptacle(s). vi. Pet waste removal station(s). vii. Exercise stations may be located within linear parks. VIII. The location of the amenities along a linear park is subject to the approval of the Planning and Zoning Administrator and PRLCR Director. 4. Play Equipment Standards a. Applicant shall submit evidence that play equipment complies with the current American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) safety standards for playground equipment. b. Playground surface materials, including certified wood fiber, shredded rubber, poured-in- place surfacing, or other acceptable material approved by the Parks and Recreation Director, shall be placed at a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches under the equipment. c. No play equipment shall be located within thirty (30) feet of any road right-of-way, driveway or alleyway, parking area, or single-family residential lot or single-family residential zone unless AN ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE WALL, PERMANENT FENCE, OR SIMILAR an acceptable barrier is provided AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. d. ALL PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND ASSOCIATED USE (FALL) ZONES must be fully shaded with a UV-resistant sunshade or other appropriate shading material, or structure as approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. and Permitting Division. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 15 of 21 15 e. Play equipment or apparatus with a footprint of two hundred fifty (250) square feet or less must be fully shaded with a UV-resistant sunshade or other appropriate shading material or structure as approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator and Permitting Division. f. At least fifty percent (50%) of play equipment or apparatus must be fully shaded with a UV- resistant sunshade or other appropriate shading material, or structure as approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator and Permitting Division. This requirement shall be applied only to play equipment or apparatus with a footprint of two hundred fifty (250) square feet or greater. g. To maximize the safety of children, play spaces shall be located to provide maximum visibility from surrounding homes. h. Play equipment shall not be located on a slope greater than four percent (4%). 5. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Elements(MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.C.2.d) a. Recreational area design shall consider the following CPTED elements: i. Natural Surveillance Emphasis on visibility of the recreational facilities, also known as “eyes on the street,” to deter unauthorized users and activities. ii. Access Control Use of design elements to deny entrance to recreational facilities to unauthorized users and activities. 5. SIGNAGE a. All recreational areas shall post at least one (1) sign at the primary entrance(s) stating: i. Hours of operation. ii. Park/recreational area rules. iii. Trespassing notice for unauthorized users, including citation of applicable ordinances/statutes. iv. Notice that all dogs must be kept on a leash (unless an approved off-leash area has been designated). v. Emergency (911) contact information to report suspicious or criminal activity. vi. If A recreation area is privately operated, homeowners’ association contact information to report maintenance or safety issues. b. If a neighborhood watch program exists, a sign shall be posted at the primary entrance(s) to the recreational area. Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 16 of 21 16 c. If the recreational area abuts an environmentally sensitive lands (ESL) area, a sign shall be posted every AT one hundred (100) feet FOOT INTERVALS ALONG at the border of the ESL area. The sign shall conform to the ESL sign requirements per the environmentally sensitive lands ordinance (ESLO). d. IF THE SUBDIVISION, MULTI-FAMILY OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS INCLUDES PRIVATE OR PUBLIC TRAILS, DIRECTIONAL TRAIL SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED AT ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY (150) FOOT INTERVALS ALONG THE TRAIL OR AT ONE HUNDRED (100) FOOT INTERVALS, IF ABUTTING AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS AREA. 6. LIGHTING AND RECREATION AREA HOURS a. All lighting shall be consistent with the standards of Section 27.5, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 27.5.H. (RECREATIONAL FACILITIES). b. ALL LIGHTING MUST BE FULLY SHIELDED and turned off by 10:00 p.m. c. If no lighting is provided, recreation area hours shall be limited to daylight hours only and shall be posted on the informational sign(s) at the park entrance(s) required by subsection D.5 of this section. E. Facilities Installation, Ownership and Maintenance 1. Private Recreational Facilities a. In cases where the recreational facility is to be privately owned, ALL SHARED recreational AREAS INCLUDING AMENITIES, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC TRAILS WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS facilities and ASSOCIATED parking improvements shall be completed and in place by the time thirty-five percent (35%) of the building permits are issued. Prior to release of the required bond or assurance, the developer shall provide written documentation to the Town that all mechanisms are in place to protect the rights of the RESIDENTS homeowners (i.e., liability insurance). b. Private recreational areas, and improvements IN A SUBDIVISION shall be owned and maintained by a mandatory membership homeowners association (HOA) created by covenants. If the HOA fails to adequately maintain the required recreational facilities, the Town may cause the property to be maintained and may cause a lien to be placed on the property, subject to and inferior to the lien for general taxes and to all prior recorded mortgages and encumbrances of record. 2. Public Park Facilities Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 17 of 21 17 a. In cases where the required recreational area is at least three (3) acres in size and is located adjacent to a public thoroughfare, dedication to the Town may be accepted. In this case, the park land shall be owned and maintained by the Town. The subdivider shall, without credit: i. Provide full street improvements and utility connections including, but not limited to, curbs, gutters, street paving, traffic control devices, lighting, street trees, and sidewalks to land which is dedicated pursuant to this section; ii. Provide solid masonry fencing along the property line of that portion of the subdivided lots contiguous to the dedicated land; iii. Provide improved drainage through the site; and iv. Provide other improvements and amenities that the Town Council determines to be essential to the acceptance of the land for recreational purposes. Subsequent improvements, if any, shall be developed and maintained by the Town. b. When park land is dedicated to and accepted by the Town, the provisions of subsection B.1 of this section shall not apply. F. In-Lieu Fee Option 1. IN-LIEU FEES USED TO SATISFY THE RECREATION AREA AND ASSOCIATED AMENITY REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION, APPLY AS FOLLOWS: a. RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, MULTI-FAMILY OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS REQUIRING A RECREATION AREA OF ONE-QUARTER (¼) ACRE OR LESS MUST PROVIDE AN IN-LIEU FEE. b. RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, MULTI-FAMILY OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS REQUIRING A RECREATION AREA OF ONE-QUARTER (¼) ACRE OR MORE MAY REQUEST AN IN-LIEU FEE TO SATISFY A PORTION OF THE RECREATION AREA. THE remaining portion of the recreation improvement obligation shall be applied to on-site recreation area(s) and amenities per the provisions of this code. c. IN-LIEU FEES CANNOT BE USED TO SATISFY ANY REQUIRED PRIVATE OR PUBLIC TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS. 1. In lieu of the required private recreational area or public park land dedication and required recreational facilities. The Town Council may approve an alternative proposal for an in-lieu fee that aids in the development or improvement of Town parks or recreational facilities. All subdivisions containing forty- three (43) lots or less may utilize the in-lieu fee option. 2. Subdivisions of eighty-five lots or more may elect to utilize the in-lieu fee option for up to fifty percent (50%) of the total cost of recreation area improvements as determined by the recreation area in-lieu fee calculation definition. The remaining portion of the recreation improvement obligation shall be applied to Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 18 of 21 18 on-site recreation area(s) and amenities per the provisions of this code. In-lieu fee proposals shall meet all of the following conditions: 2. REVIEW OF IN-LIEU FEE REQUESTS a. TO REQUEST USE OF THE IN-LIEU FEE OPTION CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND APPROVAL BY TOWN COUNCIL IS REQUIRED. In-lieu fee requests shall meet the following: i. The subdivision, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT has or can provide legal and physically constructed access to an existing Oro Valley public park, a park location WITHIN ONE-HALF (½) MILE, OR A TEN (10) MINUTE WALK FROM THE SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT. identified in the Town Parks, Open Space and Trails Master Plan, or other location approved by the Parks and Recreation Director. ii. The total amount of the in-lieu fee determined by the recreation area in-lieu fee calculation is, in the opinion of the Planning and Zoning Administrator (PZA) and PRLCR Director, sufficient to fund a specific park development or improvement project for an existing facility. b. In evaluating a REQUEST TO UTILIZE THE IN-LIEU FEE OPTION proposal under this section, the Town Council shall consider the impact on the property resulting from a change in the standard requirements for recreational space, the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed alternatives, the benefits afforded to the subdivision from the alternative proposal and the relative values to the community afforded by the alternative proposal as compared with the standard requirements. 3. FEE CALCULATION AND DETERMINATION a. A WRITTEN APPRAISAL REPORT PREPARED BY AN APPRAISER SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR TO DETERMINE THE IN-LIEU FEE. b. THE REPORT SHALL BE BASED ON THE IMPROVED VALUE OF THE LAND, INCLUDING: i. THE COST OF THE LAND REQUIRED FOR THE RECREATION AREA ii. THE COSTS FOR STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES REQUIRED IN SECTION 26.5.D. iii. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS iv. NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE (I.E., ROADWAYS, DRAINAGE WATER, ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND SEWER) REQUIRED TO SERVE THE RECREATION AREA AREAS. c. THE TOWN MAY ENGAGE THE SERVICES OF A THIRD-PARTY APPRAISER, AT THE APPLICANT’S SOLE EXPENSE, TO EVALUATE THE ACCURACY OF THE REPORT. d. The recreation area in-lieu fee shall be determined by the Town, with a written appraisal report prepared by an appraiser acceptable to the Town. PLANNING AND ZONING Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 19 of 21 19 ADMINISTRATOR AND THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR. The determination of the recreation area in-lieu fee shall consider, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: i. Approval and any conditions of the conceptual site plan. AN ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT OR REZONING ii. The general plan iii. Conditional zoning iv. Property location v. Off-site improvements facilitating use of the property vi. Site characteristics of the property e. The recreation area in-lieu fee calculation shall be based on the improved value of the land, including structures and facilities required by Section 26.5, design, construction costs, and having the necessary infrastructure (i.e., roadways, drainage water, electric, telephone and sewer) installed to serve the park areas. f. OBJECTIONS TO THE DETERMINED IN-LIEU FEE MAY BE APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PER SECTION 22.12. 6. The proposal shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the Planning and Zoning Administrator and Parks and Recreation Director who shall forward their recommendations to the Town Council for its action after an advertised public hearing. 4. APPROVAL a. The terms of the agreement shall be made a matter of public record and a condition of approval of any final plat, IF APPLICABLE, or issuance of any GRADING permit. s for the subdivision. b. The agreement shall provide for the funding TO IMPROVE OR DEVELOP PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES CLOSEST TO THE SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT. of the equivalent of park land and/or recreational facilities to the Town as would have been provided by a recreational area in the subdivision. 8. In evaluating a proposal under this section, the Town Council shall consider the impact on the property resulting from a change in the standard requirements for recreational space, the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed alternatives, the benefits afforded to the subdivision from the alternative proposal and the relative values to the community afforded by the alternative proposal as compared with the standard requirements.(MOVED TO SECTION 26.5.F.2.b). 10. If the subdivider objects to the determined in-lieu fee, he/she may appeal to the Town Council, with the burden of proof lying with the subdivider. (MOVED AND REVISED IN SECTION 26.5.F.3.f). Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 20 of 21 20 11. The Town Council may waive requirements for an appraisal when the subdivider provides acceptable alternative information to the Planning and Zoning Administrator (PZA), Parks and Recreation Director, and the Finance Director as a means of determining the improved value that is presented and accepted at a Town Council public hearing. Section 27.6.C.3 Plant Materials and Restrictions g. Natural turf is prohibited with the following exceptions: a. Town of Oro Valley public parks. b. Private parks that serve more than one neighborhood. c. Private RECREATION AREAS WITH A LIMITATION OF parks serving only one (1) neighborhood are limited to no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total park RECREATION area UNLESS A SPORTS FIELD OR SIMILAR AMENITY IS APPROVED BY TOWN COUNCIL. d. Private schools. e. Golf courseS greens and tee boxes only. For all uses enabled by exception, turf may only be utilized for activity areas and not for ornamental purposes. Private Park RECREATION areas may not be seeded with winter rye. Section 27.10.F. ESOS Use and Conservation Development iii. Trails Trails and associated amenities such as benches must conform to SECTION 26.5.D.1 standards established by the Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department. CHAPTER 31 – DEFINITIONS Apartments – A DWELLING residential use, which is occupied as the home or residence of three (3) or more families living independently of each other. DESIGNED FOR THE OCCUPANCY BY THREE (3) OR MORE FAMILIES LIVING INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER IN UNITS STACKED ON TOP OF ONE ANOTHER. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT – A DEVELOPMENT WITH A COMBINATION OF RESIDENTIAL AND NON- RESIDENTIAL USES. Recreation Area Amendments to Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, and Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Deletions shown with strikethrough and ADDITIONS shown in all CAPS. Page 21 of 21 21 A land area that is designated for recreation or contains specific facilities such as community recreational centers, pedestrian ways, swimming pools, picnic facilities, basketball and sport courts, playground equipment and exercise equipment. Active An area delineated for formal activities THAT INVOLVE RELATIVELY HIGH IMPACT OR MORE ENERGY. Which may or may not require equipment and take place on a prescribed field. Active recreational areas include, but are not limited to, tennis, volleyball, bocce ball and other court games, baseball, soccer and other field sports, swimming pools, track, and improved playground activity areas. Passive An area delineated for activities that involve relatively LOW IMPACT inactive or less ENERGY. energetic activities., such as walking, sitting, picnicking, card games, checkers, and similar table games. PASSIVE RECREATIONAL AREAS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, WALKING PATHS, DOG PARKS, OR PICNIC AREAS. Passive recreational areas also include natural open space, which contain nature walks and observation areas. Townhouse - A dwelling with party walls and no side yards between abutting dwellings. A DWELLING DESIGNED FOR OCCUPANCY BY TWO (2) OR MORE FAMILIES LIVING INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER IN UNITS JOINED SIDE BY SIDE OR FRONT TO BACK BY PARTY WALLS, STRUCTURAL ROOF COMPONENTS OR SIMILAR ELEMENTS. ATTACHMENT 3: Feedback provided during previous study sessions with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), and Town Council (TC). Question / Comment Staff Response PRAB With regard to the consolidation of rec areas, would they be located within the same subdivision with the same developer? This depends on whether a Master Development Plan or rezoning is required. The Zoning Code requires a master development plan for large areas of land that need an integrated and comprehensive design. Rancho Vistoso is an example of a master planned area. A rezoning case may also result in a larger, shared recreation area between adjacent subdivisions built by different developers. PRAB If developers can only break up a recreation area twice, how can you ensure the park is within 10 min from all residences? TC Several smaller parks are sometimes better especially if the project is developing in phases. PRAB How do you define adjacent? If a wash runs between two subdivisions are they adjacent? Per code, adjacent is defined as "being near or close to, but not necessary having a common dividing line (e.g., two properties that are seperated by a street or alley shall be considered as adjacent to one another)." PRAB Do adjacent subdivisions have to be built by the same developer? Is that economically feasible to have two different developers work together? TC Concern consolidation may be problematic with two different developers. TC Is it legal to require two developers and two private HOAs to share a rec space?Yes, requiring a larger, recreation area shared by adjacent developers is legal through the rezoning process. PZC Concern of potential problems between two HOAs when sharing a rec area, specifically regarding maintenance. TC Concern of shared maintenance and regulation of the space if there is not a Master HOA. TC Who maintains private parks?Homeowner associations or property management companies are responsible for maintaing private parks. PRAB Maintain open space [ for R-6] at 35%. TC When simplifying, make sure the overall open space requirement (35% in R-6) is maintained? TC Should multi-family be allowed to divide the rec space into multiple areas? If so, meaningful rec areas must be maintained. Both multi-family and single-family developments can only divide the rec space into two areas, unless further distribution is approved by Town Council. Factors considered for further distribution include site constraints, improved access or ability to provide a better variety of amenities. PZC Is the requirement for multi-family [apartments] based on size of property or the amount of units?There is not an existing recreation area size requirement for apartments. Instead, the code requires 50% of 35% of the gross land area to be in a single-common open space area, which may include recreational uses. The proposed code stipulates 400 sf/unit must be meaningful rec space. TC Should lot size be factored in to the recreation area size requirement (similar to Marana)? The existing code factors in lot sizes. Private recreation areas are not required for large-lot residential zones (36,000 sf lots or more). TC Is increasing the recreation size requirment a violation of State law. Would it be considered a taking to require more than before? The proposed increase from 512 sf/unit to 900 sf/unit for detached single-family homes would only apply to rezoning applications, which complies with State law. TC Why is multifamily based on area rather than per unit?Multi-family has been based on land area since the first zoning code was adopted in Oro Valley. However, this method does not factor in density or relate the rec area requirement to the needs of future residents. The proposed code requires 400 sf/unit to resolve these issues. TC Consider context of subdivision to determine if a rec area should be required (proximity to open space or parks). TC Should in-lieu fees be allowed if a park (private or public) is not within a 10 min - 1/2 mile distance? TC How many lots would a subdivision have to require a 1/4 acre or less? A residential project with 21 lots or less, or a rezoning with 12 lots or less would require an in-lieu fee to satisfy the rec area requirement. PRAB The maintenance costs of the smaller parks is high. Makes sense to allow in-lieu fee. PRAB Concern of automatic in-lieu fee for 1/4 acre parks. Why not require a minimum park size of 1/4 acre instead? Requiring an in-lieu fee for very small parks, 1/4 acre or less aligns with staff's research and maintains equity amongst smaller developments. PRAB Make it a penalty to have small park (double fee) and a 1/4 acre or more is a fee? Currently the code allows in-lieu fee to satisfy 100% of the rec area requirement for smaller parks (1/2 acre or less). The proposed code lowers this to a 1/4 acre and restricts the use of in-lieu fees for larger parks by only letting the fee satisfy a portion of the rec requirement. This ensures some recreation space be provided in larger residential projects. PZC Could in-lieu fees be used for maintaining existing trails or adding new trails?Parks and Rec could use in-lieu fees for facilities, such as trailheads. TC Parks help with aesthetics and breaking up the monotony of homes. What mechanism will replace that aspect if an in- lieu fee is paid? The existing code requires local streets to be no more than 600 feet in linear feet without a curve or break in circulation (e.g., traffic circle). This design standard requires rows of homes to be broken up. TC Do we have data on the usage of mini parks? TC Can one provide attractive amenities in mini parks? TC Is this an amenity or size issue? TC Can in-lieu fees be used for private parks (especially if that is what is closest to the neighborhood)? TC In-lieu fees should be used for parks within the 10-min or 1/2 mile zone (whether private or public) TC In-lieu fees should not be used for general maintenance but to add amenities in Town parks (to account for the added population). Staff recommends the Town maintains flexibility on the use of the in-lieu fee as long as it is used at a public park within 1/2 mile or closest to the associated project. TC Where do the in-lieu fees go?In-lieu fees are paid to the Town and used for improvements in public park facilities (including trailheads). TC How frequent are in-lieu fees paid? Are they transferred from one homeowner to the next? In-lieu fees are paid one time by the developer (prior to construction). 1A. Consolidate rec area into 1-2 spaces unless there are special circumstances 1B. Increase or establish the size of recreation areas. 1C. Prioritize high-value private recreation areas (1/4 acre or more) Maintenace of recreation areas shared by multiple HOAs would be established in private agreements. Typically, most of the scenarios this is applicable to would have a master HOA. An example is the Vistoso Community Association, which oversees the private recreation areas in Rancho Vistoso. Code language added to allow further distribution if needed to meet the 1/2 mile, or 10-minute walk distance requirement, provide more amenity variety, site constraints or more. Adjacent subdivisions do not have to be built by the same developer. Recreation areas consolidated and shared by adjacent subdivisions would be within a master planned area or a result of a rezoning. An example of two different developers working together to construct a recreation area is the community park located between the Alterra at Vistoso Trails and Valley Vista subdivisions. The amount of open space required in every multi-family zoning district has been maintained. The proposed code clarifies that a portion of the open space must be useable rec space. Yes. HOAs with existing private parks were surveyed to better understand the value of mini parks. More than half (71%) responded that mini parks were used often-very often. The location and type of amenities were the primary determinents of a park's use. Per the survey results, a smaller park can provide attractive amenities but the limited space poses problems to achieve a variety and meet the No. Use of in-lieu fees on private property could not be enforced by the Town. However, language was added to require the in-lieu fee be used on a public park within a 1/2 mile of the associated project. The option to request use of an in-lieu fee when located within a 1/2 mile of a public park facility for a portion of the private recreation area requirement is maintained. PRAB Do other counties or places do recurring fees?Yes but Oro Valley is a one-time fee. The in-lieu fee is based on the money it would cost to provide a recreation area. This includes the value of the land, cost of amenities and other improvements associated with the recreation area. TC If approved, would in-lieu fees be applied to any existing parks?No, the proposed code amendment will only apply to new residential projects. TC If an in-lieu fee is paid, would residents still have to pay standard park fees (e.g. admission to the community center)? Yes, standard park and facility fees still apply. TC What is the benefit of in-lieu fees to the Town? To the developer? TC If an in-lieu fee is approved, could they use the land for more homes? TC Do we charge Park and Recreation impact fees?Yes. Impact fees will be collected even if an in-lieu fee is paid. PRAB Town would require the type of amenities in lieu of a fee? The cost of amenities that would be provided are factored into the in-lieu fee. PRAB A sand volleyball court is much different than paved courts. Every developer will choose a volleyball court. PRAB Concern of having duplicate amenities. The proposed code amendment allows Town Council to replace proposed amenities to achieve a better variety. PRAB Concern about the cost of maintaining a swimming pool. In addition to residential subdivisions, the proposed code requires active and passive amenities in multi-family and mixed-use developments. Swimming pools are one of several options a residential subdivision developer may choose to satify the amenity requirements. The incentive (credit for enhanced amenities) to install a swimming pool has been removed. PRAB Revise language to be a minimum of 1 instead of requiring 1 each The proposed code language requires a minimum of 1 active and 1 passive in every recreation area. The amount increases by 1 for each additional 1/2 acre. PRAB Clarification between minimum amenities and required amenities Clarification for the minimum amenities required has been added to the proposed code amendment. PRAB/ PZC Community garden as an additional amenity Community garden has been added as an active amenity. PZC Consideration for the walking experience (e.g. crossing roads, ADA, shade etc.)The propoosed code requires at least one access routes be ADA accessible. Access routes must also be shown on the Recreation Area Plan to check for barriers, landscaping, etc. PZC When centralizing larger parks would that allow more turf areas? What about water conservation? Use of artificial turf?The proposed code amendment maintains only 15% of the recreation area may be natural turf but clarifies it may only be used for activity purposes. Decorative use of natural turf is not prohibited. PZC Consider hard surfaces and how much heat they absorb - use reflective painting.The code requires softer and safe materials under play equipment such as wood fiber or rubber. PZC Consider shade for amenities, specifically more shade is needed for play areas. The proposed code amendment requires 100% of all play equipment and the associated use (fall) zones to be fully shaded. This is an increase from the existing code, which only requires the play equipment (or a portion of) to be shaded. TC If approved, how would this affect areas with lesser value amenities? The proposed code amendment will only apply to new residential projects. TC Need to allow flexibility based on target demographics (e.g., Sun City vs. a neighborhood for younger families) PZC Consider the recreation needs of the residents it is serving (e.g. seniors) TC Can they select an active amenity not on the list that is comparable? PRAB Should we be surveying high end communities like Scottsdale?Scottsdale requires a percentage of open space per residential development (medium to high-density). PRAB What will developers think about this?Town staff has periodically discussed the proposed code amendments with the Southern Arizona Homebuilders Association (SAHBA) and reached out to the Metropolitan Pima Alliance (MPA). PRAB Did the Town require the shared park for Valley Vista and Alterra?Yes, through a rezoning the Town required a community park be shared between Alterra Trails and Valley Vista. PZC Were multifamily developers reached out as well?Yes, staff reached out to the AZ Multi- family housing Association. 2. Provide more meaningful amenities The proposed code amendment allows Town Council to approve comparable amenities not listed in the code to better meet the needs of future residents. Other comments or questions The benefit to the Town is getting funds to improve a public park facility. The benefit to the developer and future HOA is not constructing or maintaining a recreational space with little value. The developer may use the land for other site improvements, such as 1 Private park amenities, use and maintenance - Survey Report Overview The Town of Oro Valley is working on proposed code amendments to private recreation areas, including the size, type of amenities and in-lieu fee options applicable to new residential subdivisions, multi- family, and mixed-use developments. The proposed code amendment does not apply to public parks. Examining and updating the Town's private recreation area requirements is an objective in the Town Council's Strategic Leadership Plan (SLP). Specifically, as part of the SLP, the Town Council directed staff to examine methods that would "prioritize larger neighborhood area parks and amenities as outlined in the Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment." As part of this effort, the Community and Economic Development department sought input from HOAs that currently own private parks to understand use of amenities, the value of smaller parks, and maintenance needs. Methodology Property management companies of subdivisions with private parks were contacted to identify HOA board members. Management companies were also asked to forward the survey to unidentified HOA board members. The Town received HOA board contact information for 62% of the 49 subdivisions that own private parks. Direct emails with a link to survey were sent out to the identified HOA board members encouraging them to participate in the survey. Despite the Town’s best efforts, only 18 surveys were completed. Even with the low response rate, the information is helpful in providing some insight about private parks. However, the responses are not representative of all HOAs with private parks. Therefore, this survey should not be solely used as a basis for decision-making. Participants were able to choose whether to participate in this survey, thus introducing a possibility of self-selection bias. Self-selection bias occurs when the group that chooses to participate is not equivalent to the group that opts out. We can assume that individuals that took time to respond to a survey regarding are more likely aware and invested in their private recreation areas. Report Sections This report contains the following: • Section 1: Survey respondents • Section 2: Private Park Amenities • Section 3: Use of Small Private Parks – ¼ acre or less • Section 4: Maintenance of Private Parks • Section 5: Additional Information • Appendix: Survey Questions 2 Key Findings and Opportunities Section 1: Survey Respondents Opportunities • 18 surveys were completed that represent 24 private park or recreational facilities. • Rancho Vistoso is most represented. HOAs with private parks on the south side of town (south of Lambert Lane) are least represented. • A wide range (0.2 -13.8 acres) of park sizes were reported in the survey, including very small parks less than a ¼ acre. • Subdivisions with 200 or less homes were most represented. The survey had a low response rate which provides some insight about private parks, including very small private parks but is not a representative sample of all HOAs with private parks. Section 2: Private Park Amenities Opportunities • Passive amenities such as benches, ramadas, picnic tables and walking paths were prevalent in most of the surveyed subdivisions. • Benches, playground equipment, walking paths, ramadas, ball courts and turf areas were most used. • Require valued amenities in every private park for seating, shading and pedestrian connectivity. • Playgrounds, ball courts and turf areas are popular active amenities that are most likely to be used over time. Section 3: Use of Small Private Parks – ¼ acre or less Opportunities • Most (71%) of respondents with small parks stated they were used a few times a week or daily. • The primary factors for park use were the location, accessibility and type of amenities provided. • Small private parks are used often. Use is dependent on location, accessibility and the type of amenities provided. • Require a variety of amenities to appeal to most residents. • Locate private parks regardless of size in a centralized, highly visible area that is a focal point in the community. Section 4: Maintenance of Private Parks Opportunities • Maintaining landscape and irrigation (71% of responses) are the highest costs associated with private recreation areas. • 48% of respondents thought the Town should limit the amount of natural turf in private parks. • Limit natural turf area in private parks. Section 5: Additional Information Opportunities • Almost all (94%) of respondents agreed private parks need seating, shading, and walking paths. • 58% of respondents agreed a diverse range of amenities to accommodate all age groups and abilities is important. The other 42% were neutral while no one disagreed. • Private parks should all include seating, shading and pedestrian connectivity at a minimum. • Park areas need to have a variety of amenities for all ages and abilities. 3 Section 1: Survey Respondents The map below identifies private parks owned and maintained by HOAs in Oro Valley. The map only includes private parks within residential subdivisions. Responses from outreach and to the survey are also mapped below. 4 Subdivisions and private parks represented Vistoso Community Association represents 16 private park and recreation areas. In addition to Vistoso Community Association, 9 other subdivisions are represented in this survey. SUBDIVISION PARK SIZE (ACRES) RESPONSES Vistoso Community Association 0.2 – 13.8 2 Carmel Pointe 1.0 2 Catalina at Canada Hills 0.2 1 Copper Creek 3.5 1 Copper Ridge Estates II 2.8 3 Ironwood Canyon 0.5 2 Residences at Miller Ranch 0.2 1 Tangerine Terrace 0.2 4 Villages at La Canada 0.9 2 Number of homes represented Roughly, how many homes does your HOA serve? Subdivision with 100 or less homes represent 39% of the responses, medium subdivisions with 101-500 homes represent 33%, and large subdivisions 501+ homes represent 28%. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10-100 101-200 501-600 600+ Nu m b e r o f R e s p o n s e s Number of Homes Represented HOA Board Representation 5 Section 2: Private Park Amenities What type of amenities are in the private parks your HOA oversees? Passive amenities such as benches and ramadas were most prevalent in existing private parks surveyed. Ball courts (e.g., basketball, tennis, etc.) and playground equipment were the most common active amenities. Turf areas for free play were also common. None of the respondents had swimming pools in their private recreation areas. Note: For accuracy, duplicate responses for the same subdivision were removed. Those who responded with “Other” amenities listed: • Horseshoe area • Parking lot • Barbecue grills • Bathrooms, water fountains • Shade canopies • Security cameras and lighting • WIFI and concrete event pad Of the surveyed private parks, the number of amenities ranged between 2-5 per park area. The two subdivisions with the smallest private recreation areas (0.2 acres) had 2-3 amenities. Passive Amenities Active Amenities 6 Based on your knowledge, please rank the amenities used most often in private parks? Benches, playground equipment, walking trails or paths ranked highest (Tier 1). Ball courts, ramadas or picnic tables and turf areas were second with dog parks, swimming pools and workout/fitness equipment used least. Note: Respondents were asked to rank all the amenities listed below whether they were prevalent in their private park. Therefore, the results may be skewed since some amenities (e.g., dog parks and swimming pools) are not common in the private parks surveyed. Tier I Tier 2 Tier 3 7 Section 3: Use of Smaller Private Parks – ¼ acre or less The following section is focuses on smaller private parks a (1/4 acre or less). The map depicts the amount and location smaller private parks exist. 8 Based on your knowledge, how often are small private parks (1/4 acre or less) used in your area? Examples given included Copper Spring Park in Vistoso Estates, The residences at Miller Ranch subdivision park, Torreno Park, The Cove subdivision park, and Desert Crest subdivision park. Of the 18 respondents, this question was only applicable to 7. From the 7 respondents who represent subdivisions with smaller parks, most found their parks were used a few times a week (often). Interestingly, 4 respondents representing the same neighborhood had varying opinions ranging from rarely – very often. For those who do not own small private park areas, 4 opted out of the question and 7 responded. The 7 responses matched those above, except for 1 response of “very rarely.” If responded with very rarely or rarely, why do you think small private parks are rarely used? For those who own smaller private parks, the following factors were identified as the primary reasons they are only used a few times per month (listed in random order): • The type of amenities is not appealing • They are not shaded enough for year round • The number of amenities is too low For those who do not own private parks, the following factors were identified as primary reasons for why they are only used a few times per month (listed in random order): • They are not centrally located • The type of amenities not appealing • They are too small • They are not shaded enough for year-round 0 1 2 3 4 5 Very rarely ( a few times per year) Rarely (a few times per month) Often ( a few times per week) Very often (daily) Use of Small Parks 9 If responded with often to very often, why do you think small private parks are well used? For those who own smaller private parks, the following factors were identified as the primary reasons they are used often: Similarly, for those who do not own private parks the top factor better use the parks’ location. Section 4: Maintenance of Private Parks What are your biggest maintenance costs related to private parks Maintaining or replacing landscaping and irrigation were the highest maintenance costs for private parks. Two participants were unsure and opted out of the question. 0 1 2 3 4 5 They are centrally located to most homes. The number of amenities provided is good. The type of amenities is appealing to residents. They are well-shaded for year-round play. They are right sized for the community. They are accessible and visible in the community Factors for Often - Very Often Used Small Parks 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Irrigation costs (watering or replacement) Maintaining or replacing landscaping Reseeding natural turf Upkeep/replacement of equipment Maintenance Costs 10 Section 5: Additional information Based on your knowledge, is there interest from the community to change the private park amenities or design? Five (26%) of the respondents answered yes to this question. All the changes requested were to replace or add amenities: • Change the basketball court to pickleball • Replace real grass with artificial grass • Remove volleyball court and add ramadas, benches, and tables or maybe a bocce ball court Please rate your agreement with the following statements Ninety-four (94%) of respondents agreed seating, shade, and walking paths are important in private parks. Although irrigation and landscaping are high maintenance costs, the responses to whether the Town should limit turf in private parks varied. Forty-eight percent (48%) agreed, twenty-six percent (26%) were neutral, and twenty-seven percent (27%) disagreed. Similar to previous responses, the variety of amenities and location of private recreation areas were the primary determinants for meaningful and usable recreation space. Is there anything else the Town should consider regarding private parks? At the end of the survey, respondents were given the opportunity to share anything else they felt had not been covered. With the opportunity to provide an open-ended response, it was popular for respondents to cite a specific issue they care about. Responses highlighted the value of small parks and emphasized the need for private parks to be accessible, centrally located and have amenities such as seating. 11 There were four responses to this question: • Our park is not very appealing, is scarcely used, and seems frankly unnecessary in such a small community. The Town provides much better amenities at its parks and community centers. • Maybe the city taking over our park • It is easily accessible to the families in this community, and they don't have to take their children elsewhere to play. It is also a central location so that the area can be used for other neighborhood gatherings. Needs more seating and parking off street. • Allow the association to manage the small community parks. They know their membership best and will focus on maintaining the safety and appeal of the park while controlling expenses. Conclusion The survey provides some insight about existing private park areas in subdivisions. Due to the low response rate, this information is helpful but not representative of all private parks. Key themes from the survey include a need for standard amenities, such as seating and shading, focus on having a variety of amenities, and a central/accessible location for private rec areas to be meaningful and usable by all residents. 12 Appendix Copy of Survey The Town of Oro Valley is updating the private park standards for new subdivisions. We are seeking input from HOAs that currently own private parks. As an HOA board member, you have been selected to share your experience. The survey will take approximately 5 minutes and individual response will not be shared with other parties. This survey is for HOA board members and is only available online through June 30. If you have any questions about the proposed updates or the survey, please contact Milini Simms, Principal Planner at 520-229-4836. 1. What is the name of the homeowner’s association (HOA) you represent? 2. Roughly, how many homes does your HOA serve? 3. What types of amenities are in the private parks you oversee? (Check all that apply) • Benches • Ramadas or picnic tables • Workout/fitness equipment • Paved walking paths or trails • Playground equipment • Swimming pools • Ball courts (basketball, pickleball, volleyball, etc.) • Turf areas for free play or gathering • Dog parks • Other: 4. Based on your knowledge, please rank the amenities used most often in the private parks? • Benches • Ramadas or picnic tables • Workout/fitness equipment • Paved walking paths or trails • Playground equipment • Swimming pools • Ball courts (basketball, pickleball, volleyball, etc.) • Turf areas for free play or gathering • Dog parks • Other: 5. Based on your knowledge, how often are small parks (1/4 acre or less) used in your area? Please click here for a map of small private parks in the Town of Oro Valley. • Very rarely (a few times per year) • Rarely (a few times per month) • Often (a few times per week) • Very often (daily) 13 6. Why do you think the small private parks are rarely used? • They are not centrally located most of the homes. • The amount of amenities is too low. • The type of amenities is not appealing to residents • They are too small. • They are not shaded. • They are not accessible or visible. • Other: 7. If you answered “often – very often,” why do you think small private parks are well used? • They are centrally located to most homes. • The amount of amenities provided is good. • The type of amenities is appealing to residents. • They are well-shaded for year-round play. • They are right sized for the community. • They are visible and accessible. • Other: 8. In your experience, has the community raised any of the following concerns about private parks? • Private parks are not accessible from where they live. • The types of amenities in the private parks are not appealing. • Private parks lack enough shade for year-round play. • Private parks are too small. • Other: 9. What are your biggest maintenance costs related to private parks? (Check the top 2) • Irrigation costs (watering or replacement) • Maintaining or replacing landscaping • Reseeding natural turf • Upkeep/replacement of equipment • Sign replacement • Lighting • Other: 10. Based on your knowledge, is there interest from the community to change the private park amenities or design? • Yes • No If yes, please elaborate: 14 11. Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements (Strongly disagree – Strongly Agree, do not know) • Seating, shade, and walking paths are important in private parks. • The Town should limit the amount of natural turf allowed in private parks. • A diverse range of amenities to accommodate all age groups and abilities is important. • Having one, large, centrally located private park is better than multiple, smaller private parks spread throughout the neighborhood. • Maintenance of small private parks (less than a ¼ acre) outweighs the benefits they provide to the community. 12. Is there anything else you think the Town should consider regarding private parks?