The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPackets - Planning and Zoning Commission (172) AGENDA ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION July 7, 2020 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING Join Zoom Meeting: https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/96853617637 To attend via phone only, dial 1-669-900-6833 then enter Meeting ID: 9685367637 Executive Sessions – Upon a vote of the majority of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission may enter into Executive Sessions pursuant to Arizona Revised Statues §38-431.03 (A)(3) to obtain legal advice on matters listed on the Agenda. REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO AUDIENCE - at this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Commission on any issue not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona open meeting law, individual Commission 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 Commission 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. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS REGULAR SESSION AGENDA 1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 2, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES 2.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO INITIATE A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW 3.CONTINUED ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO THE NOISE ABATEMENT STANDARDS ONLY FOR NEW AND SPECIFIC LAND USE TYPES AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE USES OF THE ZONING CODE PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) ADJOURNMENT POSTED: 6/30/2020 at 5:00 p.m. by pp POSTED: 6/30/2020 at 5:00 p.m. by pp When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the Commission 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 Commission 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 Commission during the course of their business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. In accordance with Amendment #2 of the Mayoral Proclamation of Emergency issued on March 27, 2020, the following restrictions have been placed on all public meetings until further notice: 1. In-person attendance by members of the public is prohibited. 2. Members of the public can either watch the public meeting online https://www.orovalleyaz.gov/town/departments/town-clerk/meetings-and-agendas or, if they would like to participate in the meeting (e.g. speak at Call to Audience or speak on a Regular Agenda item), they can attend the meeting and participate via the on-line meeting application Zoom: https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/96853617637 , or may participate telephonically only by dialing 1-669-900-6833 prior to or during the posted meeting. 3. If a member of the public would like to speak at either Call to Audience or on a Regular Agenda item, it is highly encouraged to email your request to speak to jancona@orovalleyaz.gov and include your name and town/city of residence in order to provide the Mayor/Chair with advance notice so you can be called upon more efficiently during the Zoom meeting. 4. All members of the public who participate in the Zoom meeting either with video or telephonically will enter the meeting with microphones muted. For those participating via computer/tablet/phone device, you may choose whether to turn your video on or not. If you have not provided your name to speak prior to the meeting as specified in #3 above, you will have the opportunity to be recognized when you “raise your hand.” Those participating via computer/tablet/phone device can click the “raise your hand” button during the Call to the Public or Regular Agenda item, and the Chair will call on you in order, following those who submit their names in advance. For those participating by phone, you can press *9, which will show the Chair that your hand is raised. When you are recognized at the meeting by the Chair, your microphone will be unmuted by a member of staff and you will have three minutes to speak before your microphone is again muted. 5. If a member of the public would like to submit written comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration prior to the meeting, please email those comments to jancona@orovalleyaz.gov , no later than sixty minutes before the public meeting. Those comments will then be electronically distributed to the public body prior to the meeting. If you have any questions, please contact the Commission’s recording secretary at jancona@orovalleyaz.gov. 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.” Planning & Zoning Commission 1. Meeting Date:07/07/2020 Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development Case Number: N/A SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 2, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve (approve with changes), the June 2. 2020 meeting minutes. Attachments 6-2-2020 Draft Minutes D R A F T MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION June 2, 2020 MEETING HELD VIA ZOOM REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Gambill called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Celeste Gambill, Chair Jacob Herrington, Vice Chair Hal Bergsma, Commissioner Neal Herst, Commissioner Ellen Hong, Commissioner Skeet Posey, Commissioner Daniel Sturmon, Commissioner Staff Present:Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney Commissioner Hong arrived at 6:02 p.m. Chair Gambill provided instructions on how to participate in tonight's meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Melanie Barrett provided updates on past and upcoming Council meeting agenda items. REGULAR SESSION AGENDA 1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE MAY 5, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Neal Herst, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to approve the May 5, 2020 meeting minutes as written. A roll call vote was taken: A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Vote: 7 - 0 Carried 2.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE REQUEST FOR A NEW MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING AT PUSCH RIDGE CHRISTIAN ACADEMY, 2000761 Senior Planner Hannah Oden provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Location - Proposed building location - Proposed multi-purpose building - View from Oracle Road - Compatibility with existing campus development - Summary and recommendation Applicant Mark Cueva with Carhuff and Cueva Architects, provided a presentation that included the following: - The reason/need for the building - Exterior perspectives of the building - Site plan showing location of the building - Sample of materials proposed - Detailed layout of the floor plan and uses - Building elevations - Site photos of the campus - View from Oracle Road Discussion ensued among the Commission and applicant. Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. There were no speaker requests. Chair Gambill closed the public hearing. Further discussion ensued among the Commission and applicant. Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to recommend approval of the Conceptual Architecture for the proposed multi-purpose building at Pusch Ridge Christian Academy, based on the findings that the request complies with the Design Principles and Design Standards of the Zoning Code. A roll call vote was taken: A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Vote: 7 - 0 Carried 3.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL MODEL HOME ARCHITECTURE FOR THE MILLER RANCH SUBDIVISION, LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TANGERINE ROAD AND LA CAÑADA DRIVE, 2000236 Planning Intern Michela Wilson provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Location - Approved site plan - Design principles and standards - Elevations - Colors and materials - Compatibility - photos from surrounding area - Condition of Approval 1 - Condition of Approval 2 - Summary and recommendation Applicant Brent Davis, representing D.R. Horton, provided a presentation that included the following: - Rendering of entrance sign for the subdivision - Site layout - Six floor plans with three elevations and six color schemes - Architectural features - Colors and materials - All homes meet energy star certification and include smart home technology - Review of the model plans and elevations: Opal, Jade, Onyx, Savannah, Sabino and Ventana - Aerial view of area - Existing homes in the area - Photos of Lehman Academy and neighboring community Discussion ensued among the Commission and applicant. Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. There were no speaker requests. Chair Gambill closed the public hearing. Further discussion continued among the Commission and applicant. Motion by Commissioner Skeet Posey, seconded by Commissioner Neal Herst to approve the Conceptual Model Home Architecture for six (6) model homes in the Miller Ranch subdivision, subject to both conditions in Attachment #1, based on the findings that the request complies with the Design Principles and Design Standards of the Zoning Code. A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Vote: 7 - 0 Carried 4.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO THE NOISE ABATEMENT STANDARDS ONLY FOR NEW AND SPECIFIC LAND USE TYPES AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE USES OF THE ZONING CODE Chair Gambill introduced the consultant, Dr. Lance Willis with Spendarian and Willis Acoustics and Noise Control, who was in attendance to answer any questions related to this agenda item. Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Part 1: Noise abatement - existing standard is broken - Part 1: Noise abatement - background - Part 1: Noise abatement - proposed amendment - Part 1: Noise abatement - scenario - Part 2 Convenience use separation - convenience uses - Part 2 Convenience use separation - proposal - Part 2 Convenience use separation - scenario - General Plan - Summary and recommendation Discussion ensued between the Commission, staff and the consultant. Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. - Keri Silvyn, a Zoning and Land Use lawyer who represents many developers in Oro Valley, spoke in support of Agenda Item #4 - OV resident Tim Bohen spoke on Agenda Item #4 Discussion ensued in response to the public hearing comments. Chair Gambill closed the public hearing. Further discussion continued among the Commission and staff. Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington to continue consideration of this matter until a future meeting to give staff time to provide more evidence related to how the proposed standards compare to other jurisdictions in the area, in Arizona, and the rest of the country. Staff asked for clarification on what information is being requested to provide. Commissioner Bergsma stated what information he is requesting. A roll call vote was taken: A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Nay Vice Chair Herrington - Nay Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Nay Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Nay Vote: 3 - 4 Failed OPPOSED: Chair Celeste Gambill Vice Chair Jacob Herrington Commissioner Neal Herst Commissioner Daniel Sturmon Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to continue reconsideration of this matter to the next Commission meeting in July, allowing staff time to elaborate on their findings and evidence by showing how the proposed standards compare to other jurisdictions, both locally and nationally. Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff. A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Nay Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Vote: 6 - 1 Carried OPPOSED: Chair Celeste Gambill PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided updates on upcoming neighborhood meetings and tentative items on the next Commission agenda. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to adjourn the meeting. Chair Gambill adjourned the meeting at 8:34 p.m. I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Town of Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 2nd day of June 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 11th day of June 2020. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist Planning & Zoning Commission 2. Meeting Date:07/07/2020 Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development Case Number: Not applicable SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO INITIATE A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends initiation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Initiation of a zoning code amendment to update the required findings for a variance to be in compliance with State law. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Applications for a variance, or modification from the zoning code requirements, are considered by the Board of Adjustment. To grant a variance, the Board of Adjustment must find the request meets all the findings established in State law and Section 22.13.C of the Zoning Code. Initiation of this code amendment will direct staff to review and update the findings accordingly, for compliance with State law. If initiated, the proposed code amendment will be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and subsequently Town Council for consideration. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to initiate the zoning code amendment to update the required findings for a variance to be in compliance with State law. Or I MOVE to not initiate the zoning code amendment to update the required findings for a variance in compliance with State law. Planning & Zoning Commission 3. Meeting Date:07/07/2020 Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 1901670 SUBJECT: CONTINUED ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO THE NOISE ABATEMENT STANDARDS ONLY FOR NEW AND SPECIFIC LAND USE TYPES AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE USES OF THE ZONING CODE RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed Zoning Code amendment (Attachment 1) related to noise abatement standards, as a component of development review, and separation requirements for convenience uses. This item is on the Planning Division Workplan and Town's Strategic Plan. The zoning code amendment was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 2, 2020, and was continued to the following meeting. The staff report and draft meeting minutes for the June meeting can be viewed in Attachments 2 and 3, respectively. This report provides additional information to address the questions raised by the Commission during the hearing. Those questions related to the following topics: A comparison of the proposed noise standards to surrounding jurisdictions;1. National standards for noise abatement; and2. Enforcement procedures for noise complaints3. Surround jurisdiction comparison To address the first topic, staff updated the surrounding jurisdiction analysis (Attachment 4) to include the "one-hour average limits" rather than the "maximum sound limits" which is more reflective of the standards applied in other southern Arizona communities. The proposed standards are slightly higher in some instances and lower in others as a result of being "right sized". The thresholds proposed in Table 25-1.A (Attachment 1) are more representative of National Standards, strike a balance between development and surrounding land uses and should serve as a template for other jurisdictions. National Standards The National Standards used throughout the United States are the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). These standards provide methodologies for quantifying the long term community impact of a wide variety of sound classifications. The standards establish appropriate adjustments (based on external factors) and measurement methodologies for a variety of sound classifications. References to these standards are detailed more extensively in the associated technical bulletin provided by the Acoustic Engineer consultant (table of contents provided for reference in Attachment 5). These standards directly informed the "one hour average limits" and appropriate adjustments for nighttime and evening hours as well as those for special characteristics, such as background noise and road noise. A table from ANSI Section 12.9 Part 5, detailing land use compatibly for a variety of uses relative to noise impacts, is included as Attachment 6. As you can see, the proposed thresholds in Attachment 1 are consistent with the table and are either compatible or marginally compatible. Enforcement As discussed in the June staff report, the proposed code amendment will only apply during the development review process for new land uses. It is not intended to deal with noise violations or nuisances arising from "unreasonable noise" emanating from an existing land use - or once a new use is operational, as those are handled exclusively by Town Code. The proposed standards will be used during the initial project review to determine necessary mitigation measures. Once approved and constructed, any noise complaints will be handled by the Town of Oro Valley Police Department based on the criteria in Town Code. The sole exception to this is if the new use received a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and is exceeding the approved noise thresholds. In this scenario, possible reconsideration of the CUP may be required. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed Zoning Code amendment (Attachment 1) related to noise abatement standards, as a component of development review, and separation requirements for convenience uses. This item is on the Planning Division Workplan and Town's Strategic Plan. The zoning code amendment was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 2, 2020, and was continued to the July meeting. The staff report and draft meeting minutes for the June meeting can be viewed in Attachments 2 and 3, respectively. This report provides additional information to address the questions raised by the Commission during the hearing. Those questions related to the following topics: A comparison of the proposed noise standards to surrounding jurisdictions;1. National standards for noise abatement; and2. Enforcement procedures for noise complaints3. Surround jurisdiction comparison To address the first topic, staff updated the surrounding jurisdiction analysis table (Attachment 4) to include the "one-hour average limits" rather than the "maximum sound limits" which is more reflective of the standards applied in other southern Arizona communities. Please note, some jurisdictions did not indicate how they calculate noise levels, so the average limits proposed are again a more reasonable comparison. The proposed standards are slightly higher in some instances and lower in others as a result of being "right sized" that are more representative of National Standards. Again, the aim is to strike a balance between development and any impacts on neighboring properties. National Standards The National Standards used throughout the United States are known as the American National Standar ds Institute (ANSI). These standards provide methodologies for quantifying the long term community impact of a wide variety of sound classifications. The standards establish appropriate adjustments (based on external factors) and measurement methodologies for a variety of sound classifications. References to these standards are detailed more extensively in the associated technical bulletin provided by the Acoustic Engineer consultant (table of contents provided for reference in Attachment 5). These standards directly informed the "one hour average limits" and appropriate adjustments for nighttime and evening hours as well as those for special characteristics, such as background noise and road noise. The table at right (from ANSI Section 12.9 Part 5), generated from the methodologies included in the National Standards, establish a range of land use compatibility for a variety of uses, relative to noise levels. This table, representing the "one-hour average noise levels" includes 4 levels of compatibility based on the respective land use type. The thresholds in Table 25-1.A of the proposed amendment are consistent with the National Standards. Enforcement As discussed in the June staff report, the proposed code amendment is intended to only apply during the development review process for new land uses. It is not intended to deal with noise violations or nuisances arising from "unreasonable noise" emanating from an existing land use - or once a new use is operational, as those are handled exclusively by Town Code. The proposed standards will be used solely during the initial project review to determine necessary mitigation measures. Once approved and constructed, any noise complaints will be handled by the Town of Oro Valley Police Department based on the criteria in Town Code. While Town Code is purposefully subjective, it does establish several factors to be considered when a noise complaint is received. Those include: Section 10.1.4.D. D. Factors that may be considered in determining the reasonableness of the noise are, but not limited to: 1. The level, character, frequency and duration of the noise; 2. The necessity of the noise; 3. The proximity of the source to inhabited structures; 4. Hardship to the perpetrator if noise discontinued or limited; 5. Character and zoning of neighborhood; 6. Time of noise. Again, enforcement of noise complaints will solely be conducted by the Oro Valley Police Department. The only exception would be when the new use received a Conditional Use Permit, which considers noise impacts (levels), and is exceeding the approved noise thresholds. Should that scenario happen, possible reconsideration of the Permit may be required. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may wish to consider one of the following motions: I MOVE to recommend approval of the proposed code amendment based on a finding it is in conformance with Vision, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies of the General Plan OR I MOVE to recommend denial of the proposed code amendment based on a finding that _____________. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 - PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT ATTACHMENT 2 - JUNE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT 3 - DRAFT JUNE PZC MEETING MINUTES ATTACHMENT 4 - COMPARISON OF SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS ATTACHMENT 5 - TECH. BULLETIN TABLE OF CONTENTS ATTACHMENT 6 - LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Additions are shown in ALL CAPS font --- deletions shown in strikethrough font Page 1 Section 25.1 Requirements for Specific Uses This section applies to all non-residential uses, excluding parks. The requirements specified herein are in addition to those in the corresponding zoning district. A. General Requirements for All Non-Residential Uses 1. Fire Access: At least two (2) driveways should be provided for circulation and emergency vehicle access, subject to Fire Marshal review. 2. Conceptual Architecture; Subject to Planning Zoning Commission Approval: a. Accessory structures (structures other than the primary building(s) such as screen walls, gas station canopies, carports, signage structures) shall be coordinated with the primary building(s) in terms of materials, colors and style. b. Exterior finishes of a building shall not exceed a reflectivity of sixty percent (60%). 3. Noise a. Noise from internal loudspeakers, paging systems, live entertainment or stereo speakers shall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the property line of any adjacent property used or intended for residential purposes. a.A NOISE IMPACT STUDY IS REQUIRED AS PART OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OR TENANT IMPROVEMENT FOR ANY USE WHICH MAY GENERATE NOISE BEYOND THE ON-SITE PROPERTY BOUNDARY. USES WHICH REQUIRE A STUDY INCLUDE DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS, LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT BARS OR RESTAURANTS, PIPED IN AMBIANCE MUSIC, VEHICLE REPAIR SHOPS, VEHICLE WASHES OR OTHER SIMILAR USES AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. b.ANY STUDY REQUIRED IN SECTION 25.1.A.3.a SHALL DEMONSTRATE CONFORMANCE WITH THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED IN TABLE 25-1.A. IF SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS EXCEED THESE LIMITS, A NOISE ABATEMENT PLAN TO ACHIEVE CONFORMANCE SHALL BE REQUIRED. Additions are shown in ALL CAPS font --- deletions shown in strikethrough font Page 2 TABLE 25-1.A Land Use of Receiving Premise Time One Hour Average limits* Maximum Sound limits** One Minute Limits*** 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.55 75 65 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.50 70 65 Single Family Residential 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.45 65 65 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.60 80 65 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.55 75 65 Multi-Family Residential 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.50 70 65 Commercial, Office, Institutional, Schools, Parks and Open Space, Animal Husbandry all hours 65 85 70 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.65 85 70 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.60 80 65 Hospitals, Hotels 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.55 75 65 Technological Park (Industrial)all hours 75 90 75 * Measured as One-hour Equivalent-Continuous Sound Pressure Level (dBA) ** Measured as Fast Exponential Time Weighted Sound Pressure Level (dBA) *** Measured as Octave Band Equivalent-Continuous Sound Pressure Level, unweighted 16, 31.5 and 62 Hz Bands (dB) c. ALL MEASUREMENTS IN TABLE 25-1.A SHALL BE REPRESENTED AT THE NEAREST PROPERTY BOUNDARY OF THE USE RECEIVING SOUND FROM THE NOISE SOURCE AS INDICATED IN THE FIGURE 25-1.A. Additions are shown in ALL CAPS font --- deletions shown in strikethrough font Page 3 FIGURE 25.1.A NOISE STUDY MEASUREMENT LOCATION MEASUREMENTS SHALL BE TAKEN FROM A POINT NO LESS THAN TWELVE FEET FROM THE NOISE SOURCE OR ANY STRUCTURE. d.WHEN BACKGROUND SOUND INTERFERES, THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY IS NOT ACCESSIBLE, OR HIGHER SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS OCCUR WITHIN THE RECEIVING PROPERTY, AN ALTERNATIVE MEASUREMENT LOCATION MAY BE APPROVED AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. e. THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH AND MODIFY NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNICAL BULLETIN ESTABLISHING PROTOCOL FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF NOISE DURING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. f.A BACKGROUND NOISE CORRECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNICAL BULLETIN SHALL BE MADE IF THE BACKGROUND SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL IS WITHIN TEN DECIBELS OF THE AMBIENT SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL. g. NOISE SOURCES WITH A-WEIGHTED EQUIVALENT-CONTINUOUS SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL OR OCTAVE BAND EQUIVALENT-CONTINUOUS SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL CHARACTERISTICS SHALL ADD THE ADJUSTMENTS LISTED IN TABLE 25-1.B. IF MORE THAN ONE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTIC APPLIES TO A NOISE SOURCE, ONLY THE LARGEST ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE APPLIED. TABLE 25-1.B SOUND SOURCE CHARACTERISTIC ADJUSTMENT (DECIBEL) REGULAR IMPULSIVE 5 HIGHLY IMPULSIVE 12 TONAL 5 h.ANY MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN A NOISE ABATEMENT PLAN ARE REQUIRED AS PART OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OR TENANT IMPROVEMENT TO ENSURE NOISE Additions are shown in ALL CAPS font --- deletions shown in strikethrough font Page 4 LEVELS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH TABLE 25-1.A. MITIGATION MEASURES MAY INCLUDE: i. ACOUSTIC INSULATION ii.ENHANCED BUFFER YARDS AND SOUND WALLS iii.REGULATION OF OPERATING HOURS iv.OTHER SIMILAR MEASURES AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR i. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL REGULATE NOISE OR SUPERCEDE NUISANCE NOISE REGULATIONS IN TOWN CODE. j.No external speakers, except for drive-through order purposes, piped-in ambiance music that is not discernible (less than forty (40) decibels) from on-site property lines, special events and/or approved outdoor entertainment venues, shall be permitted on the premises. k.SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS WILL BE MADE USING A TYPE I SOUND LEVEL METER (SLM) CALIBRATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER’S SPECIFICATIONS AS REQUIRED IN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNICAL BULLETIN. l.EXEMPTIONS i.ALERTING PERSONS TO THE EXISTENCE OF AN EMERGENCY. ii.PERFORMANCE OF EMERGENCY WORK. iii.PERFORMANCE OF AN ACTIVITY FOR WHICH, PURSUANT TO THIS CODE, THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HAS EXPRESSLY GIVEN A TEMPORARY SPECIAL USE PERMIT. iv.AIRCRAFT AND AIRPORT OPERATIONS. v.WARNING DEVICES REQUIRED ON VEHICLES BY ANY STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS. vi.THE LAWFUL OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ON A RIGHT-OF-WAY. vii.THE OPERATION OF ESSENTIAL SERVICE VEHICLES (E.G., POLICE AND FIRE VEHICLES, SANITATION AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT VEHICLES). viii.NONCOMMERCIAL UNAMPLIFIED PUBLIC SPEAKING AND PUBLIC ASSEMBLY ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON ANY PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTY. ix.CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH TOWN CODE B. Requirements for Specific Non-Residential Uses 6. Convenience Uses a. Standards for All Convenience Uses i. Locational Requirements a) Convenience uses shall be a minimum of two hundred fifty (250) feet from any property used or intended for residential purposes. b) Convenience uses shall be a minimum of five hundred (500) feet from any public park or school. c) The above distances shall be measured from the abutting edge of the residential district to the closest property line or lease line of the convenience use. The limit of the property line or lease line shall include all required parking, landscaping, and setbacks of the specific convenience use. Additions are shown in ALL CAPS font --- deletions shown in strikethrough font Page 5 d) THE ABOVE DISTANCES MAY BE REDUCED BY TOWN COUNCIL WHEN MAJOR BARRIERS EXIST TO MITIGATE IMPACTS ON ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL, PUBLIC PARK OR SCHOOL PROPERTIES. MAJOR BARRIER(S) INCLUDE BUILDINGS, TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES (I.E. HILLSIDES) AND ARTERIAL ROADWAYS AND MUST DEMONSTRATE CONFORMANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING: i. NOISE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE LEVELS LISTED IN TABLE 25-1.A ii. ODOR ABATEMENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 25.1.A.6 iii. VISIBILITY OF DRIVE-THRU USES AND STACKING LANES SHALL BE MITIGATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 25.1.B.8. AND SCREENED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 27.6.C.5. e) Convenience uses shall be ancillary to and located in shopping centers, office parks, or a combination of a shopping center and office park. Convenience uses shall not be permitted in office parks in an R-6 district. ii. Number of Convenience Uses per Center a) The total number of convenience uses shall not exceed one (1) pad per four and one-half (4.5) acres of shopping center or office park. No more than one (1) drive- in, drive-through, gas station, or convenience use shall be permitted for every nine (9) acres of office park. iii. Access a) No convenience use shall have direct vehicular access onto any street which provides a lower level of service than a collector street. b) All convenience uses shall be accessed through a common driveway serving the center or office park. If traffic safety warrants, one (1) direct access per arterial frontage may be approved by the Town Engineer for an individual convenience use. c) All convenience uses shall provide access points to the internal circulation driveways and parking areas of the center unless otherwise approved by the Town Council. iv. Timing of Development a) Convenience uses shall not be open for business until a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the net floor area for the non-convenience use structures within the shopping center have been constructed. Section 31 Definitions AMBIENT SOUND Additions are shown in ALL CAPS font --- deletions shown in strikethrough font Page 6 SOUND FROM ALL NORMAL EXISTING SOURCES NEAR AND FAR AT A GIVEN LOCATION, INCLUDING THE NOISE SOURCE BEING EVALUATED. BACKGROUND SOUND SOUND FROM ALL EXISTING SOURCES NEAR AND FAR THAT MAY INTERFERE WITH A SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL MEASUREMENT, NOT TO INCLUDE THE NOISE SOURCE BEING EVALUATED. DECIBEL (dB) A UNIT OF LEVEL WHICH DENOTES THE RATIO OF TWO QUANTITIES THAT ARE PROPORTIONAL TO POWER AS DEFINED IN THE NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNICAL BULLETIN. IMPULSIVE SOUND SOUND THAT IS CHARACTERIZED BY BRIEF DISTURBANCES OF SOUND PRESSURE, TYPICALLY LESS THAN ONE SECOND, WHEN PEAK SOUND PRESSURE EXCEEDS THE BACKGROUND SOUND PRESSURE. HIGHLY IMPULSIVE SOUND HAVING VERY RAPID ONSET RATE (GREATER THAN 150 DB PER SECOND) TYPICALLY RESULTING FROM IMPACT PROCESSES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: METAL HAMMERING, WOOD HAMMERING, DROP HAMMERING, PILE DRIVING, DROP FORGING, PNEUMATIC HAMMERING, PICKLEBALL PADDLE AND BALL IMPACTS, PAVEMENT BREAKING, METAL IMPACTS AND RIVETING. REGULAR IMPULSIVE SOUND THAT IS NOT HIGHLY IMPULSIVE SOUND. THIS INCLUDES SPEECH AND MUSIC. NOISE ANY SOUND WHICH ANNOYS OR DISTURBS HUMANS OR WHICH CAUSES OR TENDS TO CAUSE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON HUMANS, DOMESTICATED ANIMALS OR LIVESTOCK. NOISE ABATEMENT PLAN A DETAILED PLAN DEMONSTRATING THE MITIGATION MEASURES TO BE TAKEN IN ORDER TO MEET THE NOISE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CODE. NOISE IMPACT STUDY AN ANALYSIS PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED ACOUSTICAL ENGINEER WHICH DETERMINES THE POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS OF A PROPOSED USE. SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL A DESCRIPTOR FOR CHARACTERIZING THE SOUND FROM INDIVIDUAL ACOUSTICAL EVENTS. Additions are shown in ALL CAPS font --- deletions shown in strikethrough font Page 7 A-WEIGHTED SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL A SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL OBTAINED FROM AN A-WEIGHTED SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL. SOUND PRESSURE A DISTURBANCE OF THE ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE WITH RESPECT TO THE MEAN BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PRODUCING THE SENSATION OF HEARING OR VIBRATION MEASURED IN UNITS OF PASCAL (Pa). PEAK SOUND PRESSURE THE LARGEST ABSOLUTE VALUE OF THE INSTANTANEOUS SOUND PRESSURE IN PASCALS (Pa) IN A STATED FREQUENCY BAND DURING A SPECIFIED TIME INTERVAL. SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL THE SOUND PRESSURE EXPRESSED AS A DECIBEL. A-WEIGHTED SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL OBTAINED USING AN 'A' FREQUENCY WEIGHTING FILTER AS DEFINED IN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNICAL BULLETIN. EQUIVALENT-CONTINUOUS SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL THE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL OF A STEADY, CONTINUOUS SOUND HAVING THE SAME SOUND ENERGY AS THE TIME VARYING SOUND MEASURED. SOUND LEVEL METER (SLM), TYPE 1 AN INSTRUMENT USED TO MEASURE SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS MEETING THE STANDARDS FOR ACCURACY ESTABLISHED IN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY NOISE ABATEMENT TECHINICAL BULLETIN. TONAL SOUND SOUND HAVING ONE OR MORE SINGLE FREQUENCY OSCILLATIONS (PURE TONES) OR THAT IS CONFINED TO A NARROW BAND OF FREQUENCIES MEETING THE CRITERIA FOR TONAL PROMINENCE. Planning & Zoning Commission AGENDA ITEM: 4. Meeting Date:06/02/2020 Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 1901670 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO THE NOISE ABATEMENT STANDARDS ONLY FOR NEW AND SPECIFIC LAND USE TYPES AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE USES OF THE ZONING CODE RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed Zoning Code amendment (Attachment 1) related to noise abatement standards as a component of development review and separation requirements for convenience uses. This item is on the Planning Division Workplan and Town's Strategic Plan. It is a focal item as our current standard is unreasonable and overly simplistic. The existing code threshold of "40 decibels" is more representative of a casual conversation, rather than noise generated by a land use. Furthermore, a "one size fits all" approach is not realistic as different land uses (e.g. residential) necessarily should have a lower allowed noise threshold than a tech park area or large commercial center. Staff conducted thorough review of model codes from other jurisdictions and hired a noise consultant to assist with the development of the proposed code amendment. With that said, request includes two areas of proposed changes. Those include: Update the noise standards relative to development review only for new and specific land use types; and 1. Provide an avenue, where appropriate, for the separation requirements of convenience uses to be reduced as part of a Conditional Use Permit review when there are mitigating factors like topography, physical barriers or wide roadway separation, etc. 2. Part 1 - Noise standards relative to development review The first part of this proposed code amendment deals with noise standards relative to new development review applications. Noise impacts are addressed in a number of ways throughout the Town. Town Code deals with nuisances, while the Zoning Code addresses, among other things, noise generating businesses (e.g. restaurants with outdoor speakers or auto shops). Often these limits are associated with a corresponding Conditional Use Permit, but not in all instances. The intent of this code amendment is to only establish noise standards in the Zoning Code that will be used during development review for new land uses. It is not intended to deal with noise violations or nuisances arising from "unreasonable noise" emanating from an existing land use - or once a new building is operational, as those are handled exclusively by Town Code. Currently, the Zoning Code also establishes the following noise standards for all non-residential land uses: Section 25.1.A.3 Noise from internal loudspeakers, paging systems, live entertainment or stereo speakers shall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the property line of any adjacent property used or intended for 1. residential purposes. No external speakers, except for drive-thru order purposes, piped-in-ambiance music that is not discernible (less than (40) decibels) from on-site property lines, special events and/or approved outdoor entertainment venues, shall be permitted on premises. 2. Typically, many of the instances listed above are addressed through appropriate mitigation (e.g. larger buffers, building orientation, etc.) as part of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). However, these standards also apply to non-residential uses that do not require a CUP, some of which may generate noise impacts. For these uses, and specifically those which may occupy an existing vacant building where site design has been previously approved, a standard process and scale for evaluating noise impacts during development review is necessary. The existing standards listed above represents a "one size fits all" approach that is unreasonable as 40 decibels is more representative of a causal conversation, rather than noise generated from a business. Both are broken as not only is the threshold unreasonably low, different land uses should have different noise standards as a standard for residential subdivision is likely not appropriate for tech park areas. It is clear the standard needs to be updated. With that said, this part of the code amendment will address those existing issues by establishing: When a noise abatement study is required; 1. The ability for the Planning and Zoning Administrator to develop a standard protocol for measuring noise during the development review process; 2. What mitigation measures may be appropriate (e.g. enhanced landscaping, sound walls, acoustic insulation,etc.); 3. A scale for analyzing noise impacts of proposed development4. As part of the due diligence process, staff conducted an expansive research effort through which it became clear the existing standard is impractical and unrealistic. For comparison (also highlighted in Attachment 2), normal breathing is generally between 20-25 decibels, while a typical conversation is somewhere between 60-70 decibels. Forty (40) decibels is an unreasonably low standard when compared to other everyday activities and a realistic standard staff can use to evaluate impacts needs to be developed. The proposed amendment will establish noise limits for development review analysis based on two factors. The first is the type of land use "receiving" the noise (e.g. residential, commercial, multi-family, etc.). For example, if the noise is being generated from a commercial use and is being heard from an adjoining residential use, the "receiving" use, is the neighboring residential property. The second factor is the time of day, with different nighttime and daytime limits. Both factors are shown in the table below and in Attachment 1. The above table includes a more reasonable standard based on the context of the noise and will serve as a much more efficient means of evaluating sound impacts as part of development review. The noise standards are similar to other southern Arizona jurisdictions, a comparison of which is included in Attachment 3. This table is intended to only serve as a benchmark for development review analysis and will not impact noise or nuisance noise for existing or newly built land uses cited in Town Code. Part 2 - Separation requirements for convenience uses The second part of this amendment deals with the separation requirements for convenience uses. Currently, the zoning code requires minimum separation requirements for convenience uses to minimize potential nuisances to surrounding land uses from, among other things, noise, odor and visual impacts. The required separation is as follows: Two-hundred fifty (250) feet from any property used or intended for residential purposes Five-hundred (500) feet from any public park or school The proposed amendment will provide Town Council the flexibility to reduce this minimum requirement in certain instances where "major barriers" exist between a convenience use and a residential, public park or school use. Major barriers include: Buildings, which will clearly impact sound levels Topographical features such as hillsides Major arterial intersections The minimum separation requirements are appropriate where no extenuating circumstances exist, however; when there are barriers such as those listed above, the requirement is redundant as the potential nuisance impacts will likely be negligible. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed Zoning Code amendment (Attachment 1) related to noise abatement standards as a component of development review and separation requirements for convenience uses. This item is on the Planning Division Work plan and the Town's Strategic Plan. It is a focal item as our current standard is broken, unreasonable and overly simplistic. The existing code threshold of "40 decibels" is more representative of a casual conversation, rather than noise generated by a land use. Furthermore, a "one size fits all" approach is not realistic as different land uses (e.g. residential) necessarily should have a lower allowed noise threshold than a tech park area. Staff conducted thorough review of model codes from other jurisdictions and hired a noise consultant to assist with the development of the proposed code amendment. With that said, request includes two areas of proposed changes. Those include: Update the noise standards relative to development review only for new and specific land use types; and 1. Provide an avenue, where appropriate, for the separation requirements of convenience uses to be reduced as part of a Conditional Use Permit review when there are mitigating factors like topography, physical barriers or wide roadway separation, etc. 2. Part 1 - Noise standards relative to development review for new land uses The first part of the proposed code amendment deals with noise standards relative to new development review. Noise impacts are addressed in a number of ways throughout Town Code, including the Zoning Code. For example, Article 10-1-4 in the Town Code addresses "unreasonable noise" for existing and newly built properties throughout the Town, while the Zoning Code establishes, among other things, restrictions on when construction activity can occur and impacts arising from noise associated with a land use. The intent of this code amendment is to only establish standards for the evaluation of noise impacts during development review. It is not intended to deal with noise or nuisance noise for existing or newly built buildings, as those are handled exclusively by Town Code. The Zoning Code also establishes the following noise standards for all non-residential land uses: Section 25.1.A.3 Noise from internal loudspeakers, paging systems, live entertainment or stereo speakers shall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the property line of any adjacent property used or intended for 1. exceed forty (40) decibels at the property line of any adjacent property used or intended for residential purposes. No external speakers, except for drive-thru order purposes, piped-in-ambiance music that is not discernible (less than (40) decibels) from on-site property lines, special events and/or approved outdoor entertainment venues, shall be permitted on premises. 2. Typically, many of the instances listed above are addressed through appropriate mitigation (e.g. larger buffers, building orientation, etc.) as part of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) review. However, these standards also apply to non-residential uses that do not require a CUP, some of which may generate noise impacts. For these uses, and specifically those which may occupy an existing vacant building where site design has been previously approved, a standard process and scale for evaluating noise impacts is necessary. First, the proposed code amendment will establish a requirement for a noise abatement study concurrent with development review (i.e. new site design and improvements to existing buildings) when a use may generate noise beyond the on-site property boundary. For these uses, the noise study will be a submittal requirement to determine appropriate mitigation measures during the design review process. For example, when a new auto garage is proposed, the new standards provide a more targeted and effective means of evaluating the impacts to surrounding properties. If the development is proposed along a major roadway next to other commercial uses, the criteria would allow for appropriate evaluation of the impacts in that context. In that scenario where maximum sound levels would be higher, there may not be a need for much mitigation. Conversely, if the development is proposed near less intensive uses (e.g. residential) where the maximum sound levels would be lower, the criteria allows for specific evaluation in that context to ensure more substantial and effective mitigation is incorporated. This could include, among other measures, sound walls, and/or re-orienting the building away from the residential. Again, the existing standard is broken and the proposed amendment allows for more targeted and appropriate evaluation as part of the initial development review process. As part of the due diligence process, staff conducted an expansive research effort through which it became clear the existing standard (40 decibels) is impractical and unrealistic. For comparison (as highlighted at right and shown in Attachment 2), normal breathing is generally between 20-25 decibels, while a typical conversation is somewhere between 60-70 decibels. Forty (40) decibels is an unreasonably low standard when compared to other everyday activities and a realistic standard staff can use to evaluate impacts during development review needs to be incorporated. To aid in this effort, the Town hired a sound consultant to help develop and define a more realistic and appropriate sound standard. The proposed amendment will establish noise limits for development review analysis based on two factors. The first is the type of land use "receiving" the noise (e.g. residential, commercial, multi-family, etc.). For example, as shown in the graphic below, if the noise is being generated from a commercial use (shown in red) and is being heard at the point of measurement (identified with a blue X) from an adjoining residential use (shown in peach), the "receiving" use is the neighboring residential property. The second factor is the time of day, with different limitations for nighttime and daytime. Both factors are shown in the table below and in Attachment 1. The above table will establish a more reasonable standard based on the context of the noise and will serve as a much more efficient means of evaluating sound impacts as part of development review. The noise standards are similar to other southern Arizona jurisdictions, a comparison of which is included in Attachment 3. This table is intended to only serve as a benchmark for development review analysis and will not impact noise or nuisance noise as cited in Town Code. Lastly, a key component of any noise abatement study is to establish a standard methodology to determine how to measure sound. The code amendment will enable the Planning and Zoning Administrator to develop a standard protocol for measuring noise impacts as part of development review. The protocol will include, among other things, what type of measurement tool is required, how to calibrate said tool, how a noise study is to be conducted and how to measure the noise. The protocol is not intended to be part of the code, as technology changes quickly and updates to the procedures will likely be frequent to maintain an updated standard. However, staff has worked with a noise consultant to develop a technical bulletin which will help inform the standard protocol and those conducting future noise studies. Part 2 - Separation requirements for convenience uses The second part of this amendment deals with the separation requirements for convenience uses. Currently, the zoning code requires minimum separation requirements for convenience uses to minimize potential nuisances to surrounding land uses from, among other things, noise, odor and visual impacts. The required separation is as follows: Two-hundred fifty (250) feet from any property used or intended for residential purposes Five-hundred (500) feet from any public park or school The above distances are measured from "...the abutting edge of the residential district to the closest property line or lease line of the convenience use" and "...includes all required parking, landscaping and setbacks of the use". The second part of the proposed amendment will provide Town Council the flexibility to reduce this minimum requirement in certain instances where "major barriers" exist between a convenience use and residential, park or school uses. Major barriers include: Buildings Topographical features such as hillsides Major arterial intersections Major arterial intersections The minimum separation requirements are appropriate where no extenuating circumstances exist, however; when there are barriers such as those listed above, the requirement is redundant as the potential nuisance impacts will likely be negligible. For example, several commercial properties along Oracle Road are across (west) from Pusch Ridge Christian Academy. Though these properties are separated from the school by a major roadway (also a State highway), they are within 500 feet of the school property. As such, though the wide right-of-way or intersection effectively eliminates most potential impacts, no convenience uses are allowed within the 500 feet area. The proposed amendment would allow Town Council to determine whether or not a reduction could be justified. Finally, by limiting this flexibility to only apply when major barriers exist, ensures a balance between development applications and neighbors surrounding the property. SUMMARY The proposed Zoning Code Amendments have been reviewed for conformance with the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan Vision, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies and are in general conformance. The existing noise standards are unreasonable.The amendment represents opportunities to incorporate targeted, fair and protective code requirements. Lastly, the proposed amendments address an existing item on both the Planning Division Workplan and Town Strategic Plan. As such, Staff recommends approval of the Zoning Code Amendments. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may wish to consider one of the following motions: I MOVE to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed code amendment based on a finding it is in conformance with Vision, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies of the General Plan OR I MOVE to recommend DENIAL of the proposed code amendment based on a finding that _____________. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 - PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT ATTACHMENT 2 - TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS ATTACHMENT 3 - COMPARISON OF SOUTHERN ARIZONA COMMUNITIES NOISE STANDARDS D R A F T MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION June 2, 2020 MEETING HELD VIA ZOOM REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Gambill called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Celeste Gambill, Chair Jacob Herrington, Vice Chair Hal Bergsma, Commissioner Neal Herst, Commissioner Ellen Hong, Commissioner Skeet Posey, Commissioner Daniel Sturmon, Commissioner Staff Present:Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney Commissioner Hong arrived at 6:02 p.m. Chair Gambill provided instructions on how to participate in tonight's meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Melanie Barrett provided updates on past and upcoming Council meeting agenda items. REGULAR SESSION AGENDA 1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE MAY 5, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Neal Herst, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to approve the May 5, 2020 meeting minutes as written. A roll call vote was taken: A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Vote: 7 - 0 Carried 2.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE REQUEST FOR A NEW MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING AT PUSCH RIDGE CHRISTIAN ACADEMY, 2000761 Senior Planner Hannah Oden provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Location - Proposed building location - Proposed multi-purpose building - View from Oracle Road - Compatibility with existing campus development - Summary and recommendation Applicant Mark Cueva with Carhuff and Cueva Architects, provided a presentation that included the following: - The reason/need for the building - Exterior perspectives of the building - Site plan showing location of the building - Sample of materials proposed - Detailed layout of the floor plan and uses - Building elevations - Site photos of the campus - View from Oracle Road Discussion ensued among the Commission and applicant. Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. There were no speaker requests. Chair Gambill closed the public hearing. Further discussion ensued among the Commission and applicant. Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to recommend approval of the Conceptual Architecture for the proposed multi-purpose building at Pusch Ridge Christian Academy, based on the findings that the request complies with the Design Principles and Design Standards of the Zoning Code. A roll call vote was taken: A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Vote: 7 - 0 Carried 3.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL MODEL HOME ARCHITECTURE FOR THE MILLER RANCH SUBDIVISION, LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TANGERINE ROAD AND LA CAÑADA DRIVE, 2000236 Planning Intern Michela Wilson provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Location - Approved site plan - Design principles and standards - Elevations - Colors and materials - Compatibility - photos from surrounding area - Condition of Approval 1 - Condition of Approval 2 - Summary and recommendation Applicant Brent Davis, representing D.R. Horton, provided a presentation that included the following: - Rendering of entrance sign for the subdivision - Site layout - Six floor plans with three elevations and six color schemes - Architectural features - Colors and materials - All homes meet energy star certification and include smart home technology - Review of the model plans and elevations: Opal, Jade, Onyx, Savannah, Sabino and Ventana - Aerial view of area - Existing homes in the area - Photos of Lehman Academy and neighboring community Discussion ensued among the Commission and applicant. Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. There were no speaker requests. Chair Gambill closed the public hearing. Further discussion continued among the Commission and applicant. Motion by Commissioner Skeet Posey, seconded by Commissioner Neal Herst to approve the Conceptual Model Home Architecture for six (6) model homes in the Miller Ranch subdivision, subject to both conditions in Attachment #1, based on the findings that the request complies with the Design Principles and Design Standards of the Zoning Code. A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Vote: 7 - 0 Carried 4.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO THE NOISE ABATEMENT STANDARDS ONLY FOR NEW AND SPECIFIC LAND USE TYPES AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVENIENCE USES OF THE ZONING CODE Chair Gambill introduced the consultant, Dr. Lance Willis with Spendarian and Willis Acoustics and Noise Control, who was in attendance to answer any questions related to this agenda item. Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Part 1: Noise abatement - existing standard is broken - Part 1: Noise abatement - background - Part 1: Noise abatement - proposed amendment - Part 1: Noise abatement - scenario - Part 2 Convenience use separation - convenience uses - Part 2 Convenience use separation - proposal - Part 2 Convenience use separation - scenario - General Plan - Summary and recommendation Discussion ensued between the Commission, staff and the consultant. Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. - Keri Silvyn, a Zoning and Land Use lawyer who represents many developers in Oro Valley, spoke in support of Agenda Item #4 - OV resident Tim Bohen spoke on Agenda Item #4 Discussion ensued in response to the public hearing comments. Chair Gambill closed the public hearing. Further discussion continued among the Commission and staff. Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington to continue consideration of this matter until a future meeting to give staff time to provide more evidence related to how the proposed standards compare to other jurisdictions in the area, in Arizona, and the rest of the country. Staff asked for clarification on what information is being requested to provide. Commissioner Bergsma stated what information he is requesting. A roll call vote was taken: A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Nay Vice Chair Herrington - Nay Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Nay Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Nay Vote: 3 - 4 Failed OPPOSED: Chair Celeste Gambill Vice Chair Jacob Herrington Commissioner Neal Herst Commissioner Daniel Sturmon Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to continue reconsideration of this matter to the next Commission meeting in July, allowing staff time to elaborate on their findings and evidence by showing how the proposed standards compare to other jurisdictions, both locally and nationally. Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff. A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Nay Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Vote: 6 - 1 Carried OPPOSED: Chair Celeste Gambill PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided updates on upcoming neighborhood meetings and tentative items on the next Commission agenda. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to adjourn the meeting. Chair Gambill adjourned the meeting at 8:34 p.m. I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Town of Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 2nd day of June 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 11th day of June 2020. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist Proposed Amendment Tucson Pima County Marana Tempe Gilbert Residential 7 am – 10 pm 55 70 Not to be heard beyond 125 feet -55 55 10 pm – 7 am 45 62 Not to be heard beyond property line -45 45 Multi-family 7 am – 10 pm 60 70 Not to be heard beyond 125 feet -55 55 10 pm – 7 am 50 62 Not to be heard beyond property line -45 45 Commercial 7 am – 10 pm 65 72 Not to be heard beyond 125 feet -65 65 10 pm – 7 am 65 65 Not to be heard beyond property line -55 55 Industrial 7 am – 10 pm 75 85 Not to be heard beyond 125 feet -70 70 10 pm – 7 am 75 70 Not to be heard beyond property line -60 60 Park 7 am – 10 pm 65 -Not to be heard beyond 125 feet 55 -- 10 pm – 7 am 65 -Not to be heard beyond property line 50 -- Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Properties of Sound ........................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Annoyance ......................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Physiological Effects of Sound ......................................................................................... 7 1.4 Long Term and Short Term Community Impact ............................................................... 8 1.5 Present and Future Noise Exposure .................................................................................. 9 2. Definitions ....................................................................................................... 10 3. Noise Regulation Best Practices ................................................................... 12 3.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 12 3.2 Measurement Procedures ................................................................................................ 13 3.3 Common Ordinance Noise Descriptors .......................................................................... 13 3.4 Common Noise Ordinance Deficiencies ......................................................................... 14 3.4.1 No Objective Standards ........................................................................................... 14 3.4.2 No Criteria for Resolution ....................................................................................... 14 3.5 Reducing Vagueness ........................................................................................................ 15 3.6 Current Standards in Noise Regulation ........................................................................... 15 3.6.1 European Union Directive 2002/49 ......................................................................... 15 4. Review of Current Zoning Regulations for the Town of Oro Valley ......... 16 4.1 Current Zoning Regulations ............................................................................................ 16 4.2 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 16 4.2.1 Scope of the Regulations ......................................................................................... 16 4.2.2 Definitions ............................................................................................................... 16 4.2.3 Measurement Protocols ........................................................................................... 17 4.2.4 Enumerated Sound Sources ..................................................................................... 17 4.2.5 Noise Impact Assessment ........................................................................................ 17 4.2.6 Dispute Resolution .................................................................................................. 17 4.2.7 Guidance for Site Planning ...................................................................................... 17 5. Classification of Environmental Sound ....................................................... 18 5.1 Amplitude Characteristics ............................................................................................... 18 5.1.1 Sound Pressure ........................................................................................................ 18 5.1.2 Broadband Continuous Sound ................................................................................. 19 5.2 Spectral Characteristics ................................................................................................... 20 5.2.1 Broadband ................................................................................................................ 20 5.2.2 Narrowband ............................................................................................................. 20 5.2.3 Tonal ........................................................................................................................ 20 5.2.4 Infrasound and Ultrasound ...................................................................................... 20 5.3 Temporal Characteristics ................................................................................................. 20 5.3.1 Stationary or Continuous ......................................................................................... 20 5.3.2 Impulsive ................................................................................................................. 21 Highly Impulsive ......................................................................................................... 21 High Energy Impulsive ................................................................................................ 21 Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC 3 of 43D R A F T D R A F T Regular Impulsive ........................................................................................................ 21 Modulated .................................................................................................................... 22 5.3.3 Time of Occurrence ................................................................................................. 22 5.4 Ambient and Background Sound Pressure Levels .......................................................... 22 6. Measurement of Environmental Sound ....................................................... 23 6.1 Quantification of Sound .................................................................................................. 23 6.1.1 Sound Pressure ........................................................................................................ 23 6.1.2 Frequency Weighting ............................................................................................... 23 6.1.3 Equivalent-continuous Sound Pressure Level ......................................................... 25 6.1.4 Day Night Level ...................................................................................................... 25 6.1.5 Percentiles ................................................................................................................ 26 6.1.6 Sound Exposure Level ............................................................................................. 26 6.1.7 Peak Sound Pressure Level ..................................................................................... 26 6.2 Acoustical Instrumentation .............................................................................................. 26 6.2.1 The Sound Level Meter ........................................................................................... 26 6.2.2 Exponential Time Weighting ................................................................................... 27 Measuring Highly Impulsive Sound ............................................................................ 27 6.2.3 Integrating Sound Level Meters .............................................................................. 29 6.2.4 Frequency Band Analysis ........................................................................................ 29 6.2.5 Calibration ............................................................................................................... 30 6.3 Measurement Procedures ................................................................................................ 30 6.3.1 Field Calibration ...................................................................................................... 30 6.3.2 Measurement Conditions ......................................................................................... 30 6.3.3 Measurement Locations ........................................................................................... 30 6.3.4 Sound Level Meter Placement ................................................................................. 31 6.3.5 One Hour Equivalent-continuous Sound Pressure Level Measurements ................ 31 6.4 Measurement Reports ...................................................................................................... 31 7. Assessment of Community Noise Impact ..................................................... 33 7.1 Calculation Methods ....................................................................................................... 33 7.1.1 Decibel Addition ...................................................................................................... 33 7.2 Background Noise Correction ......................................................................................... 34 7.3 Noise Assessment Criteria ............................................................................................... 34 7.3.1 One Hour Equivalent-continuous Sound Pressure Level ........................................ 34 7.3.2 Maximum Fast Exponential Time Weighted Sound Pressure Level ....................... 35 7.3.3 Octave Band Equivalent-continuous Sound Pressure Level ................................... 35 7.4 Adjusted Sound Pressure Levels ..................................................................................... 35 7.4.1 Assessing Impulsive Sounds .................................................................................... 35 7.4.2 Assessing Tonal Sounds ........................................................................................... 36 7.4.3 Applying Adjustments Using Sound Exposure Level ............................................. 36 7.4.4 Time of Day Adjustments ........................................................................................ 37 7.5 Noise Impact Studies ....................................................................................................... 37 7.6 Noise Abatement Plans ................................................................................................... 37 8. Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 39 References ........................................................................................................... 40 Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC 4 of 43D R A F T D R A F T Appendix ............................................................................................................. 42 A1. Town of Oro Valley Zoning Code Excerpts ................................................................... 43 Table of Figures Figure 5.1. Sound Pressure Levels of Some Common Sources.....................................................19 Figure 6.1. ISO 226 Equal Loudness Contours.............................................................................24 Figure 6.2. ANSI S1.4-2014 Frequency Weighting Curves...........................................................25 Figure 6.3. Fast Time Averaging Filter Response to a 0.277 Second Sound Burst.......................28 Figure 6.4. Fast Time Averaging Filter Response to a Typical Pickleball Paddle Impact.............29 Figure 7.1. Decibel Addition..........................................................................................................33 Index of Tables Table 1.1. Application of Short and Long Term Noise Regulation..................................................8 Spendiarian & Willis Acoustics & Noise Control LLC 5 of 43D R A F T D R A F T