Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Planning and Zoning Commission (173)       AGENDA ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL SESSION August 11, 2020 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING Join Zoom Meeting: https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/94753273129 To join via phone only, dial 1-669-900-6833 then enter Meeting ID: 94753273129   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.        SPECIAL 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   SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JULY 7, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES   2.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 22.13 AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS UPDATING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE   3.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO INITIATE A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL OF MINOR BUILDING SETBACK REDUCTIONS   PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY)   ADJOURNMENT       POSTED: 8/3/2020 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/94753273129, 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:08/11/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Case Number: N/A SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JULY 7, 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 July 7, 2020 meeting minutes as written. Attachments 7-7-2020 Draft Minutes  D R A F T MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION July 7, 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 Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Attendees: Melanie Barrett, Town Council Liaison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Gambill recited the Pledge of Allegiance for the Commission and audience.   CALL TO AUDIENCE Oro Valley resident Gary Bagnoche stated he had planned to speak regarding his objections to the proposed Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit request at Oracle Road and Suffolk Drive, but decided to wait until the case is before the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration.   COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Melanie Barrett provided updates on past and upcoming Town Council meetings. She also advised the Town Council will be on summer break for the month of August.   REGULAR SESSION AGENDA   1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 2, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES       Motion by Commissioner Neal Herst, seconded by Commissioner Hal Bergsma to approve the June 2, 2020 meeting minutes as written.    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 TO INITIATE A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW       Principal Planner Milini Simms provided background on the request to initiate a code amendment to allow staff to review and update the criteria for variances. A recent case highlighted the need to review and update the five findings and ensure compliance with state law. Discussion ensued between the Commission and staff.    Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington to initiate the zoning code amendment to update the required findings for a variance to be in compliance with State law.    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.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       Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Part 1: Noise abatement - existing standard unreasonable - Part 1: Noise abatement - background - Part 1: Noise abatement - proposed amendment - National standards - Part 1: Noise abatement - scenario - Part 2: Convenience use separation - convenience uses - Part 2: Convenience use separation - proposal - Part 2: Convenience use separation - scenario - Summary and recommendation Mr. Spaeth stated the consultant, Dr. Lance Willis was present and available to answer any questions. Discussion ensued between the Commission, staff and Dr. Willis.    Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. There were no speaker requests. Chair Gambill closed the public hearing.    Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to recommend approval of the proposed code amendment based on a finding it is in conformance with Vision, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies of the General Plan.    Discussion ensured among the Commission. An update to the motion was requested with a specific change related to school and park standards. Legal Services Director Tobin Sidles advised the Commission that a separate motion needed to be made for the requested change, including a seconder, and that it must be voted on before the original motion is voted on.    Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Ellen Hong to recommend an amendment to the original motion and update Table 25-1.A in the proposed code amendment to reflect single-family residential, schools and parks all require the same standard.    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    Mr. Sidles advised the original motion can now be voted on.    Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon 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.    A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Nay Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Nay Commissioner Posey - Nay Commissioner Sturmon - Aye    Vote: 4 - 3 Carried  OPPOSED: Commissioner Hal Bergsma  Commissioner Ellen Hong  Commissioner Skeet Posey   PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided an update on the next Commission meeting scheduled for August 11, 2020.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Skeet Posey to adjourn the meeting.    Chair Gambill adjourned the meeting at 7:16 p.m.     I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Town of Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 7th day of July, 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 8th day of July, 2020. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist    Planning & Zoning Commission 2. Meeting Date:08/11/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Case Number: 2001623 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 22.13 AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS UPDATING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the amendments as a legal effort to ensure alignment with State law. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed zoning code amendment to update the required findings for variance cases. This item is solely a legal effort to further align the findings with State law (Attachment 1). Applications for a variance, or modification from the zoning code requirements, are considered by the Board of Adjustment. To grant a variance, the Board of Adjustment must find the request meets all the findings established in State law and Section 22.13.C of the Zoning Code.  Updates to reflect State law have not occurred in quite some time and the Town's findings are significantly different from those required by law. Most jurisdictions tailor the findings for consistency with their codes. However, several court rulings (as recent as 2017) have added clarity for how to apply the findings (Attachment 2) in conformance with the law. This makes our differences problematic as they can lead to conclusions that conflict with State law and recent case law. This has been the Town's experience with recent variance applications.  Using legal case law in unison with comparing other jurisdictions' findings (Attachment 3), the proposed code amendment adds language that is mostly verbatim with State law to clarify the following:  Finding 1: Defines a special circumstance as only applicable to the property with regard to its shape, size and topography, location and surroundings. Building configuration may also be included as a special circumstance but only when the location was a result of other conditions related to the property. For example, when the home has to be built at the rear of the lot as that is the only level area of the property.  Finding 2: Defines owners, as anyone past or present that created the special circumstance. As clarified by case law, future owners should not be in a "better" position to be granted a variance than the person who created the special circumstance. Finding 3: Clarifies the preservation of privileges and rights as only those enjoyed by other properties of the same classification and within the same zoning district Finding 4: Clarifies a variance may be subject to conditions  to ensure the granting of it does not create a special privilege. In summary, the proposed code amendment is supported by the General Plan as a legal effort to be in more alignment with State law. Therefore, staff recommends approval.   BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Applications for a variance, or modification from the zoning code requirements, are considered by the Board of Adjustment. To grant a variance, the Board of Adjustment must find the request meets all the findings established in State law and Section 22.13.C of the Zoning Code.  This section of code has not been updated to reflect State law in the past 15 years and the Town's findings are significantly different from those required by law. Several jurisdictions tailor the findings for consistency with their codes (Attachment 3). However, several court rulings have been issued (as recently as 2017) adding more clarity for how to apply the findings (Attachment 2) to meet the law. As such, the proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) is a legal effort to revise the Town's findings to align with State law. More information on the existing findings and proposed changes is provided below.  DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS The existing code language is provided below in italics, followed by the proposed code language (revisions are shown in bold CAPS) and staff commentary.  A variance from the provisions of this Code shall not be authorized unless the Board shall find upon sufficient evidence:  1. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district.  Proposed: That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property STRICTLY RELATED TO its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other properties in the district.  BUILDING CONFIGURATION SHALL BE INCLUDED ONLY WHEN CONSTRAINED BY THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY. Rationale:   State law defines special circumstances are only applicable to the property's size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. Court rulings have included building configuration as a special circumstance but only when it is a result of the property's size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. For example, when washes or steep slopes constrain the buildable area of a lot. The proposed language reflects this new information by adding building configuration to the list of special circumstances. 2. That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant.  Proposed: That THE special circumstances OR CONDITIONS AS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION C.1 OF THIS SECTION, were not created by A PREVIOUS OR CURRENT owner. Rationale:  State law explicitly states the same special circumstances mentioned above (finding 1) apply to this finding as well. Court rulings have clarified the "owner" includes both current and previous owners. F uture owners should not be in a "better" position to be granted a variance than the person who created the situation. To add clarity, the proposed language refers to the first finding and the owner as anyone, past or present. 3. That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.  Proposed:That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation of PRIVILEGES and rights ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES OF THE SAME CLASSIFICATION AND WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.  Rationale:  Although implied, the existing code does not provide context for what constitutes a substantial property right. This is important to consider since property rights vary between areas and zoning districts. State law specifies these rights are those enjoyed by other properties with the same classification and within the same zoning district . The new language (in bold caps) is verbatim of State law. 4. That any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located.   Proposed: That any variance granted IS SUBJECT TO such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located.  Rationale:  As established in State law, the intent of this finding is provide jurisdictions the ability to apply conditions to make sure the granting of a variance does not result in a special privilege given to one property. For instance, granting a variance to reduce a setback with landscaping conditions to screen the new building is appropriate. To meet the intent of State law, the word "imposes" has been replaced with " is subject to," which is verbatim of the law.  5. That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general.  Proposed: No changes Rationale:  Although not established in State law for variance applications, this finding is legally defensible as a constitutional police power function to protect public health, safety and welfare.  GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed code amendment is supported by the General Plan as a legal effort to better align with State law.  PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Public Notice has been provided as follows:  All HOAs in Town were notified of this hearing Public hearing notices were posted:  In the Territorial Newspaper At Town Hall On the Town website  A study session with the Board of Adjustment is also scheduled to discuss the proposed code amendment and gather feedback. Staff will update the Planning and Zoning Commission of this discussion during the public hearing.  SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION In summary, the proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) is solely a legal effort to update the findings for variances for alignment with State law. This specific section of code has not been updated in quite some time and the Town's findings are too divergent from State and case law. These differences can lead to conclusions on variance applications, which conflict with State and recent case law. As such, the proposed code amendment includes the following:  Definition of a special circumstance to only apply to the property or building when its location has resulted from special property conditions  The same special circumstances apply to the first two findings  Defines owner as both past and present  Clarifies a property right as one enjoyed by property owners within the same classification and zoning district Clarifies the ability for jurisdictions to apply conditions of approval  The proposed code amendment is supported by the General Plan as a legal effort to better align with State law. Therefore, staff recommends approval.  FISCAL IMPACT: N/A  SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to recommend approval of the zoning code amendment to Section 22.3 and associated sections to update the required findings for a variance for conformance with State law. Or I MOVE to recommend denial of the zoning code amendment to Section 22.3 and associated sections, based on the following _____________.  Attachments ATTACHMENT 1- PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT  ATTACHMENT 2- STATE LAW AND CASE SUMMARIES  ATTACHMENT 3- COMPARISON OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS  Code Amendment to Section 22.13 and Chapter 31 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised: Additions shown in CAPS and deletions shown with strikethrough. 1 Section 22.13 Variances A. Application Application for a variance of zoning regulations shall be made to the BOA in the form of a written application. Said application shall be filed with the Town Clerk upon forms provided by the BOA and shall be accompanied by: 1. Plans and description sufficient to indicate the nature of the project involved and the proposed use with ground plans and elevations of all proposed buildings. 2. Evidence satisfactory to the BOA of the ability and intention of the applicant to proceed with actual construction work in accordance with said plans within six (6) months after issuance of the variance. 3. A filing fee according to the fee schedule adopted by the Town Council. The owner of a nonconforming sign shall not be required to pay a filing fee when applying for a variance from the ordinance that renders the sign nonconforming. 4. From the time of filing the application until the time of such hearing, the application and all maps, plans and other accompanying data shall be available for public inspection during office hours at the office of the Town Clerk. B. Hearings and Notice Upon receipt in proper form of any such application, the BOA shall proceed to hold a public hearing upon said application not more than thirty (30) days, nor less than fifteen (15) days, after such filing, at which time all persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard. Such BOA shall cause one (1) notice of such hearing to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town and one (1) notice to be posted on the subject property, giving at least fifteen (15) days’ notice of said hearing, and the time and place where said hearing will be held. Said notice, both as published and posted, shall also show the nature of the variance or exception requested and state that anyone wanting to protest may appear in person or by writing. All property owners within three hundred (300) feet must be notified. Code Amendment to Section 22.13 and Chapter 31 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised: Additions shown in CAPS and deletions shown with strikethrough. 2 C. Findings A variance from the provisions of this Code shall not be authorized unless the Board shall find upon sufficient evidence: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including STRICTLY RELATED TO its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, which do not apply to other properties in the district. BUILDING CONFIGURATION SHALL BE INCLUDED ONLY WHEN CONSTRAINED BY THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY; and 2. That THE special circumstances OR CONDITIONS AS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION C.1 OF THIS SECTION were not created by the A PREVIOUS OR CURRENT owner or applicant; and 3. That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property PRIVILEGES AND rights ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES OF THE SAME CLASSIFICATION IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT; and 4. That any variance granted imposes IS SUBJECT TO such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located; and 5. That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general. D. Action The Board shall prescribe, in connection with any variance, such conditions as the Board may deem necessary in order to fully carry out the provisions and intent of this Code. Such conditions may include, among other things, a limitation of the time for which such variance shall be valid. Violation of any such condition shall be a violation of this Code and such violation shall render the variance null and void. E. Review Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Board after hearing on application made by any taxpayer or municipal officer may petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Board’s decision pursuant to A.R.S. Section 9-465 (1956) as amended. Chapter 31 Definitions Code Amendment to Section 22.13 and Chapter 31 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised: Additions shown in CAPS and deletions shown with strikethrough. 3 Variance A modification of the literal provisions of this zoning code granted by the Board of Adjustment upon a finding that strict enforcement of the provisions would cause undue hardship owing to circumstances unique to the individual property for which the variance is granted. and not caused by the applicant for said variance. State Law Applicable sections of Arizona Revised Statute §9-462.06 G. A board of adjustment shall: 1. Hear and decide appeals for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance only if, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district. Any variance granted is subject to conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. H. A board of adjustment may not: 2. Grant a variance if the special circumstances applicable to the property are self-imposed by the property owner. Applicable Court Rulings and Findings Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment: One of the earliest zoning cases in Arizona was Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment, 22 Ariz.App. 530, 529 P.2d 242(App. Div.2 1974). In 1973, Ivancovich requested that the Tucson Board of Adjustment grant a variance to build a third floor up to 51 feet 4 inches. Several persons who lived in the El Encanto area, which is adjacent to the shopping center, appeared at the hearing to protest granting of the variance. In addition, some sixty persons residing in El Encanto and in the area north of the shopping center, filed protests. In support of the variance Mr. Leon Levy stated that the Levy's Department Store had outgrown its space and needed to expand. As he put it, ‘A business either grows, or it dies.’ Mr. Levy told the Board that the department store then had more than 800 employees with a payroll of over 4 million dollars which made it ‘quite a sizeable industry’ in Tucson. If permitted to build a third story, he stated that Levy's would add in the next three years about 200 employees and an additional million dollars to the payroll. Furthermore, the expansion would cut down the amount of ‘outshopping’ that occurs in Tucson and keep the money in the community. In Ivancovich, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 2, held that In Arizona Boards of Adjustment cannot arbitrarily pick and choose individuals of whom it will or will not require strict compliance with the ordinance, rather, Board must find as a jurisdictional prerequisite to the granting of a variance that the situation or condition of the property in question is extraordinary and exceptional and that application of the zoning requirement would cause peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional and undue hardship. Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment, 22 Ariz.App. 530, 529 P.2d 242(App. Div.2 1974). It is important to note that the Ivancovich, Court went on to hold that it must be shown that zoning ordinances preclude the use of property in question for any purpose to which it is reasonably adapted; such a showing need not be made in the case of area variances, rather, the nature and extent of a showing that warrants an area variance must depend on facts and circumstances of the particular case. Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment, 22 Ariz.App. 530, 529 P.2d 242(App. Div.2 1974). Another important point from the Ivancovich case was that financial considerations alone cannot 1 govern action of city Board of Adjustment on application for variance; such boards are required to take a broader view than the apparent monetary distress of the owner. . Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment, 22 Ariz.App. 530, 529 P.2d 242(App. Div.2 1974). Finally, the power and authority of the Tucson Board of Adjustment to grant variance is to be exercised sparingly and under exceptional circumstances. Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment, 22 Ariz.App. 530, 529 P.2d 242(App. Div.2 1974). The conclusions to be drawn from the Ivancovich case are: 1. All of the variance criteria apply to a variance application; 2. Financial considerations are neither a special circumstance nor an undue hardship; 3. Variances are rarely the method to be used to cure building height needs; 4. Variances are supposed to be the exception, not the rule. Burns v. SPA Automotive, Ltd.: In Burns v. SPA Automotive, Ltd. 156 Ariz. 503, 753 P.2d 193 (App. Div.2 1988), SPA Automotive was a new car dealership seeking variances for a free-standing sign it wished to erect on the new premises of its Porsche–Audi dealership located on McDowell Road in Scottsdale, Arizona. SPA also planned to operate a third dealership at this location. The agreements which SPA entered into with the three automobile manufacturers prohibited the manufacturers' names and logos from being included in a single dealership name. The agreements also required SPA to display the manufacturers' logos individually. Thus, the free-standing sign had to be large enough to meaningfully display three manufacturers' logos. Burns v. SPA Automotive, Ltd. 156 Ariz. 503, 753 P.2d 193 (App. Div.2 1988). The holding in Burns, was then a simple one, “Special circumstances” or “hardship” upon which new car dealership's application for variance for free-standing sign was based were created by dealership, which entered into agreements with three automobile manufacturers prohibiting the manufacturers' names and logos from being included in a single dealership name and requiring the dealership to display the manufacturers' logos individually, and thus, dealership was not entitled to variance. Burns v. SPA Automotive, Ltd. 156 Ariz. 503, 753 P.2d 193 (App. Div.2 1988). The conclusion to be drawn from the Burns case is that Special Circumstances or Hardships that stem from a contract entered into by a property owner have nothing to do with the land and therefore cannot be considered by Arizona Boards of Adjustment. Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix: With regard to Special Circumstances applicable to the land the controlling case is Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 242 Ariz. 547, 399 P.3d 94 (2017). The Pawn 1st case concerns the standards a municipal zoning board applies in considering an application for a zoning variance. Pawn 1st, holds that to obtain an area variance, an applicant must show that strictly applying a zoning ordinance will cause “peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties” that deprive a property of privileges enjoyed by other similarly zoned properties and clarifies that the applicant’s desire to use the property for purposes allowed on other similarly zoned properties does not in itself constitute a self-imposed special circumstance justifying denial of an area variance. In the “Pawn 1st”, the Arizona Supreme Court held that an applicant or owner's selection of a property, even with knowledge that an area variance is required for an intended use allowed on other similarly 2 zoned properties, does not itself constitute a self-imposed special circumstance precluding an area variance. Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 242 Ariz. 547, 399 P.3d 94(2017). In coming to this holding the Arizona Supreme Court states that zoning statutes and local ordinances require city zoning boards of adjustment to consider special circumstances applicable to the property, not the property owner, in issuing variances. Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 242 Ariz. 547, 399 P.3d 94 (2017). However, the opposite was also determined to be true, when a city zoning board of adjustment exceeds its statutory jurisdiction and authority to issue a variance, and its decision is ultra vires and void, if it grants a variance in violation of the prohibition against self-imposition, which prohibits granting variances based on a finding of special circumstances if the circumstances are self-imposed by the property owner. Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 242 Ariz. 547, 399 P.3d 94 (2017). Power and authority of Tucson board of adjustment to grant variance is to be exercised sparingly and under exceptional circumstances. Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment (App. Div.2 1974) 22 Ariz.App. 530, 529 P.2d 242. The conclusions to be drawn from the Pawn 1st case are: 1. Selecting a property that requires a variance to allow a use allowed by the underlying zoning does not make the request for a variance a self-imposed special circumstance or hardship; 2. Once again, Special Circumstances or Hardships must be based on the condition of the land; 3. Arizona Boards of Adjustment are precluded from considering self-imposed special circumstances in their variance determinations. 3 Finding 1 Special circumstances applying to the propertyState law Hear and decide appeals for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance only if, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district. Any variance granted is subject to conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.Oro ValleyThat there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district; Tucson*That, because there are special circumstances applicable to the property, strict enforcement of the UDC will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district;MaranaSpecial circumstances are inherent to the property pertaining to its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings that deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties of the same classification in the same zoning district.Sahuarita*That, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive such property privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district such that the property cannot be reasonably developed in conformity with the zoning provision; Flagstaff*That, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of these regulations will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district.SedonaThe subject property has an exceptional shape, topography, building configuration or other exceptional site condition that is not a general condition throughout the zone district;Phoenix**There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, building, or use of the subject property which do not apply to other similar properties in the same zoning district. (Background: Special circumstances or conditions would include, for example: an unusual lot size, shape, or topography. This condition is considered a property hardship and it must be a condition relating to the property that is so unique it cannot be replicated on any other similarly zoned land in the City.) Gilbert**There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings whereby the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district; * / ** duplicate langage used1 Finding 2 Special circumstances not created by the ownerState lawA board of adjustment may not grant a variance if the special circumstances applicable to the property are self‐imposed by the property owner.Oro ValleyThat special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant; Tucson*That such special circumstances were not self‐imposed or created by the owner or one in possession of the property;Marana**The special circumstances applicable to the property may not be self‐imposed or created by the owner. Sahuarita*That such special circumstances were not self‐imposed or created by the owner or person in possession of the property; Flagstaff**The special circumstances applicable to the property are not self‐imposed by the property ownerSedonaThe applicant did not create the hardship by their own actions;PhoenixThe special circumstances or conditions described above were not created by the applicant or owner. The property hardship cannot be self‐imposed. (Background: Owners include current and previous owners) GilbertSuch special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant; */** duplicate langage used2 Finding 3Deprive of privileges enjoyed by other property ownersState lawHear and decide appeals for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance only if, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district. Any variance granted is subject to conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.Oro ValleyThat the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; andTucsonThat, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, and surroundings, the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of the UDC;Marana Approval of the variance is necessary to ensure the preservation of privileges and rights enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district without constituting a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone. Sahuarita The unnecessary hardship arises from a physical condition that is unusual or peculiar to the property and is not generally caused to other properties in the zone; FlagstaffThat, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of these regulations will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district.SedonaThe strict application of the Code standards for which a variance is sought would produce undue hardship not related to purposes of convenience or financial burden;PhoenixThe authorization of a variance is necessary in order for the owner or applicant to enjoy reasonable and substantial property rights. (Background: In other words, without the granting of a variance the property cannot be reasonably used. There is no cause for a variance if the property can be used, even if it is in a manner other than that desired by the owner or applicant.) Gilbert The variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located; 3 Finding 4 Subject to conditionsState lawHear and decide appeals for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance only if, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district. Any variance granted is subject to conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.Oro ValleyThat any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is locatedTucson*That the variance granted is subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located;MaranaNot inlcudedSahuarita*The variance granted is subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity and shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located;Flagstaff*That a grant of variance will be subject to conditions as will ensure that the adjustment authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located.SedonaNot includedPhoenixNot includedGilbertNot included* duplicate language4 Additional findingsState lawNot applicableOro Valley*That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general.That the granting of the variance shall not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located;That the proposed variance shall not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase congestion, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood; and,That the variance, if granted, is the minimum variance that will afford relief and is the least modification possible of the UDC provisions that are in question.Marana*The granting of a variance shall not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, adjacent property, or to the public welfare in general. The variance does not allow a use which is not permitted in the zone by the code; The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief; FlagstaffThe variance will not allow the establishment of a use which: (1) is not otherwise permitted in the zoning district; (2) would result in the extension of a non‐conforming use; or, (3) would change the zoning classification of any of the subject property.The variance requested does not harm the public and does not impair the intent or purposes of this Code, goals, and policies, including the specific regulation for which the variance is sought;The variance request will not violate building or fire code requirements or create a safety hazard; andPhoenix*The authorization of a variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to the adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. (Background: A variance which will not be compatible with the surrounding development or will create an adverse impact on other properties cannot be approved.)Gilbert*The variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or the public welfare in general* duplicate languageTucson*SahuaritaSedona5 Southern Arizona City of Tucson 1. That, because there are special circumstances applicable to the property, strict enforcement of the UDC will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district; 2. That such special circumstances were not self-imposed or created by the owner or one in possession of the property; 3. That the variance granted is subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located; 4. That, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, and surroundings, the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of the UDC; 5. That the granting of the variance shall not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; 6. That the proposed variance shall not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase congestion, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood; and, 7. That the variance, if granted, is the minimum variance that will afford relief and is the least modification possible of the UDC provisions that are in question. Town of Marana 1. Special circumstances are inherent to the property pertaining to its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings that deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties of the same classification in the same zoning district. 2. Approval of the variance is necessary to ensure the preservation of privileges and rights enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district without constituting a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone. 3. The special circumstances applicable to the property may not be self-imposed or created by the owner. 4. The granting of a variance shall not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, adjacent property, or to the public welfare in general. Town of Sahuarita 1. That, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive such property privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district such that the property cannot be reasonably developed in conformity with the zoning provision; 2. That such special circumstances were not self-imposed or created by the owner or person in possession of the property; 6 3. The unnecessary hardship arises from a physical condition that is unusual or peculiar to the property and is not generally caused to other properties in the zone; 4. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief; 5. The variance granted is subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity and shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located; 6. The variance does not allow a use which is not permitted in the zone by the code; 7. The variance may not be from a condition of approval by the town council. Northern Arizona City of Flagstaff 1. That, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of these regulations will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district. 2. That a grant of variance will be subject to conditions as will ensure that the adjustment authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located. 3. The special circumstances applicable to the property are not self-imposed by the property owner 4. The variance will not allow the establishment of a use which: (1) is not otherwise permitted in the zoning district; (2) would result in the extension of a non-conforming use; or, (3) would change the zoning classification of any of the subject property. City of Sedona 1. The subject property has an exceptional shape, topography, building configuration or other exceptional site condition that is not a general condition throughout the zone district; 2. The strict application of the Code standards for which a variance is sought would produce undue hardship not related to purposes of convenience or financial burden; 3. The applicant did not create the hardship by their own actions; 4. The variance requested does not harm the public and does not impair the intent or purposes of this Code, goals, and policies, including the specific regulation for which the variance is sought; 5. The variance request will not violate building or fire code requirements or create a safety hazard; and 6. The requested variance is the minimum relief necessary from the subject standards of the Code. 7 Central Arizona City of Phoenix 1. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, building, or use of the subject property which do not apply to other similar properties in the same zoning district. (Background: Special circumstances or conditions would include, for example: an unusual lot size, shape, or topography. This condition is considered a property hardship and it must be a condition relating to the property that is so unique it cannot be replicated on any other similarly zoned land in the City.) 2. The special circumstances or conditions described above were not created by the applicant or owner. The property hardship cannot be self-imposed. (Background: Owners include current and previous owners) 3. The authorization of a variance is necessary in order for the owner or applicant to enjoy reasonable and substantial property rights. (Background: In other words, without the granting of a variance the property cannot be reasonably used. There is no cause for a variance if the property can be used, even if it is in a manner other than that desired by the owner or applicant.) 4. The authorization of a variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to the adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. (Background: A variance which will not be compatible with the surrounding development or will create an adverse impact on other properties cannot be approved.) Town of Gilbert 1. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings whereby the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district; 2. Such special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant; 3. The variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located; 4. The variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or the public welfare in general 8    Planning & Zoning Commission 3. Meeting Date:08/11/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Case Number: Not applicable SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO INITIATE A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL OF MINOR BUILDING SETBACK REDUCTIONS RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends initiation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Initiation of a Zoning Code amendment to allow the Planning and Zoning Administrator to approve minor building setback reductions based on criteria and when warranted.  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Building setbacks for zoning districts are defined in Section 23.4 of the Zoning Code as well as associated Planned Area Developments. Currently, any reduction in these building setbacks require a variance as approved by the Board of Adjustment. This proposed code amendment initiation is a result of a recent Board of Adjustment case for a minor setback reduction for a historic structure. Currently, any setback reduction, regardless of amount, requires a variance with no avenue for administrative relief. These variance requests must meet five specific findings per State Law and the Zoning Code to be approved, even if the request will have no negative impact to adjacent neighbors or the community. Often, these requests are for minor encroachments into building setbacks. However, if the property owner cannot demonstrate that the variance findings have been satisfied, the requests are often denied in order to comply with state law. Other jurisdictions in Arizona have opportunities for administrative relief with minor setback encroachments without the need to go through the required legal framework of the variance process.  Initiation of this code amendment will enable staff to conduct research and draft code amendments regarding provision of minor building setback reductions. If initiated, staff will draft a proposed code amendment to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission at subsequent public hearings and will ultimately be presented to Town Council for consideration. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to initiate Zoning Code amendments to potentially allow administrative approval of minor building setback reductions. Or I MOVE to not initiate Zoning Code amendments to potentially allow administrative approval of minor building setback reductions.