Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Planning and Zoning Commission (174)       *AMENDED (9/1/20, 1:40 P.M.) AGENDA ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL SESSION September 8, 2020 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING Join Zoom Meeting: https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/96937966788 To join via phone only, dial 1-346-248-7799, then enter Meeting ID: 96937966788 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 AUGUST 11, 2020 SPECIAL SESSION MEETING MINUTES   2.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REVISED SIGN CRITERIA FOR THE MERCADO AT CANADA HILLS SHOPPING CENTER   3.* PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 23.5 FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL PROCESS FOR MINOR BUILDING SETBACK REDUCTIONS   PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY)   ADJOURNMENT       POSTED: 9/1/2020 at 11:15 a.m. by pp AMENDED AGENDA POSTED: 9/1/20 at 5:00 p.m. by pp When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the 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/96937966788, or may participate telephonically only by dialing 1-346-248-7799 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:09/08/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Case Number: N/A SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 11, 2020 SPECIAL 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 August 11, 2020 meeting minutes. Attachments 8-11-2020 Draft Minutes  D R A F T MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION August 11, 2020 MEETING HELD VIA ZOOM            SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER Chair Gambill called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Celeste Gambill, Chair Jacob Herrington, Vice Chair Hal Bergsma, Commissioner Neal Herst, Commissioner Ellen Hong, Commissioner Skeet Posey, Commissioner Daniel Sturmon, Commissioner Staff Present:Milini Simms, Principal Planner Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney Attendees: Melanie Barrett, Town Council Liaison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Gambill recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Commission and audience.   CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests.   COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Melanie Barrett provided updates on past and upcoming Planning cases on Town Council meeting agendas. She also noted the council is on summer break during the month of August.   SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JULY 7, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES       Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Neal Herst to approve the meeting minutes for July 7, 2020 as written.    A roll call vote was taken: August 11, 2020 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes 1  A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vie Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye    Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   2.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 22.13 AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS UPDATING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE       Principal Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Background - Required Findings - Proposed Amendment to Finding #1 - Example for Finding #1 - Proposed Amendment to Finding #2 - Proposed Amendment to Finding #3 - Proposed Amendment to Finding #4 - Example for Finding #4 - Finding #5 - Additional Guidance - Summary and Recommendation Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. There were no speaker requests. Chair Gambill closed the public hearing.    Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to recommend approval of the zoning code amendment to Section 22.3 and associated sections to update the required findings for a variance for conformance with State law, subject to amending finding 1 to clarify the building as "existing".    Discussion ensued between the Commission and staff. A clarification was pointed out regarding the zoning code section number cited in the motion. Vice Chair Herrington withdrew his motion.    Motion by Commissioner Skeet Posey, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to recommend approval of the zoning code amendment to Section 22.13 and associated sections to update the required findings for a variance for conformance with State law, subject to amending finding 1 to clarify the building as "existing".    A roll call vote was taken: August 11, 2020 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes 2  A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vie Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye    Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   3.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO INITIATE A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL OF MINOR BUILDING SETBACK REDUCTIONS       Senior Planner Hannah Oden explained the need for and provided information on Agenda Item #3. Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff. Concerns raised by the Commission regarding the code amendment: - clarification on what is meant by "minor" - limit discretion for staff by making criteria clear and objective - appeal process for decisions Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. Oro Valley resident Tracey Alexander spoke in support of Agenda Item #3. Chair Gambill closed the public hearing. Further discussion ensued among the Commission and staff.    Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to initiate Zoning Code amendments to potentially allow administrative approval of minor building setback reductions.    A roll call vote was taken: Chair Gambill - Aye Vie Chair Herrington - Nay Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Posey - Nay Commissioner Sturmon - Aye    Vote: 5 - 2 Carried  OPPOSED: Vice Chair Jacob Herrington  Commissioner Skeet Posey   PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) August 11, 2020 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes 3 PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Principal Planner Michael Spaeth spoke about upcoming cases on the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for September 1, 2020. He noted there is an upcoming neighborhood meeting regarding the First/Tangerine area General Plan Amendment and Rezoning case. He also stated training will be scheduled for Commissioners regarding motions.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to adjourn the meeting.    Chair Gambill adjourned the meeting at 6:49 p.m.     I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Town of Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 11th day of August, 2019. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 10th day of August, 2020. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist August 11, 2020 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes 4    Planning & Zoning Commission 2. Meeting Date:09/08/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Case Number: 2001910 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REVISED SIGN CRITERIA FOR THE MERCADO AT CANADA HILLS SHOPPING CENTER RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the revised sign criteria for Mercado at Canada Hills shopping center as shown in Attachment 1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this request is to consider a revised sign criteria for the Mercado at Canada Hills shopping center. The Mercado at Canada Hills is a commercial development that contains a variety of businesses such as ACE hardware, Goodwill and the Jerry Bob's restaurant at La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane. The zoning code requires that a multi-tenant development establish standards to determine how signs will be used in the development. This proposal is a revision to the current sign criteria originally established for the development (Attachment 2).  All signs proposed in a sign criteria must meet the standards of the zoning code, which this proposal is code compliant. The request is to update the original sign standards that were established in 2008 for the Mercado at Canada Hills. The proposed new sign standards will include:  Allowing wall sign letters of different types i.e.: pan channel, reverse pan channel, flat cut. Allow either halo or internal illumination for wall signs  Expanding the color palette for the wall signs Adding language that will allow the colors of the monument signs colors to change when the buildings change color in the future and also permit the signs to increase in size, up to zoning code standards, if re-built in the future.  Clarifying and simplifying the standards to align with the current zoning code The Planning and Zoning Commission is the review and approving body for a Sign Criteria. The proposed sign criteria is in conformance with the Oro Valley Zoning Code and staff recommends approval. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Related Approvals:  Related Approvals:  2003: Mercado at Canada Hills was built 2003 to 2008: Each business was required to present their individual signs to the Development Review Board for approval 2008: The current sign criteria was established Existing Site Conditions  Zoning is El Conquistador Planned Area Development (PAD) 8 acre site The site contains 5 buildings and 2 vacant parcels for future development The primary focus of the proposed revisions are to bring the sign criteria in-line with the allowances of the zoning code in terms of wall sign types, illumination, size and colors.  Wall Sign type and Illumination Wall signs are individual letters and/or logos attached to the exterior wall of the tenant space that provide identification for the business.   Current: Reverse pan channel with halo illumination Proposed: Allow both pan channel and reserve pan channel with halo or internal illumination Below are examples of reverse pan channel halo illuminated letters and a pan channel internally illuminated letters.   Reverse Pan Channel             Pan Channel  halo lit letters                           Internally lit letters     Both types of letters types and illumination are allowed in the zoning code but the shopping center's current sign criteria only allows the reverse pan channel halo lit type of sign. The goal is to update the sign criteria to allow both.  Colors The zoning code allows all colors except florescent and iridescent.  Current: Three colors allowed in the sign criteria for wall signs, excluding registered trademark logos.  Proposed: To allow shades of the twelve colors as shown in the applicant's submittal (Attachment 1) and also allow registered trademark logos. The proposed colors meet the standards of the zoning code. The goal of the revised sign criteria is to provide a broader choice of sign colors for the tenants as allowed by the zoning code.  Monument sign Monument signs are freestanding signs placed at the entrances to a development that identify the center and its tenants.  Current: The color of the monument signs match the color of the buildings in the shopping center and are 50 square feet in size which was the maximum allowed sign size in older zoning codes. Proposed: To clarify that monument signs can change to a matching paint color when the buildings in the shopping center are repainted and to allow the size of the signs to meet the current code allowances up to 72 square feet if the signs were to be re-built in the future. Prior to the buildings in a commercial development being re-painted, the Town reviews the proposed colors for approval. The landlord wishes to allow the monument signs to be repainted with colors approved by the Town. Also, if the signs needed to be re-built in the future, the landlord wishes to be able to allow the signs to meet the size standards of the zoning code Discussion/Analysis: Applicable Design Standards and Design Principals are below in italics followed by staff commentary: Sign colors, design and placement shall be complementary and integral to the projects architectural and site design themes. There are no proposed changes to the design and placement of signs with this sign criteria. Only to clarify that the monument signs can be repainted when the buildings on the site are repainted in the future. The wall sign color additions will not affect the location or design of signs.  Project identification and sign elements shall incorporate architectural treatment and project unifying elements which are integrated with the overall design of the project in terms of style, materials, color and theme . The applicant proposes to keep the same monument sign design as is currently on site but allow those signs to be re-painted in the future to match the building colors.  Any paint color changes always require pre-approval by the Town.  Also the proposed increase in size will allow future re-builds of the signs to meet the current size standards of the zoning code.  As feasible, sign colors shall utilize the project color palette approved as part of the Conceptual Design for the project. The colors of the buildings in the development are already used on the current signs. The intention of the revised sign criteria is to always allow the signs to match the building colors.  Furthermore, the proposed new wall sign colors will allow individual businesses to choose colors from an expanded color palette or use their registered logos. General Plan The proposed sign criteria was reviewed for conformance with the General Plan’s Goals and Policies. Listed below are relevant policies within the General Plan relating to signage: Goal Q: A built environment that creatively integrates landscape, architecture, open space and conservation elements to increase the sense of place, community interaction and quality of life. Policy Land Use 6: Maintain the small town, neighborly character and improve the design and safety of the built environment. Action item #125: Maintain the unique character of Oro Valley by studying and updating: Signage regulations to emphasize identification and direction over advertising goods or services to maintain compatibility and minimal intrusiveness. The proposed sign criteria will provide businesses with more wall sign options which will allow businesses to be better identified to the public while maintaining cohesive non-intrusive signage.   Summary The proposed sign criteria will bring the Mercado at Canada Hill's sign allowances up to the standards allowed in the current zoning code. Bringing the sign criteria in-line with the zoning code includes:  Allowing wall sign letters of different types i.e.: pan channel, reverse pan channel, flat cut. Allow either halo or internal illumination for wall signs  Expanding the color palette for the wall signs Adding language that will allow the monument signs colors to change when the buildings possibly change color in the future and also allow an increase in size if re-built in the future.  color in the future and also allow an increase in size if re-built in the future.  Allow an increase in size if re-built in the future Clarifying and simplifying the standards to align with the current zoning code The proposed standards will allow the Mercado at Canada Hills development to provide updated and cohesive signage for the property and its tenants. Recommendation All changes proposed in the revised sign criteria (Attachment 1) meet the standards of the zoning code. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the proposed sign criteria. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve the sign criteria for the Mercado at Canada Hills as depicted in Attachment 1, based on the finding that the criteria is consistent with the Design Standards and Principles of the Zoning Code. OR I MOVE to deny the sign criteria for the Mercado at Canada Hills as depicted in Attachment 1 based on the finding that ______________. Attachments Attachment 1 Sign Criteria  Attachment 2 Original Sign Criteria     Planning & Zoning Commission 3. Meeting Date:09/08/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Case Number: 2001982 SUBJECT: * PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 23.5 FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL PROCESS FOR MINOR BUILDING SETBACK REDUCTIONS RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Code amendment in Attachment 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed zoning code text amendment for a process for administrative review and potential approval of minor building setback reductions (Attachment 1). Zoning code amendments are considered for recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission and require action by Town Council.  Building setbacks are defined in the zoning code. Currently, any building setback reduction, no matter how minor, must be considered as a variance case by the Board of Adjustment. Variance cases require that five specific findings must be satisfied per State Law and Section 21.6 of the Zoning Code. These are often very difficult to meet unless unique, special circumstances apply to a property. Even if building setback reductions are minor and have no adverse effects to surrounding properties, these are often recommended for denial because the specific legalistic findings have not been satisfied. Many jurisdictions in Arizona allow administrative relief for minor setback modifications, when warranted, based on specific criteria and limitations permitted by State Law. These jurisdictions include Pima County, Sahuarita, Sedona, Flagstaff, Gilbert, Scottsdale, and Tucson (Attachment 2). Staff is proposing a code amendment for a similar allowance in the Town's Zoning Code only when setback reduction requests adhere to specific criteria.  Using existing parameters of the Zoning Code and State Law in unison with comparing other jurisdictions' allowances for administrative review and approval of minor setback modifications, the proposed code amendment adds language that would allow for administrative review and potential approval of setback reductions when warranted and when specific standards are met.  This proposed code amendment has several key components which are summarized below:  Applies only to single family residential properties for individual homeowners, not entire subdivision developments. Applies only to setback reductions that are ten percent or less (maximum allowance by State Law) and may not be reduced to closer than five feet to any property line.  The application must be unopposed by affected property owners for a request to be eligible for this process. The proposed standards that must be met as part of this process are intentionally strict and requests are subject to conditions to ensure there are no negative impacts to surrounding properties. Jurisdictions in Arizona that have a process for administrative approval of setback reductions all use similar standards as part of the approval process. Provides an avenue for appeal or a variance application to the Board of Adjustment. In summary, the proposed code amendment provides a fair, balanced, and time tested process for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions, when warranted, based on specific criteria. Therefore, staff recommends approval.  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Currently, any reduction in a building setback, no matter how minor, requires consideration as a variance subject to review and approval by the Board of Adjustment. All variance requests must meet five specific findings required by State Law and Section 21.6 of the Zoning Code. These findings intentionally create a high standard and are often very difficult to meet. Even if the requests have no negative impact to surrounding properties and are minor in nature, they are often recommended for denial because the legalistic variance findings are frequently hard to satisfy.  Other jurisdictions in Arizona have provisions in their zoning codes to allow for administrative review and approval of minor setback modifications based on specific criteria without the need to go through the legal framework of a variance process. Some jurisdictions have criteria similar to the variance findings, while others have tailored the standards for a setback modification approval to their community (Attachment 2). As such, the proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) is an effort to allow a similar avenue for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions, when warranted, based on specific standards. Zoning Code amendments are considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. More information on the proposed changes is provided below.  DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Staff is proposing revising existing code language in Section 23.5.C.2.g to provide clarification and adding a new code section, Section 23.5.C.2.h, related to administrative review and potential approval of setback reduction requests. The complete code amendment can be found in Attachment 1, and a summary and discussion of the proposed changes are described below. Section 23.5.C.2.g This existing code section relates to residential setback uses. It allows for flexibility pertaining to attached features of the main home or accessory structures encroaching into a building setback when certain conditions apply. Staff is proposing modifying the language in this section slightly to provide clarification that this is a setback encroachment allowance and only pertains to specific features. It does not grant an entire building setback reduction along a property line.  The proposed change for this existing code section is minor with the purpose of providing clarification only. It does not result in any substantive change with the applicability or intent of the code.  Section 23.5.C.2.h This is a proposed new code section proposed by staff to provide an avenue for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions. The proposed amendment has several core components which are detailed below: Applicability The proposed code amendment begins with an applicability section which accomplishes the following: Applies only to single family residential properties for individual homeowners, not an entire subdivision. Applies to main structures and detached accessory buildings. Does not allow for additional setback reductions if a variance or separate modification has already been approved. Does not allow for additional setback reductions or encroachment where the code already provides relief. Does not allow for a reduction in setbacks where it conflicts with a development standard that was a condition of approval from a rezoning or conceptual site plan. Rationale: This proposed code section provides clear direction on what the amendment applies to, which is main buildings and detached accessory structures on single family residential properties. It is not intended to allow for "double dipping" where setback relief has already been granted (per code or by a variance) or when specific setbacks have been determined by a condition of approval from a rezoning or conceptual site plan.  Standards This sections outlines specific standards that setback reduction requests must meet and includes the following:  May not exceed a ten (10) percent front, rear, or side setback reduction to be eligible for administrative approval. Setback reductions may not be reduced to closer than five feet from a property line. Must be unopposed by affected properties for administrative approval. May not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties. Allows the Planning and Zoning Administrator to apply conditions to requests to mitigate for potential impacts and endure no special privileges are granted. Rationale: State law limits setback modifications to ten percent to be eligible for administrative approval. Staff is proposing using this limit as a standard for setback reductions as it wil meet the intent of the code amendment without being too restrictive. For instance, if a building setback is 30 feet, a ten percent reduction would result in 3 feet, reducing the building setback to 27 feet. This allowance would accomplish the intended flexibility of this code amendment without making it impractical by being too restrictive, and would still maintain five feet from any given property line. A table is provided below to illustrate what a ten percent setback reduction would result in.    Zoning District Existing Front Reduced Front  Existing Side Reduced Side  Existing Rear Reduced Rear R1-300 50'45' 20'18' 50'45' R1-144 50'45' 20'18' 50'45' R1-72 50'45' 35'31.5' 50'45' R1-43 30'27' 20'18' 40'36' R1-36 30'27' 15'13.5' 40'36' R1-20 30'27' 15'13.5' 30'27' R1-10 25'22.5' 10'9' 25'22.5' R1-7 20'18' 7.5'6.75' 20'18' Another key component of this proposed code section is that all requests must be unopposed by affected property owners to be eligible for the process. This is critical to ensure that all surrounding property owners are both properly notified and that they are not adversely impacted by the request. If there is opposition from affected property owners, this process will not apply.  Similar to a variance, this proposed code language ensures that setback reduction requests are not materially detrimental to surrounding properties and that they are subject to conditions (such as screening) to mitigate for potential negative impacts and not grant special privileges. Like other jurisdictions in Arizona (Pima County, Sahuarita, Sedona, Flagstaff, Gilbert, Scottsdale, Tucson) who use this process, staff is proposing strict criteria that hold setback reduction requests to a high standard to ensure no adverse effects occur as a result. Noticing of Directly Affected Property Owners The proposed code amendment defines directly affected property owners that must be notified by mail of a setback reduction request. This includes the following:  Property owners adjacent (close to) to the subject property or abutting (sharing a common property line) the subject property depending on the nature of the request.  Other properties deemed to be materially affected by the request as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Rationale: Directly affected property owners are those who will be most impacted by a setback reduction request. This proposed code language encompasses affected property owners as those adjacent to the subject property, which would include those both next to and near the subject property, including those across the street. If the request is for a side or rear setback reduction request, then only abutting properties are considered directly affected. Abutting properties are generally those on either side or behind the subject property, while adjacent properties would include those in front of the subject property. Opposition by Affected Property Owners This proposed code amendment provides direction when opposition is received by affected property owners and includes the following:  After notices are mailed, there will be a 15-day comment period for directly affected property owners to respond. If no response in opposition is received by staff within the 15-day comment period, the application shall be considered unopposed. If written opposition is received, the Planning and Zoning Administrator may add conditions to the request and meet with the affected property owner and applicant to reach a consensus.  If opposition remains, the request must be denied. Rationale: Town staff will be responsible for noticing directly affected property owners by mail which will be accompanied by a 15-day comment period. This will ensure consistency among applications and will provide directly affected property owners the opportunity to provide comments regarding the application.  If comments in opposition are received, the proposed code language provides an avenue for opposition to be addressed, such as adding a condition. However, if opposition remains, the request must be denied as it would not satisfy the requirement for all setback reduction requests to be unopposed by affected property owners. Review and Appeal Process The last component of the proposed code amendment is related to the review and appeal process and includes the following:  Provides the Planning and Zoning Administrator review and approval authority. Decision may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment and allows the applicant to apply for a variance. Rationale: A critical component of this proposed code amendment is that it provides an avenue for aggrieved parties to appeal the administrative decision to the Board of Adjustment. This is similar to the process used in other jurisdictions, and the proposed appeal process would follow the existing process in Section 22.12. Applicants also retain the ability to have their request considered by the Board of Adjustment as a variance case. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed code amendment is supported by the General Plan by providing design flexibility for residents, ensuring there are no negative impacts to affected neighbors, and providing an opportunity for directly affected neighbors to provide input on setback reduction proposals.  PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Public Notice has been provided as follows:  All HOAs in Town were notified of this hearing Public hearing notices were posted:  In the Territorial Newspaper At Town Hall On the Town website  A study session with the Board of Adjustment was held on August 31 to discuss the proposed code amendment and gather feedback. The Board was supportive of the proposed amendment and had questions regarding the 15-day neighboring property owner notices for a minor setback reduction request, the timing of this zoning code amendment consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council, and the number of situations this process would apply to. Staff responded to the questions and no changes to the proposed code amendment were requested by the Board. SUMMARY The proposed code amendment provides an avenue for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions. The proposed additions to the code would give property owners the ability for a minor setback reduction approval without the need to go through the extensive legal framework of a variance process, which intentionally sets high standards that are often very difficult to meet. The intent of this code amendment is to allow for flexibility, when warranted and based on specific standards, for minor setback reductions that would have no adverse impacts to the surrounding area. The proposed code amendment accomplishes the following:  Applies only to single family residential properties for individual homeowners, not entire subdivision developments. Applies only to setback reductions that are ten percent or less and no less than five feet to any property line. Requires unanimous support from affected property owners. Uses strict standards and requests are subject to conditions to ensure no negative impacts to surrounding properties.  Uses an existing avenue for appeal to the Board of Adjustment. This proposed Zoning Code Amendment is supported by the General Plan and provides a fair, balanced, and time tested process for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions, when warranted, based on specific criteria. Therefore, staff recommends approval.  FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to recommend approval of the zoning code amendment to Section 23.5 and associated sections for a process for administrative review and potential approval of setback reductions. Or I MOVE to recommend denial of the zoning code amendment to Section 23.5 and associated sections, based on the following _____________.  Attachments Attachment 1: Proposed Code Amendment  Attachment 2: Setback Reduction Allowances in Other Jurisdictions  Code Amendment to Section 23.5 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised: Additions shown in CAPS and deletions shown with strikethrough. Section 23.5.C.2.g Setbacks for an attached feature of a main or accessory building, as provided in SUBSECTIONS A-F of this section, may be further reduced ENCROACHED UPON by an additional twenty percent (20%) when all of the following applies: i. The nearest property line to the attached feature abuts a property where no building or occupancy could take place such as common areas, riparian or open spaces excluding areas of ingress/egress. ii. A minimum six (6) foot solid wall is added to obscure the view of the building. iii. A minimum of three (3) feet is maintained from the property line. In no case will an element of the main or accessory building be permitted to extend into, or be built above or over, an area intended to remain clear and unobstructed such as a designated environmentally sensitive area or ingress/egress. SECTION 23.5.C.2.H RESIDENTIAL SETBACK REDUCTIONS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: I. APPLICABILITY THIS CODE PROVISION SHALL APPLY TO THE FOLLOWING: A) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS. B) DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. II. THE SETBACK REDUCTION PROCEDURE SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY PROPOSED SETBACK REDUCTION THAT RESULTS IN: A) CHANGES TO A SUBDIVISION DESIGN. SETBACK REDUCTION REQUESTS SHALL BE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY ON A PARCEL-BY-PARCEL BASIS. IN NO INSTANCE SHALL THIS CODE PROVISION BE APPLIED AS PART OF THE REZONING, FINAL DESIGN REVIEW OR PLATTING PROCESS. B) AN INCREASE IN THE PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. C) A CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT STANDARD THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY REDUCED THROUGH A SEPARATE MODIFICATION OR VARIANCE. D) A CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT STANDARD THAT WAS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR A REZONING OR CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN. E) A MODIFICATION OF A REQUIREMENT OF AN OVERLAY ZONE, SCENIC CORRIDOR, OR THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS ORDINANCE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SETBACKS (SECTION 27.10.F.3.B) AND FLEXIBLE DESIGN OPTIONS (SECTION 27.10.F.2.C). F) AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK ENCROACHMENT THAN WHAT IS PERMITTED IN SECTION 23.5.C.2 OF THIS CODE. G) A CHANGE TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIPLE FRONTAGE LOTS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 23.5.C.1.B OF THIS CODE. III. ALL RESIDENTIAL SETBACK REDUCTION REQUESTS MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS: A) A FRONT, REAR OR SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK MAY NOT BE REDUCED BY MORE THAN TEN (10) PERCENT OR LESS THAN FIVE (5) FEET FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. B) REQUESTS MAY NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO DIRECTLY AFFECTED PROPERTIES INCLUDING SAFETY, VIEWS, NOISE, HEALTH, AND GENERAL WELFARE AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. C) REQUESTS ARE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, TO MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS. D) ALL REQUESTS MUST BE UNOPPOSED BY ALL DIRECTLY AFFECTED PROPERTIES AS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION IV OF THIS SECTION. IV. ALL DIRECTLY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS MUST BE NOTIFIED BY MAIL AND INCLUDE: A) ALL PROPERTY OWNERS ADJACENT TO THE APPLICANT’S PROPERTY FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUEST. B) ALL PROPERTY OWNERS ABUTTING THE APPLICANT’S PROPERTY FOR A SIDE OR REAR YARD SETBACK REQUEST. C) ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES WHEN IT IS APPARENT THEY WILL BE MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY THE REQUEST AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. V. DETERMINATION AND ACTION IF THERE IS OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST BY DIRECTLY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS: A) AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF MAILING TO RESPOND; IF NO RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION IS RECEIVED BY TOWN STAFF, THE APPLICATION SHALL BE CONSIDERED UNOPPOSED. B) IF A RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO A SETBACK REDUCTION REQUEST IS RECEIVED WITHIN THE 15-DAY COMMENT PERIOD BY A DIRECTLY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER, THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY MEET WITH THE OPPOSING PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT TO REACH A CONSENSUS. C) IF OPPOSITION REMAINS, THE APPLICATION MUST BE DENIED. VI. REVIEW AND APPEAL PROCESS: A) THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, OR DENY THE SETBACK REDUCTION REQUEST UPON EVALUATION OF CODE COMPLIANCE. B) A DECISION BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY BE APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.12 OF THIS CODE. C) THE APPLICANT RETAINS THE ABILITY TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 21.6.J OF THIS CODE. JurisdictionSteback Modification AllowanceStandards for Setback Modification ApprovalNotice ProcedureAppeal ProcessPima CountyFront setback may not be reduced to less than 20 feet. Side and rear setbacks are subject to the disretion of the zoning inspector.Standards. The zoning inspector shall grant a modification of the setback requirements or lot coverage limits for accessory structures or accessory buildings only after a finding is made that the following standards have been met:1. The reduced setback or increased lot coverage by accessory structures or accessory buildings will not substantially reduce the amount of privacy that would be enjoyed by nearby residences;2. Significant views of prominent land forms, unusual stands of vegetation, or parks from nearby properties will not be obstructed any more than would occur if the setback was not modified or if the lot coverage limits for accessory structures or accessory buildings were maintained;3. Traffic visibility on adjoining streets will not be adversely affected;4. Drainage from proposed buildings and structures will not adversely affect adjoining properties and public rights-of-way;5. Proposed buildings and structures will not interfere with the optimum air temperature/solar radiation orientation of buildings on adjoining properties; 6. The location or lot coverage of proposed buildings and structures, and the activities to be conducted therein, will not impose objectionable noise levels or odors on adjoining properties.Notice to owners of affected properties. 1. Mailed notice including a sketch plan shall be sent to:a. Property owners adjacent to the applicant's property,b. Property owners within one hundred feet of the applicant's property line but separated by a public or private road or private common area, andc. Property owners determined by the zoning inspector to be affected by the request. The zoning inspector may waive the giving of notice if the applicant submits written consents to the modification signed by all owners of affected property as defined in paragraph 1 above.Appeals heard by the Board of Adjustment.Town of SahuaritaSubject to the discretion of the zoning administrator.Standards. The zoning administrator shall grant a modification of the setback requirements only after a finding is made that the following standards have been met: 1. The reduced setback will not substantially reduce the amount of privacy that would be enjoyed by nearby residences; 2. Significant views of prominent landforms, unusual stands of vegetation, or parks from nearby properties will not be obstructed any more than would occur if the setback were not modified; 3. Does not create a situation where proposed development will block visibility within the required visibility triangle on adjoining streets for either vehicular or pedestrian traffic;4. Drainage from proposed buildings and structures will not adversely affect adjoining properties and public rights-of-way; and5. Does not create a situation where the proposed development will cause trespass lighting or decrease solar access on adjoining properties. [Ord. 2016-107 § 1; Ord. 2015-098 § 1; Ord. 2011-048 § 1. Formerly 18.85.020.]Notice. 1. The applicant must gather signatures of the property owners of record or the authorized agent of the owner, indicating that the applicant provided notice to the owners of potentially affected properties per subsection (C)(2) of this section.a. If signatures are not obtained by the applicant, planning staff shall provide a mailed notice that includes a site plan and application to affected property owners.b. Affected property owners have 15 days after date of mailing to respond; if no response is received by town staff, the application shall continue through the review process.2. Affected property owners include:a. Property owners adjacent to the applicant’s property;b. Property owners within 100 feet of the applicant’s property line but separated by a public or private road or private common area if the application includes a front or side setback modification; andc. Property owners determined by the zoning administrator to be affected by the request.Appeals heard by the Board of Adjustment.City of Sedona25% setback reduction.A minor modification may be approved if the decision-making body finds that the modification:a. Will not create a hardship on adjacent properties;b. Is not necessitated by the applicant’s actions;c. Is subject to conditions to ensure that the modification shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zoning district in which the subject property is located;d. Will not result in adverse impacts unless adequately mitigated;e. Furthers the goals of the Sedona Community Plan or other adopted plans; and/orf. Is of a technical nature and is required to:1. Compensate for an unusual site condition; or2. Protect a sensitive resource, natural feature, or community asset.A minimum of 15 days prior to a decision on a proposed minor modification, the owners of all properties within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property shall be notified by first class mail.Appeals heard by the Board of Adjustment.City of Flagstaff5% or 2 feet, whichever is greater for a setback reduction.The Zoning Code Administrator may approve a minor modification application subject to conditions so long as the development will meet all the other standards or requirements set forth in this Zoning Code which apply to that development, and if the approval would be in compliance with the following findings:a. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including for example its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings;b. Approving a minor modification will not grant special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and the zone in which the property is located;c. The special circumstances applicable to the property are not self-imposed by any person presently having an interest in the property; andd. The requested minor modification will not allow the establishment of a use that is not otherwise permitted in the zone.N/AAppeals heard by the Board of Adjustment.Town of GilbertMaximum setback reduction of ten percent.Findings. Any administrative relief authorized by the Director will be documented with findings to be filed with the appropriate Development Services division case files. The following findings shall establish the rationale for the granting of relief: 1. Relief is necessary due to the physical attributes and conditions of the property and the proposed use or structure including, but not limited to, topography, noise exposure, irregular property boundaries, or other unusual circumstance; 2. There are no alternatives to the requested modification that could provide similar benefits with less potential detriment; Town of Gilbert Land Development Code 3-03-05 Chapter I, Article 5.3– Page 2 3. Granting the relief does not threaten the health or safety of the public or the occupants of the property or would create a change in land use or density that would be inconsistent with the requirements of this Code; 4. Granting the relief does not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the Town; 5. There are no compelling public interests that justify the denial of the requested relief or the imposition of conditions; 6. The applicant’s demonstrated need substantially outweighs any detriment to public needs and interests; and 7. If relief is being requested pursuant to the requirements of State or Federal law, the relief is necessary to reasonably accommodate the needs of an applicant pursuant to the specific requirements of State or Federal law. N/AAppeals heard by the Planning Commission. City of ScottsdaleMaximum setback reduction of ten percent.In making his or her determination, the Zoning Administrator must find that the following criteria have been met: a. That the minor amendment would continue to achieve the purpose of the underlying zoning district. b. That the minor amendment would have no or only negligible visual impact from the street or surrounding properties. c. That the minor amendment would be compatible and in character with existing buildings in the surrounding areas. d. That the minor amendment would not materially impact or limit the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties or properties in the surrounding areas. e. That the minor amendment would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. f. That the minor amendment represents the only minor amendment granted for the property. The Zoning Administrator may grant the minor amendment subject to reasonable terms and conditions to mitigate its impact on adjacent properties and the surrounding development.Within ten (10) days after the Zoning Administrator receives a complete application, the property owner shall send notice, by first class mail, of the application to the property owners within three hundred (300) feet of any lot line of the property on which the minor amendment is being requested.Appeals heard by the Board of Adjustment.City of TucsonN/AFor all modification requests, the PDSD Director may approve a DDO request only if the request meets all of the following findings: a. Is not a request previously denied as a variance;b. Does not modify a conditional requirement or finding to determine whether the use should be allowed in the zone;c. Is not to a condition of approval for a rezoning or Special Exception Land Use application;d. Does not modify a requirement of an overlay zone, such as, but not limited to, Scenic Corridor, Environmental Resource, Major Streets and Routes Setback, or Airport Environs;e. Does not result in deletion or waiver of a UDC requirement;f. The modification applies to property that cannot be developed in conformity with the provisions of this Chapter due to physical circumstances or conditions of the property, such as irregular shape, narrowness of lot, exceptional topographic conditions, or location.g. Does not create a situation where proposed development substantially reduces the amount of privacy that would be enjoyed by nearby residents any more than would be available if the development was built without the modification;h. Does not create a situation where proposed development will block visibility within the required visibility triangle on adjoining streets for either vehicular or pedestrian traffic;i. Does not create a situation where the proposed development will cause objectionable noise, odors, trespass lighting, or similar adverse impacts adjacent properties or development; andj. Does not create a situation where the development will result in an increase in the number of residential dwelling units or the square footage of nonresidential buildings greater than would occur if the development was built without the modification.The affected parties include: owners of real property within fifty (50') feet of the project site boundaries; representatives of the registered NeighborhoodAssociation in whose boundaries the site is located; and, the Council Office in whose Ward thesite is located.Upon accepting the application, the City will send a “Notice of Zoning Application” to affectedparties as identified above.Appeals heard by the Board of Adjustment.