Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Board of Adjustment (42)       AGENDA ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL SESSION August 31, 2020 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING Join Zoom Meeting: https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/92330075632 To attend via phone only, dial 1-346-248-7799, then enter meeting ID: 92330075632        SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 3:00 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 Board on any issue not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona open meeting law, individual Board members may ask Town staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers. However, the Board may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during "Call to Audience." In order to speak during "Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card.   COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS   SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 10, 2020 SPECIAL SESSION MEETING MINUTES   2.DISCUSSION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL OF BUILDING SETBACK REDUCTIONS   ADJOURNMENT   POSTED: 8/25/2020 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 Board meeting in the Town Clerk's Office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk’s Office at least five days prior to the Board meeting at 229-4700. Instructions to Speakers: Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted Public Hearing. However, those items not listed as a Public Hearing are for consideration and action by the Board of Adjustment 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/92330075632 , 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 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 Board of Adjustment 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, Planning and Zoning Commission, 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.”    Board of Adjustment Special Session 1. Meeting Date:08/31/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Submitted By:Jeanna Ancona, Community and Economic Development Case Number: N/A SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 10, 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 10, 2020 meeting minutes. Attachments 8/10/2020 Draft Minutes  D R A F T MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL SESSION August 10, 2020 MEETING HELD VIA ZOOM            SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 2:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER Chair Dankwerth called the meeting to order at 2:04 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Helen Dankwerth, Chair Stephen Roach, Vice Chair Octavio Barcelo, Member Mary Murphy, Member Absent: David Perkins, Member Staff Present:Milini Simms, Principal Planner Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Dankwerth recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Board and audience.   CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests.   COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Steve Solomon apologized for missing the last meeting as he had a conflict. He offered his support if the Board wanted to approach a State Law change regarding historical aspects as a component of potential variances. He also expressed his concerns regarding board members being contacted to possibly influence their vote on a recent variance case.   SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JULY 28, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES       Motion by Member Octavio Barcelo, seconded by Member Mary Murphy to approve the meeting minutes as written.    A roll call vote was taken: August 10, 2020 Board of Adjustment Minutes 1  A roll call vote was taken: Chair Dankwerth: Aye Vice Chair Roach: Aye Member Barcelo: Aye Member Murphy: Aye    Vote: 4 - 0 Carried   2.DISCUSSION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT UPDATING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE       Principal Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Background - Proposed Amendment to Finding #1 - Example for Finding #1 - Proposed Amendment to Finding #2 - Proposed Amendment to Finding #3 - Proposed Amendment to Finding #4 - Example for Finding #4 - Finding #5 - Summary Vice Chair Roach commented how well done the presentation was and asked if a copy could be provided to the Board as a reference tool.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Member Mary Murphy, seconded by Vice Chair Stephen Roach to adjourn the meeting.    A roll call vote was taken: Chair Dankwerth: Aye Vice Chair Roach: Aye Member Barcelo: Aye Member Murphy: Aye    Vote: 4 - 0 Carried    Chair Dankwerth adjourned the meeting at 2:27 p.m.     I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Town of Oro Valley Board of Adjustment of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 10th day of August, 2020 I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 10th day of August, 2020. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist August 10, 2020 Board of Adjustment Minutes 2    Board of Adjustment Special Session 2. Meeting Date:08/31/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Submitted By:Hannah Oden, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 2001982 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL OF BUILDING SETBACK REDUCTIONS RECOMMENDATION: This item is for information and discussion purposes only.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to provide information about a proposed zoning code text amendment 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. However, the proposed amendment directly relates to the type of cases considered by the Board of Adjustment, as it would provide an avenue for administrative approval of minor setback reductions without the need for a variance. Therefore, it is being provided for information and discussion purposes only. 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. 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 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. Key components of the proposed code amendment are the following: 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 and no less than five feet to any property line.  Requires unanimous support from 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 to the Board of Adjustment. In summary, the proposed code amendment provides an avenue for administrative review and potential approval of minor setback reductions, when warranted, based on specific standards. 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 recommended for denial because the legalistic variance findings are often 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.   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. However, this code amendment impacts the Board of Adjustment's duties. Therefore, it is being provided to the Board for information and discussion purposes only.  More information on the existing findings and 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 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 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. Unanimous support from affected properties are required 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' R1-44 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 code section is that unanimous support from affected property owners is required 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. Affected Property Owners The proposed code amendment defines affected property owners that are subject to notification for 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 when the request only affects immediate properties.  Other properties deemed to be materially affected by the request as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator.  Rationale: Affected property owners are those who will be most impacted by a setback reduction request. This proposed code language encompasses affected property owners and provides an exception when a request will only affect an abutting property and will have no impact to the street scape, such as a setback reduction in the rear yard. Noticing The proposed code amendment accounts for noticing affected property owners via the following method:  The Town may provide notice to affected property owners which will accompany a 15-day comment period Rationale: Town staff will be responsible for noticing affected property owners which will be accompanied by a 15-day comment period. This will ensure consistency among applications and affected property owners will be provided with a project fact sheet and application as part of the noticing.  Opposition by Affected Property Owners This proposed code amendment provides direction when opposition is received by affected property owners and includes the following:  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: This proposed code language provides an avenue for opposition to be addressed, such as adding a condition, for the required unanimous support from affected property owners to be achieved. However, if opposition remains, the request must be denied as it would not satisfy the requirement for unanimous support from 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. Defers appeals 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 an appeal process based on the decision by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. This is similar to the process used in other jurisdictions. Applicants also retain the ability to have their request considered by the Board of Adjustment as a variance case. 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. Provides an avenue for appeal to the Board of Adjustment. Zoning code amendments require consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. As such, this item is provided to the Board of Adjustment for information and discussion purposes only. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: This item is for information and discussion purposes only.  This item is for information and discussion purposes only.  Attachments Attachment 1: Proposed Code Amendment  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 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION SITE 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 BUILDING 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 AND LESS THAN FIVE (5) FEET FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE. B) REQUESTS MAY NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD INCLUDING SAFETY, VIEWS, NOISE, HEALTH, AND GENERAL WELFARE AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRAT OR. C) REQUESTS ARE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, TO MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND TO ENSURE THAT NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES ARE GRANTED THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. D) ALL REQUESTS REQUIRE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FROM DIRECTLY AFFECTED PROPERTIES AS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION IV OF THIS SECTION. IV. ALL DIRECTLY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS MUST BE NOTIFIED AND INCLUDE: A) ALL PROPERTY OWNERS ADJACENT TO THE APPLICANT’S PROPERTY, UNLESS THE REQUEST IS FOR A SIDE OR REAR SETBACK MODIFICATION THAT AFFECTS ONLY ABUTTING PROPERTIES AND HAS NO IMPACT TO THE STREETSCAPE , AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. B) ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES WHEN IT IS APPARENT THEY WILL BE MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY THE REQUEST AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. V. THE TOWN SHALL PROVIDE A MAILED NOTICE THAT INCLUDES A PROJECT FACT SHEET AND APPLICATION TO AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS AS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION IV OF THIS SECTION. VI. 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. VII. 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 21.6.F OF THIS CODE. C) THE APPLICANT RETAINS THE ABILITY TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 21.6.J OF THIS CODE.