HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Presentation 04/21/2020-Update On-site Private Common Recreational AreasTown Council Update
Private, Common On-site Recreation Areas
April 21, 2020
•Background
•Stakeholder meetings
•Stakeholder feedback and input
•Code revisions
•Next steps
Presentation Overview
Private Parks/Rec Areas -Marana vs Other Jurisdictions
Minimum Area
Requirement
(per single family unit)
LDC Park Standards Standards in Parks/Rec
Design Manual
Drainage Area –Park
Design Requirements
Trail
Requirements
Marana 185 sq.ft.Yes No No No
Oro Valley 512 sq.ft.Yes No
(Parks & Rec Advisory Board)Yes Yes
City of Tucson 269 sq.ft.No No Yes Yes
Sahuarita 436 sq. ft.Yes Yes Yes Yes
Pima County 436 sq. ft.Yes Yes Yes Yes
Queen Creek Open Space -20% net, 30%
active Yes No Yes Yes
Buckeye Open Space -20-25% gross,
5%-8%active No No Yes Yes
City of Maricopa Open Space -
1 to 99 lots (20% net)
100+ lots (22% net)
No No Yes Yes
Background
Town staff met with stakeholders
•Homebuilders
•Developers
•Developer representatives (SAHBA, consultants)
•Other jurisdictions
Topics discussed
•Current code vs other jurisdictions
•Consideration of different ways to calculate
•Suggestions for revisions to Town Code
Stakeholder Meetings
Likes
•Use of a sliding scale
•Buy-down concept but need more information
•Use of design manual for consistency and predictability
similar to Pima County
•Use of in-lieu fees
Stakeholder Feedback -Comments
Considerations
•Areas east and west of the freeway have different conditions
•Credit for Natural Undisturbed Open Space (NUOS)
•Town should utilize in-lieu fee process
•Amenities should be based on demographics
•Parks size and amenities have impact on HoA fees
•Well-connected parks have value
Stakeholder Feedback -Comments
Proposed changes
•Revise minimum square footage requirement
per single-family unit
•Use sliding scale based on zoning
•Credit allowance:
•Natural Undisturbed Open Space (NUOS)
•Trail connections
•Drainage basins meeting certain criteria
Proposed Code Changes
Proposed Code Changes
Zoning District Groups Current Recreation Area
Requirement (sf/unit)
Proposed Recreation Area
Requirement (sf/unit)
R-3 R-3.5 R-4 R-5 185 350
R-6 R-7 R-8 185 300
R-10 R-12 R-16 185 200
Proposed Recreation Area Requirement
Proposed changes
•New ordinance with reference to design manual
•Design manual based on Pima County’s
•Recreation Area Plan (RAP) requirements
•Specific amenity options based on park size
•Alternative amenity allowance
Proposed Code Changes
Next Steps
•Collect stakeholder feedback
•Refine draft code and design manual
•Return for Planning Commission approval
and Town Council adoption
Next Steps