Commission weighs return of AR-36 agricultural-residential zoning for large Chino Valley parcels

Town planning staff presented a draft text amendment (TA 2025-O3) to reintroduce an AR-36 agricultural-residential zoning designation that would apply to 36-acre parcels and similar large holdings. Commissioners discussed why the designation is under consideration, which uses would be allowed or conditional, and several technical items staff would need to refine before forwarding the draft to Town Council.

Staff said the AR-36 designation had existed previously but was removed when the town updated other rules; public feedback during the 2040 general-plan process prompted reconsideration. “For those that have been on PNZ a little longer, you might remember that we did have a r 36 in our code. We got rid of it,” a staff member said, adding that the designation would give large landowners options that do not fit smaller-lot residential districts.

Commissioners reviewed the draft’s list of potential uses for AR-36 parcels: commercial greenhouses and nurseries, equestrian and recreational facilities, rodeos and fairgrounds, airports or private landing strips, cemeteries, bed-and-breakfasts or dude ranches, commercial stables and riding academies, kennels, and limited feed-yard operations. Staff and commissioners discussed the need to refine definitions so lower-intensity “feed yard” operations are not conflated with large-scale feed lots.

Several technical development standards were discussed in the draft: a minimum parcel width of 3,000 feet was listed in the text, minimum frontage of 200 feet, front- and rear-yard setbacks of 100 feet, side-yard setbacks of 50 feet, maximum building height of 50 feet, and a 10% lot-coverage cap (which the staff noted equates to roughly 3.6 acres of structures on a 36-acre parcel). Commissioners asked staff to check proportionality rules in engineering standards and consider whether minimum width or other dimensional rules needed refinement.

Staff said other code updates will be necessary if AR-36 is reintroduced: guest-house size limits should align with current AR-4 and AR-5 standards (the draft currently references a 50% cap that conflicts with the more recent 1,200-square-foot or 75% provisions in other districts), Conex (shipping) containers need explicit treatment, and greenhouse allowances require clearer thresholds (staff said a commercial greenhouse is permitted in some existing rules when a threshold of contiguous acreage is met). Staff also noted that marijuana cultivation remains limited to industrial zoning under current town code and would not be permitted in AR-36 as drafted.

Commissioners and staff flagged legal and procedural considerations. Staff noted risk from property-rights litigation when removing or changing prior entitlements and cited a statute-of-limitations concern (a three-year window under state property-change litigation) that requires caution in wholesale code deletions. The commission discussed whether certain commercial uses should require conditional-use review and whether worker housing should remain tied to a primary agricultural use.

Commissioners signaled support to continue refining the AR-36 draft and to review it in a future meeting. Staff said the plan is to bring the modified draft back to the commission and to forward it to Town Council in coming meetings. “So we’d like to bring it I think the plan is to bring it in June,” a staff member said.