Committee reviews major rewrites to zoning definitions, affordable‑housing terms and a new lighting chapter

Staff walked the committee through a comprehensive pass at Chapter 2 (Definitions) and a new Chapter 8 (Outdoor Lighting) during the April 30 meeting, presenting numerous edits and asking the advisory group for direction on several policy choices.

Jessica, a staff member presenting the draft, said the goal was to clarify terms used throughout the zoning code and to move marijuana-specific terms into a separate marijuana chapter. She noted that staff added illustrations, consolidated duplicate definitions and removed inconsistent or chapter-specific language.

Why it matters: committee members said consistent definitions are necessary so developers, staff and the public use the same terms when discussing projects. Members flagged housing terms — including “affordable housing,” “designated dwelling unit,” and “workforce housing” — as priorities to finalize because the wording affects project financing, eligibility and public communications.

Key points from the discussion

- Affordable and designated dwelling units: Staff reviewed proposed language (based on a federal standard) for an “affordable housing dwelling unit” that would restrict units by income and cost burden. The draft text presented described a dwelling unit restricted to households earning no more than 120% of area median income (AMI) as defined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, where renter housing costs (including utilities) do not exceed 30% of household income or owner housing costs (mortgage interest, insurance, real estate taxes and association fees) do not exceed 30% of household income. Committee members asked staff to add a separate definition for “designated dwelling unit” that reflects income-restriction terms and financing requirements (for example, USDA 30-year commitments were discussed as illustrative financing practice). Staff agreed to return the specific wording for designated dwelling units and to hold “workforce housing” as a placeholder until the town’s housing study defines that term.

- Consolidation and clarifications across housing types: The draft reorganized apartment, duplex, triplex, townhouse, multifamily and tiny‑home definitions so related housing terms would be grouped together. Committee members asked staff to remove duplicates and to add a consolidated chart of “dwelling” subtypes for clarity.

- Day care, group homes and assisted living: The draft separated adult day care and child day care, and attendees noted state licensing thresholds (for example, day care homes vs. day care centers) influence local definitions. The draft’s group‑home definition noted a typical threshold (more than six but fewer than 10 residents) and members asked staff to add an assisted‑living definition that covers larger licensed facilities.

- Agriculture and agritourism: The definition of agricultural tourism was expanded to include tasting rooms, hotels and restaurants when associated with primary agricultural use; committee members asked staff whether agritourism uses must be on the same parcel as primary agricultural production and suggested adding language to cover off‑site tasting rooms or related uses.

- Convenience store threshold: Staff retained a 5,000-square‑foot cutoff for “convenience store” in the draft; committee members discussed local examples (2,300–8,500 sq. ft. was cited for chain formats) and asked staff to confirm the threshold, noting the intent is to distinguish quick in‑and‑out retail from larger general‑merchandise stores.

- Lot and subdivision language: Staff proposed changing the local subdivision threshold to four or more lots to align with municipal statute language cited by staff (discussion referenced state statutes and Title 9/Title 32 distinctions). Committee members requested staff verify statutory citations and return final wording.

- Kitchens and accessory units: The draft tightened the kitchen definition used to determine whether a dwelling contains a separate unit (relevant to accessory dwelling units and conversions). Committee members asked the staff to consult building‑code definitions and suggested changing “stove and oven” to “stove or oven” to account for modern cooking appliances and countertop ovens; staff agreed to consult the building official before finalizing language.

- Open space and trails: Staff added separate definitions for “public open space” (owned and maintained by a public agency) and “open space — recreational” (which may be private or public). Committee members asked for explicit language that trails may be publicly or privately owned and recommended clarifying whether trails within HOAs can be dedicated to the town.

- Signage and other housekeeping: The draft added or clarified many signage, yard, setback and site‑plan definitions and consolidated images and examples to reduce reader confusion.

Lighting (new Chapter 8)

Staff presented a brand‑new outdoor lighting chapter that draws heavily on dark‑sky model language and other jurisdictions’ best practices, with tailoring for local conditions. The proposed chapter establishes lighting classes (Class 1–3) that scale allowable lumen output and operational hours by context, requires fully shielded fixtures in sensitive areas, and sets rules for motion sensors, fixture color temperature, and exemptions (holiday lighting and permitted special events).

Committee concerns and directions on lighting

- Dark‑sky balance vs. commercial needs: Staff said the draft uses dark‑sky guidance but allows higher lumen levels for some commercial contexts so signs and parking areas remain functional. Committee members asked staff to check whether the proposed limits produce practical results in places with topographic differences (examples cited where a building sited above a roadway appears to illuminate the road even though the fixture is on private property).

- Shielding and topography: Members asked how the code will address situations where topography causes light from a shielded fixture to be visible offsite (for example, parking-lot or canopy illumination that appears to trespass onto lower adjacent roadways). Staff said they would research whether additional shielding or fixture placement requirements are warranted in such situations and consult lighting experts.

- Applicability and thresholds for change: The chapter defines “major” and “minor” changes (for instance, a major revision could be a 25% or greater increase in lumen output or a major site change) and treats new development, changes of use and fixture replacement differently. Committee members asked for clearer examples and for the staff to circulate the chapter for outside review by lighting designers and commercial stakeholders.

Next steps and staff direction

Staff (Jessica and Ruth, staff members) will: - Add a separate “designated dwelling unit” definition using the suggested federal-income and cost‑burden language and return it for committee review. - Hold a placeholder for “workforce housing” until the housing study provides a definition. - Move marijuana‑specific terms into the separately drafted marijuana chapter. - Consult the building official on a kitchen definition tied to the building code and revise accessory‑unit language accordingly. - Recheck statutory citations for subdivision thresholds (Title 9/Title 32/ARS) and return with explicit citations. - Research topography and shielding questions for the lighting chapter and seek input from lighting designers before publishing the draft for public comment.

No formal votes were taken on the code text itself at the April 30 meeting; members directed staff to edit and return the revised drafts for subsequent review.