jefferson park npz
To view the Jefferson Park NPZ go to https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/jefferson-park-neighborhood-preservation-zone
Disallow swimming pools in front yards - December 2019
Steve Kozachik's discussion of Mayor and Council decision to explore change in Jefferson Park and Feldman NPZ manuals. Ward VI newsletter dated Dec 23, 2019
"There was yet another zoning-related item on our agenda last Tuesday. We have two NPZs in the City: Feldman's since 2006, and Jefferson Park since 2011. An NPZ is an established set of design criteria intended to preserve the unique character of an historic neighborhood. There is a lot of time, money and energy that goes into putting a design manual together. The item we had in front of us last week was the result of some development in the two NPZs that is clearly incompatible with both the character of the neighborhoods, and the intent of the existing language found in the design manuals. It relates to building front yard swimming pools.
These would be fine, but the kind that State law mandates a 5' wall or fence for, for safety, is the issue we need to address.
Just as is true of the FLD's, each Neighborhood Preservation Zone design manual comes with a 'purpose' statement. That is also embedded in our City code. The statements each speak of "preserving and enhancing Tucson's established neighborhoods" by protecting the "unique character and historical resources" in each. When you put up walls, and even overgrowth of landscaping such that the front view of a historic building is obstructed, it will lose its historic status under State guidelines. That eliminates the tax break the homeowner gets, but it also reduces the number of contributing structures from a recognized historic zone. When the percentage of contributors falls below half, the entire area loses its tax breaks. Therefore, in addition to the aesthetics, the surrounding neighbors have a financial stake in how other properties are treated; thus, the design manuals.
The City has three standards that are reviewed when deciding whether or not a particular project needs an "NPZ review". That review looks at the historic design manual and determines compatibility. Those standards are whether the existing zoning allows the proposed project, whether a building permit is required, and whether the project is visible from the street. Assuming the zoning hurdle is cleared, the last two are where we need to clarify the original intent.
I was surprised to learn that when you build a pool, the City does not require a building permit. We require grading permits, and we review site plans, but lacking a building permit allows front yard pools to slip in an unintended crack when deciding on an NPZ compatibility review. I have suggested that by adding grading and site reviews to the review standards, we fix that loophole.
Above, I mentioned that you can lose historic contributing status when you have things in your front yard that obstruct the view of the house. In Feldman's they have had ten properties denied contributing status as a result of walls having been built. Given that State law requires a 5' fence or wall around a pool, and given that one of the purposes of the NPZ is to protect historic status, it is clear that the original intent of the NPZ manual included disallowing pools. You cannot state one of your intentions is to preserve historic status, and at the same time allow development that causes de-listing. In pointing out that inconsistency, it was my intent not to alter the current language, or to add a new condition, but to simply make the point that reasonable people will agree that the pools in the front yard and preservation are inconsistent.
The design manuals also have standards for landscape reviews and streetscape compatibility. In each case, it is clear that adding front yard pools could never have been the original intent behind the design criteria. In order to bring all of this to a public discussion, I asked to initiate the rezoning process so we can have public hearings in front of the appropriate regulatory official (Planning Commission or Zoning Examiner) to clarify the intent of existing language. If necessary to achieve that, add some wording that fills the existing loopholes that a couple of builders appear to have an interest in exploiting. That will include a discussion of Prop 207 - the Private Property Rights State law that says we cannot downzone, or place restrictions on a property that decrease the earning value it has. That will be a discussion our Attorneys will have an important seat at the table for; yet, if all we're doing is clarifying original intent, one has to ask whether there's really a 207 exposure.
The M&C unanimously adopted the motion to move this conversation forward. More to come. I know there are other neighborhoods considering putting NPZ manuals together. For them, as well as for the two existing NPZ neighborhoods, this will be an important item to watch unfold"
(exerpted from Steve Kozachik's e-news, 12/23/2019)
These would be fine, but the kind that State law mandates a 5' wall or fence for, for safety, is the issue we need to address.
Just as is true of the FLD's, each Neighborhood Preservation Zone design manual comes with a 'purpose' statement. That is also embedded in our City code. The statements each speak of "preserving and enhancing Tucson's established neighborhoods" by protecting the "unique character and historical resources" in each. When you put up walls, and even overgrowth of landscaping such that the front view of a historic building is obstructed, it will lose its historic status under State guidelines. That eliminates the tax break the homeowner gets, but it also reduces the number of contributing structures from a recognized historic zone. When the percentage of contributors falls below half, the entire area loses its tax breaks. Therefore, in addition to the aesthetics, the surrounding neighbors have a financial stake in how other properties are treated; thus, the design manuals.
The City has three standards that are reviewed when deciding whether or not a particular project needs an "NPZ review". That review looks at the historic design manual and determines compatibility. Those standards are whether the existing zoning allows the proposed project, whether a building permit is required, and whether the project is visible from the street. Assuming the zoning hurdle is cleared, the last two are where we need to clarify the original intent.
I was surprised to learn that when you build a pool, the City does not require a building permit. We require grading permits, and we review site plans, but lacking a building permit allows front yard pools to slip in an unintended crack when deciding on an NPZ compatibility review. I have suggested that by adding grading and site reviews to the review standards, we fix that loophole.
Above, I mentioned that you can lose historic contributing status when you have things in your front yard that obstruct the view of the house. In Feldman's they have had ten properties denied contributing status as a result of walls having been built. Given that State law requires a 5' fence or wall around a pool, and given that one of the purposes of the NPZ is to protect historic status, it is clear that the original intent of the NPZ manual included disallowing pools. You cannot state one of your intentions is to preserve historic status, and at the same time allow development that causes de-listing. In pointing out that inconsistency, it was my intent not to alter the current language, or to add a new condition, but to simply make the point that reasonable people will agree that the pools in the front yard and preservation are inconsistent.
The design manuals also have standards for landscape reviews and streetscape compatibility. In each case, it is clear that adding front yard pools could never have been the original intent behind the design criteria. In order to bring all of this to a public discussion, I asked to initiate the rezoning process so we can have public hearings in front of the appropriate regulatory official (Planning Commission or Zoning Examiner) to clarify the intent of existing language. If necessary to achieve that, add some wording that fills the existing loopholes that a couple of builders appear to have an interest in exploiting. That will include a discussion of Prop 207 - the Private Property Rights State law that says we cannot downzone, or place restrictions on a property that decrease the earning value it has. That will be a discussion our Attorneys will have an important seat at the table for; yet, if all we're doing is clarifying original intent, one has to ask whether there's really a 207 exposure.
The M&C unanimously adopted the motion to move this conversation forward. More to come. I know there are other neighborhoods considering putting NPZ manuals together. For them, as well as for the two existing NPZ neighborhoods, this will be an important item to watch unfold"
(exerpted from Steve Kozachik's e-news, 12/23/2019)