×
Warning message
The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.Yavapai County Zoning and Subdivisions Assessment Report
Review the draft Assessment Report!
The window for the TAG’s review of the Assessment Report will close on August 15th!
Your input at this stage will help the consultant team of Logan Simpson to finalize the Assessment Report so that it can be presented at a joint work session of the Board of Supervisors and Planning and Zoning Commission on Thursday October 23rd at 9am.
How to give input? As indicated on the green bar below, you can click anywhere on the document to comment. You do not need to register/sign in to provide comments. However, you will be asked to provide your name and email the first time you comment (if you come back at another time, you'll have to add your name and address again). Select "Summary" to select the specific section # on which you want to comment.
bubble to view comments.
Loading Glossary… Add comment
Matthew Aug 13 2025 at 5:52PM on page 69
This probably needs to be discussed with leadership ASAS (perhaps touched on during (Joint Session) as County just received application for a Utility Scale Solar project on 4,000 acres, which calls for large BES facility, which we have no standards for.
Matthew Aug 13 2025 at 5:50PM on page 67
Worth elevating this discussion as ASLD controls approx. 20-25% percentage of the County's land base - much of it being environmental sensitive, etc. Would like to have key County staff, etc., participate in follow-up discussion with ASLD to reconcile competing land use needs and consensus forward to accommodate both growth and preservation, including how such areas are zoning, understanding one acre min. requirement.
Matthew Aug 13 2025 at 5:45PM on page 59
Our Rt. 66 communities, and distressed and/or underutilized communities would be good candidates for this. Think Ash Fork, etc.
in reply to Matthew's comment
Matthew Aug 13 2025 at 5:43PM on page 51
Growth Areas are obvious strategic location for mandating and/or incentivizing .
Matthew Aug 13 2025 at 5:42PM on page 50
Yes, present to TAG.
in reply to Matthew's comment
Matthew Aug 13 2025 at 5:40PM on page 49
When thinking of density bonus, keep in mind that the county doesn't have to give density away freely in its zoning code; it can use density bonus formulas to get things it wants in return and to offset some of the impacts of development.
Matthew Aug 13 2025 at 5:37PM on page 49
Would be great if there were means to prioritize/reserve existing and planned future sewer services for denser forms of residential development and mixed use; particularly for clustered open space development, as the more you can cluster down to with sewer, the more open space you can set-aside.
Matthew Aug 13 2025 at 5:35PM on page 49
Our clustering standards are woefully outdated. I've commented on clustering throughout. Would note that infrastructure improvements should not be calculated toward open space, which we regularly see. Would be helpful to also provide some successful examples from AZ.
Matthew Aug 13 2025 at 5:24PM on page 41
However, there needs to be standards for expiring/revoking subdivision approvals for projects that haven't met certain obligations, such as provision of infrastructure improvements. Because there is no automatic sunset on approvals for incomplete/stalled projects, they lead to problems - particularly once property owners start purchases lots!
Matthew Aug 13 2025 at 5:18PM on page 51
Sounds like an important question to raise with Jorden Law and reflected in the RFP for legal guidance. Ideally, it would be a combination, including minimum open space set-aside (e.g., 30%), and incentivized increments. Presence/opportunity for sewers will dramatically affect extent of density one can cluster to. This is also a very important topic worthy of educating the PZ and Commission on, along with soliciting input. Interesting question regarding prop. 207, if underlying yield/density remains baseline to increase density up from.
in reply to Andrea Shelton 's comment
Matthew Aug 13 2025 at 5:05PM on page 42
Might be worth consulting with Jorden Law on this one.
in reply to Andrea Shelton 's comment
Matthew Aug 13 2025 at 5:01PM on page 36
Comment
At minimum, larger subdivision proposals (e.g., above 35), should entail at least one public hearing. Irrespective of whether rules are followed, opportunity for public scrutiny and comment is tonic against potential for mischief. In my experience, public comment always generates valuable input that might otherwise be overlooked. Even if a project meets requirements, there's always room for improvement, and applicants are often willing to consider reasonable enhancements.
in reply to Matthew's comment
Matthew Aug 13 2025 at 4:53PM on page 31
Particularly for historic downtowns
in reply to Matthew's comment
Matthew Aug 13 2025 at 4:48PM on page 22
However, if the AZ State Land Department were amenable to serving as a Sending Area for Big Chino Wash and other critical natural resource areas, I'm all in.
in reply to Matthew's comment
Matthew Aug 13 2025 at 4:46PM on page 21
Also wondering about ramifications once multigenerational aspect goes away. Hard to imagine such compounds remaining family-only, and would don't want to create disincentives for planned development. Allowing compound development could result in more isolated sprawl such as more intensive development of private inholdings within the National Forests, where such development should be discouraged.
in reply to Matthew's comment
Matthew Aug 13 2025 at 4:32PM on page 21
Would like to discuss updating standards for PADs and clustering sooner than later as more of these keep coming and are anticipated at huge scale. Would like to see minimum OS requirement increased to 30%, with density and/or increased FAR for other increments, e.g., 45%, etc.
Matthew Aug 13 2025 at 4:26PM on page 18
Comment
In my experience, an Overlay Zone applies to a specific underlying Zoning District, or portion thereof, such as a river corridor or other constrained area, businesses district, etc. I think the whole DRO sections needs an overhaul if overlays are to be utilized. They should be considered/discussed where better development planning outcomes could be achieved for significant and environmentally sensitive landscape features such as the Verde River and its tributaries.
Susan H. Aug 10 2025 at 6:41PM on page 48
Question
Would there also be any options for nonconforming lots subdivided between 1974-2006 when MLD permits and reviews were first required before division?
Susan H. Aug 10 2025 at 6:32PM on page 46
Comment
This looks interesting and could start with Planning Unit or wider discussion.
Susan H. Aug 10 2025 at 6:30PM on page 45
Question
Could you say which part of the statute, please? This question comes up on occasion and we currently just refer to ADRE, but it would be helpful to have the specific information.
Susan H. Aug 10 2025 at 6:28PM on page 45
11-831.G?
Susan H. Aug 10 2025 at 6:12PM on page 34
Question
How does right to picket fall under zoning standards?
Susan H. Aug 10 2025 at 6:10PM on page 33
Question
County Elections currently reference our Ordinance for political signs:
link
Are they able to continue with sign regulations outside the Zoning Code or does Reed v. Town of Gilbert affect that as well?
link
Are they able to continue with sign regulations outside the Zoning Code or does Reed v. Town of Gilbert affect that as well?
Susan H. Aug 10 2025 at 6:02PM on page 32
Comment
Some minimum parking makes sense when cars are the only means of access. As Matt said, we would need administrative procedures to make adjustments based on individual situations/constrained lots.
If public transit gains traction, this could be revisited for certain areas. The minimums also could be reduced when located in areas of higher density/business districts or near public parking areas.
If public transit gains traction, this could be revisited for certain areas. The minimums also could be reduced when located in areas of higher density/business districts or near public parking areas.
Susan H. Aug 10 2025 at 5:49PM on page 26
Question
Would this be better than how they're currently allowed as manufactured homes with the state reviewing for HUD standards?
in reply to Phil Bourdon's comment
Susan H. Aug 10 2025 at 5:43PM on page 26
Comment
Currently, the first dwelling is always the primary dwelling. Establishing the primary dwelling is what allows for accessory uses on a residentially zoned property.
If it's built to guest home standards (or ADU standards in the near future), then a larger dwelling can be built later. Once the larger dwelling is built, the first dwelling would undergo a Change of Use to a guest home (ADU) designation.
Would calling it an ADU to start be better? It wouldn't be an accessory to anything yet. The benefit to the property owner might be allowing their residence a 5' setback. Would that be a way to skirt around primary setback requirements if they never end up building a "primary residence". Unless we want to consider 5' setbacks for everything in the side and rear yards.
If it's built to guest home standards (or ADU standards in the near future), then a larger dwelling can be built later. Once the larger dwelling is built, the first dwelling would undergo a Change of Use to a guest home (ADU) designation.
Would calling it an ADU to start be better? It wouldn't be an accessory to anything yet. The benefit to the property owner might be allowing their residence a 5' setback. Would that be a way to skirt around primary setback requirements if they never end up building a "primary residence". Unless we want to consider 5' setbacks for everything in the side and rear yards.
Susan H. Aug 10 2025 at 5:29PM on page 21
Technical Edit
Add period.
Also, both are true - pools can't be in front yard and must be at least 5' from every property line.
Also, both are true - pools can't be in front yard and must be at least 5' from every property line.
in reply to Matthew's comment
Susan H. Aug 10 2025 at 5:26PM on page 21
Comment
Rather than removing the limit, could a multi-generational compound be a special administrative application with parameters to fit within the given density? There's already more opportunity for this with the ADU changes, providing there are reasonable ADU size allowances or administrative variances.
Once a dwelling is built, it probably won't be removed, so it wouldn't necessarily matter if the lot was or wasn't split to accomplish this. But the idea of clustering or sewer/shared septic requirements might be beneficial.
Once a dwelling is built, it probably won't be removed, so it wouldn't necessarily matter if the lot was or wasn't split to accomplish this. But the idea of clustering or sewer/shared septic requirements might be beneficial.
in reply to Matthew's comment
Susan H. Aug 10 2025 at 5:15PM on page 21
Comment
They should be included as subsections in the PAD section since their separation has always been confusing to people. Also as preferred options in the Subdivision Regulations.
Susan H. Aug 10 2025 at 5:09PM on page 18
Comment
Unlike all the others on the list, DRO isn't a specific district. If an overlay zone is created, it could be defined to apply to any of the Use Districts, which is what we currently have instead of "zones". Maybe it shouldn't be in this table?
This has always been confusing to people. My understanding is that the zoning of a property is made up of the Use District + Density District, with the possibility of an Overlay Zone on top of that.
This has always been confusing to people. My understanding is that the zoning of a property is made up of the Use District + Density District, with the possibility of an Overlay Zone on top of that.
Susan H. Aug 10 2025 at 4:50PM on page 17
Suggested Revision
This sentence seems a bit circular.
Maybe, "Zoning also establishes the defined districts or zones. The geographical distribution of districts or zones on a zoning map ensures consistency with the comprehensive plan."
Maybe, "Zoning also establishes the defined districts or zones. The geographical distribution of districts or zones on a zoning map ensures consistency with the comprehensive plan."
in reply to Planning's comment
Susan H. Aug 10 2025 at 4:36PM on page 16
Question
And if we have a separate set of definitions for signs, wouldn't the other sections with specialized terms need to have their own sets listed in Part E?
Susan H. Aug 10 2025 at 4:33PM on page 15
Question
I'm not sure what rules of language construction and transition mean exactly. Style?
in reply to Stephanie's comment
Susan H. Aug 10 2025 at 4:27PM on page 131
Comment
We might have the animal keeping section with separate criteria for domestic animals, farm animals, and wild (per federal/state) animals.
Stephanie Aug 5 2025 at 4:52PM on page 131
Comment
This should also explore pigs as a domestic animal versus pigs as livestock.
Pigs kept as pets/domestic animals are not raised for food or market purposes.
Domestic pigs have a typical weight ranging from 90-250 pounds. We could put a weight cap in place along with a numeric allowance.
Any pig could be considered domestic dependent upon the owner's intent. If the intent is food/market it is livestock.
Pigs kept as pets/domestic animals are not raised for food or market purposes.
Domestic pigs have a typical weight ranging from 90-250 pounds. We could put a weight cap in place along with a numeric allowance.
Any pig could be considered domestic dependent upon the owner's intent. If the intent is food/market it is livestock.
Planning Aug 5 2025 at 3:41PM on page 26
Please expand on the definition of a tiny home. (Rec Vehicle or site built?)
Planning Aug 5 2025 at 3:35PM on page 20
Comment
Consider keeping DRO for future county use. Further discussion needed.
Planning Aug 5 2025 at 3:22PM on page 16
Question
Why do signs terms need their own separate section?
Stephanie Aug 5 2025 at 2:52PM on page 27
I say yes!
Stephanie Aug 5 2025 at 2:51PM on page 27
Might be the wrong place to mention it but we should consider allowing modular homes to be placed on site-built only zones since they are constructed to the same codes.
Stephanie Aug 5 2025 at 2:49PM on page 26
I can foresee people thinking that weddings should be included in Meeting Facilities. we should be clear on the allowed uses of the Meeting facilities.
Stephanie Aug 5 2025 at 2:47PM on page 26
I think the keeping of animal's provisions should remain in the new Zoning Code.
Stephanie Aug 5 2025 at 2:41PM on page 25
We should certainly define whether or not we will allow storage containers to be considered a building material.
Stephanie Aug 5 2025 at 2:28PM on page 21
Comment
This would allow the existing wineries on Use Permits to operate in a by-right manner, correct? This could be truly amazing!
Stephanie Aug 5 2025 at 1:54PM on page 11
Should be sections, plural.
Andrea Shelton Aug 5 2025 at 1:53PM on page 47
Question
Administrative Variance?
Andrea Shelton Aug 5 2025 at 1:46PM on page 47
Suggested Revision
Remove the extra ))
Andrea Shelton Aug 5 2025 at 1:44PM on page 55
Suggested Revision
2032
Andrea Shelton Aug 5 2025 at 1:42PM on page 75
Comment
sorry to bombard you with the 2032
View all
Comments
Close