CODE Tucson '26 (Community Ordinances & Development Enhancements)

Clearer Terms and Definitions

Issue: Some zoning code terms are unclear, outdated, or used inconsistently. This can make it harder for applicants, neighbors, and staff to understand which rules apply.

Potential Changes:

• Replace "perimeter yard" with "setback" throughout the code.
• Clarify that uses permitted in a zone may be allowed as either principal or accessory uses.
• Clarify that automobile minor service and repair includes automobile washing.
• Add more detail to the bedroom definition to distinguish bedrooms from similar spaces, such as studies or connected living areas.

Updated References and Responsibilities

Issue: Some sections of the code include outdated references to older codes, programs, or department responsibilities. This can create confusion about which codes apply and which City department is responsible for certain planning and enforcement functions.

Potential Changes:

• Update obsolete references to the former Land Use Code and align references with the currently adopted Building Code.
• Remove outdated transitional provisions and copy-filing language.
• Clarify that general plan, specific plan, and UDC enforcement responsibilities are assigned to PDSD where appropriate.
• Restore reference to the Community Corridors Tool in the purpose section for overlay zones.

Process and Administrative Requirements

Issue: Some administrative requirements are inconsistent or no longer match current City practice. This includes inconsistent notice periods, references to cash bonds that are no longer processed, and physical copy requirements that are no longer accepted for Historic Review.

Potential Changes:

• Align public notice and public comment periods to reduce confusion and allow more timely notice to affected parties.
• Remove references to cash bonds to reflect current City practice.
• Remove requirements for physical plan copies in Historic Review standards.

Technical Corrections

Issue: Some code sections contain minor technical errors, spelling issues, outdated references, or language that needs clarification. While these changes may be minor individually, they help improve the accuracy and usability of the code.

Potential Changes:

• Correct minor technical and spelling errors.
• Remove outdated references, including outdated medical references related to marijuana dispensaries.
• Clarify how separation distances are calculated for dispensaries, including distances from parks.

Parking Calculations For Mixed Use Developments

Issue: When part of a mixed use development Entertainment, Food Service, and Alcoholic Beverage Service uses must meet their own parking requirement.

Potential Change: Remove the requirement to calculate parking separately from other uses in a mixed or multiple use development.

Parking For Recreational Uses

Issue: Parking requirements are unnecessarily complex and specific for many different recreation uses.

Potential Change: Combine recreational uses such as mini golf, batting cages, gymnasiums, and pool halls into a single category with a standardized parking calculation.

Parking For Self-Service Uses Without Staff

Issue: Self-service uses are impacted by parking requirements which are unnecessary.

Potential Change: Create a new parking minimum for all self-service uses without employees on site, such as self-service car washes, donation containers, unattended fuel pumps without stores, mail/package delivery lockers, ATMs, and water and ice kiosks.

Adaptive Reuse and Nonconforming Uses

Issue: Current regulations can limit the ability to reuse existing buildings or substitute nonconforming uses in a flexible and responsible way. Some changes require a more intensive review process than may be necessary, while other adaptive reuse provisions are limited by eligibility dates or use restrictions.

Potential Changes:

• Allow substitution of a nonconforming use from a different land use class through a PDSD Director Approval Procedure instead of only through a Zoning Examiner Special Exception.
• Expand adaptive reuse eligibility by changing the fixed eligibility date to a rolling date based on improvements that existed ten years before the application date.
• Allow food service and restaurant uses to utilize adaptive reuse options where appropriate.

New or Evolving Use Categories

Issue: Some newer or more specific land uses are not clearly addressed in the current code, which can make it difficult to evaluate proposals consistently. Other uses, such as small-scale perishable goods manufacturing, may be more restricted than necessary for current commercial activity.

Potential Changes:

• Allow perishable goods manufacturing, such as bakeries, coffee roasters, or tortilla factories, in commercial zones as primary or accessory uses with limits on scale and impacts.
• Update distribution service definitions to include battery storage facilities and establish appropriate standards for this emerging use.
• Make minor updates needed to reflect state law changes related to adaptive reuse, including terminology and definition updates required by Arizona House Bill 2110 which mandates adaptive reuse of underutilized commercial, office, and mixed use buildings.

Accessory and Mixed Uses

Issue: The current code limits some supporting uses that may be compatible with office or retail areas. This can make it harder for businesses to adapt to current market conditions or provide complementary services in existing buildings and employment areas.

Potential Changes:

• Allow retail trade as an accessory use within office zones.
• Allow food service as an accessory use with retail uses, such as a bookstore with a cafe, with a proposed limit of up to 25 percent of gross floor area.
• Allow privately owned and operated cultural uses by right in office zones.

Services in Commercial, Office, and Industrial Areas

Some service uses are either not permitted in certain zones or are not clearly included in existing definitions. This can limit business opportunities, access to services, and the ability to use properties in a manner similar to other comparable zones.

Potential Changes:

• Allow personal services by right in the I-2 industrial zone to correct an apparent code oversight and align with other industrial zones.
• Clarify that acupuncture and acupressure services are allowed as minor medical uses.
• Permit home occupation day care in homes located in C-2 and C-3 zones.

Height Standards for Small and Accessory Structures

Issue: Current height standards for small and accessory structures may be too restrictive for modern residential needs. The existing limits may not provide enough clearance for practical use, vehicle access, play equipment, doghouses, or solar equipment design.

Potential Changes:

• Increase the height limit for small structures, such as doghouses or play equipment, from five feet to seven feet.
• Increase the allowable height of detached accessory structures from 12 feet to 15 feet.

Setbacks, Placement, and Site Layout

Issue: Some placement standards need clarification so users can better understand how setbacks apply and when certain residential additions are allowed. Current language around distribution system setbacks is inconsistent, and recent middle housing regulations create uncertainty about when an accessory dwelling unit may be added to an existing property.

Potential Changes:

• Remove the term “existing” from distribution system setback standards to clarify how setbacks are applied in relation to residential zoning.
• Clarify that accessory dwelling units cannot be added to sites with three or four dwelling units or to parcels created through a Middle Housing Subdivision.

Wall Heights

Issue: Current perimeter wall height standards may not align with the adopted Building Code and may limit privacy and security options for residents.

Potential Changes:

• Increase the allowed perimeter fence and wall height by one foot, from six feet to seven feet.

Use-Specific Design Standards

Issue: Drive-through standards may allow excessive lane configurations and can be interpreted inconsistently. Existing language is unclear around escape lanes, ordering points, pickup windows, and points of service.

Potential Changes:

• Limit certain food and alcohol-related drive-through uses to a maximum of two drive-through lanes.
• Clarify that escape lanes cannot function as additional drive-through lanes.
• Allow only one pickup window unless specific conditions are met.
• Replace “point of service” with “ordering point” for clearer interpretation.

State Law Alignment

Issue: Existing noise regulations may not align with Arizona state law and may create inconsistent construction start times between summer and winter months. This law was adopted by the state to mitigate the impacts of extreme heat on construction workers.

Potential Changes:

• Update noise regulations to align with state law.
• Standardize permitted construction hours by season and day of the week.
• Add an earlier summer start time for construction and concrete pouring.
• Clarify when residential work is allowed on weekends and legal holidays.

Subdivision Standards for Middle Housing & Middle Housing Clarifications

Issue: Update subdivision standards to address density changes brought about by middle housing, and address minor edits to improve the middle housing code amendment.

Potential Change: Create regulations that allow property owners where residential development of 1-4 units is allowed to divide their land, and address clarifications as needed.

Setback Requirements for Accessory Structure Conversions

Issue: Existing legally established accessory structures may not meet current perimeter yard setbacks, creating uncertainty about whether additional setback approval is required when converting them to habitable living space.

Potential Change: Add a standard that clarifies how existing accessory structures can be converted to habitable space.

Sidewalk Repairs

Issue: Sidewalk maintenance standards and areas of responsibility and processes are unclear.

Potential Change: Update to establish clear process to address violations and refine language.

Code Authorization and Review Process

Issue: The Sign Code includes a sunset date even though it has already been reauthorized twice and is performing well. The current review process also refers to an inactive Sign Design Review Committee, while reviews are now completed by design professionals.

Potential Changes:

• Remove the sunset date so the Sign Code remains in effect as a permanent or ongoing ordinance without disruption.
• Remove the Sign Design Review Committee section and provide for review by a design professional assigned by the City.
• Improve consistency and reduce delays in the sign review process.

Electronic and Technical Compliance

Issue: The code needs clearer requirements for signs that emit radio frequencies, including electronic message centers and displays that may require Federal Communications Commission compliance.

Potential Changes:

• Add code language requiring applicants to provide a manufacturer letter for applicable signs.
• Require the letter to identify the manufacturer and confirm unit-specific information needed for review.
• Make electronic sign requirements easier to understand and administer.

Measurement and Calculation Standards

Issue: Applicants and staff need clearer direction on how to calculate allowed sign area, especially for shared buildings, multiple businesses, and General Business Zones where street frontage or building frontage may apply.

Potential Changes:

• Clarify how overall allowed sign area is determined based on zoning, applicable special district regulations, and business frontage.
• Clarify how sign area may be split between multiple signs on different building elevations.

Sign Types and Use-Specific Signage

Issue: Some sign types or site-specific signs are unclear under the current code, creating confusion about whether a sign permit, building permit, or commercial permit is required.

Potential Changes:

• Clarify that drive-through clearance bars should be handled through a building permit rather than a sign permit when they provide non-advertising clearance information.
• Clarify that interior mall signs do not require a sign permit, but may still require a commercial permit to address building, fire, electrical, and technical code requirements.
• Add a specific definition and review standard for menu boards, including when they are subject to sign permitting.
• Clarify that menu boards are signs used with approved drive-through, drive-in, or walk-up services to display product options and pricing at the ordering point.

Location, Setbacks, and Sign Form

Issue: Some sign placement and classification standards are difficult to apply. Internal access point signs may not be able to meet the current curb setback, and monument-type sign standards need a clearer physical distinction from other freestanding signs.

Potential Changes:

• Remove the required 10-foot minimum setback from the face of curb for access point signs.
• Improve options for locating access point signage within a development.
• Clarify that, to qualify as a freestanding monument-type sign, the base must measure the full width of the sign it supports, or greater.
• Create a clearer distinction between monument-type signs and signs with narrow, partial, or pole-like supports.

Development Process Clean-Up

Issue: The Flexible Lot Development process needs cleanup to better align with state law and other development review procedures. Existing language related to plan compliance and neighborhood meeting requirements should be clarified.

Potential Changes:

• Clarify that proposed Flexible Lot Developments that are part of a rezoning must comply with all relevant plans.
• Remove the neighborhood meeting requirement and instead require mailed notice of application submittal.

Timing and Public Notice Requirements

Issue: Some timing and public notice requirements need to better reflect realistic project timelines and community notification needs. Applicants may need more time after neighborhood meetings to revise applications, and neighbors may benefit from clearer advance notice of pending demolition activity.

Potential Changes:

• Allow neighborhood meetings to occur up to 90 days before formal application submittal, instead of 60 days, for applicable application types.
• Require posted notice 15 days before a planned demolition.

Utility and Infrastructure Review

Issue: Certain utility and infrastructure upgrades currently require lengthy review procedures even when the improvements occur within existing utility sites. These processes can require significant City resources and may delay upgrades to critical infrastructure.

Potential Changes:

• Allow upgrades or expansions to substations through a PDSD Director Approval Procedure, with limitations on additional height or noise.
• Permit development or expansion of water well sites through a PDSD Director Approval Procedure instead of requiring a Zoning Examiner special exception.

Minor Historic Review

Issue: Some minor historic review requirements may make small repairs or alterations more difficult than necessary. The existing cost threshold and required on-site meeting process can limit flexibility and create scheduling challenges.

Potential Changes:

• Remove the cost minimum for repairs under minor historic review.
• Remove the requirement for an on-site meeting for minor historic review.

Minor Site Improvements

Issue: Some small site improvements could be made easier to permit or install while still supporting broader City goals. Cistern placement requirements may discourage water harvesting improvements on residential properties.

Potential Changes:

• Remove placement restrictions for certain cisterns, consistent with prior Zoning Administrator direction.

Hearing and Decision Procedures

Issue: The code includes several hearing and decision procedures that need clarification or streamlining. Some procedures do not clearly describe how hearings proceed, how decisions are recorded, or how conditions may be changed after approval. Other procedures include extra steps that no longer reflect current development review practices.

Potential Changes:

• Clarify the role of support staff at Zoning Examiner meetings, how hearings proceed, and how decisions are made and recorded.
• Add a process for changing conditions placed on a project through a Mayor and Council special exception procedure, similar to the existing process for Zoning Examiner special exceptions.
• Remove the separate Mayor and Council authorization step for rezonings, so rezoning requests are approved through ordinance adoption.