Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV1802456OPOqR/'0 vr" FUNDED 091A Town of Oro Valley Community and Economic Development Department September 25, 2018 Ellen Stephenson 2040 W. Lucero Road Oro Valley, AZ 85737 ehs-ems@earthlink.net RE: Wall variance, case OV1802456 Dear Mrs. Stephenson, The Board of Adjustment met on September 25, 2018 to review the request to increase the height of the yard wall at 2040 W. Lucero Road. The Board voted to approve the height increase for the wall along La Cholla Blvd. and Lucero Road, up to 8' in height. The wall permit associated with this variance has also been approved. The contractor has been notified that the permit is ready to be issued. Thank you for your time and please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, a�� Patty Hayes Senior Planning Technician Town of Oro Valley phayes@orovallevaz.gov, 520-229-4819 Oro Valley, it's in our nature. 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 www.orovalleyaz.gov I phone: (520) 229-4800 1 fax: (520) 742-1022 O�OypLL.EY AA�iyQ�Y 1 f 4' A lA��A F�INOfD 71s Board of Adjustment 0. Meeting Date: 09/25/2018 Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development Submitted By: Patty Hayes, Community and Economic Development Case Number: OV1802456 SUBJECT: A VARIANCE REQUEST TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF A SCREEN WALL FROM 4'6" AND 6' UP TO 8' ALONG LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND LUCERO ROAD FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2040 W. LUCERO ROAD. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This variance is requested by the Town on behalf of the homeowner to allow a height increase of a proposed screen wall that will be built along La Cholla Boulevard and Lucero Road for the property at 2040 W. Lucero Road as shown in Attachment 1. The currently allowed wall height is 4'6" for the front yard portion of the wall along Lucero Road and 6' for the side yard portion of the wall along La Cholla. The proposed new wall that will be built 30' further to the east than the existing wall, will vary in height from V to 7' and may need to be taller, up to 8', in some areas due to field adjustments or topography. The subject property currently contains a wall that is up to 6' tall along La Cholla and Lucero which must be removed due to the La Cholla Boulevard road improvement project. The road project required the Town to acquire 30' of property from the homeowner and remove the existing 6' wall which has caused her house to be closer to the new right-of-way. Prior to the land acquisition a taller wall would have been allowed in the new location because enough property existed to accommodate the setbacks required for taller walls. However, since the 30' land acquisition a larger wall cannot be built on the property line because there is not enough land to provide the setbacks required for taller walls. As part of the agreement with the homeowner, a new wall will be constructed on her property on the newly established side and front property lines. The La Cholla road project and the close proximity of the existing house to the new road and associated noise and safety concerns requires the proposed wall to be 5' to 8' in height. The situation causing the new location and height of the proposed wall were consequences of the Town widening of La Cholla Boulevard and not circumstances created by the homeowner. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variance determining that the five findings have been met as described in the following background and detailed information. . 3 acre property • Zoned R1-144 . Not part of a subdivision . Property contains an existing house and yard walls Discussion State Law and the Oro Valley Zoning Code require the Board of Adjustment to determine that all of the following variance findings have been met in order to grant a variance. The required five findings are shown in italics below. Usually the applicant's comments follow the finding statements below but in this case, the Town is acting as the applicant for the homeowner. 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district, The Town of Oro Valley will be widening La Cholla Boulevard from a two lane road to a four lane road, with turn lanes, a dividing median and sidewalks. In order to accommodate the new width of the road, the Town had to acquire additional land from some property owners abutting La Cholla, including 30' of the subject property as shown in Attachment 2. That 30' of property originally contained a 6' screen wall that provided visual and noise relief from the road and is scheduled to be removed soon by the Town. Other land acquired along La Cholla does not contain existing screen walls or have houses built as close to the road as the subject property. The subject lot, belonging to Mrs. Stephenson, was identified as needing a noise barrier wall which normally would have been built in the right-of-way on the Town's property. Due to the close proximity of the existing house to the new road and the space needed for road and utility work, the new wall can only fit on the new lot line of Mrs. Stephenson's private property. The current limitations of the code do not allow a tall enough wall on the lot lines as is needed. The circumstances causing the new and taller wall are consequences of the La Cholla road widening and specific to the subject lot, therefore, this finding has been met. 2. That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant; The La Cholla road project, which not only includes pavement installation, the relocation of utilities and the acquisition of 30' of Mrs. Stephenson's property causes her house to be closer to the new lot line and ultimately the new road. These are circumstances created by the Town's road widening project and not the homeowner. Therefore, this finding has been met. 3. Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, The road project moves the road, utilities and associated improvements closer to Mrs. Stephenson's house which then requires a solid safety and noise barrier that is best accomplished by a 7' to 8' wall as detailed in the traffic report (Attachment 3). Therefore, the proposed wall is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of her property due to the La Cholla road project. 4. That any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located; Although there are other houses located along La Cholla Boulevard, Mrs. Stephenson's home is located closer to the road than others. Due to the proximity of her house to the proposed new road and the utility installation, there wasn't enough right-of-way space to place a wall on the Town's property which is usually where these noise barrier walls are located. Therefore, this wall must be built on the private property of Mrs. Stephenson. The code would normally allow a taller wall to be built on a private property if the required setbacks of the zoning district are met. However, the new property line, created by the road project, does not provide enough land to accommodate the setbacks required to build a taller wall. Other properties in the area contain enough space to build a tall wall within their setbacks. Although special circumstances apply to the subject property because of the road project, the request for a taller wall is not a special privilege and this finding is met. 5. That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general. The design and location of the proposed wall has been thoroughly reviewed by the Engineering staff for effectiveness and safety. The proposed wall will not be detrimental to other properties in the area, therefore, this finding has been met. Public Participation Public Notice has been provided as follows: . Notice sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject properties. . Notice posted on the property. . Notice posted online at www.orovalleyaz.gov • Notice advertised in the Daily Territorial. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve OV1802456, a variance to increase wall height up to 8' along La Cholla Boulevard and Lucero Road, based on the finding that the five criteria have been met. OR I MOVE to deny OV1802456 a variance to increase wall height up to 8' along La Cholla Boulevard and Lucero Road, based on the finding that the five criteria have not been met. Attachments Attachment 1 Location Map Attachment 2 Site Plan OV1802456 Variance Request Increase wall height Side lot line From 6'to8' Front lot line From 4'6" to 8' Review for conformance with required criteria The purpose of this variance is to review a request to increase the height of a wall from 6' up to 8' for most of the wall and from 4'6" up to 8' for a portion of the wall. We'll review this case for conformance with the criteria of the 5 findings. But first, I wanted to talk about one unique nature of this request. Although the proposed wall will be located on private property, the entire reason for the new wall, it's location and it's height is due to the La Cholla road widening project. so, Because the Town is widening La Cholla, we are sponsoring this variance request; basically the Town is acting as the applicant. 2 Next, location South of Lambert Lane East side of La Cholla Blvd At Lucero Road Across the street from both Grace and Alive churches 3 • Red = Existing house • Blue = New La Cholla road • Purple = Ori�inalproperty line = Existing wall • Green = New property line = Proposed wall location Explain setbacks and wall heights • Pink = Side setback = 6' tall max • Yellow = Front setback = 4'6" tall max = although an 8' wall isn't proposed for the entire Lucero frontage, technically a portion of the wall along La Cholla is in the front yard setback which is why part of this variance is an increase of a front yard wall from 4'6" to 8'. Planning a T wall, but Town increased to 8' incase topography warranted a cha A taller wall could have been built on the new side lot line prior to the lot reduction....... Hopefully that summarizes the request. Now, we'll look at the variance criteria. 11 Variance cases are determined based on 5 findings. Each variance must demonstrate how these 5 findings of the zoning code are met for consideration of approval. I'll briefly summarize the findings. 5 1. Special circumstances applying to the property • Lot line moved closer to house 2. Circumstances not created by the owner • Required lot line change not created by owner Existing Home A-M Old ro ert line and wall P P Y New property line and proposed wall First, we examine if there are special circumstances on the property and if these circumstances were created by the owner. • As I explained, the entire reason the old wall is being demolished and the new property line has been moved closer to the home is because of the La Cholla road widening project. • The situation responsible for this variance was created duo "y VY\. circumstances of the La Cholla road widening and not by the property owner. Explain Cross Section: Courtyard/retaining wall r,., 3. Necessary for enjoyment substantial property rights • Safety and privacy • Sound and visual abatement 4. Does not grant special privileges • Required lot line relocation not created by owner Next, we review the findings that ask if the variance request is necessary for enjoyment of the property, is a substantial property right and if the variance grants a special privilege within the zoning district or neighborhood. This property is the most affected by the road widening because the house was originally built closer to the road than other homes nearby and therefore is now even closer, since the 30' of property was acquired for the road project. The proposed wall plays an important role in the properties owners safety, privacy and reduces visual impacts for the both the property owner and vehicles. 7 Criteria Town of Om Valley W-74 5. Not detrimental to u { the neighborhood' • No negative impact to,, surrounding lots: �ffi N The last finding askes if the proposed wall would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Although the La Cholla road widening project is for the betterment of the entire community, this specific lot has been uniquely impacted which is why the wall height variance was submitted. Because the proposed wall, is a result of the La Cholla road project, the location and height has undergone many layers of review by the engineering and building safety staff and it has been determined that the wall will not negatively impact the neighborhood. E Request meets the five findings Staff recommends approval Taking all factors into consideration such as the required location of the new property line due to the Town's road widening project, the existing location of the house and safety of the public and private home owner, staff finds that this case meets all five findings and recommends approval of the variance. Town is the applicant. Property may or may not be speaking today. Repeat punch line: If the Town had not taken the 30' for the ROW, this wall would have met setbacks and could have been built in the proposed location. M Comments from the Town of Oro Valley Engineering staff Mr. and Mrs. Stephenson coordinated with the Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT), the designer, AECOM and attended multiple open house meetings. PCDOT, AECOM and the Town have had a positive experience working with the Stephensons throughout the process of acquisition and utility relocation. The Stephenson property was originally proposed for a 45 ft. take for new Right -of -Way (ROW). Recognizing that the home was in close proximity to La Cholla Blvd., and significantly closer than other adjacent properties, AECOM was able to safely design the roadway within a 35 ft. take. In May of 2016, the design team met with Mr. and Mrs. Stephenson to review the impacts of the La Cholla Blvd. improvement project on the Stephenson's property. The property was reviewed and the proposed 35 ft. of ROW was roughly laid out. A large Ironwood tree was found to be directly located on the proposed ROW line. The design team further reduced the ROW take to 30 ft. to maintain the exiting tree (as well as several large saguaros) and leave room for the construction of their new wall. Other homes in the vicinity of the Stephenson property had ROW takes of 45 — 55 ft. and are still approximately 75 ft. or more from the new ROW. The Stephenson property is only about 35 ft. from the new ROW. The ground at the new wall location is approximately 3 ft. lower than the ground at the existing wall. The new road will be a few feet higher than the existing road. The edge of the road is moving approximately 20 ft. closer to the Stephenson home. Due to the changes in roadway and wall elevation, a wall height of 8 ft. is essentially less than equivalent to the top elevation of the existing wall. A noise study was conducted during the roadway design process to evaluate impacts of future traffic noise on adjacent properties. The Town follows Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and ADOT noise warrants and thresholds for mitigation. Mitigation for road projects is typically a noise wall at 6 to 8 ft. high, depending on topographic conditions. The projected noise level at the point measured nearest to the Stephenson property was within 2 dBA, but did not meet the required threshold for mitigation. While the noise study does not warrant construction of a noise wall, Town staff are understanding of the Stephensons' desire to increase privacy and reduce roadway noise at their property, as the roadway moves closer to their house. Further, if noise did meet the threshold at the Stephenson property, the cost for a wall on their property would exceed the maximum cost for a single benefited receptor and thus not be warranted. Mrs. Stephenson is electing to construct a noise abatement wall by supplementing the compensation for her ROW acquisition with her own monies. The Stephensons were accommodating to the Town during all steps of the acquisition process and stated very early on their intent to construct a new wall before roadway construction began. In fact, Mr. Stephenson negotiated removal of the decorative wagon wheels from the existing wall in order to place them within the planned wall as part of the acquisition. He refinished them beautifully as one of his final projects. Mrs. Stephenson has demonstrated herself to be a cooperative and accommodating neighbor to this project, and Engineering staff have been happy to work with her. In a time when Mrs. Stephenson finds herself with a desire for increased security for her property, Engineering staff feel it to be more than reasonable that this variance be granted. Attachment 3 Exist ROW/ Exist Pro artY New ROW LF.. ROW 105' 35' New ROW Existing ROW 9. 61, 43' 29' 26' SS La Cholla NS La Cholla Exist Property Wall 0 0 Ul W +/-351 U) z 10' 5* 6'. 11' 11' V, 12' 6' 12' 11" 6* 5' +/-12' +/-8`1 +1-171 +1.8, Exist Home Multi ► Travel Travel Left '0 C Travel Travel " Lane Lane -Use LTurn Lane Lane C Lane ane me Existing La Cholla Blvd +/-24' +1-28' Exist Adobe Wall +/-43' Remove 255' Stephenson's Property +1-511 Typical Section Looking North +/-701 Exist ROW/ Property New Line ROW 35' New ROW 26' 9' o. O W pp Exist Property Wail 11' 6' S' Exist Home New Pavement Travel Lane r New Fill Slope Is +/- 1' Higher H is +/_ 3' Higher than Existing than Existing Ground At Existing Ground At Existing Adobe Wall Property Wall Exist Adobe Wall Remove 255' Stephenson Property Elevation Changes oQ0JP�`EY ARC?oo TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY, AZ. 85737 PHONE: (520) 229-4800 FAX: (520) 742-1022 (JNDED,r- vvww.orovalleyaz.gov �/ a �UNDED �91a 1.2 GENERAL APPLICATION FORM r office Use Onl Application Type: ❑ Major General Plan Amendment ❑ Final Plat ❑ Rezoning/PAD Amendment ❑ Pre -Application ❑ Planned Area Development ❑ Zoning Verification ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Sign Criteria ❑ Zoning Code Amendment ❑ Sign - PAD Exemption ❑ Conceptual Site Plan ❑ Master Sign Program ❑ Conceptual Public Art ❑ Communication Facility — Tier 1 and 2 Minor ❑ Conceptual Architecture ❑ Communication Facility — Major ❑ Final Site Plan ❑ Revised Development Plan ❑ Conceptual Landscape Plan Other }c7C 1` 1 c+ n Subject Property Information: ✓ Address: Q040 W. LV Ge iZo P J Parcel/Tax Code: Pa g w 3 cl- o 110 Subdivision / Commercial Center Name: — Book / Page or Sequence Number: Legal Description: Section/Township/Range: Existing Land Use: Lot Number(s) Proposed Land Use: Area of Property: Applicant Information: * If more than one, attach list Applicant*: Name: �.: I1 err Sle, Firm: Address: �?o L o �j. Lv_ �Pru 12�Q City: n 4O V011,0!� State: zip: 9`573 7 Telephone: Fax: Email: Property Owner(s) if different from Applicant*: Name: "�C, /n e- Firm: Address: Telephone: Fax: Consultant*: Ni/ (Discipline) Name: Address: Telephone: Fax: _ City: _ _ Email: Firm: City: _ Email: i State: Zip: State: Zip: Project Description/Narrative: (SEPARATE SHEET PREFERRED) aViaACe- A2!!7ues t" �rnorreccse aNA Wa i ht -frorn iQ` anal 14` ' 4A 7'-Yr of ve- 46 !g Oho l 1 a A0a' A Cor) Sfru c+ s0'r) I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct. I am the owner of the property or the Owner's authorized representative, and if not the owner, I have obtained the owner's permission to perform stated work. All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The approval of this application does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other federal, state or local law for which this project may be subject to. Notice: It is the applicant/owner's responsibility to ensure all private rules and regulations (such as Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R's)) of the subdivision and/or commercial center are adhered to. Contact your Home Owners Association or property management to determine applicable requirements. It is also the applicant's responsibility to coordinate with all outside agencies to secure their acceptance or clearance. Failure to do so may delay issuance of permits. See attached list of agencies. Applicant's Signature Print Name Date Important Note: All submittals received after 4:00 p.m. will be processed the next day Submittals will be rejected if: • There are missing items on the checklist unless otherwise approved by Planning and Zoning Administrator or Town Engineer. • Re -submittals will not be accepted without a transmittal letter and a written response to staff comments. 6