HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV100301 /V ✓ /
FROM : The_Cu 1 ver' s_ FAX NO. : 5202191313 Dec. 19 2002 10:24AM P1
pPp J EY Aq?O� TOWN OF ORO VALLEY to'Zs A f‘1
4471/;: l
PLANNING &ZONING DIVISION
11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE,ORO VALLEY AZ 85737
gip: Phone: (520)229-4800 Fax: (520)742-1022
QUNDW
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
FOR: Zoning Variance
Zoning Interpretation O V l 0 - 03 0/
Appeal of Administrative Decision CASE NO.: ;-9°--;�--� 4+-1 �? .
NATURE OF REQUEST: Tk e. 0 ti rle,rr 3 e pro per h ct 3
Co nc -f-a-tr\--i-t 9 been t n breech of c �ire e men w
rrC r o VOL tkecA t n C e. L 9 S' - 20oo. -the tie veto(gyp r
teat 4-0 nd SC ri mfir- of 4h pv c) per- 4 c) and
1nct6 -- o t le d +0 do so _ -The Lafia.. (2ipe, bond and
re ira-- on bond hot/Q n of bee r) (elite ri n n r 1 �
Ira n 4Ecr+ boe n macke, e_k Co ff\ p( icy()cc, -- e a rv\
1--hr t\QA-- al on Li re corYis L haue 4bu 1(1�. t?(e`er
v)S t s coo& done. a n 3 means pa ss t b 1 e lA 5 n P.
APPLICANT: Conn,/ Cv J v e. r
PHONE/FAX:
ADDRESS:
OWNER: !3 2 1 k ,►m pan t e.
ADDRESS: 3 )73 / /Vor4h Weskro th9hWa'/, 5u1--e 2 55ou.) farm(rn9 fwn f ,1t-s, rn !
2 1-1 ._'5)--- 9/o O 4 k 3 3c!
8 t Co n (.41 sfddor C.o u r i- C(u.6 lock 3) a s v'e co�ci ed i n Soo l; 33
Of ifYl a-p a not P I a# a Pam e
PARCEL NUMBER: 2 2 q 2-5 0-- Z
PROPERTY LOCATION/ADDRESS: A 4 La C�r a c k u-t V Q. L a r-k)e r-E- L a v) e._,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Ni W 14 5 c T 12 5 ) R i3 1 ( c SR/Y) 1 Blin& Coy d y , A Z-
ACREAGE: 'y CA-pp CURRENT ZONING: APPLICABLE FEE:
ATTACHMENTS:
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT (AND ALSO PRINT NAME) DATE
1/8/2003
TO: The Board of Adjustment
C/o Dee Widero
FROM: Conny Culver, Oro Valley Resident
RE: Landscape/Restoration Bond for Seaver-Franks Architects and EEC, Representing
the Beztak Companies for OV 12-02-06 (SE corner of La Canada Drive and Lambert
Lane)
Scheduled for January 28,2003.
I'm appealing the decision, the decision to do nothing, by the Planning, and Zoning
Administrator. The ongoing breech of agreement by the developer has been tolerated too
long; I believe this decision should be reversed.
As a citizen of Oro Valley,I believe we should no longer be required to endure the
unsightliness of the mass grading on the SE corner of La Canada and Lambert Lane. The
required landscape screening is long overdue. The continuing breech of agreement and
acts of bad faith on the part of the developers is unacceptable.
It is my understanding the conditions have been very clear! The walls and landscape
barriers were to be in place, all four sides,prior to any construction. This included
restoring and revegetating the hill. This site must be revegetated(and landscaped) until a
viable plan is approved WITH a start date for ground breaking!
The developer, Beztak has repeatedly promised, and been subject to the conditions given
by the Town Council, to landscape the entire perimeter of this site and has repeatedly
failed to uphold their part of the agreement as far back as 1999-2000. This has gone on
too long and it is time to give the citizens some consideration and relief from this blot on
the landscape.
As recently as the DRB hearing on November 14, 2002 it was noted compliance
regarding the screening had still not occurred!
Per Sec.1-706 Appeals from Administrative Decisions
My action, regarding the Landscape and/or Restoration bond is based,in part, on the
Town's failure to comply with Exhibit A,ASSURANCES,Article 4-9, I ask you review
Section 4-902,Assurances for Restoration; Section 4-903 Assurances for Landscape and,
Section 4-910 Forfeiture of Assurances.
•
A. The Town may, but shall not be required to, forfeit assurances upon the occurrence of
any of the following:
1. Abandonment of the project. A project will be presumed abandoned when
there has been no development activity for one year or when the condition of
the property may be harmful to the health, safety, and welfare of the
community or adjacent property owners.
Comment/Question: The grading exception was approved 9-1-99, and no development
commenced on this property until OSCO in 2002. Does this qualify as abandonment? If
so, why was nothing done?
2. Failure of the owner to cure a violation within 30 days of issuance of the
violation notice; or,
Comment/Question: IF notices were issued, the owner was in violation and if they were
not, why?Again, why was nothing done?
3. When, in any way the developer fails to meet Town requirements and does not
correct the situation within 30 days of notice by the Town.
Comment/Question: The developer CLEARLY did not meet Town requirements, why was
nothing done?
In the event of ANY of the occurrences in 4-910A, the Planning and Zoning
Administrator shall issue an order to the property owner and obligor of the assurances to
show cause as to why the assurances should not be forfeited.
As a citizen I believe I'm at a disadvantage in this hearing,I may not have discovered all
the records pertaining to this project. Although, as a citizen, I believe the Town has a
duty to uphold the best interests of our citizens. Beztak has been allowed to violate our
rights. As stated in the General Plan, our community character and our vision are to
preserve our natural resources. We have a commitment to accentuation of vistas, natural
vegetation, and scenic views. This degrades Oro Valley's environment!
Why has nothing been done?
PLANNING&ZONING DIVISION
11,000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley AZ 85737
Phone: 229-4800 Fax: 742-1022
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
In accordance with Sec. 1-706 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment will not hold a public
hearing on Tuesday, February 25, 2003, due to withdrawal from the applicant, the meeting is
cancelled the subject matter as described below:
OV10-03-01: CONNY CULVER, 10503 N. FAIRWAY VISTA LANE, ORO
VALLEY, AZ 85737. REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO RETAIN THE LANDSCAPE
AND REVEGEATION BONDS AS RECIEVED PER ARTICLE 4-9
OF OVZCR, HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. SUBJECT PROPERTY:
PARCEL #22425025C, LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF
LAMBERT LANE AND LA CANADA, ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737.
REQ: M.Nodine,AICP POSTED: 2-13-03
time: 2 : 00 p.m.
by: drm
F:\OV\OV10\2003\OV10-03-01\NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL.doc
A ' AFFIDAVIT ' PUBLICATION
STATE OF ARIZONA)
• :ss.
COUNTY OF PIMA )
F OBY!°. MCC MBS being first
duly sworn, deposes and says that (he) (she) is the Legal Advertising Manager
of THE DAILY'TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the
County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tuc-
son,
County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached
OV 1 O---O3-01
PUBLIC NOTICE
was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE
DAILY TERRITORIAL for issues; that was first made
18th FEBRUARY 0,:.
on the day of t O'..i t�-20
and the last publication thereof was made on the day of
FEBRUARY 03
20 ; that said publication
wa q igiqiCip of the following dates, to-wit:
Request of
TOWN OF OR O VAi_R E Y
.------Da,"*.
------D�il Territorial
..„,
di, ,,,,,,
,..,,,,,e,,-,?,
��Subsitl an ` o before day of
20
0 ......, _ ...,�..._
��OFF L4/S'��'-HAM
-,
TP1 QUNT`G <
No �fk . ' 'r rr t{i.t li . ®rf 9.ft , STa'ts'ofe
ona
fvlY 2� \
My Commission Expires: (•7 1
T (.�
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
ORO VALLEY BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
In accordance with Sec. 1-706 of the
Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
Oro Valley Board of Adjustment will not
hold a public hearing on Tuesday,Feb-
ruary 25,2003,due to withdrawal from
the applicant, the meeting is cancelled
the subject matter as described below:
PLANNING & ZONING DIVISION
11,000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley
AZ 85737 Phone: 229-4800 Fax:
742-1022
OV10-03-01:CONNY CULVER, 10503
N.FAIRWAY VISTA LANE,ORO VAL-
LEY, AZ 85737. REQUEST FOR AN
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECI-
SION TO RETAIN THE LANDSCAPE
AND REVEGEATION BONDS AS RE-
CIEVED PER ARTICLE 4-9 OF
OVZCR, HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
SUBJECT PROPERTY: PARCEL
#22425025C,LOCATED ON THE COR-
NER OF LAMBERT LANE AND LA
CANADA,ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737.
REQ: Bryant M.Nodine,AICP
Pub:The Daily Territorial
February 18,2003
Req:Town of Oro Valley
pnovl0-03-01 kb
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY � ✓ ,, r.� , �� �- *1
11000 N. La Canada Dr. FFB 1 a 03 , ��a
Oro Valle AZ 85737
y' �•.. n ctlt • APB,DIETER U.S.POSTAGE
RETURN TO SENDER NOT DEL IYERA$LE AS ADDRESSED
TUCSON, A? 02 l b
224386090
VILLAGES OF LA CANADA MASTER ASSN
ATTN:CADDEN PARFREY SVC INC
7355 N ORACLE STE 110
TUCSON AZ
85704-0000
FEB 1 9 2003
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
. —r-
11000 N. La Canada Dr.
Oro Valley, AZ 85737 F rzEi 14'03 7-;4,..,!IP,? 0 • 3
.RETOWY TO SEMDER 110T DEL I VERABLE RS ADDRESSEV 1.
TUCSOM AZ 0330 MAR 3 4
224251490 / 2003
ABRAMS CHARLES R&ROBIN A CP/RS
10219 N PITCHING WEDGE LN
ORO VALLEY AZ
85737-0000
MFMMd1' 737 1303 14 03/2c1/01;
RETURN TO SENDER
ABRAMS
MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS
UNABLL TO FORWARO
RETURN TO SENDER
...—........, ,---rzor„,,zr.,......—.......i.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
11000 N. La Canada Dr.
`---- ,
Oro Valley, AZ 85737
c'l
13 - c!,
A 2• —1"u mE rE H U.S.POSTO,E t ,.,.
. ,
224386090
\TILLAGES OF LA CANADA MASTER ASSN
ATTN:CADDEN PARFREY SVC INC
7355 N ORACLE STE 110
TUCSON AZ
85704-0000
Nita 2 5 2003
NOTICE
OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
In accordance with Sec. 1-706 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing
on Tuesday,January 28, 2003, commencing at or after 3:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at
the Oro Valley Town Hall, 11000 N. La Canada Drive and the subject matter will be as further
described below:
OV10-03-01: CONNY CULVER, 10503 N. FAIRWAY VISTA LANE, ORO
VALLEY, AZ 85737. REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO RETAIN THE LANDSCAPE
AND REVEGEATION BONDS AS RELIEVED PER ARTICLE 4-9
OF OVZCR. THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED EL
CONQUISTADOR COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED AREA
DEVELOPMENT, AREA "D". SUBJECT PROPERTY: PARCEL
#22425025C, LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE
AND LA CANADA, ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737.
The appeal statement is available for review during normal business hours at the Oro Valley Town
Hall, Community Development Building. Persons interested may appear in person, by agent or
attorney, and the petitioners must appear or be represented. Your Town and the Board of
Adjustment value your comments on this request. For more information or to express your opinion
please contact Dee Widero at 229-4812.
POSTED: 1-8-03
time: 4 : 00 p.m.
REQ: n M. Nodine, AICP by: arm
F:\OV\OV 10\2003\OV 1 0-03-0 1\NOTICE.doc
AFFIDAVIT ^c PUBLICATION
STATE OF ARIZONA)
:ss.
COUNTY OF PIMA )
ROBY MCCOMBQ being first
duly sworn, deposes and says that (he) (she) is the Legal Advertising Manager
of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the
County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tuc-
son,
County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached
tR�'J 0--0 —•01
PURL 1 C NOTICE
was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE
1
DAILY TERRITORIAL for issues; that was first made
10th JANUARY
on the day of 20
and the last publication thereof was made on the day of
JA UAR T 071
20 ; that said publication
was made Q`n e .c,,h of the following dates, to-wit:
1/iU/uLr
Request of
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Daily Teriyrial
/ (X2
rib 'd nd sw o before i of
bsc a o eme day
1 Ut h JANLU RY
20
03
,,- Q OFFICIAL ?
r- 4 Notary POl i i, t of A ona_
PI M "C Q IJ MY C
Nctar ��� a e of Arizona q ++w�+4d for the CeLnty efFti
d \
My Commission Expires: (00(
NOTICE
OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
ORQ JALLEY BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
In accordance with Sec. 1-706 of the
Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
Oro Valley Board of Adjustment will hold
a public hearing on Tuesday, January
28,2003, commencing at or after 3:00
p.m.The meeting will be held at the Oro
Valley Town Hall, 11000 N.La Canada
Drive and the subject matter will be as
further described below:
OV10-03-01: CONNY CULVER, 10503
N.FAIRWAY VISTA LANE,ORO VAL-
LEY, AZ 85737. REQUEST FOR AN
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECI-
SION TO RETAIN THE LANDSCAPE
AND REVEGEATION BONDS AS RE-
CIEVED PER ARTICLE 4-9 OF
OVZCR. THIS PROPERTY IS CUR-
RENTLY ZONED EL CONQUISTADOR
COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED AREA DE-
VELOPMENT, AREA"D". SUBJECT
PROPERTY: PARCEL #22425025C,
LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF LAM-
BERT LANE AND LA CANADA, ORO
VALLEY,AZ 85737.
The appeal statement is available for re-
view during normal business hours at
the Oro Valley Town Hall, Community
Development Building. Persons inter-
ested may appear in person,by agent or
attorney, and the petitioners must ap-
pear or be represented, Your Town and
the Board of Adjustment value your
comments on this request. For more in-
formation or to express your opinion
please contact Dee Widero at 229-4812.
REQ: Bryant M.Nodine,AICP
Pub:The Daily Territorial
January 10,2003
Req:Town of Oro Valley
pnovl0-03-01 kb
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
In accordance with Sec. 1-706 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on
Tuesday,January 28,2003,commencing at or after 3:00 p.m.The meeting will be held at the Oro Valley
Town Hall,11000 N.La Cafada Drive and the subject matter will be as further described below:
OV10-03-01: CONNY CULVER, 10503 N.FAIRWAY VISTA LANE,ORO VALLEY,AZ
85737.REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO
RETAIN THE LANDSCAPE AND REVEGEATION BONDS AS RECEIVED
PER ARTICLE 4-9 OF OVZCR. THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED
EL CONQUISTADOR COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED AREA
DEVELOPMENT,AREA"D". SUBJECT PROPERTY: PARCEL
#22425025C,LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND LA
CANADA,ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737.
The appeal statement is available for review during normal business hours at the Oro Valley Town Hall,
Coi ity Development Building. Persons interested may appear in person, by agent or attorney, and the
peti 's must appear or be represented. Your Town and the Board of Adjustment value your comments on
this request. For more information or to express your opinion please contact Dee Widero at 229-4812.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
11000 N. La Canada Dr. '
Oro Valley, AZ 85737
, 7�) ;yes �y{��....�:.__
TO i 1�t/�.�Y+JiLi �y...... /CR_..'�L�- .�+�"•'.`.�"""�
RETURN LJPJ SEND L
TUCSnh, PZ 0i 12
224386090 JAN 1 3 2003
VILLAGES OF LA CANADA MASTER ASSN
ATTN:CADDEN VAR.-PREY SVC INC
7355 N ORACLE STE-110
TUCSON AZ
85704-0000
y � •• t•2
1 � l?� �i {{!t tillift3i?�tt�t!?flt�ft=
fiEtItf fit?;Ilfilf{ttt }=.?Ilt?t}}
i} jy
??t
....... ii#iif4
jj/.> f--7 V.... Ly V (DO /Li- 't i-J -Vii I I-J
/
.---
....._,,-.,
..:.
\ '
.,,
. 1
,.,
,.,
. . .
, _------------_______,,
, 1 r
.., i
.
I . .
;
. ,
...
. .
, ..... ., ,
• ,. = i
1 ,
)
i 4
. f
• i - , y
\ _
. 1
ni
A _.,...
ni
MI la 110 f?,
., ,
MILI 4'-.-: '4,' NI
IIIIIIII 1 !,
...1 ,
•.,,
i
4'
II ,;
,
,i
11
= .
,
r t
Alli .
j /
,,IP .,
.
vi,•00,-;7.,e: .*'':4732rM1 .-it94' ,'. Lon,1""Ni f;VA . . . ...-,,•r•",?""`;,•,r7ir.1.,,,r A,
. rir ...... '• '...'.':'!..:.•.,a,i:",..,.A;.:C:.
0 -"
\ \ \ \
i
Illi ,
man ; 1
1.10 411111. /
01 CD /
MI5 1
1 .
I.
."----
: i e
•
\ \
\------ "----__ / i
ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REPORT
CASE NO: OV 10-03-01
Hearing Date: January 28, 2003
Agenda Item No.: 2
Prepared By: Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector
REQUEST: CONNY CULVER, 10503 N. FAIRWAY VISTA LANE, ORO
VALLEY, AZ 85737 IS APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO NOT FORFEIT
ASSURANCES ON LA CANADA / LAMBERT COMMERCIAL
CENTER.
REQUEST SPECIFICS:
Ms. Culver is appealing an Administrative Decision to retain the landscape and
restoration bonds as received per article 4-9 for the subject commercial center (see the
attached application and narrative from Ms. Culver).
The attached statement from Mr. Nodine, the Planning and Zoning Administrator,
describes the basis of his decision.
Pertinent Facts
• The development plan for La Canada/Lambert Commercial Center was approved by
the Oro Valley Mayor and Council on February 16, 2000.
• Existing zoning: El Conquistador P.A.D. —Commercial/Office/Residential (Area D)
• The gross area of this development is 14.90 acres.
• This development was approved to consist:
PAD—A Bank One - approved to build,
PAD—B currently vacant,
PAD—C Osco, occupied
Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4—vacant
• The Town is holding a landscape bond in the amount of$119,373.00.
• The Town is holding a restoration bond in the amount of$203,590.00.
• 50% of the approved perimeter landscaping has been completed.
Chronology(grading and landscape issues only)
• 2-16-00 TC approved LP with conditions in accordance with OVZCR Sec. 11-
203B.
• 1-17-01 TC approved DP and LP for OSCO, requiring all perimeter landscaping
and screening for the entire 14.9-acre site must be established prior to OSCO
receiving a certificate of occupancy.
• 2-20-02 Pre-app DRC—For mixed use and retail
• 4-4-02 From Bryant Nodine,regarding landscape changes made to site and of the
conditions that still must be met.
• 4-29-02 Request from Charles M. Boyd to remove perimeter landscape condition
from OSCO.
• 5-16-02 Work schedule from Beztak for Lambert/La Canada Center
• 7-10-02 Information on what will be done on site from Beztak
• 8-1-02 TC approved revised LP,with the additional condition that Beztak submit
the Revised Development Plan within 90 days.
• 9-3-02 Pre-app DRC—Multi-family and retail
• 9-20-02 DP 1st submittal—Apartments/retail shops
• 10-18-02 DP 2nd submittal-Apartments/retail shops
• 11-14-02 DRB Study Session
• 1-14-03 DRB Regular Meeting—Grading Waiver
SITE LOCATION:
This site is the graded area located on the southeast corner of La Canada Drive and
Lambert Lane.
NOTIFICATION:
In accordance with ARS 9-462.06F, the property is posted with a notice of hearing and
the hearing was advertised in the Daily Territorial. At the time of this report preparation,
staff had not received any public comment pertinent to the issues in this case.
SITE ANALYSIS:
La Canada/Lambert Commercial Center lies adjacent to and north of the Villages of La
Canada, to the east a drainage easement and El Conquistador Golf Course. Across and
north of Lambert Lane is Canada Hills Market Place, across and west of La Canada
Drive is Canada Crossroads. Currently this site is relatively flat with OSCO on the
northwest corner of the site. A hill was left on the north property line, a retention basin
lies on the southeast section with the well site just beyond. Salvage trees were placed
along the east property line with perimeter landscape(more than 50%complete).
PLAN ANALYSIS:
(Not applicable.)
FINDINGS:
State Law ARS 9-462.06 (G)(3) provides that the BOA shall:
Reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or modify the order,
requirement or decision of the zoning administrator appealed from,
and make such order, requirement, decision or determination as
necessary.
The legal standards for the Boards consideration of this case are the same as
those that the courts would use to review the decisions of the BOA or the Town
Council. Namely:
1. was the decision within the jurisdiction of the Planning and
Zoning Administrator, or conversely, did the Administrator
abuse his discretion; and,
2. did the Administrator act with a rational basis, or conversely,
was the decision arbitrary and capricious.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
The Board may wish to consider the following motions:
I move to approve OV 10-03-01,thereby reversing the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Administrator and requiring that .
OR
I move to deny OV 10-03-01 finding that: (Board to state reason why the request cannot be
granted).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. BOA Application with Narrative
2. Code References
3. Assurance and bond information
4. Submittal and case file Information La Canada/Lambert Development
5. Submittal and case file Information on OSCO
6. Comment and communication letters
MINUTES
ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JANUARY 28, 2003
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER: 3:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Cindy Lewis, Chairman
Bill Adler, Vice Chairman
Lyra Done,Member
Bart Schannep, Member
Colleen Kesseler, Member
STAFF PRESENT: Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator
Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector
Linda Hersha, Secretary II
Joseph Andrews, Acting Town Attorney
MINUTES
MOTION: Member Done moved to APPROVE the Regular Session minutes of
December 17, 2002 with the correction noted. Motion SECONDED by Member
Kessler. Motion carried, 5-0.
1. CASE NO. OV10-02-04 CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 17,2002.
SOMBRA HOMES INC., 11115 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE, ORO
VALLEY, ARIZONA 85737, REQUEST A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE
REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR PUSCH RIDGE VISTAS
SUBDIVISION, LOT 26. SUBJECT PROPERTY: 11038 NORTH PUSCH
RIDGE VISTAS DRIVE, ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA 85737
Chairman Lewis announced that at the request of the applicant this item would be pulled
from the agenda.
2. CASE NO. OV10-03-01 CONNY CULVER, 10503 NORTH FAIRWAY
VISTA LANE, ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA 85737, REQUEST FOR AN
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO RETAIN THE
LANDSCAPE AND RE-VEGETATION BONDS PER ARTICLE 4-9 OF
ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED. THIS PROPERTY IS
CURRENTLY ZONED EL CONQUISTADOR COUNTRY CLUB
PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT, AREA "D". SUBJECT PROPERTY:
PARCEL #22450025C, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
LAMBERT LANE AND LA CANADA, ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA 85737
01/28/03 flutes, Board of Adjustment 2
Chairman Lewis swore in the witness that was intending to testify.
Conny Culver 10503 North Fairway Vista Lane, explained that the property located at the
south east corner of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane had consistently been in breech
of agreement with the Town since 1999. She stated that the developer had failed to
landscape the perimeter of the property and the landscape bond and restoration bond had
not been called. She felt that there had been no effort made to seek compliance from the
owner and asked that staff address these concerns as quickly as possible.
In answer to a question from Vice Chairman Adler, Conny Culver informed the Board
that she was the President of the Autumn Hill Homeowners Association (HOA).
Vice Chairman Adler explained that after reviewing the application that he noticed that
the commentary attached to the application did not address the particulars of how the
Board of Adjustment (BOA) determined an appeal using the Primer's 5 criteria to judge
whether an appeal should be upheld or denied. He asked the applicant if the BOA had
been explained to her.
Ms. Culver replied, "no."
Vice Chairman Adler stated that it was very important that the applicant's testimony be
germane to the criteria used by the BOA in order to judge the case. He explained that
without giving the applicant an opportunity to address the specifics, the BOA would not
be in a position to fairly judge the case. He explained that this was a question of whether
or not there had been a material error made that needed to be specifically addressed. He
suggested that this item be continued until the applicant had a fair opportunity to
understand what the requirements were and adequately address them.
Chairman Lewis agreed that the Primer's criteria should be made clear to the applicant.
She asked if this information was given to an applicant when filing an appeal.
Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector explained that the Primer 5 criteria are not given to
an applicant but that the information could be made available for them.
Chairman Lewis explained that the applicant definitely needed to address the Primer's
criteria as well as provide clarity as far as who she was representing. She explained that
the BOA needed to know if she was representing the Homeowners Association or herself.
Vice Chairman Adler explained that since the Board had heard from the applicant that it
would be appropriate to hear the staff report and give staff an opportunity to offer any
advice or comments regarding the Board's concerns. Chairman Lewis agreed.
Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector, reported that Conny Culver was appealing an
Administrative decision to retain the landscape and restoration bonds as received per
Article 4-9 for the subject commercial center. She gave the following pertinent facts:
01/28/03 minutes, Board of Adjustment 3
• The development plan for the La Canada and Lambert Commercial Center was
approved by the Mayor and Council on February 16, 2002.
• Existing zoning: El Conquistador Planned Area Development (PAD)
Commercial/Office/Residential (Area D)
• The gross area of this development is 14.90 acres.
• This development was approved to consist:
o PAD—A Bank One— approved to build.
o PAD—B currently vacant.
o PAD— C Osco, occupied.
o Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4 are vacant.
• The Town is holding a landscape bond in the amount of$119,373.00.
• The Town is holding a restoration bond in the amount of$203,590.00.
• 50% of the approved perimeter landscaping has been completed.
Ms. Widero reviewed the following facts in chronological order that strictly related to the
grading and landscaping for the site:
• The site is relatively flat with the OSCO Drug Store located on the northwest
corner of the site.
• A hill remains on the north side property line.
• A retention basin lies on the southeast section of the site with a well site just
beyond.
• Salvage trees are placed along the east property line.
Findings:
ARS 9-462.06 (G)(3)provides that the Board of Adjustment shall: Reverse or affirm,
wholly or partly, or modify the order, requirement or decision of the Zoning
Administrator appealed from, and make such order, requirement, decision or
determination as necessary.
The legal standards for the Board's consideration of this case are the same as those that
the courts would use to review,the decisions of the Board of Adjustment or the Town
Council. Namely:
1. Was the decision within the jurisdiction of the Planning and Zoning
Administrator, or conversely, did the Administrator abuse his
discretion; and
2. Did the Administrator act with a rational basis, or conversely, was the
decisions arbitrary and capricious.
Vice Chairman Adler stated that he would prefer to give the applicant an opportunity to
testify specifically to the 5 criteria that were outlined in the Primer. He suggested that a
summary of the Primer be made available to the Homeowners Association and Conny
Culver.
MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler moved to CONTINUE this item to the February
meeting giving the applicant an opportunity to become familiar with the criteria that the
01/28/03 ,v,inutes, Board of Adjustment 4
Board of Adjustment used and adjust their testimony accordingly. Member Done
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5-0.
Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing.
Chairman Lewis swore in the witnesses that were intending to testify.
Doris Dragan, 10171 North Inverrary Place, stated that the owner(Beztek Companies)
had not made any serious attempt to landscape or upgrade the property.
Mark Steering,22631 Foxmoor,Nori, Michigan, a representative for Beztek Companies
and the owner of the subject property explained that the applicant's appeal should be
denied for procedural and substantive reasons. He stated that the appeal had been
handled improperly under the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. He reported that before
Beztek purchased the property it had been contemplated that an apartment complex
would be placed on the site. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Administrator had
not only acted reasonable and prudent, but has acted lawfully under the circumstances.
Dyanna Jordan, 1983 West Arizona Rose Drive, stated that she needed more time to
review the particulars, therefore had no comment at this time.
Cal King, 10261 North Oak Knoll Land, stated that the builder should comply with the
granting of the previous variance and complete the landscaping and would be highly
opposed to the apartment complex proposal.
Vice Chairman Adler suggested that the criteria are made available to the speakers as
well as the Homeowners Association.
In answer to a question from Chairman Lewis, Dee Widero reported that staff would
provide a copy of the Primer's 5 Criteria to those citizens that were interested in
obtaining a copy.
Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Adler pointed out that it should be made clear how soon an applicant had
in order to file an application to appeal a case. Chairman Lewis agreed.
3. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROCEDURES FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Vice Chairman Adler explained that in the past there had been a couple of instances
where reconsideration had occurred. He explained that in those instances the chair had
been approached by an applicant and was requested to place the item on a future agenda
for reconsideration. He believed that there had been no specific criteria or basis used in
determining whether to reconsider or not to reconsider a case. He explained that in order
to be consistent from one application to another that the Board should decide if it is
01/28/03 ,.linutes, Board of Adjustment 5
important to have a basis for reconsiderations or if the Board should follow the
suggestion made by staff to allow a reconsideration to happen automatically.
The following topics of concern were discussed:
• How reconsiderations apply under Roberts Rules.
• The review of the case between staff and board members before a
reconsideration is considered.
• Once a motion is passed to reconsider a case how does it effect the
previous action taken by the board.
• How new information effects a case.
• Should the previous decision handed down by the board remain in tact?
• Does there need to be new information to reconsider a case?
• Would it be in the Board's best interest to create a safety net of sort that
would allow a case to be revisited?
• Changing the policy could cheapen previous decisions made by reopening
a case.
• Should the Board eliminate reconsiderations entirely?
Vice Chairman Adler stated that his preference would not be to allow one member of the
board the ability to initiate a request for reconsideration. He gave the following reason
why the Board should adopt a new procedure:
• The initiation for a request should come from the failing side of the argument
within 30 days of the action in written form to the Board.
• The Board would consider the request for reconsideration at the next open
meeting and discuss it to see if there was enough merit or substance to the request
• To vote on a reconsideration at an open meeting and reconsider it at that time.
• A reconsideration procedure could be developed, outlined and approved by the
Board.
• If the reconsideration is approved the applicant would then know how to move
forward with the appeal.
• A reconsideration should come before the Board and not an individual.
• Because the Board of Adjustment changes and as the composition changes this
procedure would remain in tact and be consistent.
• The chair person should not be placed in a position of trying to manage the
concept of new information.
Chairman Lewis stated that she was comfortable with the current arrangement for
considering an appeal.
Vice Chairman Adler stated that the matter of reconsiderations should come before the
Board and then the Board would decide publicly at an open meeting.
Chairman Lewis stated that the Board members needed a higher level of trust rather than
introducing a new procedure that might not allow new evidence brought forward in a
case.
•
01/28/03 ,,,,inutes, Board of Adjustment 6
Member Kessler felt that the Vice Chair's suggestion might encourage more cases of
reconsiderations.
Member Schannep recommended that there be further discussion regarding the matter.
He agreed that there should be a mandated procedure for reconsiderations but could not
support the Vice Chair's recommendation.
MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler moved that the Board of Adjustment receive an
application for reconsideration or appeal of an action and that the application be
discussed by the Board of Adjustment at a public meeting and a decision made to either
reconsider or rehear the matter or not; and if the matter is reheard then it would be
reheard in it entirely.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler moved to allow a request for reconsideration to be
provided to a member of the Board of Adjustment and the member of the Board of
Adjustment brings that request to the full Board without a recommendation. The
applicant is present to make their case publicly and the Board proceeds to judge whether
the matter should be reheard or not. Motion SECONDED by Member Schannep
Discussion: Vice Chair Adler explained that this would give the Board of Adjustment a
chance to revisit any fact or evidence that may have been overlooked or misunderstand
during the initial hearing.
Joe Andrews, Acting Town Attorney, explained that he would do some research
regarding the issue to confirm whether or not the Board had the authority to prescribe an
appeals process internally for the Board of Adjustment.
CALL FOR THE QUESTION
Motion failed, 4-1, with Vice Chairman Adler opposed.
Vice Chairman Adler asked that a draft be created and presented to the Board pertaining
to the process in a reconsideration case.
4. DICUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RESOLUTIOIN
(R) 02-107, APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 20, 2002
Vice Chairman Adler pointed out that the resolution outlined the evaluation process. He
explained that the Board of Adjustment should have an evaluation process so that from
one (1)board to the next there would be an evaluation process that would be consistent
and done fairly.
Chairman Lewis reiterated that she was adamantly opposed to having peer evaluations.
01/28/03 ...inutes, Board of Adjustment 7
Vice Chairman Adler recommended that the requirements should define a volunteer's
performance and their experience.
MOTION: Member Schannep moved to table Item 4's discussion and possible action
until after Item#5 has been thoroughly discussed. Motion SECONDED by Member
Done. Motion carried, 5-0.
5. SUBCOMMITTEE'S REPORT OF CONSIDERATION AND ACTION
REGARDING A MEMBER'S REMOVAL FOR CAUSE
Member Schannep explained that the subcommittee had developed a proposed policy for
the removal of a member of the Board of Adjustment. He thanked Mr. Andrews for his
help in developing the document. The following information is a summary of the
proposed stipulations:
I. The two reasons for removal of a member for cause from the Oro Valley
Board of Adjustment shall rest in the hands of the Chairperson as follows:
a. Unexcused Absence: Should a member miss two consecutive meetings
or three in one year the Chairperson may consider the position
abandoned.
b. Ill-Preparedness: should a member demonstrate a pattern of ill-
preparedness, the Chairperson may consider removal of the member
for the remainder of his/her term. Ill-preparedness may include but not
be limited to the following:
i. Poor citizenship or unruly behavior.
ii. Lack of comprehension to non-technical explanations.
iii. Lack of interest, inattentiveness at meetings, and/or
sleeping during meetings.
iv. Disregard for, and/or defiance of, rules and procedures.
II. The procedure for such removal shall consist of the Chairperson presenting
his/her decision to the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment along with the
documented reasoning. This same presentation shall be presented to the Oro
Valley Town Council at the next schedules meeting for ratification.
Submitted by Members Lyra Done and Bart Schannep January 28, 2003.
In answer to a question from Chairman Lewis, Mr. Andrews explained that this
information pertaining to a member's removal could be presented to Mayor and Council
at an executive session and not discussed at a public forum.
The following issues were discussed:
• The definition of unexcused.
• The definition of excused.
• Who should be contacted when a member intended to be late or was unable to
attend a meeting?
• What would be considered sufficient notice to be excused?
01/28/03 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 8
• On what basis would a member be excused?
Vice Chairman Adler stated that there needed to be some rationale basis for excusing or
for a member to be unexcused so that it does not become a debate or controversy. He
explained that the criteria for removing someone needed to be defensible and he wanted
to be sure that the document was sufficiently detailed. He recommended that there be
more specifics added to the document.
Member Schannep stated that he would be uncomfortable with getting into a lot of
details. He explained that the intent was "the simpler the better" and to provide a
guideline but not a hard fast and rule; and to maintain the power of the chair person or the
vice chair. He pointed out that the document does state "the procedure for such removal
shall consist of the Chairperson presenting his or her decision to the Oro Valley Board of
Adjustment along with the documented reasoning."He felt that this should be sufficient.
Vice Chairman Adler asked if there was a way to redefine the document so that it
coincides with the Zoning Code. He pointed out that the Zoning Code would be used by
Mayor and Council when making their decision whether to adopt the proposal or not.
Chairman Lewis stated that the document was easily translatable between the propose
document and what the Town Council would consider. She said that she liked the idea of
keeping it simple and not over complicating the issues.
MOTION: Member Done moved to except the propose policy. Member Schannep
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-1, Vice Chairman Adler oppose.
4. DICUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RESOLUTION
(R) 02-107,APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 20, 2002
Mr. Andrews explained that since the Town Council has come forward with the
resolution perhaps the Board would be interested in asking the Council about some of the
technical terms and how things should be handled. Chairman Lewis and Member
Schannep agreed.
MOTION: Member Schannep moved to continue Item 4 until the Board receives
clarification from Town Council. Member Kessler SECONDED the motion.
Discussion: Mr. Andrews explained that the Board could ask the Council what would be
the prescription for the evaluation because the resolution did not outline anything other
than a one page report.
Chairman Lewis reiterated that this information would be used for guidance as opposed
to clarification.
Vice Chairman Adler reported that he had submitted a letter to Mayor Loomis, Town
Manager Chuck Sweet, and Human Resource Director Jeff Grant,but has not received a
01/28/03 ,v„nutes, Board of Adjustment 9
response. He agreed that the Board should be asking for clarification as opposed to
waiting.
Call for the Question
Motion carried, 4-1, with Vice Chairman Adler oppose.
7. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE
Bryant Nodine,Planning and Zoning Administrator, gave an update on the following
projects:
• The General Plan is under consideration by the Town Council.
• The Sign Code and the Work Plan will go before the Planning and Zoning
Commission February 4th
• The Beztek Property appeal and grading waiver is being scheduled to go before
Town Council in the first week in March.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Lewis moved to ADJOURN the meeting at 5:15 p.m. Vice Chairman Adler
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Hersha, ecretary II