Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV100101 v MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION AND ORIENTATION MEETING STUDY SESSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA CALL TO ORDER at 3:02 p.m. PRESENT: Henry Suozzi, Chairman Bill. Adler, Vice Chairman James Swan, Member Lyra Done, Member Cindy Lewis, Member STAFF: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk Dan Dudley, Town Attorney Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Debbie Moran, Zoning Tech. Linda Hersha, Secretary II 1. ROLE, RESPONSIBILITIES, MANDATE Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator, explained that the roles and responsibilities of the Board of Adjustment (BOA) have been well established by the Town Zoning Code and by Arizona State Law. Discussion continued regarding the following issues: • Appeals • Zoning and Boundaries • The 5 Criteria update • To implement an evaluation process for Board member's when their term expires and require each Board member participation. • The composition of the Board • A description of duties, goals and expectations Dan Dudley, Town Attorney stated that the Board of Adjustment could be designated as a "prior of fact" board for any issue that would not be limited by the Zoning Code. 12/19/00 Minutes,Board of Adjustment 2 Study Session Vice Chairman Adler stated that in connection with interpretation for matters unrelated to land use, the Board would need to get advice on criteria to make a suitable judgement. He said that if the Board were to be entirely subjective with regard to making a ruling based upon the applicant's testimony, there could be several different subjective interpretations. He said that by not having any standards to follow, there could be a non- decision made based upon the interpretation given to the Board by staff Mr. Dudley speculated that these cases would be presented to the Board in the same manner that it is presented to the court, which would be providing the facts, the statutes and case law information. Vice Chairman Adler made a suggestion with regards to the role responsibility to mandate the Board to start implementing the evaluation of one another. He said the current process performed by the Town Council, which unilaterally dismisses people without explanation, or justification was offensive to him. He explained that if the Board members reviewed each other, the information could be given to Council as a reference point to review when the member's term expires. Member Swan stated that one aspect of the Council's evaluation was to get more citizens involved in Town government. He said "if that means bringing in a new face to replace an old face regardless of what their performance was, I can't argue with that." Chairman Suozzi explained that he had been informed that the Government Review Task Force (GRTF) was addressing this issue and would be presenting a report to Council in the near future. He suggested that the Board review the report. Member Lewis suggested that the Town Council develop a job description of duties as a guideline for the Board. Mr. Nodine stated that he would keep the Board abreast of any updates or changes regarding their job description and duties. Mr. Dudley explained that Article 1-7 describes the Board of Adjustment (BOA) duties and functions. He added that unless the Council broadens these functions that this was the extent of their duties. (See attachment.) He stated that the Board was a"quasi judicial" body.************* He explained that as a board member each person could discuss items with other boards and commission individually, but recommended that they did not. Mr. Nodine gave a brief outline of the duties performed by staff Clerk's Office • Making room arrangements • Mailing of materials • Minutes of meetings • Scheduling of meeting with the direction from Planning and Zoning 12/19/00 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 3 Study Session • Posting the agenda • Contact issues concerning the agenda, with the direction of Planning and Zoning Planning and Zoning • The Chair should be aware of any revisions that are made to the agenda. • Planning and Zoning Department is the primary contact for issues pertaining to the agenda. • The Planning and Zoning Department develops the agenda with the Chairman's direction and the applications submitted. • The Planning and Zoning Department will notify the property owners within the 300 feet radius of the public hearing. Mr. Dudley explained that from time to time there has been a misunderstanding as to what the function of staff is as it relates to an item. He explained that staff and the Board were required by law to consider application for variances, and that staff had very little control over what is presented. Member Swan asked if there were set guidelines as to the type of exhibits that are submitted. Mr. Nodine replied "absolutely." He added that if the exhibits were not provided the application would be rejected. Member Swan suggested that any exhibits submitted at the time of the hearing be rejected. He explained that it was difficult to read and review the documents during a meeting. Mr. Dudley explained that the Board could make it a requirement that all exhibits are submitted before the application comes forward. Vice Chairman Adler disagreed and suggested that a staff member be in attendance as it relates to the case. He explained that if the Board does not know what's required to make a reasonable judgment about a matter, the resources would be available to answer any questions. He said, "if the applicant brings in an exhibit that pertains to their request for a variance, I think they should be allowed to submit that." He felt that having a staff member that was familiar with the case would be resourceful. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector suggested that if an applicant brought in an exhibit to be reviewed during the time of the hearing, the Board could call a recess. She explained that a packet should be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department within a 21-day time period. Mr. Nodine agreed with Ms. Widero and explained that there wasn't any protocol or rule setting a time limit. But, the Board could make it a rule to have a staff member available from the various departments. f , 12/19/00 Minutes,Board of Adjustment 4 Study Session Member Done reiterated that if there are no applications for review, the Board should be notified by the 10th of the each month. Discussion followed regarding the Board of Adjustment Application and the 5 Criteria. The following suggestions were made: • All exhibits should be submitted with the application on or 1 week prior to the meeting. • Packets are delivered 1 week prior to meeting. • Notify the Board members as soon as possible when a meeting has been canceled. • Members should notify Dee Widero if they are unable to attend a meeting. • A staff member should be present from the various departments for resource purposes, depending upon the subject matter and content of the application. 2. FIVE CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE Dan Dudley, Town Attorney explained that the 5 Criteria require a finding upon sufficient evidence. The following recommendations were discussed: • The applicant should address the findings accordingly. • The applicant should show proof why their variance request has met the 5 findings. • The Board will expect the applicant to respond to questions regarding the 5 findings. • The 5 findings as to how they relate to cell communications Chairman Suozzi stated that the applicant should be capable of answering questions from the Board regarding the 5 findings. Member Swan asked if the 5 findings were required in the application. Ms. Widero replied, "no, they are not." Mr. Nodine gave a brief outline of the materials required when submitting a Board of Adjustment Application: 1. Plans that indicate the nature of the project and its proposed use. 2. Evidence that indicates the intention of the applicant to proceed with the actual construction. 3. Filing fee (All documents are retained for public availability.) Mr. Nodine stated that the Code did not negate a clear requirement for the applicant to address the 5 findings. Mr. Nodine explained that the 5 criteria are attached to the back of the application and the applicant is instructed to address them. Member Lewis stated the if the 5 criteria were included and addressed, them it would be easier to determine if the applicant has a good argument, which would allow the Board to make sufficient ruling. She asked if this could be incorporated. 12/19/00 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 5 Study Session Mr. Dudley stated that legally the Board could make the criteria a mandatory requirement on the application. Vice Chairman Adler reiterated, "as far as the 5 criteria are concern we have discretion as to how to apply them." He said, "if you insist that they make a very specific case in writing and in their presentation as to the compliance or conformance with the 5 criteria, we would be getting ourselves into a mind set. If the applicant did not make their case, then either their case should not come before the Board at all or would be denied. I think that this would be contradictory to my understanding which calls for some judgement." Mr. Dudley gave a brief definition of a "Special Privilege"—an adjunct to equal protection. (Example: "If there is more than one applicant with similar circumstances, both applicants should be treated the same.") He further explained that under the Arizona State Law the Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial Board that hears and decides appeals for variances from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance and hears appeals of the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Vice Chairman Adler stated that in regards to wireless communication applications for variance, none of the 5 criteria would apply because there were not any unique circumstances. Mr. Nodine agreed. Mr. Dudley stated that if the 5 finding are not met, the Board should not grant a variance. He added that the owner of the property normally applies for variances. Chairman Suozzi stated that the 5 criteria should be addressed in the application regardless if the applicant is the property owner or not. Members Lewis stated that a regular homeowner that is not familiar with procedures at a meeting would be very uncomfortable and would need guidance to present their case. Member Lewis stated that she would be in favor of having the applicant respond specifically to each of the 5 findings. Chairman Suozzi felt that these findings were a statement of fact and not necessarily a question to get a response from the applicant. Member Swan stated that the burden of proof was up to the petitioner to provide, and that it was up to the Board to decide if the proof submitted was acceptable to grant a variance. Mr. Nodine stated if there was no objection by the Board, staff would insert the 5 finding on the application. He explained that the 5 findings had already been established as requirement in the Code, but they could for under the supplemental questions section on the application. Mr. Dudley reiterated that the Board could decide by rule to require the 5 findings on the application. He explained that the Town Ordinance is based upon State Law Statues, and 12/19/00 Minutes,Board of Adjustment 6 Study Session that under State Law the Board of Adjustment is to, "hear and decide appeals for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance only if because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district." He explained that the difference between the State Law and the Town Ordinance was the word "including". He said that the use of that terminology indicates that there are other facts that could be considered. He said that in reference to Vice Chairman Adler question regarding the cell tower, the Council could amend that particular provision so that other facts could be introduced. Regarding Criteria "E" —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 in generals," Chairman Suozzi asked how would the Board define "vicinity." Mr. Nodine explained that the finding gave the Board a very broad range to consider. Mr. Dudley further explained if the Board denied a variance and later the case were taken to Superior Court, there would be a limited number of individuals and entities that would be allowed to appeal the decision. He explained that one of the criteria that would be reviewed by the Superior Court would be determining who had any standing interest and how close they are in proximitely to the property. He said that case law stated that they would have to be in the immediate area which would be the adjoining property or property directly across the street. He explained that the word "materially" did not mean "financial materially" but "substantially materially" rather than economically. 3. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES/CONDUCT OF MEETINGS • The Board members should not discuss any issues that are not on the agenda before, during or after meeting. To do so, would be a violation of the Open Meeting Law. • Board members should not discuss issues with the owner or applicant when inspecting the site. • Questions of fact are not an issue when reviewing the site. • Stay focused during the presentation. • All questions during the meeting should go through the Chair. • All documents that are submitted at the meeting should be given to the Clerk for proper distribution. • All applicants could be sworn in at once. Member Done suggested that all Board members receive a copy of Robert's Rules of Order Guidelines. An update prepared by Mr. Dudley and Ms. Cuvelier was given to the Board regarding motions, priority and order when conducting a meeting. 12/19/00 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 8 Study Session ADMINISTRATION i ARTICLE 1-7. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Sec. 1-701 Scope The Board of Adjustment shall hear and decide requests for variances and appeals of interpretations of this Code in accordance with A.R.S., Section 9-462.06. Sec. 1-702 Powers and Duties A. Interpretation The Board of Adjustment shall interpret this Code on appeal when: 1. There is a dispute between the appellant and the Planning and Zoning Director or other Town Official as to a decision or interpretation as set forth in Sec. 1-706; or 2. The location of a zoning district is in doubt. B. Variances ' The Board of Adjustment may allow variances from the provisions of this Code in accordance with Sec. 1-709, Findings. Sec. 1-703 Meetings, Administration of Oaths and Compelling Attendance of Witnesses All meetings of the Board shall be held at the call of the Chairman and at such other times as the Board may determine. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public. The Chairman, or in his absence, the acting Chairman, may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses in accordance with the laws of the State of Arizona. . Sec. 1-704 Composition A. Appointment: The Board of Adjustment shall be composed of five members appointed by the Town Council. B. Terms: Appointments are for staggered terms of two years each with no limit on the number of terms. C. Vacancies: Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired portion of that term within a reasonable time period as provided for by appointments of the Town Council. 1 Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised 1 - 1 1 (Rev.8/94) ADMINISTRATION D. Removal: The Town Council has the authority to remove, by majority vote, any member for neglect of duty, inefficiency or misconduct in office. • Sec. 1-705 Transaction of Business A. The Board of Adjustment shall conduct its business in accordance with the Arizona Revised Statutes and applicable Town regulations and any rules and procedures as adopted by the Town Council. B. The Town Clerk, or an appointed representative from the Town Clerk's office, shall serve as the Executive Secretary of the Board of Adjustment and the minutes and records of all board proceedings will be kept and filed as public record in the files of the Town Clerk. Sec. 1-706 Appeals from Administrative Decisions Appeals may be taken to the Board of Adjustment by persons aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the municipality affected by a decision of an administrative official, within 30 days, by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken, and with the Board of Adjustment, a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The officer from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit all papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. Said appeal shall be filed on a form provided by the Town Clerk. A. An appeal shall stay all proceedings in the matter appealed from unless the officer from whom the appeal is taken certifies to the Board that, by reason of the fact stated in the certificate, the stay would, in his opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property. In such case, proceedings shall not be stayed, except by restraining order granted by the Board or by a court of record on application and notice to the officer from whom the appeal is taken. The Board shall fix a reasonable time for hearing the appeal and give notice thereof to the parties in interest and the public. B. The concurring vote of a majority of the Board shall be necessary to reverse any order or decision of an administrative official, or to pass or to affect any variations from the terms and conditions of this ordinance. Sec. 1-707 Application for Variances Application for a variance of zoning regulations shall be made to the Board of Adjustment in the form of a written application. Said application shall be filed with the Town Clerk upon forms provided by the Board of Adjustment and shall be accompanied by: Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised 1 - 12 (Rev.8/94) ADMINISTRATION A. Plans and description sufficient to indicate the nature of the project involved and the proposed use with ground plans and elevations of all proposed buildings. B. Evidence satisfactory to the Board of Adjustment of the ability and intention of the applicant to proceed with actual construction work in accordance with said plans within 6 months after issuance of the variance. C. A filing fee according to the fee schedule adopted by the Town Council. The owner of a nonconforming sign shall not be required to pay a filing fee when applying for a variance from the ordinance that renders the sign nonconforming. D. From the time of filing the application until the time of such hearing, the application and all maps, plans and other accompanying data shall be available for public inspection during office hours at the office of the Town Clerk. Sec. 1-708 Hearing and Notice Upon receipt in proper form of any such application, the Board of Adjustment shall proceed to hold a public hearing upon said application not more than 30 days, nor less than 15 days, after such filing, at which time all persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard. Such Board of Adjustment shall cause one notice of such hearing to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Oro Valley and one noticei to be posted on the subject property, giving at least 15 days notice of said hearing, and the time and place where said hearing will be held. Said notice, both as published and posted, shall also show the nature of the variance or exception requested and state that anyone wanting to protest may appear in person or by writing. All property owners within 300 feet must be notified. Sec. 1-709 Findings A variance from the provisions of this Code shall not be authorized unless the Board shall find upon sufficient evidence: A. 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; and B. That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant; and C. That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised 1 - 13 (Rev.8/94) • ADMINISTRATION D. 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; and E. 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. Sec. 1-710 Action The Board shall prescribe, in connection with any variance, such conditions as the Board may deem necessary in order to fully carry out the provisions and intent of this Code. Such conditions may include, among other things, a limitation of the time for which such variance shall be valid. Violation of any such condition shall be a violation of this ordinance and such violation shall render the variance null and void. Sec. 1-711 Review Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Board after hearing on application made by any taxpayer or municipal officer, may petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Board's decision pursuant to ARS Section 9-465 (1956) as amended. Rev. (0)92-1,January 15, 1992 Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised 1 - 14 (Rev.8/94) MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION AND ORIENTATION MEETING STUDY SESSION JANUARY 26, 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA CALL TO ORDER at/10 p.m. PRESENT: Henry Suozzi, Chairman Bill Adler, Vice Chairman James Swan, Member Lyra Done, Member Cindy Lewis, Member ABSENT: Lyra Done, Member STAFF: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk Dan Dudley, Town Attorney Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Debbie Moran, Zoning Tech. Susan Baczkiewicz, Civil Paralegal Linda Hersha, Secretary II 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—DECEMBER 19, 2001 STUDY SESSION MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Chairman Adler to continue the Study Session meeting minutes of December 19, 2001 with the correction noted to the next regularly schedule meeting or Study Session meeting. Motion Seconded by Member Lewis. ROLL CALL VOTE Chairman Suozzi —yes Vice Chairman Adler—yes Member Lewis—yes Member Swan—yes Motion carried, 4-0. i 1/26/00 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 2 Study Session 2. BOARD RULES (IF ANY), SELECTION OF MEMBERS, BOARD COMPOSITION, ETC. Chairman Suozzi stated that the Riggins Rules detailed some suggested rules and asked if the Board wanted to review any of the rules that were listed. Vice Chairman Adler referenced Riggins Rules #29 (DO NOT FAIL TO GIVE A REASON when making a motion for approval OR denial of an applicant's request. If you fail to do this, the applicant, any objectors, a reviewing body of higher authority of the COURTS may well assume that your decision was an arbitrary one not supported by the facts and should be reversed. Always mention the staff recommendation.) He explained that at the previous meeting, there was divided opinion as to whether the members should be requested to give a reason for the vote or not, and have a document developed by the Department of Commerce which was not included in the Board of Adjustment (BOA)Handbook. He explained that the article recommends that the Board Member should give an explanation for his or her findings. He suggested that the when having a meeting for the purpose of adopting rules, there should be an agenda. He said that his second question in connection with rules was if they required the swearing in of the applicants and witnesses. Dan Dudley, Town Attorney stated that it was not a requirement under state law, to swear in the applicants and witnesses but suggested that the concept not be waived. He further explained that there was no required oath for swearing in the applicants and witnesses. He explained that the language for oath is somewhat standardized. Vice Chairman Adler suggested that the Board adopt a rule that an oath appears on the agenda with specific language that would be consistently used for swearing in witnesses or applicants. Chairman Suozzi asked for staff to submit to the Board recommended language that could be used for the oath. Vice Chairman Adler suggested that there should be rules governing questions of staff verse questions of the applicant. He said that the Board should receive additional education as to the kinds of questions asked of staff verses those questions asked of the applicant. He said that he would offer this as an item on the agenda when the rules are actually formalized. Member Swan asked Vice Chairman Adler if there were any specific recommendations for rules or a format that could used. Vice Chairman Adler replied, "yes." He explained that he did have a specific suggestion, but was more interested in placing this item on the agenda so that when the Board gets to the point of adopting or considering rules and procedures, this could be one of them. 1/26/00 Minutes,Board of Adjustment 3 Study Session Mr. Dudley stated that he had concern with the way that the information was being produced. He emphasized that he perceived the Board as an informal courtroom setting. He explained that it was the burden of proof applicant to convince the Board. He feels that the way the procedures are currently set-up, Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector, is carrying the applicant burden and/or providing the background information. He explained that the applicant should have the first shot at making their case in front of the Board instead of the Town. Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator recommended not necessarily modifying the application, but recommend that the applicant presents provide the bulk of the information regarding the case. He said that the applicant's presentation should include addressing a variance that consists of more than (1) issue. He explained that it could not be considered if it has not been included in the notice. Therefore, the title at the beginning of the staff report should indicate specifically what items are being requested terms of the variance. Mr. Dudley agreed with Member Lewis as felt that the application should be in an amended format. He explained that if a request for variance was amended, and as long as it was properly noticed, that this would work when producing pleadings in his legal opinion. He said that if it doesn't create any additional problems there would be more symmetry to the system. Mr. Nodine clarified that the Board would like the application to reflect the fact that the applicant would need to submit something in writing to indicate that they were requesting a variance for more than (1) particular issue. Member Lewis replied, "that is correct." Chairman Suozzi concurred that if the application was not completely revised that there should be an addendum attached reflecting that there was another issue in the application that needed to be addressed. Mr.Nodine explained that staff should identify each individual variance and make sure that the Board is aware of all the issues that were relative to the case. He said that the applicant should address all of the issues pertaining to the case. He explained that he would need to consult with the Town Attorney to make sure staff was taking the right approach. Vice Chairman Adler suggested that the Board obtain an understanding of what the agenda would allow in regards to peripheral discussion. He explained that this would allow the Board to develop a reasonable set of parameters. He said that the "site tours" should also be discussed. He suggested that staff should organize a"site tour"with the members of the Board to view the site. Chairman Suozzi agreed with Vice Chairman Adler regarding the "site tours". He stated that this issue was actually addressed in the BOA handbook. He said that the manual also 1/26/00 Minutes,Board of Adjustment 4 Study Session states that if a staff member was not available, the Board member could visit the site on his or her own. Member Lewis stated that as far as procedures were concerned, if the applicant was willing to make modifications or accept suggestions and changes, the Board could approve the variance based upon those suggestions. She felt that if the Board could give the applicant some direction, that it was the Board's responsibility to do so. Chairman Suozzi agreed. Member Done arrived at 3:05 p.m. Member Swan stated that in his opinion each individual that serves on the Board is unique. Therefore, he or she may need to ask particular questions in an attempt to obtain the information relevant to make an adequate evaluation. He added that there was a learning curve; new member has to learn the appropriate questions to ask to generate appropriate action. He felt that the members should have free reign. Chairman Suozzi opened the discussion concerning the "Selection of Members and Board Composition." He referenced to page 11 and 12 in the Board of Adjustment Handbook Section 5, Board of Adjustment Basic "Desirable Attributes of Board Members which lists the following qualifications: • An interest in zoning and planning and a willingness to learn about them. • Time enough to learn about the business of the board and to prepare for meetings and hearings. • An open, impartial, and orderly mind. • Honesty and fairness. • The ability to envision and consider the long-term effects of a decision and to put them ahead of any short-term changes. • The ability to put the public good above the welfare of individual applicants when making your decisions. • The ability to be articulate at public meetings and hearings. • A commitment to enforce the zoning laws as they are, and not let your disagreement with parts of them sway your decisions. • A commitment to work for the improvement of the zoning ordinance. Member Swan stated that the decision was the responsibility of the Council and that it should remain that way. However, if the Board wanted to draft some reasonable qualifications for members that could be used as a guideline for Council, that would be an option. Vice Chairman Adler stated that the Board members could individually, or as a group offers some suggestions regarding the qualification to the Government Review Task Force (GRTF). He added that he was already developing a draft for the GRTF and encouraged the other Board members to do the same. 1/26/00 Minutes,Board of Adjustment 5 Study Session Mr. Dudley explained that there is difficulty with signing a letter of recommendation as a group because of the Open Meetings Law. Chairman Suozzi suggested that each board member create their own personal list of ideas and submit them at the next meeting. He explained that these items would be reviewed and submitted as a group effort to the Town Council. Mr. Dudley stated the he was concerned about whether the Board had the ability to take formal action on item such as this. He explained that if the Board member signs off on the document, it represents taking formal action. He said if it's not "agendized" for formal action that the Board could not vote on it. Therefore, by submitting a letter with everyone's signature, it would be effectively the same as a vote. Vice Chairman Adler suggested the a member could written the task force as a citizen, instead of as a member of the BOA, relating in the letter how they felt regarding the selection and qualifications of a new member. Member Lewis felt that it was inappropriate for Board members to develop a guideline of what new members should look like because it should be a diverse group of people. She said that this procedure should be the responsibility of the Town Council and Staff. Mr. Feinberg a member of the Government Review Task Force (GRTF) stated the GRTF has received a couple letters from the BOA. He informed the Board that before the GRTF sent any recommendations to Council all of the board would be given an outline of the report. He suggested at that time that the Boards could submit their suggestions. Chairman Suozzi agreed. Member Swan asked Mr. Feinberg if there was a set timetable in which the report would be available. Mr. Feinberg replied maybe in a month or two. Mr. Dudley suggested that the staff could provide the BOA with the minutes from the GRTF on a regular basis for review. Mr. Nodine suggested asking members of the GRTF to attend the BOA Study Session, present what they are considering and ask questions, giving the Board an opportunity to respond. Member Swan extended an open invitation to Mr. Feinberg and Mr. Dvorak for the GRTF members to attend the BOA meetings. 3. CLARIFY "CONFLICT OF INTEREST" ISSUES AND CIRCUMSTANCES Chairman Suozzi stated that this was another item that is addressed in Section 5 of the BOA handbook. 1/26/00 Minutes,Board of Adjustment 6 Study Session Mr. Dudley stated that if a member had a perceived economic benefit or detriment as a result of granting a variance, then he or she should excuse themselves. He said that since this item had been discussed at the previous study session, he had no additional information to provide. Member Done felt that a conflict of interest did not necessarily have to involve money. She said that to maintain the credibility of the BOA, the members must never allow themselves to get personally involved. Mr. Dudley explained that by law a "conflict of interest" only pertains to having a financial interest. He explained that if it is a friend there is no conflict, but if it is a relative it would be considered a "conflict of interest". He suggested that Board members use the words "I have a conflict of interest" very carefully. They should onlybe applied to a legal conflict, which would be an economic interest. If a project was in the same neighborhood or next door to the member, he suggested that the member say "as a matter of conscience I feel that I should refuse myself." He informed the Board that there is a form available in the Clerk's Office that would need to be signed if there was a conflict of interest. 4. SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO BE FAIR, OBJECTIVE, IMPARTIAL AND AN ACTIVE MEMBER No comments were made on this item. 5. RELATIONSHIP OF THIS BOARD WITH OTHER BOARDS (P&Z, DRB, ETC., ESPECIALLY WHEN RELATED ITEMS ARE INVOLVED Member Swan stated that in his opinion the BOA was a Board of last resorts. He said if there were any other issues concerning the case, it should be done prior to coming before the Board of Adjustment (BOA). Mr. Nodine explained that there were rules and procedures that should be followed by the applicant. He explained that it was appropriate for the applicant to come before the BOA first and then the applicant could take those conditions before another board for consideration. He stated that the key to the matter is to be very clear in the motion the intentions of the Board. Vice Chairman Adler asked that if a motion was made and the member wanted to change the motion, could the Board restate the motion? Mr. Dudley stated that there was case law that provided for reconsideration. He added that the motion to reconsider should be made at or before the next meeting. Member Lewis suggested creating a notice to send the applicant once the reconsideration had been file. 1/26/00 Minutes,Board of Adjustment 7 Study Session Mr. Dudley replied "Bryant and I will look into that." Vice Chairman Adler felt that it was very important the build a relationship with other Boards and Committees. Member Lewis asked when a case is moved to the next level if the BOA minutes were automatically included. Mr. Nodine stated that the motion has been included in the past, but felt that it would be a good idea to include the minutes in the future. He said that staff could use excerpt for those issues of concern, and distribute them to the committees and boards. Vice Chairman Adler had concern with the BOA and the Town Council. He felt that the BOA was being pre-empted and explained that to be consistent, to a project meet or doesn't meet acceptable code it should come before the BOA and not the Town Council. He expressed the Board needs more work. Mr. Nodine stated that flexibility is set up so that all cases don't necessarily have to come before the Board of Adjustment (BOA). He explained that in general if a person is asking for relief from the code for a specific reason, then the applicant might take his case before the BOA. However, for cases such as grading exceptions or golf course overlay district there are provisions in the code that say the Council has the authority to grant waivers. He said that he had not seen an issue where Council had taken action to grant exceptions or variance to the code. Mr. Dudley explained that if there is a variance request it absolutely has to come before the BOA. He explained that the Town Council does not have the authority to grant a variance according to the code. He said the Town Council only has the authority in limited circumstances, and it would not truly be a variance. In addition, the zoning administrator interpretation must come before the BOA. In conclusion, he stated that if the Town Council choose, they could be the Board of Adjustment (BOA). Vice Chairman Adler asked that if there were not any staff members available for resource purposes, could the Board continue the item. Mr. Dudley explained that it would be appropriate to continue the item if this Board did not feel they had the proper information and appropriate staffing to make a decision. Mr. Nodine stated that the Board members could contact staff ahead of time for information to get a better understanding of the case. 1/26/00 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 8 Study Session 6. CLARIFY HOW RECOMMENDATION(S), DECISION(S), CONDITION(S) ARE COMMUNICATED WITH OTHER BOARDS, STAFF,TOWN COUNCIL Chairman Suozzi stated that both Items 5 & 6 were covered in the previous disuccion, and he moved forward to Item 7. 7. OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, ETC. Chairman Suozzi opened the discussion regarding the time of the meeting. He stated that personally he approved of having the meeting at 3:00 p.m., but he was interested in having better attendance from the citizens of the Town. Member Lewis suggested meeting after 5:00 p.m. Member Done felt that there was not a lot of input coming in from the citizens at large. Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk, stated that the citizens could submit a letter that to be included with the applicant's application, and it would then be on file regarding the case. Vice Chairman Adler had concerns with the issue regarding notification. He said that the 300 feet radius did not include many people. He expressed that giving people an opportunity to participate is very important. Chairman Suozzi suggested creating a more personal letter that would encourage the citizens to attend the meeting. He asked if the radius could be changed to 600 feet or 1000 feet. Mr. Nodine explained that the code states that the citizens within the 30-0 foot radius had to be notified, but it doesn't say if a greater radius could be used. Member Swan asked if the code could be changed. Mr. Nodine replied, "yes, absolutely." Vice Chairman Adler asked for an estimated cost to the Town to have staff on hand with overtime if the Board were to have a 6:00 p.m. meting. Mr. Nodine stated that an average cost with benefits would be around $25.00 per hour per staff person. He informed the Board that staff was taking the work plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission on the 6tn of February, and he would make a note that the BOA has requested that the "Notification Code" be reconsidered. Ms. Cuvelier explained the since this was not an item listed on the agenda, the BOA could bring this item forward at the next meeting and vote in order to give staff direction. 1/26/00 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 9 Study Session Vice Chairman Adler asked if staff would consider having a 6:00 p.m. meeting on an experimental basis. Vice Chairman Adler stated that Planning and Zoning typically has a pre-application conference with the applicant. He asked if there was any advantage to this based upon certain contentious issues. Mr. Nodine expressed that this should be a question directed to the Town Attorney, who was unavailable at this time. He explained that because the Board was a quasi-judicial body he had concerns. He explained the Board should obtain as much information as possible and suggested the following: • Take the site tour • Getting questions to staff before the meeting • The applicant could be alerted in regarding a questions that may need to be addressed at the hearing. • The Board could choose to call a continuance if they did not feel there was enough information to make an adequate decision. Chairman Suozzi suggested that the Board members bring their BOA handbooks to the next meeting. He opened discussion for suggestions regarding a new date and time for the next Study Session meeting. Vice Chairman Adler suggested having the next meeting on the 27th of February immediately following the regularly scheduled meeting. The Board and Staff members agreed. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Suozzi adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda Hersha, Secretary II NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT In accordance with Sec. 1-708 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised and Arizona Revised Statutes Sec. 9-462.06, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, February 27,2001, 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: OV10-01-01: DON SCHEER, 9799 N. KORTE LANE, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737 REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO SPLIT PARCEL 6. PARCEL 6 HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY SPLIT FROM ITS WHOLE STATE INTO A 1/3 PORTION AND A 2/3 PORTION. DON SCHEER THE OWNER OF THE 2/3 PORTION WOULD LIKE TO SPLIT HIS PORTION. THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED R1-144, THE MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR R1-144 IS 144,000 SQUARE FEET OR 3.3 ACRES. (OVZCR SEC 6- 202.A). SUBJECT PROPERTY: 9799 N. KORTE LANE, ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737. Don Scheer is requesting an Appeal of Administrative Decision. His request to split his 2/3 portion of parcel 6 was denied. This request did not meet with the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Sec. 6-202.A. The property in question is currently zoned R1-144, requiring a minimum lot area of 144,000 square feet or 3.3 acres. This 2/3 portion is only 6.1 acres to split this portion would leave one or both portions under minimum lot size for the existing zone. 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 pleas ntact Dee Widero at 229-4812. ryant M.Nodine,AICP PlanningZoning and Administrator F:\ov\ovi0\2001\10-01-01\NOTICE.doc h SSESSOR 'S RECORD MA P 224-36 LINDA VISTA CiTiws TRACTS ?MERLY 3-36 DRD VALLEY HEIGHTS 29/026 1if&P be9.�o' _.. _ ...__...__ .. .-..__._. _ .. ... DESERT SKY ROAD ^�. 09•i0• � •a29.to1 r , 1 ,,N01Y... 11 1 8A r (—). i DESERT' 1I NOTE . 1 NOW $ 0 l SKY It S UNSTONE 1 ESTATES1 . VILLA 1 . . i _..__ ... i CLUB 11 1 .. _ - .. ... ..... . • i1 BALBOA . . I. 1 6isi. ! I LOTS 1-26 11 1 TOWNHOMES A 1 $ 8B s 8C `�' !I 3 11 2 , 1 LLL 314.63' 314,67 .. Y . • N I 6 � 9 ' 120 : : • , ' 1 a' . 1 I. • 1 3� b. II 12B 1 LOTS,1=51. . 100• • 13A , Z 1 46/071 IMP 1 LOTS 1—2 09 • ' 9B �' GI • 1 1 I 38/044 M&r .1. • szi.er� ..•...-I •..31+:s ..;_...1 ._ ;. :' : • :.�._,.�:.. ..�_;'... ..-: 1 • ••.629.34_.. ,• . . 1 . • ! , . r ,• i •� ,.• • • , • •, • . ' • • I •• : •L=iNDA 'VI' TA• •citri JS• WAG'TS .NO. 2 • • SEE BOOK 0 • _ • • 1999-5 • • • . ; AMP05\05072- C S . ' • - 0• 130 . • , . r ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REPORT CASE NO: OV 10-01-01 Hearing Date: February 27, 2001 Agenda Item No.: 1 Prepared By: Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector REQUEST DON SCHEER, 9799 N. KORTE LANE, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737. HAS MADE REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION v t 0'v REGARDING HIS REQUEST TO SPLIT PARCEL 6 OF LINDA VISTA CITRUS TRACTS AT 9799 N. KORTE LANE. REQUEST SPECIFICS: Don Scheer is requesting an Appeal of Administrative Decision regarding the split of Parcel 6 o4 Linda Vista Citrus Tracts. Parcel 6 had previously been split from its whole state into a 1/3 portion of 3.1 acres (8B on the Assessor's map) and a 2/3 portion of 6.1 acres (8A). Don Scheer the owner of 8A would like to split his portion as is, or add a small portion of 8B to 8A and then split 8A. His request to split 8A was denied by the Town's Planning and Zoning Administrator, Bryant Nodine. Mr.Nodine determined that neither option proposed by Mr. Scheer met the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Sec. 6-203.A. The subject property is currently zoned R1-144, requiring a minimum lot area of 144,000 square feet or 3.3 acres. Parcel 8A portion is only 6.1 acres (269,212 sq. ft.)to split this portion would leave one or both portions under minimum lot size for the current zone. The second option,to add a portion of 8B to 8A,thus allowing a split of 8A in conformance with the Code, was denied on the basis that the remainder of Parcel 8B would then be further out of conformance with the Code. SITE LOCATION: This site is located at 9799 N. Korte Lane, Linda Vista Citrus Tracts. The site can be reached by going west on Linda Vista Boulevard approximately 3/4 of a mile from Oracle Road to Korte Lane turn north (right) to the end, the last home on the left, the property extends north to meet with Oro Valley Heights subdivision. NOTIFICATION: All property owners within 300 feet of this property were notified by mailing of this hearing. 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 has had only one call of concern from Mr. James Scott at 535 W. Atua Place. This property borders the Linda Vista Citrus Tracts to the north. He stated that he and his neighbor purchased their lots because of the lot sizes to the south I s I r of them. Staff has not eceiv any other public comment supporting for or in oppositio of the request. SITE ANALYSIS: The subject property is a 6.1-acre parcel. The properties directly east, south and to the west are within the Linda Vista Citrus Tracts. The subdivision to the north is Oro Valley Heights, zoned R1-43,with a minimum lot size of 43,560. East of Linda Vista Citrus Tracts is Desert Sky Club, a small 25-lot subdivision, zoned R-4, with a minimum lot size of 5,400. The subdivision west of Linda Vista Citrus Tracts subdivision is Oro Valley Estates zoned R1-36 a minimum lot size of 36,000. PLAN ANALYSIS: (See Request Specifics.) SUMMARY: The following facts exist: ❖ Minimum lot size is 3.3 acres for R1-144, Lot 7 parcels labeled 9B, 9C, 9D and Lot 6 parcel labeled 8B are all 3.1 acres, and are non-conforming. The remaining parcels within this subdivision are all greater than 3.3 acres. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Board may wish to consider the following motions: I move to approve OV10-01-01,thereby reversing the decision of the Planning and Zoning Administrator and approving the applicant's request to add a portion of Linda Vista Citrus Tracts Lot 6 Parcel 8B to Lot 6 Parcel 8A. OR I move to approve OV10-01-01, thereby reversing the decision of the Planning and Zoning Administrator and approving the applicant's request to add a portion of Linda Vista Citrus Tracts Lot 6 Parcel 8B to Lot 6 Parcel 8A,with the following stipulations: (Staff does not have any stipulations to recommend). OR I move to deny OV10-01-01 finding that: (Board to state reason why the request cannot be granted). ATTACHMENTS: 1. BOA Application With Narrative 2. Code References 3. Site Maps 4. Correspondence F:\OV\OV 10\2001\10-01-O 1\REPORT.doc 2 �P��EY Aq 1 / °� ti TOWN OF ORO VALLEY W PPLANNING & ZONING DIVISIONSW,;-l(` � k21 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE,ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 E% Phone: (520)229-4800 Fax: (520) 742-1022 %NDED g1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION FOR: Zoning Variance Zoning Interpretation y\ Appeal of Administrative Decision CASE NO.: 0 V/O'- 7/ NATURE OF REQUEST: P I? ►1 e vr(174 5e 7) .-to raise 1 e I0 veQf;F r fwo �dcVe /c7'.s_ y r APPLICANT: DOn (4 e e f PHONE/FAX: 1/ 1/ 1 Z ADDRESS: `f 9 ti Ko tt Ln f ()rc Vo/14,/ s?3, OWNER: Do' c4 e er ADDRESS: C 1 j i / lark �.r,1 On; S 39 PARCEL NUMBER: 3 7 06P PROPERTY LOCATION/ADDRESS: 17 J t 1 Kn,-f Ln / C9r� v'lie 73' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ACREAGE: CURRENT ZONING: APPLICABLE FEE: ATTACHMENTS: 3 c fte5 f di m Ensjeo ed plot plii I ) t(e( of rea„sons f e ve,s I it tie; Of,) V4 y c1/5 C'c arc /4 I7 Vri/ot C(T-? ? V F _Ai6/IL- ifr i 1 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT (AND ALSO PRINT NAME) DATE 21 VW F:WDMBNORM S\BOA APP.doc SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS FOR APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE 1. Identify difficulties or problems that would result from complying with the present zoning requirements. 2. Identify and explain all unique and peculiar circumstances that would prevent you from complying with the present zoning requirements on your property in regard to the following areas (slope, narrowness, shallowness,irregular shape, location, washes,vegetation and easements,etc.). 4 3. Identify and explain any peculiar conditions in the surrounding area, which would keep you from complying with the present zoning requirements. N ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 4. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING: The most current available list of property owners from the Pima County Assessor's Office and the date such list was obtained. 13 copies of dimensioned plot plan, if applicable A)4 1 copies of dimensioned floor plan, if applicable 1Arcopies of building elevations, if applicable An estimate of the incremental cost of the change in, or additions to, the property, such estimated cost to be endorsed as accurate by a licensed contractor or engineer. Any additional comments/information you wish to provide regarding your request. 2 February 3, 2001 Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment: I need your help. I am a software developer. I came to Tucson a couple of years ago to help establish a local software company. It is doing great,but I could have benefited better. So now I want to establish my own company. To do that I need money. I would like to raise the money by raising the value of my property at 9799 N. Korte Lane, and then borrowing against that increased value. This method is the most efficient as far as taxes and ownership questions. My property value would rise in value if it was "splitable", i.e.the land"could"be split and the Town of Oro Valley would allow a house to be built on the new lot. I will reiterate, I have no intent on actually splitting the land and selling a new lot. I have tried several ways to get permission from Oro Valley. First, I asked to be able to "split"based upon the fact that Lot 7 had been split into thirds and 1/3 had already been split from Lot 6 (mine). All I was asking was the ability to split the remaining 2/3. The answer was no. Second, I asked could I add land to my lot to raise it to 288,000 square feet, and then would it be "splitable". The answer was yes. Third, I asked if I could buy some land from Lot 8B. The answer was no. The reason this is important is because if I have to buy land to add to mine, Lot 8B is the only one with enough to buy. Another way to acquire land is to have the City abandon the end of Korte Lane adjacent to my property. This is reasonable because a)most of Korte Lane adjacent to my property is in total disrepair b) it would preclude Korte Lane from be joined with Atua Lane, which would be detrimental to this neighborhood and c)the owner of Lot 7A is in agreement. However, even if this were to happen, it would not make up the total amount of land needed. So I figured with some combination of a part of Korte Land being abandoned and/or buying the rest needed from my neighbor at Lot 8B, I could accomplish my purpose. However I do not grasp the logic of blocking me from buying land from Lot 8B. Lot 8B is not in conformance today. By selling me a small part from it, it would continue to be in non-conformance, yet would be unaffected by the transaction. The owner of Lot 8B is willing to sell me whatever amounts I ultimately need. Without the money I could raise, I will have to get a job within my profession and expertise. They do not exist in Tucson, and so I would have to move. This, in and of itself, is a net zero to Oro Valley. I'm sure the next owner would be of similar financial situation and contribute roughly equally to the area. The negative would be to the stability of the neighborhood. You would have to agree(and my neighbor certainly does),that in general you would prefer fewer turnovers within your city. However,there are positives to be received by Oro Valley if I can proceed. Minimally, my property value (and taxes)would go up. More importantly, as a software developer, I am an ideal citizen, low impact and high income. Further, as my enterprise grows, it will mean more of these kinds of jobs. In general, I agree with Oro Valley's attempt to restrain reckless growth. However, in this case, I believe there is room for consideration. "Potentially splitting"the remaining 2/3 of Lot 6 is not inconsistent with what has already occurred with both Lot 6 and Lot 7. To help with your decision I would like to raise some possibilities. I would be willing to pay for any abandoned part of Korte Lane. I would be willing to sign an agreement that I would not split the land for x years. I am willing to consider other restrictions. I hope you look positively upon my requests and allow my family and me the stability to pursue my dreams. Sincerely, Don Scheer 9799 N. Korte Ln. Oro Valley,AZ 85737 219-4472 • 4 ' Sec. 6-201 R1-144 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS ARTICLE 6-2. R1-144 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec.6-201 Purpose This district is intended to promote and preserve suburban-rural single-family residential development. The large lot size permits agricultural uses and promotes open space. Sec. 6-202 Use Regulations A. Permitted Uses 1. The provisions of Sec. 6-102 shall apply. 2. In addition to the uses permitted in Sec. 6-102, the following are permitted uses in the R1- 144 district: a. Farms (see Definition no. 101) b. Marketing of products raised on the premises. A stand of not more than 200 square feet in area shall be permitted provided said stand is no closer than 10 feet to any street line and no closer than 20 feet to any other lot line. B. Conditional Uses 1. Analogous uses per Sec. 5-201. 2. Cemetery, including funeral chapel. Sec.6-203 Property Development Standards The provisions of Sec. 6-103 shall apply. The following additional requirements shall apply in this district. A. Minimum Lot Area- 144,000 square feet B. Minimum Lot Width- 150 feet C. Density 1. There shall be a minimum of 144,000 square feet of lot area for each single-family dwelling. 2. Should more than 1 single-family dwelling be erected upon any 1 lot, the following provisions shall apply: a. An unobstructed access way for ingress/egress shall be provided for each dwelling. b. Location. 6 -4 Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (Rev. 9/99) ' r R1-144 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS Sec. 6-203 (1) If such access way is intended to serve 1 dwelling, the way shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide. (2) If such access way is intended to serve 2 or more dwellings, the way shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. D. Building Height 1. The maximum building height shall be 18 feet. 2. Any structure of two stories or more shall require Development Review Board approval, in accordance with Article 3-3, Development Review(Rev. 8/93). E. Yard Setbacks 1. Front: 50 feet 2. Side : 20 feet 3. Rear: 50 feet F. Detached Accessory Buildings 1. Permitted coverage: 10%of the total area of rear and side yard. 2. Minimum distance to main building: 10 feet 3. Accessory buildings shall not exceed the height of the main building nor be any closer to the front lot line than the main building. 4. Minimum distance to side and rear lot line: 20 feet from side and 40 feet from rear if building is not used for poultry or animals; 100 feet if building is used for poultry or animals, except that it may be reduced to 50 feet if a solid wall a minimum of 6 feet high is provided to restrict view and sound. 6 - 5 Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (Rev. 9/99) 18.17.010 Chapter 18.17 teen days, the zoning inspector shall issue the one hundred eighty day extension. SR SUBURBAN RANCH ZONE b. The board of adjustment shall hear any *Prior ordinance history: Ords. 1985-82, 1985-111, 1985-152 requests for additional time extensions in accordance and 1985-153. with Section 18.93.040; 3. Commercial agricultural uses such as field Sections: crops, truck gardening, berry or bush crops, tree 18.17.010 Purpose. crops,flower gardening,nurseries,orchards and avi- 18.17.020 Permitted uses. aries; in accordance with Section 18.21.010A3a 18.17.030 Conditional uses. (CR-1 Single Residence Zone); 18.17.040 Development standards— 4. Farm products stand,provided: General. a. The stand does not exceed two hundred square 18.17.050 Development standards— feet in area, Accessory buildings. b. The sale of farm products shall be grown or 18.17.060 Cluster development option. produced on the premises, c. There be a minimum of twenty feet to any 18.17.010 Purpose. street line, A. Suburban ranch is intended as a low density zone d. There be a minimum of thirty feet to any other principally for single-family residences and associ- lot line, ated conditional uses on large lots. A wide range of e. A designated parking area to be provided that agricultural and ranch uses are permitted. The large is set back a minimum of twenty feet from any prop- minimum lot size requirement of this zone insures a erty line, considerable reservation of open space. (Ord. 1986- f. A designated driveway, no wider than thirty 66 § 1 (part), 1986) feet be provided, and g. All driveways and parking areas shall be prop- 18.17.020 Permitted uses. erly maintained and approved by the department of A. Permitted Uses: transportation and flood control district; 1. All uses as permitted in Section 18.09.020A 5. The raising and marketing of poultry, rabbits (General Residential and Rural Zoning Provisions); and small animals, but no slaughtering of other than 2. Temporary mobile home: For one year during those raised on the premises: In accordance with construction of a residence on the same property. Section 18.21.010A3a (CR-1 Single Residence a. Upon application this period may be extended Zone); for an additional one hundred eighty days, after the 6. The grazing and raising of livestock, provided property owner provides the zoning inspector with a there is not more than one head of cattle, horse, valid building permit for the construction of a resi- sheep, goat or other similar animal more than six dence on the same property. The zoning inspector months of age per ten thousand square feet of lot shall notify adjoining property owners within one area; hundred feet of the subject property. If a written pro- 7. The raising of hogs, in accordance with Section test to the issuance of the one hundred eighty day 18.14.020A8 (GR-1 Rural Residential); extension is received within fifteen days of the date 8. Raising of ratites, subject to the following of mailing of notice, the board of adjustment shall restrictions and requirements: hear the case in accordance with Section 18.93.040. a. No more than one ostrich over fourteen months If no written protests are received at the end of fif- of age for each ten thousand square feet of site area, or more than one emu or similar ratite over fourteen (Pima County 7-98) 18-50 18.17.040 f. Retail sales areas, including customer parking e. Maximum number of patient rooms: Seventy- areas and display areas may not exceed one and a five. (Ord. 1998-36 § 7, 1998; Ord. 1997-20 § 5, half acres. 1997; Ord. 1992-23 (part), 1992; Ord. 1986-215 g. Retail sales shall not include power tools and (part), 1986; Ord. 1986-188 § 1 (part), 1986; Ord. equipment, including farm equipment. 1986-125 § 1 (part), 1986; Ord. 1986-66 § 1 (part), h. Access to the site shall only be from a major 1986) street as designated on the Major Streets & Scenic Routes plan. Access from the site to any abutting 18.17.040 Development standards—General. street that is not designated a major street is prohib- A. Minimum site area: One hundred forty-four ited. thousand square feet. i. Landscaping and screening must meet the B. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: One hun- requirements of Chapter 18.73. A bufferyard type dred forty-four thousand square feet. "D" is required. If possible, the bufferyard require- C. Minimum setback requirements: ment shall be satisfied with plants in cultivation(in- 1. Front: Fifty feet; ground)or natural desert. 2. Side: Ten feet each; j. The light source of any outdoor lighting fixture 3. Side, when adjacent to street: Twenty feet; shall not be visible from adjoining residential prop- 4. Rear: Fifty feet. erties. Additionally,all outdoor lighting used in con- D. Maximum building height: Thirty-four feet. junction with the use shall be located and directed so E. Maximum lot coverage by structures: Thirty per- as to eliminate glare towards streets and adjacent cent. properties. F. Minimum distance between main buildings: k.The use of amplifiers or public address systems Twenty feet. (Ord. 1986-66 § 1 (part), 1986) is prohibited. 1. All access lanes and parking areas within the 18.17.050 Development standards—Accessory nursery site shall be of a paved or concrete surface. buildings. m. A development plan is required pursuant to A. Permitted coverage: Ten percent of the total area Chapter 18.71. of the rear and side yards. D. Uses Conditionally Permitted (Type III Proce- B. Maximum height: Twenty-four feet. dure). C. Minimum distance requirements: 1. Museum: 1. To main building: Seven feet; a. In accordance with Section 18.17.030D3 (sub- 2. To front lot line: One hundred feet; sections a,b,d,e and f), 3. To side and rear lot lines if building is not used b. Minimum natural or revegetated buffer set- for poultry or animals: back: One hundred feet from any property line, and a. Not adjacent to street: Ten feet; c. Notification area: Six hundred feet; b. When adjacent to street: Fifty feet. 2. Residential substance abuse diagnostic and 4. To side and rear lot lines if building is used for treatment facility: poultry or animals: One hundred feet. (Ord. 1993-79 a. Minimum site: Ten acres, § 1, 1993;Ord. 1986-66 § 1 (part), 1986) b. Minimum setback: One hundred feet from any property line, 18.17.060 Cluster development option. c. Height: One story or eighteen feet, A. Purpose:The purpose of this option is to provide d. Maximum lot coverage by structures: Fifteen a wider latitude of design, additional usable open percent, space,and more economical use of the land. 18-50.3 (Pima County 7-98) 0v10 -01 -01 F.Ridge Glow NV I • /41 1111 • • .\) Linda Vista Boulevard OroValley Parcels N w - � E 0.1 0 0.2 0.4 Miles 5 e7 •SSESSOR 'S RECORD MAP • P 224-36 L INDA VISTA Ciius T RACTS ?MERLY 3-36 OW VALLE Y HEIGHTS 29/028 Ai, bz9.io� _. _ . .__._.__.... ..._..__._. _,... . . . ... .. .,...., .. .. DESERT SKY ROAD `1 �i 69.10�... �Z9ao' ter. FL__—--— ,,NOW.. 11 8A 8B •, 1 DESERT . 1� NOW i NOW io G,v t 7A l SKY 11 S UNSTONE .�� Gt 1 ESTATES 1 j VILLA .., i ... ....__..__ ... . - .. ... ..... . CLUB 11 AT S 1 BALBOA i" -V/ 6 s,� I 1 L• OTS —26 • 1� 1 TOWNHOMES • 1 _ r m : 7B 5 3 9 . 8C 4 . tiI I •• . 3 j g 88 g 1 2 A 6���a ti iI 139/020 M&i' j1 I • L N . . I Iti� 9 . • . ,.,' . 10. . .' ;I . 1 1 I 1 gD •as..�r 12B 1 • LOTS,1=51 1 -- 0 j 48 f 07i M&P I LOTS 1—2 09 ' 8B 100 • • 38/044 M&F • •/. • •• 3'44:3' ..314.6 ..,-,..i.._134.61:2_2 • _ _ I 620.30'� :. ` I • La+1DA Vls!'A BOULEVARD — — — :.. ' • , I • : • os a7 5• k&P: . • SEE BOOK 0`• 1999-5 ;� •. . . S13,T12S,R13• . , \htP05\05072- • ' . • O. 130 • November 30, 2000 Mr. Bryant Nodine, AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Re: Lot Split for 9799 N. Korte Lane Dear Mr. Nodine; I appreciate the time, energy, and expediency of your last response (on 9/5/00) concerning this issue. I have had another thought on how I can arrive at my needs, but I would not dare proceed without a positive indication that it is within the spirit of Oro Valley's zoning. First, I want to make clear my intentions. I am a software developer and am trying to start my own business. I need money to do that. It is my premise that if I can make my property "splittable", then its value would be raised. Given that, I could then borrow against the increased value and fund my venture. I have no intentions of actually splitting the land and selling it. The taxes of that transaction would seriously interfere with my funding needs. I have talked with my immediate neighbors and believe that, from them, I could buy enough land to make my lot 288,000 square feet. Then I would have a"splittable" lot. My first question is: Is this concept OK with Oro Valley? The next issue is my neighbor(Mr. Jones) at 9777 N. Korte Ln would be party to these transactions. His lot is currently less than 144,000 square feet due to differences in zoning in the past. If he were to sell me a small piece of land his property would still be less than 144,000 square feet. My second question is: Would reducing 9777 N. Korte Ln from less than 144,000 square feet to even less than 144,000 square feet be objectionable to Oro Valley and thus prevent me from this course of action? My third question is: Even if Oro Valley were to OK the first two questions, would it prejudice Mr. Jones' ability to build a new garage on his property (9777 N. Korte Ln) in the future? I understand this is a very busy time of year. I would appreciate as expedient a response as possible as I have some very major plans riding on it. If you have any questions,please call me at 219-4472. Sincerely, . LEY , _ • 0�1?'.. Rid Q 02 0 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 6if . 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4 • Planning and Zoning • Building Safety {` 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-4800•Fax(520)742-1022 • Parks and Recreation —11 . ,° 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5050•Fax(520)742-2202 ,- 4'0UN DED 19i January 9, 2001 Don Scheer 9799 N. Korte Lane Oro Valley AZ 85737 Re: Lot Split for 9799 N. Korte Lane Dear Mr. Scheer: Thank you for your letter dated November 30, 2000 in which you asked three questions regarding a lot split. In response to your first question: "Is this concept OK with Oro Valley?" Yes,the concept is ok with Oro Valley, as long as the neighbors would have legal lot size. In reply to your second question: "Would reducing 9777 N. Korte Lane from less than 144,000 square feet to even less than 144,000 square feet be objectionable to Oro Valley and thus prevent me from this course of action?" Yes,the Town of Oro Valley would be objectionable. The neighbor would not be able to sell any portion of his property since his lot is already non-conforming. In response to your third question: "Even if Oro Valley were to OK the first two questions,would it prejudice Mr.Jones'ability to build a new garage on his property(9777 N. Korte Lane) in the future?" This question is not applicable because the Town is objectionable to Mr. Jones selling a portion of his already non-conforming lot. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me Monday through Friday, 8:00 am until 5:00 pm. Sin /'ely, Z itodine,AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator F:1Admin PZ\Letters\Don Scheer response letter 9799 N Korte Lane.doc OP�LEY qR�� GI 0I- TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT It t‘` • Planning and Zoning • Building Safety 1 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-4800•Fax(520)742-1022 �► +-s • Parks and Recreation A 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5050•Fax(520)797-2202 September 5,2000 Mr.Donald Scheer 9799 N.Korte Lane Oro Valley,Arizona 85737 Re: Lot Split for 9799 N.Korte Lane Dear Mr. Scheer; According to the Pima County Assessor's records, the referenced lot is 269,212 square feet. The minimum lot size required for the R1-144 zoning area, of which this lot is a part, is 144,000 square feet. Thus, any split of the lot would result in at least one of the lots being under the minimum allowable lot size for the zoning. If you do desire to split the lot,you will need to submit a request to amend the Towns General Plan map and Zoning Map. Please contact me or a member of my staff if you have any questions on this matter or the process for amending the above maps. Respec ly, UsLi B dine,AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator F:UNDIVID\BMN\Scheer Kr 9-5-00.doc Widero, Dee From: Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:18 AM To: dwidero@orovalley.net Cc: bnodine@orovalley.net; kcuvelier@orovalley.net; mayor@orovalley.net Subject: February BOA Agenda My understanding is that our next meeting will entirely be devoted to action on adopting rules and procedures discussed at the two preceding study sessions. I'd like to add one item. Sec. 1-704 of the zoning code deals with the composition of the Board of Adjustment. D. of this section deals with Removal, which differs from the conventional belief that members serve"at the pleasure of the Council". Serving at the pleasure of the Council implies that a member can be removed without cause. The zoning code section states three causes for which a member may be removed. If the zoning code were followed, Hayward Thresher would not have been removed as none of the three causes applied, and Henry Suozzi could not have been attempted to be removed for the same reason. Henry hadn't completed a full term, so"removal"would definitely apply. First of all, It seems to me, in view of recent Council appointments, that the zoning code section and "serving at the pleasure" need to be reconciled. Secondly, if the Board of Adjustment were to come to an understanding on the reconciliation of section 1-704 D and "serving at the pleasure", would it matter?Thirdly, the term " removal" could be interpreted as being different from re appointment. This needs to be clarified, and the Government Review Task Force's recommendations should reflect the clarification. Bill Adler z .1?t TOWN OF ORO VALLEY rb ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PETITION a WE THE UNDERSIGNED, PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, STATE OF ARIZONA, LOCATED IN THE LINDA VISTA CITRUS TRACTS SUBDIVISION /0--/Wdli, ZONE WITHIN THREE HUNDRED FEET OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE DO HEREBY PROTEST GRANTING OV10-01-01. THE APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. OUR PROPERTIES ARE IN THE MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE THAN THE PROPOSED CHANGE. NAME POST OFFICE LOT NUMBER DATE SIGNED ADDRESS _� tom/ ! \/ 7 8 9 10 .1?.t A7678 v.4 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 0 ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ?Op PETITION WE THE THE UNDERSIGNED, PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, STATE OF ARIZONA, LOCATED IN THE LINDA VISTA TRACTS SUBDIVISIONS SR ZONE, DO HEREBY PROTEST GRANTING OV10-01-01. THE APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. NAME POST OFFICE LOT NUMBER DATE SIGNED ADDRESS :-_,,- i/t'1 • 4 Qikr TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 17k76, 17.0 ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2 , , oo, PETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED, PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, STATE OF ARIZONA, LOCATED IN THE LINDA VISTA TRACTS SUBDIVISIONS SR ZONE, DO HEREBY PROTEST GRANTING OV10-01-01. THE APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. NAME POST OFFICE LOT NUMBER DATE SIGNED ADDRESS 1 1(elvt-e--- ba-g-6-7 / , S3 e.71-,9q-0 i 7 8 9 10 FROM : CLYDE WANSLEE AUTO SALES PHONE NO. : 520 624 0899 FEB. 26 2001 04:57PM P1 0• lr • , c-a 0c3,\\ k• R dct 6V1O-0Z - cat A,0 s pi"; iS?c,,x-c- 1 (0, t/N c) kce s k;I"‘ -sr• ze1 <S L o � f DARLING GIESTING Pkv .v F �� ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737 FR 2 I) ( QO/ February 26, 2001 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning, Zoning and Building Safety 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 RE: Notice of Public Hearing set for February 27, 2001 @ 3:00 PM In reference to appeal of administrative decision number OV10-01-01. We support Oro Valley Zoning Code revised section 6-202.A and would like the property in question to remain currently zoned R1-144. As area home owners, we would like the current zoning requirements to be strictly enforced. :P / Diana I. Darling, Giesting d U/d11--CA4.--1\ LoTe-t.7 William F. Giesting, Jr. date t or DRAFT MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 27, 2001 SPECIAL SESSION 11,000 N. LA CAN-ADA DRIVE ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA CALL TO ORDER at 4:05 p.m. PRESENT: Henry Suozzi, Chairman Bill Adler, Vice Chairman James Swan, Member Lyra Done, Member Cindy Lewis, Member STAFF: Dan Dudley, Town Attorney Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Debbie Moran, Zoning Tech. Linda Hersha, Secretary II 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE STUDY SESSION HELD ON DECEMBER 19, 2000 AND JANUARY 26, 2001. MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler MOVED to APPROVE the minutes of December 19, 2000 and January 26, 2001, with the corrections noted. Motion SECONDED by Member Lewis. Motion carried, 5-0. 2. CONSIDERATION AND/OR POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF RULES & PROCEDURES BASED ON 12-19-00 AND 1-26-01 MEETINGS. The following is a draft summary of the recommended rules and procedure for the Board of Adjustment: (as discussed at the Board of Adjustment meeting of February 27, 2001) "Summary of Recommended Rules and Procedures for the Board of Adjustment" 1. Staff Duties: Clerk's Office • Make room arrangements, mail materials, take minutes and schedule meetings 2/27/01 Minutes,Board of Adjustment 2 Special Session le Planning and Zoning Staff • Serves as primary contact for agenda issues, develops agenda and any revisions with direction of the chair • Notify all surrounding property owners • Coordinate all necessary reports/materials/exhibits for the Board consideration • Invite all necessary staff to Board meetings • Notify the Board by the 10th of each month if a meeting will or will not be held and Board members to notify staff of inability to attend a meeting • All materials and agenda shall be distributed to the Board by staff at least one (1) week prior to the meeting date 2. Board Duties: • As outlined in Article 1-7 of the Zoning Code as specified in the Board of Adjustment manual. (See attached) 3. The Applicant: • The applicant shall submit all materials with an application 15 days prior to the meeting date • The burden of proof is on the applicant and he/she should address the 5 Criteria in writing on the application • The applicant should submit in writing the fact that they are requesting a variance for more the one (1) issue, if applicable 4. Board Meetings: • The Board should stay focused and only discuss agenda issues and not discuss issues directly with the applicant, especially during a site visit (Except for questions of fact) • All questions and comments during the meeting shall go through the Chair • During the meeting the applicant should have the first "shot" at presenting their case prior to the staff report • Staff should identify each individual variance and all the issues involved • It was agreed that the Board could give the applicant some direction and may state their reason(s) why they voted aye or nay 5. Selection and Composition of the Board of Adjustment: • The Board shall be in accordance to the outline specified in Section 5, pages 11 and 12 of the Board of Adjustment Handbook "Desirable Attributes of Board Member."(See attached) 2/27/0l Minutes,Board of Adjustment 3 Special Session • An "objective" evaluation process of a board members performance would be desirable and perhaps serve as a guideline for the Town Council and the Government Review Task Force • The process to replace or re-appoint Board members shall begin by May 1 St for new terms that commence on July 1 St 6. Conflict of Interest: • Issues should be declared up-front so that the Board member can be fair, objective, and impartial and should not be personally involved 7. Relationship with other Boards/Commission/Council: • It was agreed that the Board of Adjustment minutes or excerpts regarding concerned issues shall be distributed in a timely fashion 8. Other: • It was suggested that a more "personal" notification letter be mailed to encourage public response and that the radius should be increased to at least 600 or 1000 feet Member Lewis agreed that the radius for notification should be increased. She also suggested that the time of the meetings be discussed; and develop a procedure that identifies each issue pertaining to the variance when the application is submitted. She stated that she would prefer that the petitioner address the issues and not be the responsibility of staff. Member Done re-iterated that under the category "Procedures and Conduct", the fact that a member is allowed to discuss "questions of facts" when reviewing the site should be included. Member Adler gave some additional suggestions pertaining to the development of the agenda and various other topics: • A member of the Board should be allowed to request an item be added to the agenda • If a member has requested an item to be included on the agenda, he/she should be informed if the item has been omitted from the agenda before it is finalized • Review how exhibits should be handled when submitted at the time of the meeting • The Board should review the possibility of whether or not staff members from various departments should be available to answer questions regarding a case • Review the level of importance of the 5 Criteria to make a final determination as a group, because the Code does not stipulate that a finding has to be met • There should be further discussion regarding the swearing in of the applicant In conclusion, Vice Chairman Adler stated that the request that the notification to the homeowner's be changed from the 300 feet radius to 1000 feet was an ordinance issue. 2/27/0] Minutes, Board of Adjustment 4 Special Session He emphasized the fact that the Board may not be permitted to establish a rule that differed from the ordinance. Member Done expressed that the Board should take a serious concern regarding a "conflict of interest"to determine what would be considered a conflict. Mr. Dudley explained that the member should definitely follow the normal conflict rules and excuse him or herself from the meeting. He stated that a member should not declare a conflict by merely stating "I'm going to abstain". He further explained that the Board could choose to adopt ethical consideration as well as legal consideration, but, be aware of the results once the ethical guidelines are created. He said that once the guidelines are produced, the strictness could cause unintended consequences. Vice Chairman Adler stated that the Board would probably be unable to agree on how to define an ethical determination in relation to anything. He said that the Board should not be influence by perception. "The Board member has to decide for himself whether they have a legitimate role to play in their view, or whether or not they can be objective in their determination of the evidence. Therefore, the Board will have to trust one another to make the best judgement". Member Swan stated that the decision should be the individual to determine whether the case would be a"conflict of interest" and act accordingly. Chairman Suozzi explained that there had not been a consensus regarding the oath. He referenced the typical "Oath of Witness" for swearing in of the citizens intending to testify at a hearing. The typical or standard legal oath reads as follows: "Do you swear or affirm to speak (or tell) the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Although there may be other oaths that are given, this oath is typical for depositions and trials in Arizona. The Board agreed that this item should be included in the final draft of the Board of Adjustment Procedures. Member Done felt that it was important that each witness or applicant be sworn in individually. Chairman Suozzi and Member Lewis agreed. Vice Chairman Adler disagreed and stated that legally the oath had no impact on the applicant. He said that the only reason any person would be sworn in would be to charge the person with perjury; therefore, he considered the oath a meaningless act because it did not obligate someone to tell the truth. He said the oath should be eliminated. Mr. Dudley explained that it was not a requirement to swear in a witness or applicant under the State Statues or under the Town Ordinance. He recommends that the Board swear in witnesses because the court is more comfortable with the procedure when reviewing the evidence. He added that he did not know of any cities or town that did not use the method during a case hearing. 2/27/0l Minutes,Board of Adjustment 5 Special Session Vice Chairman Adler stated that he would be willing to withdraw the issue regarding the oath, but wanted to register his opposition. He stated that if the courts were convinced that the oath was important, the statute would be changed and would make the oath a requirement. MOTION: Member Done MOVED to INCLUDE the "Oath of Witness" as a part of the procedure when conducting a Board of Adjustment hearing. Motion SECONDED by Member Lewis. ROLL CALL VOTE Chairman Suozzi —aye Vice Chairman Adler—nay Member Done—aye Member Lewis—aye Member Swan—aye Motion carried, 4-1, with Vice Chairman Adler opposed. 3. CONSIDERATION AND/OR POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING CHANGING THE TIME OF REGULAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETINGS MOTION: Member Done MOVED that the Board of Adjustment meeting continue to be held at 3:00 p.m. Motion SECONDED by Member Swan. Discussion: Member Done stated that the reason she felt that the schedule should be remain at the current time was because no matter what time the meetings are held, the only time it will become issue is when it affects an individual on a personal level. Member Swan called for the question. Motion carried 3-2, Chairman Suozzi and Vice Chairman Adler opposed. Chairman Suozzi opened the floor for discussion regarding the possibility of increasing the notification radius from 300 square feet to 600 or 1000 square feet. Vice Chairman Adler explained that the issue regarding the notification has been placed on the Planning and Zoning Commission work plan. He felt strongly that the notification radius of 300 feet or even the 600 feet radius was to small of an area when major projects are under construction. He considered the issue to be a Commission agenda item because it would require a revision to the ordinance. He stated that the Board could make a recommendation to have the revision made. Chairman Suozzi asked if any of the other Boards used the 300 feet radius. 2/27/0l Minutes,Board of Adjustment 6 Special Session Ms. Widero replied, "No, some of them go up to 600 feet. I would like to add that the 300 feet or 600 feet does not only go from the center of property, but from the perimeter of the property." She explained that there would have to be an ordinance change in order to change the radius which has to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Nodine suggested that staff could provide the additional mailing labels beyond the 300 feet minimum required by the code, but he would prefer to see that the burden be placed upon the applicant. Mr. Dudley explained that occasionally the Town has gone beyond the minimum requirements and inadvertently omitted a citizen of notification in the area. He explained that those citizens believe that they are an aggrieved party and believe since they were not notified, they could challenge that fact in the Superior Court, which is fairly strict in their interpretation. He explained that by increasing the radius, it would open the door for more opportunity for error. Member Done expressed that she did not want to see the Town become liable and involved in a possible lawsuit that would potentially fall apart in court. Mr. Nodine explained that typically for rezoning, a 600 feet radius is used because it would be considered a major change in land use that could affect a broad area. He explained that there were several things that would need to be considered when reviewing appropriate notification. He said that a lot of the decision would be base upon common sense. MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler MOVED that the Board of Adjustment recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission review the Ordinance as it relates to notification parameters and with the help of Staff, review expanding the notification radius appropriately. Motion SECONDED by Member Done. Member Done called for the question. Motion carried, 5-0. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Lewis MOVED to ADJOURN the meeting at 5:10 p.m. Motion SECONDED by Member Done. Motion carried, 5-0. Resp tfully submitte , L.- i da Hersha, Secretary II • How and when staff reports get • Our booklet, Public Meetings. to the commission and the public. • At least one copy of the Zoning Board Manual by Fred Bair • How minutes are kept and should be available. where they are stored. • A copy of the booklet, You as a • Regular reports to the council Public Official, or some other or board of supervisors. primer on the laws regarding • Relations and coordination conflicts of interest and open among boards (in the case of meetings. counties with more than one • Copies of any administrative board of adjustment.4) procedures and policies, This is not an exhaustive list, but it gives application forms, handouts, you the idea. A thorough treatment of this and anything else that the public is in Fred Bair's Zoning Board Manual. must contend with when Sample rules are in the ARIZONA transacting zoning adjustment PLANNING AND ZONING HANDBOOK, and enforcement business. and we have some in our files. Desirable Attributes of Board Members Tools of the Trade See also "The Role of and Qualifications Here are some references that every board for the Board of Adjustment" in the member should have and be familiar with: appendices. • A copy of the A.R.S. planning • An interest in zoning and and zoning enabling legislation planning and a willingness to for municipalities or counties, as learn about them. appropriate. • Time enough to learn about the • An up-to-date copy of your business of the board and to community's general plan or prepare for meetings and your county's comprehensive hearings. plan and all adopted specific • An open, impartial, and orderly plans. If there is no adopted mind. plan, copies of any interim • Hone ' and fairness. policies, goals, and objectives dealing with planning, zoning, • The ability to envision and land-use, and development. consider the long-term effects • A copy of your zoning of a decision and to put them ordinance. ahead of any short-term changes. • The board's rules of procedure. • The ability to put the public • This booklet. good above the welfare of individual applicants when 4This is as good a place as any to making your decisions. recommend that counties have a single board. The potential problems and • The ability to be articulate at unfairness from discrepancies in public meetings and hearings. interpretations, attitudes toward variances, etc. in counties with three or five boards is • A commitment to enforce the mind-boggling. zoning laws as they are, and not Arizona Department of Commerce * Community Planning Program--11 . 1 let your disagreement with parts those are likely to apply to a board of of them sway your decisions. adjustment: • A commitment to work for the 1. To get legal advice from your improvement of the zoning municipal or county attorney. ordinance. This does not mean the routine advice that you may get at regular hearings. There must be THE BOARD MEMBER AS A an exchange of confidential PUBLIC OFFICIAL information. You, as a board member, are a public 2. To discuss pending or official in the eyes of Arizona law. As threatened lawsuits with the such, you have to know about and obey board's attorney. certain laws that apply to all public officers There must be at least twenty-four hour's and officials. The two most important of �- these are the Conflict of Interest Law and notice for an open meeting. There must be the Open Meeting Law. We will describe an agenda descriptive enough to allow a them briefly here to give you an idea of reasonable person to decide to attend or not. Basic minutes must be taken and their importance. A more comprehensive made available to the public within three source of information that you should all have is the pamphlet, You as a Public working days of the meeting. Official published by the League of Anyone who violates the law can be fined Arizona Cities and Towns. You can get it up to five hundred dollars. This must be from the League or from us. It contains paid by the individual and the public agency clear, concise coverage of open meetings may not pay it. A willful, intentional and conflicts of interest, along with three violator may be forced personally to pay other groups of laws that aren't as court costs and the plaintiffs attorney's important to you. fees. Open Meeting Law Conflicts of Interest The thrust of this law is THE PUBLIC'S This law specifies nine remote interests BUSINESS MUST BE CONDUCTED IN which cannot create conflicts. Substantial PUBLIC. The Arizona open meeting law interests, which can create a conflict, are is a strict one and it has within it a defined as any interest which is not one of provision that all doubtful situations must the nine remote interests. The law covers be resolved in favor of openness. If there is only the financial or economic interests of any doubt whether or not a meeting must you and specified relatives. The Local be open to the public, it must be open. All Government Handbook published by the of your hearings must, of course be open to Attorney General says that: "a conflict of the public, and at no time may a quorum of interest occurs whenever a public officer or the board discuss official business or employee has the opportunity to perform pending cases (other than at authorized some act or participate in making a executive sessions) except at a public decision in his official capacity that might meeting. Even meetings of fewer than a affect an economic interest of either himself quorum can be violations if there is an or his close relatives." Relatives, as defined intent to subvert the law. in the law are: spouse; spouse's parents, There are seven reasons that can justify brother, sister, or child; children and grandchildren; parents and grandparents; closed, executive sessions. Only two of Arizona Department of Commerce * Community Planning Program-12 I ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE 1-7. BOARD OF ADIUSTMENT Sec. 1-701 Scope The Board of Adjustment shall hear and decide requests for variances and appeals of interpretations of this Code in accordance with A.R.S., Section 9-462.06. Sec. 1-702 Powers and Duties A. Interpretation The Board of Adjustment shall interpret this Code on appeal when: 1. There is a dispute between the appellant and the Planning and Zoning Director or other Town Official as to a decision or interpretation as set forth in Sec. 1-706; or 2. The location of a zoning district is in doubt. B. Variances The Board of Adjustment may allow variances from the provisions of this Code in accordance with Sec. 1-709, Findings. Sec. 1-703 Meetings, Administration of Oaths and Compelling Attendance of Witnesses All meetings of the Board shall be held at the call of the Chairman and at such other times as the Board may determine. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public. The Chairman, or in his absence, the acting Chairman, may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses in accordance with the laws of the State of Arizona. Sec. 1-704 Composition A. Appointment: The Board of Adjustment shall be composed of five members appointed by the Town Council. E. Zerms: Appointments are for staggered terms of two years each with no limit on the number of terms. C. Vacancies: Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired portion of that term within a reasonable time period as provided for by appointments of the Town Council. 4 Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised 1 - 1 1 (Rev.W94) ADMINISTRATION D. Removal: The Town Council has the authority to remove, by majority vote, any member for neglect of duty, inefficiency or misconduct in office. Sec. 1-705 Transaction of Business A. The Board of Adjustment shall conduct its business in accordance with the Arizona Revised Statutes and applicable Town regulations and any rules and procedures as adopted by the Town Council. E. The Town Clerk, or an appointed representative from the Town Clerk's office, shall serve as the Executive Secretary of the Board of Adjustment and the minutes and records of all board proceedings will be kept and filed as public record in the files of the Town Clerk. Sec. 1-706 Appeals from Administrative Decisions Appeals may be taken to the Board of Adjustment by persons aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the municipality affected by a decision of an administrative official, within 30 days, by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken, and with the Board of Adjustment, a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The officer from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit all papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. Said appeal shall be filed on a form provided by the Town Clerk. A. An appeal shall stay all proceedings in the matter appealed from unless the officer from whom the appeal is taken certifies to the Board that, by reason of the fact stated in the certificate, the stay would, in his opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property. In such case, proceedings shall not be stayed, except by restraining order granted by the Board or by a court of record on application and notice to the officer from whom the appeal is taken. The Board shall fix a reasonable time for hearing the appeal and give notice thereof to the parties in interest and the public. E. The concurring vote of a majority of the Board shall be necessary to reverse any order or decision of an administrative official, or to pass or to affect any variations from the terms and conditions of this ordinance. Sec. 1-707 Application for Variances Application for a variance of zoning regulations shall be made to the Board of Adjustment in the form of a written application. Said application shall be filed with the Town Clerk upon forms provided by the Board of Adjustment and shall be accompanied by: Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised 1 - 12 (am.W94) • • • ADMINISTRATION A. Plans and description sufficient to indicate the nature of the project involved and the proposed use with ground plans and elevations of all proposed buildings. B. Evidence satisfactory to the Board of Adjustment of the ability and intention of the applicant to proceed with actual construction work in accordance with said plans within 6 months after issuance of the variance. C. A filing fee according to the fee schedule adopted by the Town Council. The owner of a nonconforming sign shall not be required to pay a filing fee when applying for a variance from the ordinance that renders the sign nonconforming. D. From the time of filing the application until the time of such hearing, the application and all maps, plans and other accompanying data shall be available for public inspection during office hours at the office of the Town Clerk. Sec. 1_708 Hearing and Notice Upon receipt in proper form of any such application, the Board of Adjustment shall proceed to hold a public hearing upon said application not more than 30 days, nor less than 15 days, after such filing, at which time all persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard. Such Board of Adjustment shall cause one notice of such hearing to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the l own of Oro Valley and one noticei to be posted on the subject property, giving at least 15 days notice of said hearing, and the time and place where said hearing will be held. Said notice, both as published and posted, shall also show the nature of the variance or exception requested and state that anyone wanting to protest may appear in person or by writing. All property owners within 300 feet must be notified. Sec. 1_709 Findings A variance from the provisions of this Code shall not be authorized unless the Board shall find upon sufficient evidence: A. 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; and B. That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant; and C. That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised 1 — 13 (Rev.8/94) • ADMINISTRATION D. 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; and L. 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. Sec. 1-710 Action The Board shall prescribe, in connection with any variance, such conditions as the Board may deem necessary in order to fully carry out the provisions and intent of this Code. Such conditions may include, among other things, a limitation of the time for which such variance shall be valid. Violation of any such condition shall be a violation of this ordinance and such violation shall render the variance null and void. Sec. 1-711 Review Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Board after hearing on application made by any taxpayer or municipal officer, may petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Board's decision pursuant to ARS Section 9-465 (1956) as amended. Rev. (0)92-1,January 15, 1992 Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised 1 - 14 (Rev.1119+) AGENDA ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 27,2001 Oro Valley Town Hall Council Chambers 11,000 N.La Canada Drive REGULAR SESSION: 3:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL MINUTES Minutes from January 23,2001 not available at this time for approval. AT THE CALL OF THE CHAIR,THE AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN IN ANY ORDER,AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE. EACH PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS AFTERNOON'S AGENDA WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER: STAFF REPORT PETITIONER/APPLICANT PRESENTATION PUBLIC INPUT PETITIONER/APPLICANT RESPONSE AND SUMMATION PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Ov-10-o1-01 DON SCHEER, 9799 N. KORTE LANE, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737. HAS MADE REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION REGARDING HIS REQUEST TO SPLIT PARCEL 6 OF LINDA VISTA CITRUS TRACTS AT 9799 N. KORTE LANE. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE ADJOURNMENT SPECIAL SESSION: IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER 1.MINUTES Approval of minutes from the Study Session held on December 19,2001 and January 26,2001. 2. Consideration and/or possible action regarding the Recommendations of Rules & Procedures based on 12-19-01 & 1-26-01 meetings. 3. Consideration and/or possible action regarding changing the time of regular Board of Adjustment Meetings. ADJOURNMENT A packet of agenda materials,as listed above,is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the BOA meeting in the Town Hall Administration Building,during regular business hours. The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA).If a disabled person planning to attend this meeting requires any special accommodations,please notify the Town Clerk at 229-4742. NOTICE TO SPEAKERS Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted public hearing; however,those items not listed as a public hearing are for consideration and action by the Board during the course of its business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. If you wish to address the Board on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete a speaker card located on the Agenda table at the back of the room and give it to the Clerk of the Board. Please indicate on the speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on. Please step forward to the podium when the Chair announces the item(s)on the agenda,which you are interested in addressing. Posted: LH Date:02/23/2001 Time:5:05 p.m. r DRAFT MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 27,2001 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA CALL TO ORDER at 3:02p.m. PRESENT: Henry Suozzi, Chairman Bill Adler, Vice Chairman James Swan, Member Lyra Done, Member Cindy Lewis, Member STAFF: Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Debbie Moran, Zoning Tech. Linda Hersha, Secretary II 1. PUBLIC HEARING—OV-10-01-01 DON SCHEER, 9799 NORTH KORTE LANE, ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737 HAS MADE A REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION REGARDING HIS REQUEST TO SPLIT PARCEL 6 OF LINDA VISTA CITRUS TRACTS LOCATED AT 9799 NORTH KORTE LANE. Don Scheer, the applicant, explained that he was interested in starting a company that would be located at 9799 North Korte Lane. He explained that he would like to raise the money by raising the value of the property and then borrowing against the increased value. Mr. Scheer submitted the following letter to the Board of Adjustment regarding his case: February 3, 2001 Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment: I need your help. I am a software developer. I came to Tucson a couple of years ago to help establish a local software company. It is doing great, but I could have benefited better. So now I want to establish my own company. To do that I need money. 2/27/01 Minutes 2 Board of Adjustment I would like to raise the money by raising the value of my property at 9799 North Korte Lane, and then borrowing against that increased value. This method is the most efficient as far as taxes and ownership questions. My property value would rise in value if it was "splitable', i.e. the land "could"be split and that the Town of Oro Valley would allow a house to be built on the new lot. I will reiterate, I have no intent on actually splitting the land and selling a new lot. I have tried several ways to get permission from Oro Valley. First, I asked to be able to "split"based upon the fact that Lot 7 had been split into thirds and 1/3 had already been split from Lot 6 (mine). All I was asking was the ability to split the remaining 2/3. The answer was no. Second, I asked could I add land to my lot to raise it to 288,000 square feet, and then would it be "splitable". The answer was yes. Third, I asked if I could buy some land from Lot 8B. The answer was no. The reason this is important is because if I have to buy land to add to mine, Lot 8B is the only one with enough to buy. Another way to acquire land is to have the City abandon the end of Korte Lane adjacent to my property. This is reasonable because a) most of Korte Lane adjacent to my property is in total disrepair B) it would preclude Korte Lane from be joined with Atua Lane, which would be detrimental to this neighborhood and c) the owner of Lot 7A is in agreement. However, even if this were to happen, it would not make up the total amount of land needed. So I figured with some combination of a part of Korte Lane being abandoned and/or buying the rest needed from my neighbor at Lot 8B, I could accomplish my purpose. However I do not grasp the logic of blocking me from buying land from Lot 8B. Lot 8B is not in conformance today. By selling me a small part from it, it would continue to be in non-conformance, yet would be unaffected by the transaction. The owner of Lot 8B is willing to sell me whatever amounts I ultimately need. Without the money I could raise, I will have to get a job within my profession and expertise. They do not exist in Tucson, and so I would have to move. This, in and of itself, is a net zero to Oro Valley. I'm sure the next owner would be of similar financial situation and contribute roughly equally to the area. The negative would be to the stability of the neighborhood. You would have to agree (and my neighbor certainly does), that in general you would prefer fewer turnovers within your city. However, there are positives to be received by Oro Valley if I can proceed. Minimally, my property value (and Taxes) would go up. More importantly, as a software developer, I am an ideal citizen, low impact and high income. Further, as my enterprise grows, it will mean more of these kinds of jobs. 2/27/01 Minutes 3 Board of Adjustment In general, I agree with Oro Valley's attempt to restrain reckless growth. However, in this case, I believe there is room for consideration. "Potentially splitting"the remaining 2/3 of Lot 6 is not inconsistent with what has already occurred with both Lot 6 and Lot 7. To help with your decision I would like to raise some possibilities. I would be willing to pay for any abandoned part of Korte Lane. I would be willing to sign an agreement that I would not split the land for x years. I am willing to consider other restrictions. I hope you look positively upon my requests and allow my family and me the stability to pursue my dreams. Sincerely, Don Scheer 9799 N. Korte Ln. Oro Valley, AZ 85737 219-4472 Vice Chairman Adler expressed that he did not see a need to overturn the decisions currently made by the Development Review Board (DRB) and that it was not necessary to give an explanation as to why the Board would not overturn the decision made by DRB. He stated that there were other alternatives to the process that could be explored. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector reviewed the staff report. She explained that Don Scheer was requesting an Appeal of Administrative Decision regarding the split of Parcel 6 of Linda Vista Citrus Tracts. Parcel 6 had previously been split from its whole state into a 1/3 portion of 3.1 acres (8B on the Assessor's map) and a 2/3 portion on 6.1 acres(8A). She explained the Don Scheer, the owner of 8A would like to split his portion as is, or add a small portion of 8B to 8A and then split 8A. Ms. Widero reported that Mr. Scheer's request to split 8A was denied by the Town's Planning and Zoning Administrator, Bryant Nodine. She explained the Mr. Nodine determined that neither option proposed by Mr. Scheer met the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Sec. 6-203.A. She further explained that the subject property is currently zoned R1-144, requiring a minimum lot area of 144,000 square feet or 3.3 acres. Parcel 8A portion is only 6.1 acres (269,212 sq. ft.) and to split this portion would leave one or both portions under minimum lot size for the current zone. The second option, to add a portion of 8B to 8A, thus allowing a split of 8A in conformance with the Code, was denied on the basis that the remainder of Parcel 8B would then be further out of conformance with the Zoning Code. Ms. Widero reported that all property owners within 300 feet of the property had been notified by mail of the hearing and that the property is posted with a Notice of Hearing. The hearing was also advertised in the Daily Territorial Newspaper. She said that at the time of the report preparation, staff has had only one call opposing the possible split of 2/27/01 Minutes 4 Board of Adjustment the property. Staff has not received any other public comment supporting for or in opposition of the request. The following facts exist: • Minimum lot size is 3.3 acres for R1-144, Lot 7 parcels labeled 9B, 9C, 9D and Lot 6 parcel labeled 8B are all 3.1 acres, and are non-conforming. The remaining parcels within this subdivision are all greater than 3.3 acres. Member Swan expressed his concern with the property becoming more non-conforming to the Zoning Code. He felt that by granting the variance, regardless of what the size of the property, it would be contradictory to the Code creating a paradox. He felt that by granting the variance, it would also set a precedent and encourage other homeowners in the area to split their property. Vice Chairman Adler stated that the applicant could take a different approach. He suggested that the applicant proceed through the Town and submit a rezoning application for the area. He felt that maintaining the integrity of the Zoning Code was more important than a citizen's ability to raise funds for a new business venture. Chairman Suozzi opened the public hearing. The following citizens opposed the splitting of Parcel 6 of Linda Vista Citrus Tracts: • Bill Hawley, 360 West Linda Vista • Gerald W. Korte, 460 West Linda Vista • Michael Redhair, 9812 North Canyon Shadow Place • Bob Gendreau, 485 West Atur Place • William Crawford, 500 West Linda Vista Chairman Suozzi closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Adler stated that any homeowner had the right to request to have their property rezoned, but in this case, until the rezoning issue was addressed, the present zoning rules and regulation should be maintained. MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler MOVED to DENY Case No. OV10-01-01 finding that in Sec. 6-203 Property Development Standard of the Zoning Code should be maintained and non-conforming users need to become conformed when there is a change. (See attachment) Motion SECONDED by Member Swan. ROLL CALL VOTE Chairman Suozzi —aye Vice Chairman Adler—aye Member Done—aye 2/27/01 Minutes 5 Board of Adjustment Member Lewis—aye Member Swan—aye The motion carried to DENY the variance for Case No.OV10-01-01, 5-0. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Swan moved to ADJOURN the meeting at 4:00 p.m. Motion SECONDED by Member Lewis. Respectfully submitted /014/4- inda Hersha, Secretary II Sec. 6-201 R1-144 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS ARTICLE 6-2. R1-144 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 6-201 Purpose This district is intended to promote and preserve suburban-rural single-family residential development. The large lot size permits agricultural uses and promotes open space. Sec. 6-202 Use Regulations A. Permitted Uses 1. The provisions of Sec. 6-102 shall apply. 2. In addition to the uses permitted in Sec. 6-102, the following are permitted uses in the R1- 144 district: a. Farms (see Definition no. 101) b. Marketing of products raised on the premises. A stand of not more than 200 square feet in area shall be permitted provided said stand is no closer than 10 feet to any street line and no closer than 20 feet to any other lot line. B. Conditional Uses 1. Analogous uses per Sec. 5-201. 2. Cemetery, including funeral chapel. Sec. 6-203 Property Development Standards The provisions of Sec. 6-103 shall apply. The following additional requirements shall apply in this district. A. Minimum Lot Area- 144,000 square feet B. Minimum Lot Width - 150 feet C. Density 1. There shall be a minimum of 144,000 square feet of lot area for each single-family dwelling. 2. Should more than 1 single-family dwelling be erected upon any 1 lot, the following provisions shall apply: a. An unobstructed access way for ingress/egress shall be provided for each dwelling. b. Location. 6 - 4 Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (Rev. 9/99) ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 29, 1976 - 7:30 P.M. - CANYON DEL ORO HIGH SCHOOL LIBRARY 41144 MINUTES Lois Lamberson, Mayor, called meeting to order. Councilmembers Lamberson, Carey, Engle, Hanes and Rhude present. Approval of minutes was postponed to the August 10th meeting. The P.S.T. Rezoning case was brought up for a decision. Lauren Rhude moved the Council continue the decision on this matter until the August 10th meeting at the Board of Adjustment Hearing at 7:30. Eldon Hanes seconded. Carried 5-0. Lois opened the Lawyers Title Valle del Oro Rezoning hearing. Steve Engle with- drew from the hearing due to a conflict of interest. Dorothy Montgomery read the staff report. Copy attached, also copy of Pages 3 & 4 of her transmittal to the Town Council dated July 1, 1976 is attached. (TRANSCRIPTION OF TAPE AND THE TAPE ON THIS HEARING & MEETING ON FILE IN TOWN OFFICE). Speaking in favor of the rezoning: Dennis Wall, 2075 N. 6th, representing the applicant was the first speaker. He said they concurred with the staff report. They realize there will be many problems in building the subdivision. Have done soil tests again (were critized at the P & Z nearing for doing soil tests) , this time had Bureau of Mines people with them. Will submit the soil test for review after this evening. Have laid out about 45 units on the 60 acre parcel (average lot 1-1/3 acre) . The roads would be left as they are, with probably 3 roads taken out, which would leave it that 15 lots must pay i'or the development of the whole property which means that the property must be valued at a very high price for 4 acre lots because they would have to absorb the differences by 3 times the developers costs. The P & Z. Commission recommended a denial on the rezoning which makes it very risky for the developer to risk expending large funds.when the marketability would be very limited with SR zoning. Oro Valley has a concern also. The town gets money to main- tain roads, utilities, etc. thru property tax and if its cut down to 15 units, there would be no tax. And with the P & Z Commission in process of redoing the area plan adiacent from CR-1 to SR, it is likely to take a long time before things develop. The 13 standard and special requirements are acceptable. (See copy of tape for answers to some of them) . Paul Cella, of Cella, Barr & Evans - P & Z Commission had a report from Az. Bureau of Mines. Is first time we have seen a report on subdivisions from them. We asked the Engineering Testing Lab to do an additional report which is expensive and substantially more than we normally do on any rezoning case. They state there is no problem on placing house foundations on the property, and that a bare minimun of two horizontal to one vertical slopes mill be safe from failure. Percolation tests are acceptable to Casty Health & Sanitation Depts. - No problem using septic tanks and leaching fields. In answer to Lois L. 's question - percolation tests have been made but not as yet submitted to Sanitation Dept. Once lots are drawn on a map and turned in in final form, all that would be taken care of. Took sufficient sample tests to be assured no problem of percolation. Also have report from Engineers Testing Lab and their word is accepted by Sanitation Dept. Also have an aerial photo (shown to Council) . There's a market for the 45 lots and owner intends to pursue the project, do the improvements according to Town's standards and has hopes of building. Mr. Timan - we expect to do the development ourselves. I have never seen a SR zoned development ever to be successful. Dennis Wall - In answer to Mr. Rhude's question, yes, utilities would be underground. As long as you subdivide you've got to pave, which is very expensive. If the goal is to stop development, SR zoning is the way to do it. 4.• Paul Cella - in answer to Mr. Rhude's question,"Why are Bureau of Mines & Engineering Testing Lab diametrically opposed and they are both experts in their field?", The Bureau • • July 29, 1976 - O.V. Town Council Meeting -2- III II* of Mines are geologists and probably have not been involved inthe development of land for other than mines. Mr. Rhude, why then would a geologist make recommendations that shouldn't be used for housing when that isn't his particular field? Dorothy Montgomery - He was working under a Federal grant looking for geological hazards in this area at the time. Dennis Wall - He's catagorizing soil vipes in the whole northwest Pima County. He's doing a massive soils classification and mapping program and will admit readily he does not know soils engineering for construction purposes. SPEAKING AGAINST THE REZONING: Bruce Cheever, 450 Valle del Oro -- His concern is about the access road to Oracle Rd. Henry Perlmutter, 460 Valle del Oro -- He's also concerned about the access road and about any new construction of 45 new dwellings on this terrain, especially the soil being washed down due to heavy rains. Dennis Wall - in answer to Al Carey's question re the access road, if a final plat is accepted and we don' t have that road, you have the authority to stop us right there. Paul Cella - answering Lois Lamberson's question about the two soil reports, what responsibility do you take to make sure that everything that must be done to make a house secure on any one of these lots is done? There are 3 different problems in the soils area. No. 1 is septic tanks. We have to get permits from the sanitation and health departments, etc. No. 2, then we have road cuts and fills and possible erosion problems. Your town standards are comparable to Pima County's. Your Town Engineer would review the plans and they will have to be built to these standards. No. 3, how does the house get built? You follow the uniform building code and we would abide by that. Dennis Wall - in answer to Lois Lamberson's question as to who will be the builder. The program will not be a lot sales program. He may sell. of 5 lots to a builder but not to an individual, and if he doesn' t build them himself, another builder will build them, not an individual. Mr. Timan - If someone wants to buy a lot, itt will be sold for building purposes only. Paul Cella - answering Lois Lamberson's & Mr. Rhude's questions regarding recording a covenant that would hold the town harmless in event of flooding. If someone on one piece of property does some earth work or something to his property that damages his neighbor, he's responsible. If we, as engineers, do some drainage work on a channel and because of our drainage work or design, someone is flooded, we are responsible. Bruce Cheever - You don' t care what is going to happen to us. What you say might work out the way the Bureau of Mines geologist says. Why should we take the chance. Lois Lamberson - We have several possibilities, approval of straight CR-1; approval with the Planning & Zoning conditions; approval with ameide: :2nditions; denial; continue the hearing; close the hearing; continue the decision. Lauren Rhude moved that we close the hearing. Al Carey seconded. Carried 5-0. Mr. Rhude - and I would like to make another motion, perhaps for the benefit of all concerned, that we continue a decision until a later meeting of the Council so we can review some material that has been presented. r • .. �� • `. `. ` '� � _ �R C. i • + .ice= � .A ' `' t J , + • e • . • TOWN OF ORO VALLEY - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING & TOWN COUNCIL MEETING yA1, • Canyon del Oro High School Library - 7:30 P.M. - August 10, 1976 Lois Lamberson, Mayor, called P.S.T. CORP. PUBLIC HEARING to order at 7:40 P.M. • Council en present were Lois Lamberson, Alan Carey, Steve Engle and Lauren Rhude. Eldon H;roes absent. HERRING ON O.V.10-76-2 P.S.T. CORP. , 500 Linda Vista Blvd. : Dorothy Montgomery gave the Staff Report (copy attached) . (Tape or this Hearing in Oro Valley Town Office files -also rough transcription of it) . Sp. aking in favor of the rezoning were Mr. Richard Dowdall, Appellant, and Mrs. Helen T orell, 820 W. Golf View Drive, Pres. of P.S.T. Corp. Spt.aking in opposition of the rezoning were Mr. Anthony Van Marle, 9380 N. Calle El Mila ro, and Mr. Gerald Korte, 460 W. Linda Vista. Stcve Engle MOVED that the Public Hearing be closed. Lauren Rhude seconded. Passed 4-0. Al four of the Council members expressed their opinions regarding the zoning • case any there was some discussion regarding the granting of a building permit and whether that would be considered starting construction. Lau' cn Rhode MOVEr that the Board of Adjustment grant a variance in the case of O.V.10- (.-2, 500 W. Linda Vista Blvd. , as requested,with the following conritions, as listed •' .7 the Zoning Administrator: Recording a Covenant that any lot splitting be subject to subdivision pIJL review procedures in Ar IcIc 25 of the Town Zoning Ordinance and as it may be amended. 2. Granting of building permits for the dwelling units within 6 months of the variance. 3. Recording a covenant to remove only that vegetation that is necessary for building pads and the necessary roads and driveways. Alan Carey seconded the Motion. Lois asked the question - Is there a time limit on building permits? Dorothy Montgomery answered - You have to show evidence of construction every 6 months. Lois L. - All those in favor of the motion - Motion carried 4-0. Steve Engle MOVED that the Board of Adjustment be adjourned. L. Rhude seconded. Carried 4-0. Lois Lamberson called the meeting of the Town Council of Oro Valley to order. 4 Councilmembers present. Eldon Hanes excused. Lauren Rhude - I would like to make a MOTION that the Town Council refund the variance filing fee for the second time to the petitioners. It was collected in 1975 and very little additional work has had to be done. I believe it was approximately $105.00. They should' t pay the fee. Steve Engle seconded the motion. D. Montgomery - Section 1802 of the Town Zoning Ordinance says that the filing fee for appeal to the Board of Adjustment shall not be refundable. Following a discussion in which an attempt was made to find a way to refund the filing fee, Mr. Dowdall stated "I don't think these people should withdraw their zoning request until such time as the time of an appeal is run on your action on the variance. You've had some discussion about an appeal from that standpoint and I have already expressed my opinion of that. Lois L. - In that case, would the Council like to vote on the zoning case pending? Lauren Rhude - I'll withdraw my motion on the refund if the second is withdrawn. Mr. Engle - I withdraw my second. 1111 • C. 4 • August 10, 1976 - Board of Adjustment meeting - Page Two Lois Lamberson - Now would you consider voting on the zoning case, because we postponed action from the June meeting to the July 29th meeting, then we postponed action until after the Bd. of Adjustment Hearing. This is after the Bd. of Adj. Hearing. That is unless they wish to withdraw their application. Mr. Dowdall - Once again, Madam Chairman, I would prefer that you put that off until after the appeal time had run on the action taken on the variance. Lois L. - We postponed action to specific dates. Dorothy Montgomery - Appeal time is 30 days. Steve Engle MOVED that the action on the CR-1 zoning be deferred until the September meeting. Lauren Rhude seconded. Vote was 3-0, Lois Lamberson opposed. She said she feels that action should have been taken immediately. Alan Carey MOVED that the meeting be adjourned. L. Rhude seconded. Approved 4-0. Elsie Robinson, Secretary I :SSESSOR 'S RECORD M AP 224-36 L INDA VISTA CITRUS T RACTS ?MERLY 3-36 CRCVALLEY HEIGHtS 29/026 Af&P - __ DESBR? SKY ROAD 629.w. 1 6 10•. _.. -- •...--•b29.t0' - r r —...' 1----- y -ca• t ,.NOW... 1 1 8A BB 1 DESERT . II O• 1- , S UNSTONE 1 i VILLA $ n � ' • �?q� Ai• ..... . .. . - .. ... ...,_ . ! i CLUB II ESTATES 1 . BALBOA 6�.61a jr I TOWNHOMES sJ 1 LOTS 1-26 ,` g. 5 0.__. 4 . �I i 3 11 2 , 1 8B r �a� .; 1 • L loS2§ �} p.ti1f a 314.63• �4,6sR �' �"" t -;t - • a `, .11;7 ® OA IP b . . . 1 1 • 1 us tin. o 3s. 22B j , LOTS,1-51 1 I SA • 1 46/071 M&P LOTS 1—2 49 9B V�J i�' • . ' •• ' 1 1 I 38�044 M&r 1 IS w-423'..:.•.:-.:*4 .•..MA*..t.,..I......iii•61:Lt-1.[........-:......1..., .......:12.........:.I j...:._........_...629.341.—....-..,......,L.- •• ,;,..,„6•••,,;,„ •j , W DD MA BOULEVARD • - - -- - - ' . . 'A 1•' ' , ' ' • • LINDA'.'V!' TA'.Ct•TguS4 'RACTS *ND. 2 ... . ' • '06/075• 1k&P: • SEE i ' ' ��, 1999_BOtlIC 0` ' •• ,N•. ,• .. • •. S13,T12S,R13, �' .._. • S .. . . . . ' I AMP05\Mon- • • . • •ti 1' •,� • • , , , ...... • ____ aiginagummusniumminins .. .. . .. ......_...w._w_ .....„;,,..„...... .....„,,.. . ::„..,.,........... . . . . . •• • • a .r"+ I hereby ' arnrE!OP AAIZON. �� certify that the ,a ,In No, 4&;.3 , I: . 1 Coil' OI .�► , instrument was Iliad for role., ?/ l/. j1„ 'Witness M he •:.011 It�11 P{{Mp —.ter:l Hook L1,. oi i y '�;'' � elate oi-Aiitbrn � � �._'_' } e •Rear!.KENNED'�� halo:_ j;���� • fndelted ;� ouniy Recorder • Requeld of: • ". i LAWYERS TITLE OF ARIZONA •�• • asw Deputy Fee: - V rJ '. • • . . .WHEN RECORDED DED I ' MAIL TO: ! Peet( „• • • . , Pot t!ie considerallon of Ten Dollars and other valuable consideralfone.I for wet . ` l; i i,� ti • HOLLY S. LACUOWIC7.in her solo and aeptarht4 t•1.flit , ' 11 ,!, •. • ,•. r i do'ereby CONVEY unto t • 1 '' BLULA HAILER COLE, a widow , the followin1l described mat property situated k. PIMA .. ••,, '' • :,County.Ad>one . Lot 6 of L'INI.)A V7STA CITRUS TRACTS. a iubdiv aion of••Plan County,':Airnna;; 41 .•+• •• . AAccording .to the map or plat thereof of recc;d in the office of the'`County, f • Escorder of Piaui County. Arizona, in Book 5 of Mope and Plata at jin a 72 • thereof. . . . !; {. • i. -.1' • • . • • 3�r i , V. .: ! . • t 5UA 1ECT TO: Current taxes and assessments and to all easements, izeetrictifins ` •' '' It . ' • And encumbrances. Reservations in the State and Fedi:�e11 Patents. 1.,'•i w-. ,.• ,., and other mattero or record in the cffice of the County Reorder t'' ' ' :i: . ,•. • of Plata County, Arizona. • iZ ' ,-..-;.. ., .: . • • ..i: .ii ; ii. i 1 t: . : : ; i : • t' t1. ,l4% s.. ' (5.,,,,lhil,�i • M • , . . • . ; , Id iA, A i. :t,.. Dated this 140 day of (i!'MA RR 0a R1 • • 'J. t• ,,‘ItIpUNllgh " i i. + il4 ....?„.--. : • • ,,...,,,'''''''' .......e.,,... : 1;.',..'SII, H Nt. %), 1. Clatt 3 li.i ....'.. r.. .Y�/... j • . 1, DIIT . ' fy;- ' . i, �.'ri Trap inetrunfinl wes acknowlodgsd:liefore me this `.�O ' jay of i!L•' �.;••.J e•j k/ ,1p gg,,,�„_ • • •1,•• •1 i 1 . Y'. by HOLLY fi1__LACHOWICZ. in her scat: .` . . 1 • Notary NM mi ozur fskrrl FaPImi Austen 19,19as ,,1;„.. • My commission e11Flr• • ",f ':r '= ••1, • •'• i:i . '. • ... ..r :•� 183;_009-CJ/Y. - ?.�5 `�1 • .ii. .•.•• ..1�'"...... •it.. il.:........ •i..' it: .....:,.1.•_......t ,L.: .. .. .... " .�...;:;... �. a.�:.Y� • 2001 Pima County Assessor Property Inquiry Search 2002 2000 1999 i ntial Card Summary Forms Tax Ge 122436008 , PARCEL Appraiser RENE WILLIAMS Book-Map-Parcel:224-36-008A TaxArea: 1019 TaxYear: 2001 TaxPayer Information Recording Information SCHEER DONALD G&NIEJADLIK GRAZYNA G Docket 11034 Page 3466 Date 19990427 JT/RS 9799 N KORTE LANE Zoning Information ORV TUCSON AZ Miscellaneous 85737 0000 Section 13 Twn12.0S Rng13.0E Map&Plat 5/72 LandMeasure 6.18 A Legal Description MarketArea: CASAS ADOBES(11) LINDA VISTA CITRUS TRACTS LOT 6 EXC S 1/3 THEREOF_ Tract BlockO Lot 0006 GroupCode 000 CensusTract 4607 UseCode 0141 File-Id 1 Date of Last Change Sep-20-1999 (FORMERLY 203-36-0080) Property Address 9799 N KORTE LN(OV) SFR GRADE 010-4 URBAN SUBDIVIDED Secondary Valuation Data LegislativeClass FullCash Percentage Assessed Land RES OWNER OCC(5 0) $154,500 10.0 $15,450 Improvements RES OWNER OCC(5 0) $145,352 10.0 $14,535 2000 Personal Property Gross Value Totals $299,852 $29,985 2000 LMTD/SCND Exemptions Net Value Totals $299,852 $29,985 PriorLimitedValue: $300,894 CurrentLimitedValue: $299,852 Recordings 7184^463()11034^3466(JOINT TENANCY DEED) Affidavit of FeeNumber SaleDate PropertyType Sale$ Cash$ Validation Financing Sale 801143 04 1999 Single Family $330,000 $90,000 X JAC Conventional Loan IntendedUSE:Owner Occupied DEED:Joint Tenancy Deed(X=Good Sale) Supervisor District( 1 )MIKE BOYD GIS Measures Area Perimeter X Y 267238 2110 989888 504642 GIS Zoning ZoneAuthority Zoning Percentage Approx.SqFt Oro Valley R1-144 99.983% 267366.700 Oro Valley R1-36 .017% 45.469 2001 Supplemental Valuations have been Mailed. Pima County Assessor---115 N.Church - Tucson Az. 85701 Client:— 159.233.220.40 Ittp://asrpub2/apiq/asrsgl01.cfin?RequestTimeout=120 2/26/01 -----' F. ANN RODRIGUEZ, RECORDER - DOCKET: 11034 RECORDED BY: LMD ° � PAGE: 3466 DEPUTY RECORDER ' ;' ;•`OQ NO. OF PAGES: 2 1963 R009 ti ‘!'t: 'leg SEQUENCE: 19990801143 TFNTI i",$ /y 04/27/1999 /M SCHEER 1 011 JTDEED 17:30 19199 N KORTE LANE✓..T AFFIDAVIT TUCSON AZ 85737 MAIL AMOUNT PAID $ 12.00 Tucson, AZ 85737 Iscrow No. 30006281-AK JOINT TENANCY DEED For the consideration of Ten and 00/100 Dollars, and other valuable consideration, I or we, Edward A. Jones, A Married Man as Sole and Separate Property do hereby convey to Donald G. Scheer and Grazyna G. Niejadlik, Husband and Wife not as tenants in common and not as community property estate, but as joint tenants with right of survivorship the following described real property situated in Pima County, Arizona: Lot 6, LINDA VISTA CITRUS TRACTS, according to the plat of record in Book 5 of Maps and Plats, page 72, records of Pima County, Arizona. EXCEPT the South third thereof. SUBJECT TO: Current taxes, assessments, reservations in patents and all easements, rights of way, encumbrances, liens covenants, conditions and restrictions as may appear of record. And I or we do warrant the title against all persons whomsoever, subject to the matters above set forth. The grantees by signing the acceptance below evidence their intention to acquire said premises as joint tenants with the right of survivorship, and not as community property or as tenants in common. DATED: April 23, 1999 Accepted and approved: GRANTEES GRANTORS /- _( )7,,-c-12/7-41-X-c i..e.-7 a, ,,_),„„,,,,, (:-.)(,),,--E,,_ Donald G. Scheer war - A. Jones _ VAX, V -Ju azyna n3 L A F. FNTA(Rev 6/96) JOINT TENANCY DEED 7 2001 Pima County Assessor Property Inquiry Search 2002 2000 1999 Residential Card Summary Forms Tax Ge 22436008 r PARCEL Appraiser RENE WILLIAMS Book-Map-Parcel:224-36-008B TaxArea: 1019 TaxYear:2001 TaxPayer Information Recording Information JONES EDWARD A&JANET M TR Docket 8464 Page 1342 Date 19890130 9777 N KORTE LN TUCSON AZ Zoning Information ORV Miscellaneous 85737 0000 Section 13 Twn 12.0S Rng13.0E Map&Plat 5/72 LandMeasure 3.11 A Legal Description MarketArea: CASAS ADOBES(11) LINDA VISTA CITRUS TRACTS SI/3 OF LOT 6 Tract BlockO Lot 0006 GroupCode 000 (11146/1226) CensusTract 4607 UseCode 0141 File-Id 1 Date of Last Change Jan-27-2000 Property Address 9777 N KORTE LN(OV) SFR GRADE 010-4 URBAN SUBDIVIDED Secondary Valuation Data LegislativeClass FullCash Percentage Assessed Land RES OWNER OCC(5 0) $77,750 10.0 $7,775 Improvements RES OWNER OCC(5 0) $167,055 10.0 $16,706 2000 Personal Property Gross Value Totals $244,805 $24,481 2000 LMTD/SCND Exemptions Net Value Totals $244,805 $24,481 PriorLimitedValue: $245,961 CurrentLimitedValue: $244,805 Affidavit of FeeNumber SaleDate PropertyType Sale$ Cash$ Validation Financing Sale 11301 11 1988 Vacant Land $35,000 $0 R16 ZZZ UnKnown DEED:Joint Tenancy Deed(R16=) Supervisor District( 1 )MIKE BOYD GIS Measures Area Perimeter X Y 134332 1690 989891 504325 GIS Zoning ZoneAuthority Zoning Percentage Approx.SqFt Oro Valley R1-144 100.000% 134332.200 2001 Supplemental Valuations have been Mailed. Pima County Assessor—115 N.Church- Tucson Az. 85701 Client:— 159.233.220.40 tp://asrpub2/apiq/asrsg101.cfm?TAXCODE=22436008B&RequestTimeout=120 2/26/01 • • • • • ogLaci &COLA/ P/ j �� • AIR SOCRECDRDERR PIMA COUNTY AR I ZONA CERTIFICATE OF RECORDING 01/30/89 13139:00 NO. OF PAGES: 002 SEQUENCE: 89011301 DOCKET: 08464 PAGE: 1341 - RECORDING TYPE: DEED a GRANTOR: COLE BEULA KAHLER* + GRANTEE: JONES EDWARD A + ark 2 PAGES AT * 5.00 CONVERSION FEE 3.00 1 AFFIDAVIT AT 2.00 EACH 2.00 - 1. W 0 COPIES AT 1.00 EACH .00 , ,.. EDWARD & JANET JONES 1 POSTAGE AT 1.00 EACH i.00 0 SEARCHES AT 10,00 EACH .00 - 7621 W AVOCADO ST 1 • TUCSON AZ 85704 '�- ' TOTAL 11.00 -•$ RAD AMOUNT PAID * /1.00 DEPUTY RECORDER 2002 REC4 AMOUNT DUE $ .00 • THE ABOVE SPIN FOR RECORDERS USE MIX • 3'O BE RECOREED AS PARS OF DOC ?N1 ,•. 8464 1341. • co • • • Nar =ACM CERTIFICA= FROM DOa 'NP l I e —. ' - • STATE OF ARIZONA }u I hereby certify that the within instrument was filed and retarded County of Fee No. In DOCKET page and indexed at the request of , Witness my hand and celcial seal. Compared When recorded, mail to: plwtostated County Recorder. Fee: • By Deputy Recorder 1Deett (JOINT TENANCY) For the consideration of Ten Dollars anti other valuable consideration, I, e3?--we-- BEULA KAHLER COLE, a widow, who is one and the same person as BEULAH . KAHLER COLE, dc, hereby CONVEY unto EDWARD A. JONES and JANET M. JONES, husband and wife, as joint tenants with right of survivorship, the following described property situate in Pimaco':nty, Arizona: The South One-third (1/3) of Lot 6 of Linda Vista Citrus Tracts, a subdivision of Pima County, Arizona, according to the map or plat thereof of record in the office of the County Recorder of Pima County, Arizona, in Book 5 of Maps and Plats at page 72 thereof. Subject to current taxes and assessments, and to all easements, restrictions, \ • reservations, encumbrances and other matters affecting said property, of record in the office of the County Recorder of P imaCounty, Arizona. Dated this!/ day o£1er�s 19 88 n (} �. 01A. 1 iieu1a Kahle e The undersigned grantees accept delivery r: this deed and the property conveyed - thereby as joint tenants with right of survivorshi?, not as tenants in common and not as community property. �r . . )C f c w rd A. Jones . ` Jap�l!eet M. Jones STATE OF ARIZONA ) STATE OF ARIZONA ) • S3. ) SS. • it COUNTY OF PIMA ) COUNTY OF PIMA ) This instrument as acknawjedgeu before This Instrument —Is acknowledged before me on;Ve9 la= ..d 19 88, me on , 39 8., by BEULA ':APLER COLE, a widow, by EDWARD A. JONES and JANET M. • who is one and the same persr,n as JOKES, husband crud wife, ..... Beulah Kahler Cole . t A. �\1tt re,• . ; e "1 4-, ' ,rieet I... o7',4q•• . NOT AR Pvy A: NOTARY PUBLIC -.( ' Mir satt>tiasicin expires: r 9 _ sty c.rraissicn expires:___ - VAUC• Q - re • f ,, .,t./.. .k. 'L.1 I • 8464 =�,;r .• Y.;•`'•' ig PIIMON►L MU lNSURANOB 1342 PNTI(,..) D/JT-31(8-:5) A1O10 am.""' I• .. F. ANN RODRIGUEZ, RECORDER - DOCKET: 10963 RECORDED BY: DJC ;PI PAGE: 2285 DEPUTY RECORDER r''_A, NO. OF PAGES: 2 4444 ROOA 4 s* � I SEQUENCE: 19990091133 REZMS ��� _ ':b 01/14/1999 EZ ELLIOTT \114zot/ DDISTR 17:30 PICKUP PICKUP AMOUNT PAID $ 9.00 LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. ELLIOTT 3125 E. 2nd Street Tucson, Arizona 85716 (602) 292-2905 Pima County Computer No. 16512 Arizona State Bar No. 003937 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA In the Matter of the Estate of ) No. P-29020 BEULAH KAHLER COLE, ) DEED OF DISTRIBUTION `n Deceased. ) } er The undersigned personal representative, in order to make distribution of the property of this estate in compliance with Fel • Title 14, Arizona Revised Statutes, hereby assigns, transfers and a releases to EDWARD A. JONES, a married man, in his sole and o separate right, a distributee of the estate, whose address is 9777 H EN. Korte Lane, Tucson, AZ 85737, all right, title and interest of • the decedent in and to the following described property pursuant to • ARTICLE THIRD the Last Will and Testament of Beulah Kahler Cole, • dated March 20, 1997: =s LOT 6 of LINDA VISTA CITRUS TRACTS, a subdivision of w Pima County, Arizona, according to the map or plat thereof of record in the office of the County Recorder of Pima County, Arizona, in Book 5 of Maps and Plats at page 72 thereof; EXCEPT the South Third thereof. Dated this 1 i t1i. day of , 1999. ESTATE OF BEULAH KAHLER COLE, DECEASED BY d A. Y g olesapple, s 1 Rep. 1- J STATE OF ARIZONA ) ss. COUNTY OF PIMA ) f This instrument was acknowledged before me this /cc day of .!.-A,_ - , 1999, by A. Y. HOLESAPPLE , Personal Re•/sentati/ ' of the Estate of Beulah Kahler Cole, Deceased. 66 ,eci,, _,, „....,......_ Notary Publi ��a4ir� OFFICIAL SEAL It' ''.- EIEEEN R. YEUN �'�x � Id4T�lRY PUBLIC-AR Qotu M y. .r '''�'S►�� ' PIMA COUNTY +�r��~. Cook. Expkip i 14 40 r° `r i J C:\COLE\PROBATE\DEED-OF.DIS s= 1 ,-. 11034 DOCKET 3466 �,. ANN RODAIGUEZ, RECORDER o���0 PAGE: 2 RECORDED BY: I�ID 1 Od NO. OF PAGES DEPUTY RECORDER ( 1J4 SEQUENCE. 19990$01143 r- 1963 R009 �1'',.��' 04/27/1999 �,\� �_V /1 :99 TFNTI 9ZnZ014�• JTDEED 0 AFFIDAVIT M/M SCBLER AFFIDAVIT 9799 N RORTE LANE L TUCSON AZ 85137 12.00 __ p,NIOU}T PAID $ --Tucso'n, AZ 85737 scrow No. -AK JOINT TENANCY DEED 00/100 Dollars, and other valuable consideration, I or we, For the consideration of Ten and erty Edward A. Jones, A Married Man as Sole and Separate Pro P do hereby convey to Donald G. Scheer and Grazyna G. Nieladlik, Husband and Wife with right of survivorship ity property estate, but as joint tenants Arizona: page 72, not as tenants in common and not s situatedrin Pima County, record in Book 5 of Maps and Plats, p 9 the 6, LINDA VISTA real Sproperty to the plat of Lot 6, LINDA VISTA CITRUS TRACTS, according records of Pima County, Arizona. EXCEPT the South third thereof. in SUBJECT TO: reservations patents and all easements, rights of way' Current taxes, assessments, estrictionsas may appear of record. encumbrances, liens covenants, conditions and r And I or we do warrant the title against all persons whomsoever, subject to the matters above set forth. their intention to acquire said premises as joint tenants grantees by signing the acceptance below evldenceo The and not as community property or as tenants in common• with the right of survivorship, DATED: April 23, 1999 Accepted and approved: GRANTORS G RANTEES , -�' a— war A. Jones I r Donald G. Scheer - - azyna . Nie lik JOINT TENANCY DEED FNTA+Rev 61961 i STATE OF ARIZONA COUNTY OF Pima This instrument was acknowledged before me this 217 day of April , 1999 by_ Edward A. Jones 0 Signature Notary ublic ��,.#;,�, OFFICIAL SEAL �4,!!! ANNA M.KANE y*; NOTARY PUBLIC-ARIZONA My Commission expires: / `"/f C �.`�';�#'�' PIMA COUNTY �+Jiiir my comm. •kts Dec-1 B,2000 STATE OF ARIZONA COUNTY OF Pima This instrument was acknowledged before me this 6--fsV day of April , 1999 by Donald Q. Scheer and Grazyna G. Niejaklik 0?Signature (61- ( Notary P is / / �L� OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: /O y,` yt ANNA M.KANE • t .i NOTARY PUBLIC-ARC ONA e PtMA COUNTY Fr M CWRttn. • I i _a a =a FNTA (Rev 6/96) JOINT TENANCY DEED F. ANN RODRIGUEZ, RECORDER DOCKET: 11146 RECORDED BY: CML °,'P � PAGE: 1226 DEPUTY RECORDER �' \Q} NO. OF PAGES: 2 1951 ROOD ,,\may'fit y; SEQUENCE: 19991920527 REZMS `\:�� 10/05/1999 EZ MESSENGER ATTORNEY SERVICE ��1ZO1/ WTDEED 15:48 EZ-ELLIOTT PICKUP AMOUNT PAID $ 9.00 When recorded, mail to: Edward & Janet Jones 9777 N. Korte Lane Tucson, AZ 85737 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED For the consideration of Ten Dollars, and other valuable considerations, EDWARD A. JONES and JANET M. JONES, husband and wife, in community property with right of survivorship, the Grantors herein do hereby convey to EDWARD A. JONES and MADIA JANET JONES, as trustees of the Edward A. Jones and Madia Janet Jones Joint Trust Dated August 17, 1999 as community property, the Grantees, the following real property situated in the County of Pima, State of Arizona: ( _h) The South One-Third (1/3) of Lot 6, of Linda Vista Citrus Tracts, Pima County Arizona, according to the plat of record in the office of the Pima County Recorder in Book 5 of Maps and Plats at page 72 thereof. SUBJECT TO: Current taxes and other assessments, reservations in patents and all easements, rights of way, encumbrances, liens, covenants, conditions, restrictions, obligations, and liabilities as may appear of record. And the Grantors hereby bind themselves and successors to warrant and defend the title, as against all acts of the Grantors herein and no other, subject to the matters above set forth. i Dated this !/ day of 427r , 1999. 6A4t•tw.,.// C;c2c4-nAr...i ward A. Jones, Grantor I � ce24,1Z,Jt M. Jones Grantor D i STATE OF ARIZONA ) SS. COUNTY OF PIMA the undersigned before me, to me mown to •s day of - ' 1999, A. JONES, N this — personally appeared, executed the foregoing Notary public, p and who be the individual described in instrument•! e- i ,i„lo:h,. , -,0. ,1FFtCtAt.SJit_ l� � � k n r PUBLIC-ARIZONA . F� t'IItiA COUNTY Notary Public is„��+' My Comm.Expires Min--• h2 �, STATE OF ARIZONA )) SS. COUNTY OF PIMA before me, the undersigned O 2tighl-A-' , 1999, JONES, to unknownto4. Nn this _1 i day ofappeared JANET M. oing Notary Public, personally ed in and who executed the foreg be the individual described s�A� instrument. OFFICIAL b�!► JEANNEfTE E.SCHEOPNE 0-vd/e )". ►�;i� NOTARY PUBLIC-AiIfLONA "� ' ' COUNTY r• PIMA i�� �-- jiv Crmm Frrirrc March 2.2001 Notary Pub tn_.. - f 2001 Pima County Assessor Property Inquiry Search 2002 2000 1999 Residential Card Summary Forms Tax Ge 22436009 PARCEL I Appraiser RENE WILLIAMS Book-Map-Parcel:224-36-009D TaxArea: 1019 TaxYear:2001 TaxPayer Information Recording Information CRAWFORD WILLIAM H&BEVERLY J TR Docket 8303 Page 1600 Date 19880608 500 W LINDA VISTA BLVD TUCSON AZ Zoning Information ORV Miscellaneous 85737 0000 Section 13 Twn 12.0S Rng 13.0E Map&Plat 5/72 LandMeasure 3.09 A Legal Description MarketArea: CASAS ADOBES(11) LINDA VISTA CITRUS TRACTS WLY PTN LOT 7 Tract Block()Lot 0007 GroupCode (9718/574) CensusTract 4607 UseCode 0131 File-Id 1 Date of Last Change Mar-09-1994 Property Address 500W LINDA VISTA BL(OV) SFR GRADE 010-3 URBAN SUBDIVIDED Secondary Valuation Data LegislativeClass FullCash Percentage Assessed Land RES OWNER OCC(5 0) $77,250 10.0 $7,725 Improvements RES OWNER OCC(5 0) $76,245 10.0 $7,625 2000 Personal Property Gross Value Totals $153,495 $15,350 2000 LMTD/SCND Exemptions Net Value Totals $153,495 $15,350 PriorLimitedValue:$153,965 CurrentLimitedValue: $153,495 Supervisor District( 1 )MIKE BOYD GIS Measures Area Perimeter X Y 128727 1544 989693 503910 GIS Zoning ZoneAuthority Zoning Percentage Approx.SqFt Oro Valley R1-144 100.000% 128726.700 2001 Supplemental Valuations have been Mailed. Pima County Assessor- 115 N.Church—Tucson Az.85701 Client:— 159.233.220.40 http://asrpub2/apiq/asrsq101.cfm?TAXCODE=22436009D&RequestTimeout=120 2/26/01 0 .w, ▪v.�:,,s >?y. r�,, �� ``;‘• Fq ez�P=,,••v`�`1•, ?.V ;:t's,? -•,--...--'.,.-7--,:: `'i`^ 4' .. 'r - t . • I herebycertifythat thewithin instrument was No_ # STATE OF • ) }Ss- filed for record ire County. COUNTY OF } Book_ Page State of Witness my hand :nd Official Seal. Date: Indexed Paged Blotted — Request of: --j=- County Recorder z By _ Fee . Deputy - William H. & Beverly J. Crawford, 500 W. Linda Vista, Oro Valley, E.ren recorded. mail to- Az. 85737 QUITCLAIM DEED - KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: •.• That i(we), PST Company, an Arizona Corporation - the undersigned,for the corr.-Aeration of Ten Dollars,and other valuable consideratigjis do by release,remise, William H. & Beverly J. Cr awf ot 3-TWKs i and forever quitclaim unto all right, title and interest in that certain property o e situated in P'm a County, d Arizona State of That part of Lot 7 Citrus Tracts, , and described as follows_ Pieta County, Arizona. Beginning at the Southwest corner of said of , thence Easterly along the South line of said Lot 7 a distance of 1 7 04.a,3 feet to a point. `thence North 33 degrees 12'-20" East a distance of 383.769 feet to a point. Thence North 33 degrees 04'-30" West a distance of 383 .637 feet to a point on the North line of said Lot 7. Thence Tdeste_ll along the North line of said Lot 7 a distance of 105.286 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 7. Thence Southerly along- the West line of said Lot 7 a distance of 64_ .90 feet to the points of beginning. Subject to: • 1 . Easement to Tucson Electric Company recorded November 13, 1973 in docket book 4640 at Page 567 for right of way over South 10 feet of caption. 2. 24 foot easement around perimeter �L � 7 / • - Dated: April 20, 1988 •1./G '' ' Wil 'am H. ; rawforoR P sident Beverly J. rawfor , Sec'y-treas. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I STATE OF Arizona ) COUNTY OF Pieta ) — ::T- On this, 2 0 t h day of Apr i 1 , '9 88 ,before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared W i l l i a m H. & Beverly J. Crawford . ti - to me known to be the ndividuals(s)described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he.(she)(they)executed the same as his(her)(their)free act and deed_ :.+: : -. - ttri v�i.l.gzsti%- Expires Jane.25„it ' J / f /' i Y.' i I , l�x— l�lljr-C:ornrftissiori expires: 1.� ti1 blic � � Not � _ 12 '1386.Airgla Pubilcar-uis of America-Inc—PC.Ear 28-J26—T.,.scrs.Az 857 FORM t 8301 1600 5 2001 Pima County Assessor Property Inquiry Search 2002 000 1999 Residential EA Summary Forms Tax Ge PARCEL J4369 <. Appraiser RENE WILLIAMS Book-Map-Parcel:224-36-009B TaxArea: 1019 TaxYear:2001 TaxPayer Information Recording Information SEAMAN VIRGINIA Docket 8294 Page 35 Date 19880525 480 W LINDA VISTA BLVD TUCSON AZ Zoning Information ORV Miscellaneous 85737 0000 Section 13 Twn12.0S Rng13.0E Map&Plat 5/72 LandMeasure 3.11 A Legal Description MarketArea: CASAS ADOBES(11) LINDA VISTA CITRUS TRACTS SELY PTN LOT 7 PTN Tract Block()Lot 0007 GroupCode CensusTract 4607 UseCode 0131 File-Id 1 Date of Last Change Jul-27-1993 Property Address 480 W LINDA VISTA BL(OV) SFR GRADE 010-3 URBAN SUBDIVIDED Secondary Valuation Data LegislativeClass FullCash Percentage Assessed Land RES OWNER OCC(5 0) $77,750 10.0 $7,775 Improvements RES OWNER OCC(5 0) $78,534 10.0 $7,853 2000 Personal Property Gross Value Totals $156,284 $15,628 2000 LMTD/SCND Exemptions Net Value Totals $156,284 $15,628 PriorLimitedValue: $156,758 CurrentLimitedValue: $156,284 Supervisor District( 1 )MIKE BOYD GIS Measures Area Perimeter X Y 114854 1435 990003 503751 GIS Zoning ZoneAuthority Zoning Percentage Approx.SqFt Oro Valley- R1-144 100.000% 114854.500 2001 Supplemental Valuations have been Mailed. Pima County Assessor- 115 N.Church—Tucson Az. 85701 Client:—159.233.220.40 http://asrpub2/apiq/asrsgl0 l.cfm?TAXCODE=22436009B&RequestTimeout=120 2/26/01 . tea« .^.r�,::5:.-+- 5. mo {fie: r1." '••:.=7:,-i- -,P ::s'. e:,,s,l t- ,v_ .vv:. : ,: :.gs71 t' rYi rgs 's:.,sy:•,. i zt -+. J STATE OF ) I hereby certify that the within instrument was No. COUNTY OF SS . tiled for record in ---_._ County. Book., Pare Witness my hand and Official Seat. State of Date_ indexed Paged Blotted — — County Recorder — _ Request of: > : . Fee BY —-- ) Deputy W!'en recorded. matt to: Virginia Seaman 480 W. Linda Vista Oro Valley, Az. 85737' • II QUITCLAIM DEED a.. • KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That 1(we), PST Company, an Arizona Corporation the undersigned,for the consideration of Ten 7cliars,and other valuable considerations,do hereby release,remise, and forever quitclaim unto Virginia Seaman t > Pima all right title and interest in that certain property situated in P County, _ t State of Arizona , and descrbed as follows_That part of Lot 7 Linda Vista Citrus tracts, Pima County,, Arizona. Beginning at the SW corner of said Lot 7. • TYIence .Easterly along the south side of said Lot 7 at a distance of 104.473' to the true point of beginning thence N 33 degree 12'20" East a distance of 383.769 feet to a point. Thence Easterly along :a line parallel with the south line of said Lot 7 a distance of 314.625 feet to a point on the east line of said Lot 7- Thence Southerly along the east line of said Lot 7 to the southeast corner of i said Lot 7. Thence Westerly along the south line of said Lot 7 a distance of 524.827 feet to the line point of beginning. Ei Subject to: a 24foot easement around perimeter of Lot 7 f Dated: April 20, 1988 FCi A`OR, W Liam � C ,w ord, President i ve Irly J r t Secretary- Treas. ` '), ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF Ari znni ) t )ss- COUN;Y OF pima ----1 On this 2 0 t h day of April , 19 88 , before me, the undersigned Notary ,Public personally appeared William H. & Beverly J. Crawford , tp• me kt;(n to . andacknowledged the individuals(s)described in and who exe-ttted the foregoing instrument C. Ghat he(she}.(they)executed the same as :;is(her)(their) free it_t and deed. . . Cor,�rT: �Y S ti:m ,ng Expires lime 2th S s✓.� ,,..?Zile.ri • Public �' / 41-11 M :err ats,,iiptta Put at+cr>s of If, —PO Etc. —T�:. n-AZ 85726 FORM>;o 8 2 9 4 3 7f LIS7111 111 F Y L ' 2001 Pima County Assessor Property Inquiry Search 2002 2000 1999 Residential Card Summary Forms Tax e 122436009 *. PARCEL Appraiser RENE WILLIAMS Book-Map-Parcel: 224-36-009C TaxArea: 1019 TaxYear: 2001 TaxPayer Information Recording Information GIESTING WILLIAM F&DIANA DARLING JT/RS Docket 9007 Page 127 Date 19910401 490 W LINDA VISTA BLVD JOINT TENANCY DEED TUCSON AZ Zoning Information ORV Miscellaneous 85737 0000 Section 13 Twn 12.0S Rng 13.0E Map&Plat 5/72 LandMeasure 3.11 A Legal Description MarketArea:CASAS ADOBES(11) LINDA VISTA CITRUS TRACTS NLY PTN LOT 7 Tract Block()Lot 0007 GroupCode CensusTract 4607 UseCode 0131 File-Id 1 Date of Last Change Jul-27-1993 (FORMERLY 203-36-0090) Property Address 490 W LINDA VISTA BL(OV) SFR GRADE 010-3 URBAN SUBDIVIDED Secondary Valuation Data LegislativeClass FullCash Percentage Assessed Land RES OWNER OCC(5 0) $77,750 10.0 $7,775 Improvements RES OWNER OCC(5 0) $91,400 10.0 $9,140 2000 Personal Property Gross Value Totals $169,150 $16,915 2000 LMTD/SCND Exemptions Net Value Totals $169,150 $16,915 PriorLimitedValue: $169,658 CurrentLimitedValue: $169,150 Affidavit of FeeNumber SaleDate PropertyType Sale$ Cash$ Validation Financing Sale 35116 03 1991 Single Family $155,000 $10,000 X LCB New Loan from Seller DEED:Joint Tenancy Deed(X=Good Sale) Supervisor District( 1 )MIKE BOYD GIS Measures Area Perimeter X Y 134163 1542 989993 504074 GIS Zoning ZoneAuthority Zoning Percentage Approx.SqFt Oro Valley RI-144 100.000% 134162.800 2001 Supplemental Valuations have been Mailed. Pima County Assessor 115 N.Church—Tucson Az.85701 Client: —159.233.220.40 http://asrpub2/apiq/asrsg101.cfm?TAXCODE=22436009C&RequestTimeout=120 2/26/01 DOCKET: 9007 RECORDED BY: RAB r PAGE: 127 DEPUTY RECORDER (110! r NO. OF PAGES: 2 2002 F D 1 b SEQUENCE: 91035116 TTISE +z:�•�� 04" !/91 WILLIAM F GIESTING JTDEEO 08:00:00 DIANA DARLING GIESTING • 490 W LINDA VISTA MAIL TUCSON AZ 85737 TOTAL It 1 1.00 452796 MC/� 03-91-253 224-36-009C3 Joint Tenancy Deed For the consideration of Ten D ol!ars,and other valuable considerations,I or we, WILLIAM B. CRAWFQRD and BEVERL.Y J. CRAWFCND, HUSBAND AND WIFE does hereby convey to WILLIAM F. GIESTING and DIANA DARLING GM:STING, HUSBAND AND WIFE not es tenants in common and not as community property estate,but as joint tenants with right of survivorship,the following described property situated in the County of PIMA ,State of Arizona. 41 See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof SUBJECT TO:Current taws and other aasesamenta,reservations in patents and all eesenoents.rigbts away, encumbrances,liens,co nvenants,condi obilgatlons,and liabilities as may appear of record,tie Grantor warrants the title against an persons whomsoever. The Grantees by signing the acceptance below evidence their intention to acquire said premiweu ss joint tenants with the right of survivorship,snd not as community property nor as tenants In corimon Dated this 25 day of March ,19 91 Accepted and approved: iiiate.,7 I WILLIAM F. GIFSTIM WILTJAM H. arm•dcs: DIi1NA IIn Grantors J. CD STATE OF ARIZONA ) This Instrument was acknowledged before me as this 45'a day oaf i ,10�?/by County of Pfg1 ) WILLIAM H. CRUD and BEVERLY J, OFFICIAL SEAL C RALFORD SANDRA L. KLINGER �� NOTARY t'UBLSC My Commission Expires N Public June 29. 1991 / C� Mycomm#se�iou will expire _/�9/,,/ STATE OF ARIZONA ) This instrument was acknowledged�le before me ea this 8 d day of % . _ ,19'9/ by County of PIM OFFtctAL SEAL WILLIAM F. GIESITNG and DIANA DARLING SANDRA NOTARY Pvat.c Air Cnrnmission(spires --+� trees ettt.ztlal TS.A E•1SA commisaivn will empire G, .7 jk 9007 I 2 7