The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOV100106 DRAFT MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL SESSION MAY 22, 2001 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA CALL TO ORDER at 2:06 p.m. PRESENT: Henry Suozzi, Chairman Bill Adler, Vice Chairman James Swan, Member Lyra Done,Member Cindy Lewis, Member(excused) STAFF: Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Debbie Moran, Zoning Tech. Linda Hersha, Secretary II 1. REVIEW AND/OR POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES AND PROCEDURES Chairman Suozzi opened the floor for discussion regarding the draft summary of the recommended rules and procedures for the Board of Adjustment. Bryant Nodine,the Planning and Zoning Administrator, submitted suggestions to the Board for review. The following suggestions were made regarding: 1. Staff duties Bryant Nodine suggested that the Board continue to contact the Clerk's office regarding attendance and meeting schedule. Chairman Suozzi stated that the added language for this section for the rules and procedures should read as follows: "Make room arrangements,mail materials, take minutes, schedule meetings and contact the Board regarding attendance and meeting schedule." Member Swan asked if there was a primary contact person in the Planning and Zoning Department for the Board of Adjustment. Mr.Nodine explained that Dee Widero, the Senior Zoning Inspector, was the primary contact person for both the public and the Board. , • 05/22/01 Minutes 2 Special Session Board of Adjustment Vice Chairman Adler suggested that the following modifications be made: • As a part of the staff report, any contact made between the staff and the applicant prior to the hearing are summarized in the staff report if it is germane or pertinent to the case. He explained that, as a part of the Planning and Zoning staff responsibility, discussion with the applicant regarding alternatives or approaches pertaining to their application should be summarized as part of the staff report. Ms. Widero agreed. • The applicant should coordinate all necessary materials that can be presented to the Board of Adjustment like at Town Council and Planning and Zoning meetings, and they should be suitable for overhead display. He explained that if an applicant comes before the Board with exhibits, and given enough notice, the applicant could make the transparencies so that the Board can view them all at once. He added that this would be consistent with other requirements. • The notification of all surrounding property owners within the 300 feet should be consistent with the Zoning Code,because the surrounding area could be more than 300 feet. • It would be helpful for the public testimony and the applicant if a laminated card were placed on the podium that identified the 5 Criteria. He explained that this would serve as a reminder to the witness that their testimony should be addressing the 5 Criteria and would facilitate the testimony. Discussion: Chairman Suozzi asked if these were practical suggestions that could be carried out by staff on a regular basis. Vice Chairman Adler stated that he considered the additional details for"applicant contact"to be a major issue. He said that if there are no objections, the modifications should be incorporated as a part of the Planning and Zoning responsibility or activity. Member Swan asked if the information contained in the packet included all communications with the applicant regarding the case. Ms. Widero replied"yes." Vice Chairman Adler explained that what he was looking for was any incidental contact of a substantial nature. When the applicant inquires about how he or she can get relief for a particular project, there could be contact between staff and the applicant concerning alternatives while seeking a variance. Therefore, he would like to know that the discussion had taken place and not repeat questions that had been addressed by staff. Ms. Widero agreed with Vice Chairman Adler. She explained that she believed what Vice Chairman Adler was asking for was direct information, such as, if specific questions were asked and what was the response. She explained that this information would be implemented and placed in the section of the staff report entitled, "Summary of Facts." 05/22/01 Minutes 3 Special Session Board of Adjustment Vice Chairman Adler explained that after discussing the current case with Ms. Widero over the phone, there had been contact with the applicant that was not summarized in the report. He explained that this was how the subject was brought to light. He explained that the suggestion was not a calamity,but to help create a more thorough staff report. Member Swan expressed that he was unsure where the responsibility should fall,but felt that it is the Board member's responsibility to form their own conclusions and ask questions that he or she believes would be relevant to the case. Member Done stated that the Board was not the Town Council. She explained that most of the applicants that appear before Council are large businesses that have the proper equipment to create transparencies. She explained that the modifications should be"soft peddled" if feasible,because the homeowners might be discouraged and intimidated by the requirements. Chairman Suozzi agreed. Member Swan asked if the Town would support the costs for the transparencies or would the applicant be expected to provide them. Vice Chairman Adler explained that the applicant should provide the necessary reports and materials to the Town that would be suitable for an overhead presentation. He stated that this was not a major expense. He explained that this would facilitate the Board to be able to look at an exhibit at the same time and allow the applicant to communicate more efficiently. Member Done stated that this would be a detriment for the ordinary person, therefore she could not vote in favor of making transparencies a requirement on the application. Mr. Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator recommended that the use of transparencies be encouraged because it would enable the Board to view specific documents at the same time. He explained that this would also prevent the applicant from approaching the dais. Members of the Board agreed that the applicant should be encouraged to use transparencies, if possible. 2. Board Duties Vice Chairman Adler explained that in the Board of Adjustment manual, page 7, it indicates that site tours would be arranged. He stated that as a procedure and subject to approval of the Chair, site tours should be arranged for the same reasons discussed regarding the use of transparencies. He explained that if all of the members go to the location and agree to what is being viewed, misinterpretation or misunderstandings might be avoided. He explained that he would like to add under Item 2 that the Chair arranges site tours when in his judgement it is appropriate to do so. 05/22/01 Minutes 4 Special Session Board of Adjustment Member Swan suggested that before the Board entertained the modifications that the town attorney review it. Mr. Nodine explained that from previous discussions held with Mr. Dudley, the Town Attorney, it would be okay to have site tours, as long as the discussion was fact-based information. Member Swan felt that this could affect the opinion of a Board member and their interpretation of the site. Mr. Nodine agreed. Member Done stated that she personally felt that a lot of the backbone of the Board comes from the fact that they were all independent human beings with their own individual ideas. She explained that she would be uncomfortable attending a tour and avoid conversation that might corrupt the process. Therefore, she did not like the idea of viewing the property with the other Board members. Chairman Suozzi agreed. Chairman Suozzi stated that he liked the idea of being able to view a site on his own terms and stated that it could be difficult for staff to coordinate with the Board specific dates and time for a site tour. Therefore, he opposed having site tours. 3. The Applicant Mr. Nodine clarified that the material should be submitted within 15 working days prior to a meeting. There were no other changes to this item. 4. Board Meetings Vice Chairman Adler stated that he would prefer if the applicant were instructed that they would be allowed to answer specific questions from the Board and not be allowed to give a second presentation. He explained that the applicant typically does make a second presentation, which is repetitive and redundant. He explained that there should be an opportunity for the Board to ask questions of the applicant, and that their comments should be limited to those questions. He explained that this would facilitate getting the meeting on target and keeping it on target. Member Swan stated that the applicant should be given a fair opportunity to respond to questions from the public in a manner that they felt was appropriate. Member Done stated that any applicant that appears before the Board must feel as though he or she has had a fair opportunity to present and defend their case. Vice Chairman Adler stated that for, clarification, this was not his recommendation at all and would take a bit of an exception to that kind of interpretation. He stated that he was 05/22/01 Minutes 5 Special Session Board of Adjustment not in favor of telling someone what to say and how to say it. He explained that his point was that if the public was to raise questions or issues and if the applicant has raised questions and issues in his testimony, it seems that it would be the responsibility of the Board to ask for clarification of those issues from the applicant. Therefore, leaving the applicant ample opportunity to present their case. He explained that it was the responsibility of the Board to listen and sort out the issues that remain to be resolved, and address those issues to the applicant when the public testimony was over. He explained that this would facilitate the information, not restrain it or be unfair. Member Done asked for Vice Chairman Adler to repeat his recommendation. Vice Chairman Adler explained that following the testimony that the applicant would be called back to the podium to address specific issues and questions. He said that it was the responsibility of the Board to zero in on the remaining questions and issues so that the Board can make a proper decision. Recommendation: "Following specific testimony, the applicant is requested to approach the Board and answer specific questions from the Board." Member Swan disagreed and stated that he would not vote in favor of the recommendation. He explained that the applicant should have the latitude that was necessary to address specific questions from the public and the Board. Chairman Suozzi stated that the applicant should be allowed to defend his case and felt that the recommendation may not be necessary. Member Done pointed out that this would be a rebuttal of which did not appear in the document pertaining to rules and procedures as a consideration. She also pointed out that the new rules and new Board members that were unfamiliar with the Board of Adjustment procedure would primarily use the Procedures Guide. Mr. Nodine suggested using the following agenda itinerary: Board Of Adjustment Meeting Order 1. Call to order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Minutes. 4. Presentation for agenda items(s). 5. Petitioner/applicant presentation. 6. Questions/clarifications 7. Staff report. 8. Questions to staff by Board members. 9. Open public hearing 10. Ask for any applicant response/summation. 11. Close public hearing 12. Ask for Board questions/further information. 13. Ask for the pleasure of the Board on agenda item. 05/22/01 Minutes 6 Special Session Board of Adjustment 14. Planning& Zoning staff update. 15. Motion of adjournment Vice Chairman Adler suggested that the applicant questions be held until after the staff report. He explained that rather than the Board asking questions of the applicant, the Board would move immediately to the staff report. He explained that the questions could be asked of either the staff or the applicant so that all the questions from the Board are asked at once giving the applicant the first opportunity to present their case. This should be followed by the staff report, questions from the Board, public testimony, summation and so on. Member Swan disagreed and stated that it would be only fair that the applicants present their case first or have the staff report first, so that the public could hear the staff report first. He explained that the sequence should be the petitioner presents their case, followed by the public input. He stated that the format of the current agenda did not flow. Consensus: The Board agreed that Item 6 and Item 8 should be merged with Item 4 of the recommended rules and procedures draft summary. • Item 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. It would be helpful here to reference materials related to conflict of interest. The Department of Commerce has a good handout. • Item 8. Other: It was suggested that a more "personal"notification letter be mailed to encourage public response and that the Board recommends to the Planning and Zoning Commission that the radius should be increased to at least 600 or 1000 feet. 5. Selection and Composition of the Board of Adjustment Vice Chairman Adler explained that on page 14, in the Board of Adjustment Manual, that there was a suggestive evaluative process. He suggested that the Board consider using the evaluation process contained in the manual. Chairman Suozzi explained that the additional language for this item should read as follows: "An "objective" evaluation process of a board member's performance would be desirable and perhaps serve as a guideline for the Town Council and the Government Review Task Force, as recommended on page 14, Section 5 of the Board of Adjustment Manual." • 05/22/01 Minutes 7 Special Session Board of Adjustment 6. Conflict of Interest Mr.Nodine reiterate that the "Conflict of Interest"recommendations would be more suitable if it was incorporated into the Board of Adjustment Manual rather than the Rules and Procedure Guide. The information contained in Item 6 of the"Draft Summary Recommended Rules and Procedures" for this item has been merged with Item 4. 7. Relationship with other Boards/Commission/Council Mr.Nodine reported that how the Board members present themselves and the actions of the Board to other official bodies of the Town or individuals of these bodies and the public,needs to be included in the rules and procedures. Vice Chairman Adler explained that at a previous meeting,Mr. Dudley offered the opinion that as a Board of Adjustment member, to present a Board of Adjustment decision to another commission or board that might be hearing the same case would be inappropriate. He explained that Mr. Dudley felt that it was inappropriate for a member of the board to appear before the Planning and Zoning Commission that was hearing a case involving, for example, a Conditional Use Permit. To present, as a member of the Board of Adjustment, how the Board concluded in a particular matter would be inappropriate. He stated that it should be expanded upon the fact that when there is a matter that is decided by the Board of Adjustment and conditions are added, the Board needs to be clear because the motion will have to speak for itself. Mr. Nodine explained that the problem with this particular issue was that, "a single person trying to represent a collective decision." He explained that the safest way to accomplish communication with other boards and commissions would be to provide the motions and the minutes. He further explained that the motion should be as clear as possible describing what the Board was trying to achieve. 8. Other Vice Chairman Adler explained that the item was on the Commission work plan to review expanding the radius of notification. Mr. Nodine reported that a letter of notification had been developed and was available for review and that the amendments to the Code for the notification procedure have been added to the Commission work plan. The information contained in Item 8 of the "Recommended Draft Summary Rules and Procedures" for this item has been merged with Item 4. 05/22/01 Minutes 8 Special Session Board of Adjustment 9. Swearing in the Applicant There were no comments or changes to this item. Member Done referenced page 3 of the Board of Adjustment Manual regarding "Officers", and read the following: "The Board of Adjustment shall elect a Chairman and Vice-Chairman from among its own members." She suggested that the procedure be date sensitive and that the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson election be held the seconded meeting of each fiscal year. MOTION: Member Swan moved to APPROVE the recommendations and corrections for the Draft Summary of the Rules and Procedures Guide. Vice Chairman Adler SECONDED the motion. Motion passed, 4-0. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Suozzi adjourned the special session meeting at 3:04 p.m. Resp dully submitted, 1-W-KL/1("attv in ersha, Secretary II RULES AND PROCEDURES MAY 22, 2001 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The following is a summary of the recommended rules and procedures for the Board of Adjustment: (as discussed at several special sessions and at the Board of Adjustment meeting of February 27, 2001 and May 22, 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, schedule meetings and contact the Board regarding attendance and schedule. • Notify the Board through the Clerk's office by the 10th of each month, if a meeting will or will not be held. Board members are to notify staff of inability to attend a meeting. 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 and be consistent with the Oro Valley Zoning Code. • Coordinate all necessary reports/materials/exhibits for the Board's consideration. Presentation materials need to be suitable for overhead display. • Invite all necessary staff to the Board meetings. • All materials and agenda shall be distributed to the Board by staff at least one (1)week prior to the meeting date. • A laminated card should be place at the podium identifying the 5 Criteria. • Any contact made between the staff and the applicant prior to the hearing is summarized in the staff report if it is germane or pertinent to the case. 2. Board Duties: • As outlined in Article 1-7 of the Zoning Code and as specified in the Board of Adjustment manual. 3. The Applicant: • The application materials shall be submitted 15 working days prior to the meeting. • The burden of proof is on the applicant and he/she should address the 5 Criteria in writing on the application. • The applicant should provide all presentation material in a format that can be shown on the hearing rooms audio-visual media and at least 8 copies should be provided for the Board and the clerk and staff. The applicant should not be allowed to approach the dais to show and discuss items individually with Board members. • The applicant should submit in writing the fact that they are requesting a variance for more then one (1) issue, if applicable. 1 1 4. Board Meetings: • The Board should stay focused and only discuss agenda issues and not discuss issues directly with the applicant, (especially during individual site visits. Staff recommends there be no discussion with the applicant except for questions of fact; if there is it needs to be presented by the member at the meeting). • All questions and comments during the meeting shall go through the Chair. • During the meeting the applicant should have the first opportunity 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. • Following specific testimony the applicant is requested to approach the Board and answer specific questions from the Board. • Board Of Adjustment Meeting Order 1. Call to order. 2. Roll Call. 3 Minutes. 4. Presentation of agenda items(s). 5. Petitioner/applicant presentation. 6. Questions/clarifications/ 7. Staff report. 8. Questions to staff by Board members. 9. Open public hearing 10. Ask for any applicant response/summation. 11. Close public hearing 12. Ask for Board questions/further information. 13. Ask for the pleasure of the Board on agenda item. 14. Planning& Zoning staff update. 15. Motion of adjournment. • 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. (It would be helpful here to reference materials related to conflict of interest. The Department of Commerce has a good handout.) The Board of Adjustment Handbook provides guidance in this regard. • It was suggested that a more"personal"notification letter be mailed to encourage public response and that the Board recommends to the Planning and Zoning Commission that the radius should be increased to at least 600 or 1000 feet. 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." • An "objective" evaluation process of a board members performance would be desirable and perhaps serve as a guideline for the Town Council, as recommended on page 14, Section 5 of the Board of Adjustment Manual. • The process to replace or re-appoint Board members shall begin by May 1st for new terms that commence on July 1 St. 2 1 6. Relationship with other Boards/Commission/Council: • It was agreed that the Board of Adjustment minutes or excerpts regarding issues should be distributed to the Boards, Commissions and Council by staff in a timely fashion. 7. Swearing in the Applicant • It was the consensus of the Board that the recommended oath for swearing in the applicant or witnesses be used and stated as follows: "Do you swear or affirm to speak (or tell)the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". (Approved by the Board of Adjustment 05/22/01) 3 • 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. D. Removal: The Town Council has the authority to remove, by majority vote, any member for neglect of duty, inefficiency or misconduct in office. 4 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: 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. 5 • 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 notice 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 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. 6 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. FEE SCHEDULE For applications or appeals involving construction of any nature, and which require legal advertising and posting of property affected,the fee shall be determined upon the total valuation of the improvements to be made, as follows: Developers Individuals To and including$5,000 $ 200.00 $ 110.00 Each additional $1,000 or fraction 20.00 10.00 Maximum fee 1,000.00 500.00 For application of a variance of an appeal not involving construction of any nature 200.00 100.00 For parking variance 200.00 100.00 For appeal of decision on home occupation N/A 100.00 For postponement of hearing after legal notices have be publicized 100.00 50.00 For applications or appeals which do not require legal notices or postings,the fees are: Developers Individuals For changes estimated to cost$5,000 or less 100.00 55.00 Each additional $1,000 of estimated cost 20.00 10.00 Maximum fee 500.00 250.00 7 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, July 24, 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: OV10-01-06: JEFFREY AND PAMELA NUNN, 12318 N. TALL GRASS DRIVE, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737 ARE APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRADTOR OF JUNE 6, 2001 WHICH PERMITTED THE ISSURANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT (B0100305) WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL, FOR LOT 17 OF TANGERINE HEIGHTS, 12300 N. TALL GRASS DRIVE. Mr. and Mrs. Nunn are appealing an Administrative Decision. The stated reason is that Mr. and Mrs. Nunn will be completely blocked from a view of Pusch Ridge, a portion of the Santa Catalina Mountains and all of the city lights, for which they paid a view premium. Mr. and Mrs. Nunn's home did go before the Development Review Board for review, and believe the Development Review Board should also review lot 17. 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; contact Dee Widero at 229-4812. Alf B ant ►I'.Nodine,AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator \\OV PZD\PZ1\OV\OV 10\2001\10-01-06\NOTICE.doc ovi 0 ..0 1 _06 .._ , L . , 'Pk_ Ilk Nob 101 iim SIP iii. Illi leill ON Wal aiir AINO V Mr 4111 IP 1411 ��"' T n Brine Hei htsSubdivi4� ' a 9 9er,...„, *. ()___rt Lot 17 f,...11P. ‘ rill 41*tat 12300 N Tall illho 'ilj : • - S a :.- Mb •a is �r ♦ �• 6 8/ 4r �►�► /\jOroValley r3, Aria 1 Parcels . Tange .1 - - • pm 111111/► 11111111111F11111111,17111 N ��.: -_ ._ - � �a. ars+. o g i in 4* MOW ON Topuma.,....iii . I 7 �1111�Ii�1/�j�1 jam"M''s : ��i►ti,�� jrl manmumsw = E 0.3 0 0.3 0.6 Miles S ovi 0 _01 _06 , _ - . z __ , „z , ,,,:...._ _,.... .._., s 1\ sii 1. ,[.. , ,. ._, ____.7.7". ,...__.,..s,, 1 -.. I.-- -`1- L ----- ._ . 1,1_ „._.__ - _..._ [-IT: __ __ .....__ ...___ --a-: _� r.�. �;- It:- .,,�'/f Tangerine Heights Subdivision '� Lot 17 t _'_^.: _�� ` �;7 12300 N. Tall Grass Drive p _. i .. — , ___,_,. .k-----v ' .airie_ \� ,,. -J ---:- 443,?,, ,,, ______.: , 4 . j __ ..._ - /\/ OroValley , 1 ,3-- „A.7,.1----1 ---......: .._......, ........._ _ ..1 ___, i ci ...v.i._ -- _......_ Parcels _,_ . _______,,:::_____2_=,-.::::-.7._-_-.........__ 1[ ,______________ 1 „ __ __ T _.Road...._..__....___..._..___.)1 _ _ 1 iii.:[._ ---1,77;4"...,_-yiA ' _ N a [1.1„1 w f:j- 71_?711e, .. Ft___17. .,/, i_.. .7 .i. ....._ 1_2._\ -_.1\ \\ ) f ;,1 n7.i„:,T,1,r1-I iTi,TT..,-,I7dT;T,-YF--r,--(i/.v(I 1.J _„,- �► __. /.-71I L,..L_..L._-‘-.1.-A-.) t__-_-\- W E -, 4 _- :.-,-:.:. \\ 0.3 0 0.3 0.6 Miles S ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REPORT CASE NO: OV 10-01-06 Hearing Date: July 24, 2001 Agenda Item No.: 3 Prepared By: Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector REQUEST: JEFFREY, AND PAMELA NUNN, 12318 N. TALL GRASS DRIVE, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737. ARE APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF JUNE 6, 2001 WHICH PERMITTED THE ISSURANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT (B0100305) WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL, FOR LOT 17 OF TANGERINE HEIGHTS, 12300 N. TALL GRASS DRIVE. REQUEST SPECIFICS: Mr. and Mrs. Nunn are appealing an Administrative Decision that allowed the issuance of a permit for Lot 17 of Tangerine Heights without architectural approval of the home by the Development Review Board. (See the attached and application letter from Mr.Nunn.) Pertinent Facts • The Nunns reside on Lot 18 a 22, 090-square foot lot in the Tangerine Heights Subdivision. • The subject lot (Lot 17) is a 22, 698-square foot lot just to the south of Lot 18. A house is under construction, framed and sheathed, on the lot. • Tangerine Heights is a custom build subdivision, zoned R1-20 & R1-36, recorded April 8, 1999. C&C Construction is the builder. • Section 3-301 of the Zoning Code is applicable to this case. Based on this section staff does not send architectural plans for R1-20 and larger-lot subdivisions to the DRB for review unless an overlay district could affect the design of the homes, or unless (in accordance with various section in Article 6)the homes are two stories. Sec. 3-301 Applicability The Development Review Board shall review all developments other than R1-144, R1-43, R1-36, and R1-20 Districts which are not subject to overlay. • C&C Construction, having built primarily in Desert Vista subdivision, which is zoned R1-7, did not realize that DRB approval was not required. They submitted an application for DRB approval for the models in the whole subdivision, and subsequently, they submitted revision to DRB for any of the models where they proposed to change in the front elevation(these are termed"one-time revisions"). • C&C Construction submitted three applications for one-time revisions within this subdivision. Planning and Zoning staff forwarded these to the DRB for approval. Over forty other homes approved within the subdivision were not submitted to DRB. • The Zoning Code's design guidelines encourage diversity and character of neighborhoods by varying setbacks, building elevations, and architectural treatments. All zones have development standards. In Tangerine Heights lots 1-50 are zoned R1-20, with a maximum building height of 2 stories and 18'. Setbacks are: front 30', side 15', and rear 30'. Also a maximum grading limit was placed on the plat for this subdivision, which is 12,000 square feet (administrative approval is possible for up to 15,000). There are no limits as to the square footage or size of the home as long as the other standards are met. • The plan for Lot 17 meets all setbacks and other standards of the Zoning Code and the plat. The area graded on Lot 17 is less than 12,000 square feet. Chronology • On September 4, 1999, C&C Construction submitted a request for DRB approval on seven models for Tangerine Heights Subdivision. • On May 9,2000, a DRB submittal for lots 11 & 14 received approval for Architecture. • On May 24, 2000, a DRB submittal on lot 18 (Mr. & Mrs.Nunn's property) came in for the June DRB meeting and was approved. • On July 6, 2000, a building permit was submitted for lot 18. It was issued August 2, 2000 and received a building final on December 22,2000. • On December 20, 2000, a revision to the final plat for Tangerine Heights was approved to change the limits of grading from 10,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet, and with the Planning and Zoning Administrators approval,up to 15,000 square feet. • On April 10, 2001, C&C Construction submitted a building permit application for lot 17 (the lot to the south of the Nunns). This was a one-time revision to model "Catalina B". It was reviewed by town staff and issued May 17,2001. It was not sent to DRB. • On June 6, 2001, Mr. Nunn came into Community Development to see the plan for lot 17 and the model plan that the application referred to—the one time revision to "Catalina B". He asked Shirley if this plan had gone before the DRB and was informed that it wasn't necessary for it to go to DRB because of the R 1-20 zoning. • On June 7, 2001 Mr. Nunn returned to get a copy of copy DRB agendas. Staff gave Mr. Nunn the criteria to appeal an administrative decision. • On June 14, 2001, Mr.Nunn submitted his appeal to the BOA for the July 24,2001 meeting. He appealed the decision regarding the issuance of the permit without DRB approval. • On July 9, 2001, Staff contacted C&C Construction and requested that they stay construction on the house for Lot 17. They indicated that they would not and construction has continued on Lot 17. 2 SITE LOCATION: This site is located at 12300 N. Tall Grass Drive, lot 17 of Tangerine Heights Subdivision. The site can be reached by traveling east from La Canada Drive on Tangerine Road for approximately 3 of a mile to Copper Springs Trail turn left (north). Follow to the first street on left witch is Prairie Bluff Drive turn follow to the end, make a right turn on Tall Grass Drive, lot 17 is the 8th lot north on the right, it is under construction and posted with a public notice. NOTIFICATION: In accordance with ARS 9-462.06F, the property is posted with a notice of hearing and the hearing was advertised in the Daily Territorial. At the time of this report preparation, staff had not received any public comment pertinent to the issues in this case. SITE ANALYSIS: Lot 17 lies adjacent to and just south of Lot 18. Both lots are rectangular, roughly the same dimensions and size, flat and at approximately the same grade, and the rear yards of both face to the east. (See the attached Site/Grading Plans.) PLAN ANALYSIS: (Not applicable.) SUMMARY: The Nunns have appealed the issuance of a permit for Lot 17 based on the facts that the models were approved by DRB and a revision to the Nunns home was also approved by DRB before they received a permit. The Zoning Code does not require DRB approval for architecture within this subdivision. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Board may wish to consider the following motions: I move to approve OV 10-01-06,thereby reversing the decision of the Planning and Zoning Administrator and requiring that lot 17 of Tangerine Heights submit with the Development Review Board for plan approval. OR I move to deny OV 10-01-06 finding that: (Board to state reason why the request cannot be granted). ATTACHMENTS: 1. BOA Application with Narrative and Court Minute Entry (case# C-20012573), 2. Code References 3. Permit Submittal Information 4. Site/Grading Plans for Lots 17 and 18 F:\OV\OV 10\200I\I 0-0 I-06\REPORT.doc 3 Nunn Exhibits Jeffrey and Pamela Nunn Appeal of Building Permit Lot 17, Tangerine Heights Before the Board of Adjustment Town of Oro Valley 7-24-01 'YE@ M X 7 M' 1 P''F `,'-2i> .--..-,:ei.:'--.:i.. ,.•,.-5..,‘'-,7 ,JUN 2 ', 2001 v DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ' __._./' : REQUEST FOR RECORDS BY-4 AA-.r _-,-1:�;-.=-:,..,:,AkORO VALLEY, ARIZONA FO(l/vl., ,49, Name: J c F Al Jiv A/ or 6 - 2 0 1 Business: 3-9 6 7 U1'5(b-6 ',��"'J elephone: ' l 2• c 1.?---- C )-7 1 Address: � S 6/ t fi -- z_ 75s---232 OA � f — oItem(s) requested: -L U r 1-�;�G-1 pe14115 W:1_ Ar 1 j?t ti� � ," , L A L 0 � l i,,'b a n c,,,, J.'f-E- I:s sG E 0 -A-�t_ 4-4 0t- -Tile L7 R B M 4 -- — 1 D ,6-)C a t 1es. e cro celv ier S C ktt U e t24,0inj i-CP w(esoi � -0 coL.Cc. 17` _ iO4 Date(s), if known: C'C� 6 0 Q 0 o N /5 eNPutr ti( i wZ L;wk i k J Note: Fee Structure established by Town of Oro Valley Standard Operating Procedure#6, Public Document Copying. Requests requiring more the 30 minutes to /7/ research will be assessed a $25.00 per hour fee. 4 Sign rel i i t PLEASE COMPLETE IF COPIES ARE TO BE USED FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. [ I These reproductions of public records will be used for the following commercial purpose: Signature ***Commercial purpose means the use of a public record for the purpose of sale or resale or for the purpose of producing a document containing all or part of the copy, printout or photograph for sale or the obtaining of names and addresses from such public records for the purpose of -- . VNILV DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ; REQUEST FOR RECORDS ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA `UNO EU,g, r / Name: ._At A((A 10 ki Date: 0 / G' Business: _ Telephone: ,?Address: Z 22 C /cKt 6c70-g; (-) - v Item(s) requested: k G 0� ;1 �� - �'� � , A / 1 — --G d 4 G/ 7 .-72.Vey Date(s)9 if known: Note: Fee Structure established by Town of Oro Valley Standard Operating Procedure #6, Public Document Copying. Requests requiring more the 30 minutes to research will be assessed a $25.00 per hour fee, Sign ur PLEASE COMPL TE IF COPIES ARE TO BE USED FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. [ J These reprod ctions of public records will be used for the following commercial purpose: Signature ***Commercial purpose means the use of a public record for the purpose of sale or resale or for the purpose of producing a document containing all or part of the copy, printout or photograph for sale or the obtaining of names and addresses from such public records for the purpose of solicitation or the sale of such names and addresses to another for the purpose of solicitation or for any purpose in which the purchaser can reasonably anticipate the receipt of monetary gain from the direct or indirect use of such public record. Commercial purpose does not mean the use of a public record as evidence or as research for evidence in an action in a judicial or quasi- judicial body of this state or a political subdivision of this state. (Arizona Revised Statute 39-121-03.®) (There is a .50 cent charge per page for documents used for commercial purposes.) OFFICE USE ONLY *TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF* DATE/TIME REQUEST RECEIVED: \- o \ (AM /JSTAFF: DATE/TIME REQUEST COMPLETED:< ' \^ ` (AM l:TAFF. F:IFormslRequest for Records Ass <�T oC �eH _ z o6 UNSUBDMDED I -D 23 22 � /24 2,.......„„, 25 20 le 26 19 L ?30 1%29 27 18 28 [ 17 N . 33 16 4.44/ct,4 Orti : 7,,,,.16. 34 15 . NK, A9 1 tlijk 35 14 0 36 g 13 @ 64 E S � � 37 � 12 11041 49 38 39 ;:z 11 40 10 41pp, Prairie Bluff Drive 9 ar 42 tr. 43 8 � 44 7 � � The Heights at Oro Valley ' \11!0 45 6 oti, 46 5Y " . , 47 4 ir " 48 3 a / 49 c Ec � le50 2 DESIGNER HOMES GENERAL NOTES 1 GROSS SUBOvISION AREA = 78 49 ACRES 2 TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS = 80. LOT LOT LOT LOT 3. AREA OF COMMON AREA 'A' = 0.71 ACRES. AREA OF NATURAL 0?EN SPACE (NCO..) = 14.45 ACRES. . Q` 4. TOTAL MILES Or NE* PUBUC STREETS = 1.35. 5 SINGLE FAULT LOTS R1-20 R1-36 MINIMUM LOT AREA = 20.003 S.F. 36.001 S.F. II , MAXIMUM LOT AREA = 36.83C SF. 55.073 S.F. AVERAGE LOT AREA = 22,375 S4. 38,746 S.F. 1 E. MAXIMUM BOLDING HEIGHT - 16 FEE'. TWO(2) STORIES DETAIL A 7. SETBACKS R1-20 R1-36 �.:�., „�. I FRONT 30' 30' REAR 30' 40. .- E. PARKING ROVSSIONS. ,5 • 5 68 67 66 ...__ 24 23 22/ 21 GARAGE 2 EACH = 160 -� DRIVEWAY 2 EACH = 160 69 65 _ TOTAL PARKING = 320 S. EXISTING ZONING - LOTS 1 THRU 50=CONDITIONAL R1-20. LOTS 51 THRU BC-CONDITIONAL R1-36. - -� H 20 TO. NO FURTHER SUBDMSION OF ANY LOT OP PARCEL SHOWN WILL BE DONE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL. 70 6 4 2 6 fiP 11. THE AREA BETWEEN 100 YEAR FLOOD LIMITS REPRESENTS AN AREA THAT MAY BE SUBJECT TO ii 30 FLOODING FROM A 100 YEAR FREQUENCY FLOOD AND ALL LAND IN THIS AREA WILL BE RESTRICTED TO USES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT AS APPROVEDBE THE TOWN ENGINEER. 1 63 ''�4-------------1 29 27 19 12. BASIS OF BEARINGS SOUTH LINE OF THE S.w. 1/4 OF SECTION 35. BEARD• BEING N.89-40'2TE. 71 \ 62 18 13. BASIS OF ELEVATION: BENCHMARK APPROXIMATELY 1246' EAST OF THE SOJT-i*EST 28 CORNER OF SECTION 35. PANEL POINT 4017, P.K. NAIL AND ALUMINUM TAG W PAVEMENT. 17 ELEVATION BEING 2792.46 FEET. 14. THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OF RECORD SHALL CERTIFY, IN WRITING, THAT A.L 72 61 IMPROVEMENTS. WHETHER PRIVATE OR PUBLIC, HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED. PLACED, 16 INSTALLED, ETC. IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE ACCEPTED IMPROVEMENT F. �-- PLANS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATIONS, IN WRITING. ARE TO BE 1 rJ RECEIVED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PRIOR TO THE 3 3 4 1 REQUEST FOR FINAL INSPECTION AND THE RELEASE OF ASSURANCES. 73 .. 60 A 15. A 1/2" IRON PIN TAGGED BY AN R.L.S. WILL BE SET AT ALL LOT CORNERS UPON 14 COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. 59 35 16. ALL STREETS ARE PUBUC. 13 17. THE SOILS ENGINEER OF RECORD OR OTHER REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL CM_ ENGINEER 74 58 36 WITH EXPERTISE IN THE AREA OF SOILS ENGINEERING SHALL CERTIFY, IN WRITING. THAT 1 2 ALL SOILS OPERATION'S FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT WERE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH I 37 THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE SOILS REPORT, PREPARED BY WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. JOB NO. 2926JM434, DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1996,AND ANY ACCEPTED - 57 38 1 .7::ADDENDUM/AMENDMENTS MADE THERETO. CERTIFICATION, IN WRITING, IS TO BE RECEIVED 39 BY THE TOWN ENGINEER OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PRIOR TO THE REQUEST FOR ANY = 7 5 s BUILDING PERMITS AND/OR FINAL INSPECTION AND THE RELEASE OF ASSURANCES. _ 40 10 16. THE SOILS ENGINEER OF RECORD OR OTHER REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL CML ENGINEER WITH EXPERTISE IN THE AREA OF SOILS ENGINEERING SHALL CERTIFY, IN WRTING,THAT ' 56 41 -„`141 u• ALL MATERIALS UTILIZED ON THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE 76 ~ ACCEPTED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. CERTIFICATIONS, IN WRITING,ARE TO BE RECEIVED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PRIOR TO THE / 54 42 REQUEST FOR FINAL INSPECTIONS AND THE RELEASE OF ASSURANCES. - 19. ANY UTILITIES THAT MAY NEED TO BE RELOCATED AS A RESULT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AN WILL BE MOVED AT NO EXPENSE TO THE PAN OF ORO VALLEY OR PIMA COUNTY. 43 20. THE PROPOSED WATER COMPANY THAT WILL SERVICE THIS SUBDMSION IS THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY (R.v.)WATER UTILITY. \ , 9 '. 44 7 21. NO IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN 30 AND 72 INCHES IN HEIGHT RELATIVE TO THE ADJACENT V 5 3 ROADWAYS WHICH MIGHT INTERFERE WITH THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE SIGHT 45 6 VISIBILITY TRIANGLE SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE SIGHT VISIBILITY EASEMENT. 22. NO DISTURBANCE TO THE 10O-YEAR FLOODPWN, OTHER THAN FOR ROADWAY AND DRIVEWAY CROSSINGS AND UTILITY INSTALLATION SHALL BE PERMITTED UNDER THIS PLAT WITHOUT THE 78 52 46 i 5 APPROVAL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY. -317 111M 23. ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PUBLIC AND WILL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED I 4 TO PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARDS. 79 48 3 24. UNLESS NOTED. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE ALWAYS PARALLEL WITH THE LOT LINE. 51 IF THE LOT UNE IS NOT PERPENDICULAR TO THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE. THE MINIMUM DISTANCE ON THE SHORTEST UNE OF THE EASEMENT WILL ALWAYS BE 10.00' FORA 10'00' 80 49 j 1 2 EASEMENT (SEE DETAIL A). UNLESS NOTED, EASEMENTS ARE CENTERED ON LOT LINES. 25. EITHER OR BOTH ACCESS POINTS TO TANGERINE ROAD MAY BE RESTRICTED TO RIGHT- 50 -- IN OR RIGHT-OUT. -A L ,... '- 26. SELF IT.POSED SETBACKS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED ON LOTS 2 AND 25 AS INDICATED ON THIS PLAT. `- 27. FOR MULTIPLE FRONTAGE LOTS, A 20 FOOT YARD SETBACK MUST BE MNNTAINED ADJACENT r+= -__.__-_-._-_-__-_-_----------------- TO ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET. THE TOWN ENGINEER. PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR ' TANGERINE ROAD "in' MAY APPROVE REDUCED SIDE YARDS. THIS WILL APPLY SPECIFICALLY TO LOTS 1, 4, 9. 10, 22, 26, 28. AND 33. _________ 28 THE CENTRAL WASH ON THE SITE SHALL BE FENCED OF AND PROTECTED FROM DISTURBANCE V,V,r DURING INFRASTRUCTURE AND INDMDUAL LOT DEVELOPMENT. 29. GRADING SHALL BE LIED TO ROADWAYS• DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. UTILITY INSTALLATION AND Yr-.1 MIT HOUSE PADS WITH A MAXIMUM Of 10,000 SQUARE FOOT GRADING FOR R1-20 LOTS FOR BUILDING d_=I ROJECT OVERVIEW PADS. AND 12.000 SQUARE FOOT GRADING FOR THE R1-36 LOTS FOR BUILDING PADS. -s E• REAR 40' REAR O A RESTORATION BOND SHALL BE POSTED TO PROTECT THE NATURAL OPEN SPACE (CENTRAL WASH). SETBACK [SETBACK sETeAcK 32. DEVELOPER INTENDS TO PROVIDE AN IN-LIEU FEE FOR PARK REQUIREMENT. ,35 IN THE FUTURE. ACCESS TO TANGERINE ROAD MAY BE RESTRICTED TO RIGHT-OUT TURNING MOVEMENTS ONLY. 34. PER SECTION 10-705, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN AND AROUND THE R,?ARLAN HABITAT OVERLAY f is. s., I 15' 510E DISTRICT A DISPOSITION OF LAND IN IDENTIFIED RIPARIAN HABITATS. 12 -INDNDUA LOTS MAY BE PLATTED W -- - sETBAcK W SETB,,GK TO INCLUDE RIPARIAN AREAS, PROVIDED THAT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS RECORDED ACROSS THOSE AREAS SAID CONSERVATION EASEMENT MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR AND THE TOWN ENGINEER SAID CONSERVATION EASEMENT WILL PROHIBIT CONSTRUCTION, CLEARING 0,VEGETATION, GROUND DISTURBANCE AND ALTERATION Of TOPOGRAPHY, REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT_ oKT )NNNT SETBACK VARIES VARIES ..•o..... rotp �,.~ "�'"` TY P. LOT LAYOUT TYP. LOT LAYOUT R1-20 N.T.S. R1-36 N.T.S. BOOK 'Si. PAGE ZS -1 RANCHO VISTOSO s 26 25 a 34p '� zzZ + 35:J6 / o L ;p i R1-20O R10GE M, y«- 1 Rs- 0 Rt-7 r.,0 r .NO 3-- 'MILE C.c .J R1 144 I..0,1•c,0q Sw+g in4 11i:.(n RJ ArOVALS THIS PROJECT •Q uNSU DIVIDED! RI 20 �„ E E.CA4.vatie•✓, A'. ._ , CLERK 0, THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY. HEREBY > BK.-4e. PG. 33 '>o c - - �,oa o ^=Rrcy THAT TH'S PLAT WAS APPROVED BY THE MAYOR ANC COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO ,„, VALLEYON THE DAY G �cNacvx. 19`?� r u .�'� z z " '//� (� /� qq \\ RAN H E ORO Y;� _- 1 T. �..Gu...✓-�l� �' 3•-7-f/ 'cc •\ .\ R t 20 R t-36 ., ^ _Rt, TOWN CJF 0 E-V / DATE OP_ BK. 47, PC. 69 ` t i /2-?/-SW 34•35 .- I- -.35!36 - D.MA COU , DEPARTMENT OF WASTEWATER DATE ` , 2 ANG 1NE ROAD 2 1 1 - MANAGEMETJT Co..(«o.cv 11 Cv+v ov,E.c 11 wxS.•.E.r,10T;•_,• W S•-r,LOT3 1-235 C'—, • \ -;/a 4/l • , • . A C.A.A F K..1►C.11 IPA AO 1,50 ,D T , r ORO v - TOwit ENGINEER DATE LOCATION MAP a' dd 00 A PORTION OF SECTION 35, hi t[I E +L SW N, T-11-S,R-13-E,G.4c 5.R 14.. -- ZONI „ MINISTRATOR DATE LEGEND TO o<OR.)VALLEY. PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA z ASS RANCES P.U.E. PUBJC JTUTY EASEMENT N.A.E. NO ACCESS EASEMENT ASSURANCES IN THE FORM OF A THIRD PARTY TRUST AGREEMENT, GRANTED EY THIS PLAT TRUST NOT R--r FROM LAWYER IFILtOFARIZOJA,wC COMPLYING WITH THE ORO a SHEET"OcooR (R) NDICATES A RADIAL UNE 10 A CURVE. VALLEY ZONING E REVISED, AS RECORDED IN DOCKET ltozl , PAGE C3 INDICATES CURVE • INDICATES 1/2 IRON PIN TAGGED BY AN R.LS.TO JJ 01" HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO GUARANTEE DRAINAGE AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS BE SET. (INCLUDING MONUMENTS)AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS (ELECTRIC. TELEPHONE, CAS, L22 INDICATES LINE NUMBER INDICATES BLS CAPPED SURVEY MONUMENT STAMPED SEWER, WATER IN THIS SUBDMSION. SUB:NV.50N BOUNDARY 0 BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR TO BE SET UPON 4 ADNCEti'LOT LINE COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. MAYOR-TO OF ORO VALLEYDATE: �jl�t t LOT UHF INDICATES LOT ACCESS. EASEMENT LINEDRIVEWAYS WILL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN RETURNS. ASSURANCES IN THE FORM OF A RESTORATION BOND FROM"~ �aP'' •''•�� 100-YEA?ROOD PLAN LIMIT ® INDICATES 10•0 10'PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT. IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 1RM OF A RESTORATION Iszr-k HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO s FOUNT)SIJR Y MONUMENT AS NOTED 604 MIDICAITS LOCAL COORDINATE DATUM NUMBER GUARANTEE THE RESTORATION OF THIS SUBDIVISION IN THE (� Fh.,BRASS CAP.ETC.) _ , - SN(SIGHT VISIBILITY EASEMENT) EVENT THE PROJECT IS ABANDONED. IMPRDVEMWNTS IN THIS AREA PUBLIC DRAINAGEEASEMENT /� ATE SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS (3' /`w-� DATE #A-A/f ., AS SHOO,N SECTION 13-103 MAYOR OwN OF ORO WILD OF THE DRD VALLEY ZONING t 1r 25' CODE FDYTSFD.(SEE GENERAL NOTE 21) 1>N( 1 DEDICATION A MONETARY ASSURANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $‘4,4,4V1•0o PURSUANT TO WE THE UNDERSIGNED. HEREBY WARRANT THAT WE ARE ALL AND THE ONLY PARTIES HAVING SEC. 4-904, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO GUARANTEE THAT LANDSCAPING ANY RECORD TITLE INTEREST IN THE LAND SHOWN ON THE PLAT.AND WE CONSENT TO THE AND IRRIGATION WILL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBDMSION OF SAID LAND IN THE MANNER SHOWN HEREON. A°OROVED LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS. WE HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE PUBLIC ALL RIGHT-OF-WAYS SHOWN, INCLUDING ALL STREEIS. WE HEREBY GRANT TO THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY. PIMA COUNTY AND ALL UTILITY COMPANIES ALL EASEMENTS AS SHOWN HEREON FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SEWER WATER ADEQUACY AND UTILITIES AND OTHER USES AS DESIGNATED BY THIS PLAT. A CERTIFICATION OF ASSURED WATER SUPPLY HAS WE THE UNDERSIGNED, OUR SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. DO HEREBY HOLD THE TOWN OF ORO 3 BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTOR OF WATER RESOURCES. VALLEY. THEIR SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, THEIR EMPLOYEES, OFFICERS, AND AGENTS HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES RELATED TO THE USE OF SAID LANDS NOW 2 G �, AND IN THE FUTURE BY REASON OF FLOODING. FLOWAGE, EROSION. OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY Y DATE: 3-15 99 WATER. WHETHER SURFACE, FLOOD OR RAINFALL IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT WA ER UTILITY DIRECTOR NATURAL DRAINAGE SHALL NOT BE ALTERED. DISTURBED OR OBSTRUCTED OTHER THAN AS SHOWN HEREON WITHOUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL. COMMON AREAS ,AS SHOWN HEREON, ARE RESERVED FOR THE PRIVATE USE AND CONVENIENCE OF ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN THIS SUBDMSION. THEIR GUESTS AND INVITEES. RECORDING DATA COMMON AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO AND SUBORDN:ATE TO THE RIGHT OF PUBLIC AND STATE OF ARIZONA Sur, N0 1191a-7cSS3 PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANIES TO INSTALL, MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE FACIUTTES INCLUDING, BUT NOT �SS FEE: St' LIMITED TO, CABLE TELEVISION FACILITIES. STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS. DRAINAGEWAYS, PUBLIC SEWERS AND COUNTY OF PIMA ABOVE GROUND ELECTRIC TRANSFORMERS AND PEDESTALS AND UNDERGROUND FACILITIES. NO I `� NEW OVERHEAD UNES SHALL BE USED. THTS INSTRUMENT WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT THE REQUEST Or THE TITLE TO THE LAND OF ALL EASEMENTS AND COMMON AREAS SHALL BE VESTED IN AN ASSOCIATION OF INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNERS AS ESTABUSH D BY COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ' WILD GROUP, INC., ON THIS 1'N DAY OF ArRIL- RECORDED IN DOCKET (\1oZ.1 )AT PACES ( 1p ) 19 I , AT 2_,ty.5 M. IN BOOK 52- OF MAPS AND PLATS 4• M' IN THE OFFICE OF THE PIMA COUNTY RECORDER- EACH AND EVERY LOT OWNER WITHIN -- AT PA„ 245 THEREOF AT lv:1•i �� THE SUBDMSION SHALL BE A MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION, WHICH WILL ACCEPT ALL --- RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONTROL MAINTENANCE, SAFETY AND LIABILITY OF ALL F. ANN RODRIGUEZ. PIMA COUNTY RECORDER COMMON AREAS WITHIN THIS SUBDMSION AS SHOWN HEREON. LAWYERS TITLE OF ARIZONA, INC.AN ARIZONA CORPORATION, AS TRUSTEE UNDER :+ft- BY: •-'l - TRUST 0 7*' cr' -v DEPLI* O COU REC .D �- BY: ♦ ;r,4 ►,. *0• JI Ail;. RODDA, UST 0 ICER BENEFICIARY OF TRUST: -— CERTIFICATION TANGERINE HEIGHTS, LLC. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE BOUNDARY SURVEY SHOWN ON THIS PLAT WAS STATE OF ARIZONA AN ARIZONA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY PERFORMED UNDER MY DIRECTION AND THAT ALL EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SS 3561 E. SUNRISE DRIVE, SUITE 215 SURVEY MONUMENTS AND MARKERS SHOWN ARE CORRECTLY DESCRIBED. I COUNTY OF PIMA TUCSON,ARIZONA, 85718 FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECTION (520) 529-3800 �. ^:.� L j� ,-a� .r`d..r, ON THIS THE f GAY OF11,j tQ, BEFORE ME, THE UNDERSIGNED Ac:" LINTY L'. OFFICER, PERSONALLY APPEARED JoYCE RoDDA WHO ACKNOWLEDGED HERSELF TO BE THE DOUGIA E. SCHNEIDER DOOCLAS E.R ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LAWYER'S'MU OF ARIZONA,LnUC. AND BEING AUTHORIZED SO TO R.L.S. NO. 1747E - A/y DO, EXECUTED THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT FOR THE PURPOSE THERET BY SIGNING AS ASSI NT VICE PRESIDENT. _: ,• . �•!l DORIS J.CLCZAR,.4,„ice- y.COUNT, I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECTION AND NOTARY LIC MY COMMI THAT THE 100-YEAR FLOOD PRONE LIMITS OR HAZARD SETBACKS NOTED WERE REVIEWED AND SHOWN UNDER MY DIRECTION. TANGERINE HEIGHTS NOTICES OF CONSENT TO PLAT REGORED yhj„, & �/ �' �tota�'. IN 0OCKETJAOLI PG.1041 .AND LOTS 1 THRU 60 AND COMMON AREA A �`� aAuoc DOCKET tloZ t PG. o ,AND PORTION OF SECTION 35. T-11-5, R-13-E, G.& S.R.M. WILLIAM C. WALKER �,m, DOCKET I Lnz E PG LIES, TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA P.E.. N0. 11065 if / SCALE: 1"=200' O£C£MB£R, 1998 OV1-95-.3 i < WLB/ 194069A-001-0106 OEE SHEET OF 5 BOOK 52- PAGE 2€ - 1 2' FILL 2:1SLOPE 1.11 W/ ROCK RIP-RAP � FILTER FABRIC F NGED GRAD INS L'�'IITS E HOLD MIN2FT FROM FE q OL 00 co` el 1' GUT 3:1 SLOPE `1' W/ VEGETATION N8c3"55'S4"E '200.c30' d) \ • , d) 6.' UE.\ \ ❑ A 1y M.' SIDE SE B -I: al • .: * , , M it REM 1 `t �� / , .; 41 N GRADED AEA / . l 4 W,•�TER- - / ,_, .. , . --� 0 \ 1 (0-3, \ , 44 _ C DE 'E � '' -- • ,. , � ��ii . ,!..4 + 9 1'1igibill ail Or�1 4 A88 /o(00 (1] "1: 0 1 , . ,,, „, , , , . 1\ \ / , , , , . . „ • CS 1 - �`��-ilm" i V- ROCK RIP-RAP OVER FILTER _ ' 1--All b/ , / _ •,� _ EACHSIDE OF DRIVEWAY I 0 FABRIC �' �<� � � � � � �j��,;, �" 'i" '. SIDES 74 -�_ , �'2 -1. _1« 10 0 2:1 SLOPE M{N• �,...- �, .°�'•0 , %►:a ' I`\ TREES d) 01 • '1 \\ 28 (--- \\4 : • I TO REMAIN; 4!) -0 c 14�0 1� o e '' — RAW BALES FOR 7 `� i 9 �; ii i . •• T T"iP EROSION'CONTROL m $S>,' • • psi« R SEG. }5-40�0 wri ry ` 's�j! TREE MANHOLE "21 L —f Yi - Ih 15' SIDE �gAGK RIM ELEV- 2843��5' •:•` co+`1c I ��` ) 0 _ 99 — $n mil• pRl CUAY 2849 „I n i 'iw 2 I ! (Y It N8`3°55'S4'E 201.15' �� 4" CULVERT DRIVEWAY RED U.G. UTILITIES cn 0 0_59, SLOPE W/ ROCK �� , co tfi RIP RAP OVER FILTER FABRIC t9 e INLET 4 OUTLET FOR EXISTING V- cO T T l4 CFS) IT W/ 2 RORAP GUTTER STREE FE?vCED �2ADf1\+C3 LIMITS FILL 1 L PE HOLD 1"1fN 2 FT FROM fiE d FILTER FABRIC MANHOLE • 21 BENCH ARC RIM ELEv- 2843.95' l' MAX CUT 3:1 SLOPE Cis LIMITS :Fa: tl!/ REti'E T�►TION FENCED ��i R�L I TT AT I ON a AL L FOLD MIN 2 1=T ms L It 1Q UTILITY 11 NG E3 ASPW l UR1v�W4Y . • DRt1/EWAY (Us. UTILITIES) t�i CONC CURBtNCs �j - t� GI�Lv SLOPE Wl R e • m�� BLOhE FABRIC � • i RAP OvERouTL FILTER FA►E3R NG t` A '� • 11�1L T a OUT FOR EX19T 1 �, r,�.t�. 1. .�' N89`55'..dig 201.I5 GuT1'FR STREET (5 CFO.) PED A �' K • •, e .t o.A: -.....,,_.„......... ,or .... ...._...t. ‘‘. j.i.k ..... ,...... t...''q 0 ..vi...iitiN , -•4-7. . ---gaft---.I r\iiiiipta T_.,"it. ilitAk,‘A L ¼IIIS ' erI.7/0 if i.,0i,N i TO.cote IL ---\ .. .•4:../ suu_E -- ►iir OYE FILTER 2- 1 1172'7.1.3-0.16 4.1111-0--Wj CATALINA 'S` 0 iv fit , ra (it (_Y----'\ 1=1LfiER Q allif '' • FLOCK RIP-RAP Ov�R }-ZIvEWAY ate,� E-r- �C'2NC t31��LK 1 1 F.P.E. 2046.00' lea C • E, SIDEOFD es- - � ' MN t=ABR1 ' ' 4 {9. ,��. I 2:tgL4PEr11N. •�gIDI=g � � - c.1.:.inst..... . ., 4- (r) •:: .",��3 -\ '�' 1 it ft `Lir_ , . . 1 , I k.,_\x,, k„., n! dfilf ' .......-..9" 7. 4. gite J ,rfAilli ai 011 E • • ICON • -eL 0 - �11160A.1 DRAIN HOLES TEMP §\ • WALL AS.NEEDED -- )I PER SEC k-406 ....4 m � (SEE DE L) a...4 in 4:4 TITLEI ri \-...--- k 8111ALE• VI �t to M 'C r. 6 f"" 1 \ ❑ I FT FI 2 s 1 SLOP' \ 4 ,� W/ ,e,�r RIP-RA!" It,z• WATER — .._. -a.- - FILTER FABRIC �- ovE 4W wM . N89"55'54'E 2 39.11'i t-, REvEGETATION • ALL4Jp` j lij° t") UTILITY TRc�E°J iT\ LtMITS FENCED GRAD HOLD MIN ? FTFRale SITE/GRADING PLAN I SCALE: 1' = 20'-0' • AVAILABLE HOME SITES THE HEIGHTS 4 ORO VALLEY April 5, 2000 Lot No. Sq. Ft. Status Premium Comments 1 24,741 None 2 24,600 None 3 24,465 None 4 20,634 None 5 Not Available 6 Not Available 7 Not Available 8 20,003 $20,000 9 20,293 $21,000 10 22,428 $23,000 11 22,925 SOLD 12 22,338 $25,000 13 22,535 SOLD 14 23,348 RESERVED $29,000 15 25,275 SOLD 16 24,985 SOLD 17 22,698 $24,000 18 22,090 $29,000 19 22,126 SOLD 20 28,084 RESERVED $33,000 21 36,831 $39,000 22 21,125 $8,000 23 20,375 $3,000 24 28.055 $5,000 25 20.211 $3,000 26 26,907 $12,000 27 20,037 $8,000 28 23,237 $8,000 Spec-Reddington 4B 29 20,781 $3,000 30 20,082 None 31 22,299 None 32 22.270 None 33 22,055 $12,000 34 22,182 $6,000 35 22,252 $7,000 36 20,424 $8,000 37 20,419 $9,000 38 27,326 $6,000 39 20,032 $8,000 40 Not Available 41 Not Available Model-Sonora 4B 42 Not Available Model-Catalina 4C 43 20,604 $19,000 44 21,446 $18,000 45 23,352 $18,000 46 20,480 $18,000 47 20,017 $8,000 48 20,021 $8,000 49 20,005 $5,000 50 20,179 None , 4 tcy LEY , .0- /s> TOWN OF ORO VALLFY ,ptilirk 1- Office of Community T3erelopr,t nt P4!.'.rmit j'io ."E,011)030 61 5 .. v ,•-,,,, r 11000 N. La Canada Drive-- Approverl: Nay 4 \ 41 )<..,, Oro Valley,AZ 85737 4 \,\ t . - Vr\ \- ii'1 / P" (520) 229-4800 Office Page : 1 A .,,,,W. A. —:-.- .------ 7. - 7- A (520) 742-1022 Fax ---*--'41iP;s111e A l' —'0/, 41b' NDED ' BUILDING. PERMIT Project Address : 12300 N TALL GRASS DR Subdivision/Lot No : TANGERINE HEIGHTS LOT 17 Description of Work : SFR-CUSTOM HOME & LOT APPLICANT C 8( C CONSTRUCTION 04/11/01 Phone: 520-575-0600 6700 N . ORACT,E 4234 TUCSON, AZ 85704 License : 035080 Also is CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR C & C CONSTRUCTION 04/11/01 phone : 520-575-0600 6700 N. ORACLE #234 TUCSON , AZ 85704 License : 0350,80 Also is Applicant OWNER C & C CONSTRUCTION 04/11/01 Phone : 520-575-0600 6700 N. ORACLE 4234 TUCSON, AZ 35704 Also is Applicant Valuation: $299 , 615 .23 Building Permit Fee : 3 ,487 . 69 . Occupancy Groups: R-3 ,U _ Large Size Prints: . )0 Type of Constr : V-N APA Charge : . 00 of Bldgs : 001 Additional Fees: : 00 # of Units: 001 Development Impact. Fee: 2 ,008 .00 Parcel No: 219510240 Special inspection Fee : . 00 Grading Permit No: G0100115 Grading Permit Fee : 65 . 00 Total All Fees : $5 , 560 . 69 i.)---- 4, i e--- ,. , i / p- - , ,-,,,- . --r ) r, I -- 4--Th z'/ i ----, Less Previo_is : dyi,.-Lt— , 1 ,381 . 00 • --, 1 .--.)Li ,:t -- , 5 — , , ,,,,, Balance Due : $4,179 . 69 This permit becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is nf. commenced within 180. days or if construction or work is suspended or abandon( for a period of 180 days at any time after work is commenced. It is the autl orized aPplicant ' s responsibility to determine the location of all exLil underground utilities, sewage disposal systems or other obstacles that Ti interfere with the construction or work authorized by this permit , I hereby certify that I have read and examined this permit and know the an to be true and correct . All provisions of laws and ordinances governin this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not , Th; granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or canoe the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or thl performance of construction. . ) .7.' /•--.7 f.ir _ ___.t.,..4....— ,....._ ,..._i_.,. . L,.., ,, _________ ____._.,. _ Signature of Auth6rizedApplicant Date , "A . (PLEASE PRINT) PLAN C IC APPLICANT TO FILL OUT TOP PORTION OF PERMIT APPLL, TION n,r ALSO, PLEASE COMPLETE GRADING AND CONTRACTOR 1NFOn...eATION ON REVERSE SIDE. / 30 DU _ LOT NO. PARCEL NO. PROJECT ADDRESS /1 iCt2 0 I Al/t' G OA �- 2 19 y(-- 0240 ZONING SECTION/70wN5HIP;FLANGE BOOK/PAGEISHEET p SUeOfVISION NAME/Dv � ��t &11'2 L� ZIP CODE PHONE // MAILING// ADDRESS /� r , ��^ 5'l a-D M APPLICANT i 0 E"I C/l Io ` 1 . t� I CO G Goy--I�►� ZIPCODE FtiG::c MAILING ADDRESS PROPERTY Ow'NER 11(t.1 ZIP CODE PHONE MAILING ADDRESS CONTRACTOR C STATE TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE(SALES'TAX S REGISTERED WITH! ORO , CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE to OROOOTRACEYR'S ' I VALLEY FORTDWN SALES ��D��,/1 VALLEY BU 1NE55 I (-fir 1 }-} TAXI YES vy NO ft �1�000 LICENSE/ d?l /I w 1 1 ' PHONE ZIP CODE E arcIt one) MAILING ADDRESS -� 7 ARCHITECT,ENGINEER OR e� S 7 ARCHITECT/ENGINEER USE OF BUILDING a-^A� ! LICENSE I 0 rf2. - -- e4c76 it //e)/1 et DESCRIBE WORK C000 _ziec ` t`- / � ir ��'" .c, 1�IZ- 301l513c� MODEL PLAN NO.AND OPTIONS lit applicatle) -T1r1 [ w AAA- ( /- /' I (C"I "T STATED VALUATION OF WORK NOTICE: Permits are required for electrical and mechanical installation. A permit becomes null and void it work or construction authorized Is not commenced within 150 days or it construction or work is suspended or abandoned tear a period of 180 -.sys at any tic"•'-`'w work is commenced. I ht,eby csrtiry chat I hav examined this application and know the same to be true and correct. Alt p,ovisior+s o f )",0 c_, taws and ordinances governi this type• wWi pall be como+iedwith.whethet.specified herein or not_ The granting of a permit � '_ft. �- ; A.LED does not AresDAT ' give a nority to v.-ate or cancel II,provisions of any of `_.ate or local law regutanng construcaon or the pert°, nce ti• . 102001 aPI • DATE OFAPPLICAION APPLI NT' E(D NOT WRI ' Aj°_ WO OtBELOW THIS LINE) STATED UATION RRECTED I TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION SQUARE VALUATION PERM+ ASED ON: CORRECTEDLVALUATION VAALLUAT ON: FEET 1 BASIC PERMIT FEE FROM TABLE NO.3-A OF T.HE U.B.C. L.-, L-I LI o 7 G 33 PLAN CHECK FEE }V+� 65%OF PERMIT FEE _ 3 Q(8 TOTAL BUILDING PERMIT FEE P `CTJl FP I` O E /'��A� I GRADING PERMIT FEE OTHER FEES - f LARGE SIZE PRINTS • GRANO TOTAL ALL FEES t LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS 1)6r-F9/4 /$Q l( 3 s/' co • TOTAL AMOUNT DUE r C REVIEvvEO By BUILDING PLUMBING ✓ MECHANICALt/ `'ELECTRICAL rvOL SPA WALL MiS Y . PLAN CHECK ��RC� ��ALLEY USE ONLY ` �ppRoVso DATE nmLoPL«oEm/ DATe*sLD/ DATE . *oLo�m/nsTunmcm RECEIVED RECEIVED o�;� By AppnOvsm RETURNED By _ nsTunmsm RELEASED FOR: ............. �^ ^ ~-____ _____ __ �� x°,��v ` p��K F_--- ~�� ^�� -.. ^ ' � ........................... .......__.... ^ . .......... ...........'........... ______ - - ' _ - � --' '_......... ... ..... ....... - -- `-- ----' SPEC/AL CONDITIONS /xxpAor pse YES mno. oo«: oems*n AREA NO ^ ' -_--' '-------- _ ___ .. � - ' ............................................................ ............................... . --__----.__-.---._------_-'-- ' ........................................................... -------'-_---'--'-_-_--_--__----'_--_. ' .......................................... ................... ... .......................................... ' _-__---_-----__._---_''-_ ......................................................... . P°J�'�E Y 'ajoy TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING DIVISION 414i - 11`' - 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 :� _; Phone: (520) 229-4800 Fax: (520)742-1022 s FCt'"+OEO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION FOR: — Zoning Variance Zoning Interpretation X Appeal of Administrative Decision CASE NO.: NATURE OF REQUEST: SEC k4- TArilc 0'0 1-6- TER APPLICANT: 4 t FFi? f S .. 'I' m, L f}- 4 N uN Ai PHONE/FAX: Q- ADDRESS: 1 ,z 3 i ? N. PILL O/e/-5 S /�/Z OjZ& V4-1. L . yr 4-1 . 7 J 7 OWNER: E AS 4-8 Lt✓E ADDRESS: it PARCEL NUMBER: 1 g 5-i 0,t• 0 f23b0 ti,jA�L 6g"6" DR.-- _PROPERTY LOCATION/ADDRESS: (JefLEGAL DESCPTION: � Cl1LC t ACREAGE: I t S CURRENT ZONING: APPLICABLE FEE: 2 L� ATTACHMENTS: / -- Jim p 11 4:1,,it c--1- - t'" p6 62, C) ________ Z fekt--YY )- --.1%-oe e• 1 , tio-e-Lgii - I- erw-ez_li ,f t-7L 1 0-1P- 1.-ie___ 1! SIGNATU OF AfPPLICANT (AND ALSO PRINT NAME) ,- DATE Li --7 Ely c ( '/ `- c(ori FAADMIN ORMSIB A APP doc / / / June 14, 2001 Town of Oro valley Planning and Zoning Division 11000 N. LaCanada Drive Oro Valley, Az 85737 To whom it may concern, We are writing this letter to appeal the decision which granted the building permit to C and C construction # B0100305 for the property at 12300 N. Tall grass Drive. A copy of the permit is attached. We are asking for a decision by the city to immediately halt forever the construction of the proposed home at 12300 N. Tall Grass Drive for the following reasons. On or about March 2000 we visited with C and C construction at their development known as Tangerine Heights aka the Heights at Oro Valley. We were shown a number of available model plans to choose from as well as a number of lots to choose from.Over the course of a month or so we selected a model known as the Sonoran. We further selected lot 18 based upon certain representations made by C and C construction. Representations such as view of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Pusch ridge and the City lights as well as the elevation of our lot, along with assurance given to us that `' no home will be built in such a fashion as to block your view that you are paying tor_ This quote was also given to our neighbors to the north Tim Pomp as well as Sharon Myers who lives a few doors down and in addition to several realtors, a Barb and Alan Murray of Long Realty and I am sure many others. We paid a $29,000 premium for our views, which was one of the very highest premiums paid due to the view. We were further assured that by looking up the street all the homes were or would be placed in such a fashion that any obstruction would not happen. When we went to place our home on the lot we were allowed a 30-foot setback and no more as it would obstruct the view of our neighbors to the north on lot 19, the Pomps. We certainly understood and agreed to the placement of our home. Given the fact that we purchased the largest model offered and looking to the south it was represented that any home next door would be no larger than ours as we had the largest model and with the setbacks we had to conform with, were told where the placement of the home would be. The attached floor plans from C and C and the pictures we have submitted show what was offered to the public as well as why even the largest home would not block our view. Further we have attached Internet advertising showing sq footages and prices offered. We decided to make cosmetic changes to the front of our home to more of a southwest contemporary design, without making an changes to the blueprint size of the model offered. We were informed that this woul mean the home would have to go in front of the Design review board for approval. We complied with this and awaited their decision. Our home, although from the street the front elevation looks nothing like a home they offered was submitted our permit as a Model home with a revision. Upon approval they ey told us that they had to alter the blueprint by a couple of feet as the home as a standard plan was too big for the lot and had to change a foot or two to fit the lot. That was fine. Construction started and we moved in December 21,2000. Now to the matter at hand. The home that is currently under construction on Lot 17, looks like a model they offer from the front but was submitted as a One time custom home. The home being built is over 5500 square feet, over 2200 square feet larger than any home offered which means it is approx 25 feet deeper than any home offered, yet it did not have to go in front of the Design Review Board due to a decision by Bryant Nodine that it was a" minor change". This home if constructed will completely block our views of Pusch ridge, part of the Santa Catalina Mountains and all of the City light views all of which we paid a $29,000 premium for. Under your Development Review Chapter 3-3 paragraph C. it states in part the following "Staff shall be permitted to approve minor/common sense changes of architecture or landscape plans in order to avoid delay by using the normal development review process. Minor/common sense changes or alterations include those that: 1. Are reasonably similar to the approved plan. Is going from 3300 sq ft to over 5500 sq feet a minor change'? 2. Are not already completed. 3. Benefit the town or the environment. 4. Are not controversial. Was no consideration given that a home that is over 60% larger than the largest floor plan, at a cost of approx $800,000 in a mid $300,000 development might be considered controversial? 5. Are consistent with similarly situated property. What is consistent about this home with the others? The home to the south on lot 16 is even smaller than ours and I believe is under 3000 sq. feet. Where is the consistency here? 6. Do not affect mass or streetscape. How can you add over 2200 square feet and not affect mass. This is like adding a home to a home! Does not going from 3300 square feet to over 5500 square feet affect mass? 7. Do not affect pre-approved plats. This was not pre-approved nor did it go in front of the DRB. Yet we had to go in front of the DRB for cosmetic changes. Also for the record we were originally going to replace the wooden headers on the front of our home with stucco and leave the design the same, however after being informed that it would have to go in front of the DRB for that minor change, we were told we might as well change the whole front, that it would not take any longer. I think a change e from 3300 to 5500 square feet does in fact change the pre-approved plats. . 8. Are approved by the neighborhood association, if necessary. Well, we have found out that the builder controls the neighborhood association and they will not answer any questions regarding this. I have tried several times on several different occasions to get this information and they will not cooperate at all. Further under Section 3-302 Criteria specifically, the DRB is guided by the following criteria in including but not limited to: A. The board shall examine the application to insure all provisions of this ordinance and all other ordinances, master plans, general planund standards of the town of Oro Valley shall be complied with where applicable. B. The proposed development shall not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, nor shall it be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood. This definitely injures us. C. The proposed development shall promote a desirable relationship of structures to one another Where is the promoting of a desirable relationship with this monster in between 2 much smaller homes? This is a 6-bedroom home with a casital D. The height, area, setback and overall mass as well as parts of any structure.... Shall be appropriate to the development. The overall mass is way out of line and with the setback is not appropriate for this development. E. Does not apply F. The architectural character of the proposed structure shall be in harmony with and compatible to, those structures in the neighboring environment and the architectural character adopted for any given area avoiding excessive variety or monotonous repetition. Is not a home with over 5500 square feet blocking peoples paid for view in an area where the homes average maybe 3000 sq feet excessive'? Especially in a planned development with certain models none of which even closely resemble this in size? Currently, we have a court order a copy of which is attached ordering C and C construction to construct nothing above grade until our depositions are taken and a hearing scheduled,This hearing should be sometime next week or so. Further, Bryant Nodine never mentioned when I met with him the week of June that there is an appeal process to his decision. Why did he not mention this? Is he not a city employee paid by my tax dollars? We only found out because my wife Pam pulled it up on the internet and I took the day off of work at her insistance . I went to city hall today the I4tt of June to get the records for this home being constructed and decided to ask for Bayer Vella. He was most helpful in being honest with me about the process and the dates. We respectfully ask for immediate action on this matter for the above reasons. This home should have gone in front of the DRB instead of being manipulated thru the system. This home if constructed will cause us great financial damage as well as the emotional distress it has already caused us. We ask that construction be halted immediately, the permit revoked and damages paid, before further legal action is taken. It is not too much to ask that their normal model be built, with their normal setback that we had to comply with and done in such a fashion that it does not obstruct our view that we as well as others had to pay a hefty premium for. Sincerely, Jeff and Pam Nunn 12318 N. Tall Grass Drive Oro Valley , Az. 85737 1-520-297-6271 itr•Ind...I_ 1 ..,..1'^ -..,,,,11.-,.. , '11, :,..1,11i- ;-.. IT t,-..1 i ,,.,,,....., v.,.hl..=,-....... '-' .4. ' :r71,t''',1,1,.„. . ;v3;; ,'' ':•*•;:;,-../ f..1! :4 ..4,.,t-01-'... .- % ...";. V"•t,: '' ' ...'Z-'•1;IA 16 11,...:':,.•,,,,4.- • ' *,:,•.• :.:_. ',..;'..1,Vri ',. ..'',,.....:t:".", t ':.• . .....;s:•; ...le.r,7, 16. - li .1i.. 2--.•,-;r..t:,':-.100",'.rt.:,, , .„-'.4 i C":4.,,id.'-• 1 i - \"‘,'" - .‘„tr,11,.......'..:.4....c.-'1_ e•-• , ' ,..., .,... -':,:7 -''''- '',-••:;;;;'"1.ft?:r-- - a. "..'....g.,,, 2•:. , • " ....r ::-, , -01..,.1, ... , -.. •''-',-.,.,!'i" , f.ift - :. ,,),I , lif -;?, r..-i•:.,-----t, -• -.., ,, ,• ?' -;.,:,• —:, ri••': .2,_..,-.::. = , _ A ":•:,: . • •',• • ' 4.'•/;•-' • -, .0, ., • ., .."• ri.." :". •,`".-":,",i'., • ','....ti.,g ,. I , ..-- ....• : "" •„'..:*: f f .i:.- . -',- j.I.--,t., ); I j ---- ' •1 --Y' " t", ''" t•'•• 1...,,:: .' '' ;;1",111.'',,i i:... - i... '4* '... 1-:.t —.: ir,.-- pi:_tah....,..,'•-.1"..-4 s.4.1:st. 1,:: -I.:1' 1—'1,11'1:1:1 .4 ,.... ! --., - 4f, -.e . .,!.,--j.::„.4;,,.„,• _j. '''l '.. 4J . . ', of;:...•f.....--.'',4 - 1 :,•• " *,-, _ • ,-,t - ., . 41:p_i.t'e _-• 4;iit f,": 1 1,:l,y:: . r..r'410:;1;:- -: *I., •. ii 1...• . -• -f. 4,,k, 1..t.,.",. ' it _ taltl..•k. ' -LAC! itt..ti• 'Ai 17"-- ' CS x 0-0 itsiii4....................., ._ `4. illailini , • 14 �11R14�I�AWI i- ....-t+w+,W*.,,,,...w•.h"04it]s3Ntvivt.,,,notM.iw,604 N.1WM told/% 'fic yA4,4.,',,.xw'in' , .F.1• E L t j .'t''-:'i -,,,, ,, „..,-,,,:„. _. , ...• • f. .. ,•,...: ..... .4`;' '- �- 2tiib..��• S'i -ice I xi p t,P MINI .:iriectihf 40.4,44 4• olit , 't.„. . Iblif r. li'w t y 4 ¢♦ • . ,_ii ,al, , Er , , / • 4‘. - • .1; • • • V • •ft, " • . •, ••••,• .6, 'J • •.404• :• • • • 1 • 7!.‘,. •‘'1,•'I • • • . . „,,,J/Nuommionomm.1 . . •ta" ., \I.11 • , \ at. anigessirom- .4'AA 11111), /7 , . . . . . .. , 4 . . • , 0; 11.4016iii • . , i * — -- , . . •$ * • . • .•,, tIg 4 .., . . : 4.. ' 7 4, . , • ',...•,- , - ' , 5 1.,,,. .._•},4'..- r : ' . - . 4,,,',..,,,N..11,F.'' -4 •- -''',,''''v''''' '''' .r• , . ', • •ien.1'711 •'','--' ./ ....'-'.4..''' . 'i•.•- ' , , .•:'f , . ' . $ , • , • . . • . a , I . ...,.,:. , , . A , . • .. . . .........- . • 1 • , ...>. i.,..., .... 1,,,,2001;a ‘,.• i..4.0•111;8 a , 1011111111 I,... -. • -..,.. \\- ,-----= , . / , 1 - .,... . .. ! • 'S Wm IliiiilliffiliVA IiiiiiMili 4-- ' ' 1... 0 i r: 44 ' I . ., .1 • I1 „ I. . ..,..... 1 --- i I I t 1 I ti 4,r; q'4'...4 • W;r ",', . -,` •,,, ,' t,. t • ; . 1, i 1 i A t• •i 0 ..il• 1 0 •' 44 1$ • ', _. t.., . fw., id --- N'''1Z1,7-1.;4,7';',',:'.1,,,":-:-.7---::..---.:.:.-.-•-:,'7' -'...--- - .' - -'''''•,••-",;: - "- . 0,11 :' '''''''''' ..• ,,,,•;:f.,-,4' ,. ' I ''i .- ii=lu -A- -* i, ift-ii ,• .1- :::-'..''----.. ' --- .. •11• .. ,,.... . .. _iiikz a__-- ....__....-,,, .-. . „... - _---- - ____ •- 0 . .. , ,, •. ..._ .. _ .......... • . . _,- ,r•--1"4,: rt- -- '7-7.-.:-!,,r'•;?;17.iae.;—'0111_,r. ',.'' 4,7,"" .'".",st...t,sr,;,izi.;-..t,-2,.. • ,V..—:SIL"S'r:ult. ' :2•••„•..,,,,--,,,r,':tv....•,r,-)1.t.,-,..,... • _- - - .. . .. . -- ,,: 'iy,7 '''.1-.!.lia''-'''''V....1-'4.,,,, *-e•,)cier',...,4-•,44F-.., *--,-•, . -A ,4..7..," r"rt.. .S"..4-7.••••",'---''• --.ie..' '•i:.•‘R' .: '''9t.'A*''fe..*7."' •.t'g'.-:1.'•‘<' il, '' _L-• - , -,-.-• - 4.. 1.;,. ..?„.,,, -,..,,z...,,,---7:-.,,,,-.2, 1.- -- ,, - : -,,...-,•1:': r _ ___... ... . . ... .''r'' '-' r '1 - r -• -f.--- ' rr--,..--• .3/4,-....4.,.."--"-z- i.!:,'.---"-0** `"*""C.'"'#"4-4 ' --* *• .- Itt77. - 4,-"+ " 4i1-'1,,- - . .... -- - - - —-3z - --...W7‘.1.-:-..trciet.,, ,r.-"4....-•••._%.*:, .. -,,,,,.. -...,,, C`, Nr, --. - vir•'•-• • ,.s ,.£,!`'.'",•.t._ ' .. i tit - iv i":.,_,___ _ h may. .tf"ds&+'� i .01 i , . I v i"�i z II max, r s�:..� f t' .' s Of. 1 v • t r. AAP Lis_ itiL,, , vallui joilLi_e..,., - --. . -weir "' •.. -,11111MtN- -'. .9.tNT..- _ - ..1.1 tf 1 ai: iiiiiii MR5114' ' ''-`1 . -IMMMIIIIIj MIA . i .a*Jaw;i MEW ., , ,-1: III\ \. /- f - _ 1 _ ' - r `, -.1/. t ' ■. ■ •�. i •, r i P A 11-,.4..` 4._ 4 '.704e'"I‘jIIIPIIIIIIII ' 4 Ilia . .- ...... .---"`"- ."- .' "- -' '' .. :, ,•-• - _ i. . •. 4r i V' J. ill f - . , ... - ... . _ . .'A.---7.r-!_-•"Tim.,"-tiff*, r'r-f,,,, a 4,�',..fir 1. w ` — 7:.� l ' .. • •} In fl r, aa, ' acl 4, ..,r 4- :. 1 '^ j / Nf tit*s • \ l .b V C la •log. :k�,,, i . y _bra v ) '� 4 ' aft - , •ii$10116. ;.:,`r -' 1 I7 r rI 11111 * -�:-' 1 J .. --- i � - 1--- - . , ill11111_, . _- , r4i;04-if -4,44tP4.4„,%%:"_ 410- •* -4. - 'IP--7 N4. ,. -7,., .-:-..-• /,• Al:/.:- ' ••'''''.i.'3"--1. .".. .A., ""F".1111.116.1.1.11."1111' - "...' ifriiir-i------- ' ,.....-. • ...,,, •....,..„ •4 $,...,-41-' b. ......4- *7..2, _,."4 1 . __.j ' \\ ' . .. 14 E R,jf�tt +ijY Y. �F. tv i1r- makil ,r�jy �1 tiiipt • v*, - Ai,.,.'• - ��{{, F ';.+y 1 �.4 # 'R; vwe1 IF t x• .tom wr 'ice• . liL p 1x �� _ yiS ,.`. .4' ' { x �v,{t"/fix `ti .Y II ;_, 1.141!.' I ,,, . I I __. Fr 11.1, i ' 1[ ./... ',I il Imillitlitillini ' ' , . . I 14: : tl;l i 1III' `''' ,1 1 1J !F -sl`. y II ' , 11 `, lc.ki\ • + ,Sri, Rom, _� '., � - { S«- Pv_LEY AR/ („7„ mvmw,77 °UNDER 1' ‘ Office of the Town Attorney Memo To: Dee Widero, Sr.Zoning Inspector From: Dan L. Dudley,Town Attorney Date: July 18,2001 Re: Nunn Case(insert into report) Mr. and Mrs. Nunn originally sought a temporary injunction before the Honorable Lena Rodriguez in Pima County Superior Court. The plaintiffs (Nunns) introduced evidence. The defendants did not. At the close of plaintiffs evidence, defendants moved to dismiss the application for preliminary injunction. The Court had dismissed the injunction, stating that: The Court having heard the evidence, having observed the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, having conducted an onsite inspection, as well as having heard argument, finds and orders that the plaintiffs will continue to have "breathtaking views" of Pusch Ridge and the Catalina Mountains even if the Braunreiters build their home on Lot 17. The Court further found that plaintiffs could show no irreparable injury and that damages at law are not adequate. The Court further found that public policy favors the landowner's property rights and freedom to build on his or her property, subject only to appropriate legal restraints. Consequently, if there are to be limitations on neighboring homes and homeowners' property use, such must be enforceable under the law. On the facts presented to the Court, the Court found that the public policy does not favor plaintiff's position. The Court further found and concluded, based on the record before it, that plaintiff's request for injunction relief failed and ordered the dismissing of the application for injunctive relief The Court,however,permitted plaintiffs claims for compensatory damages to proceed. Following the filing of the Pima County Superior Court action, the Nunns appealed a determination of the Planning and Zoning Director in this matter. Pursuant to ARS 9-462.06(E)an appeal to the Board of Adjustment stays all proceedings in the matter being appealed. As a result of that stay, the Planning and Zoning Administrator requested that C&C Construction cease building on Lot 17 until a determination by the Board of Adjustment and further advised C&C Construction and the property owner that if they didn't cease such construction, they were proceeding at their own risk pending a final determination in this matter. DLD/smf F:\Memos\P&Z\Widero 071701-Nunn decision Superior Court.doc JVL"JJ-ClJ�11 tc•4J P.01/05 LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE J. FEULNER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Phone: (520)622-4866 THE DAVIS HOUSE Fax: (520) 624-7034 262 N. Main Tucson, Arizona 85701-8220 EACZMILE COVER SHEET July 5, 2001 TO: Bud Cardinal FAX: 575-0607 FROM: George Feulner TRANSMITTING: 6pages, including cover sheet. CLIENT MATTER: Re: C&C Construction v. Nunn COMMENTS: Bud, As requested here is a copy of the Minute Entry from the court, Thanks, George original document being transmitted; Will not be sent by regular mail: Will be sent by regular mail: Other: Problems with transmission: If you did not receive all pages or if you experience any other transmission problems or errors, please call(520) 622-4866. Erroneous transmission: This transmittal is privileged and confidential, intended only for the addressed. If you received this communication in error, please contact us. Do not distribute of copy and return the transmission to us at the above address via U.S. Postal Service, Thank you. . !VUr '06/12/01 16:12 DESKTOP MGT 4 3254224 ND.269 P02 FJ PATRICIA A_NO AND CLERK,SUPERIOR COURT June 6,2001 (4:28 p.m.) • By:Beth Hoover ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTY JUDGE PRO TEMPORE: HON. DOUGLAS ZIRKLE CASE NO. C - 20012573 • COURT REPORTER: NONE DATE: • June 6, 2001 JEFFREY NUNN AND PAMELA NUNN Jean Moskow `f Plaintiff Plaintiffs Attorney s. C & C CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., AN Charles (Bud) Cardinal m In Proper Person ARIZONA CORPORATION, ET AL (Telephonically) Defendant ' MINUTE ENTRY HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S APPUCATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER: Plaintiffs not present; defendant, CHARLES CARDINAL, President of C & C Construction Company, is present telephonically. ti Defendant, CHARLES CARDINAL, is questioned by the Court and cross- examined by Ms. Moskow, On stinulatlon of counsel and Charles Cardinal, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant shall not perform any contruction of improvements above ground level except for the pouring of the concrete slab on Lot 17 prior to June 21, 2001. On further stipulation, IT IS (FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall not be prejudiced by the fact that the defendant has poured the slab on Lot 17 and/or performed an other construction from this date forward. - 06/13/01 WED 15:S I rA_i DZU JGJ 06/12/01 16:10 DESKTOP t1 T 4 3254224 N0.2Q9 D03 MINUTE ENTRY Date: June 6, 2001 Case No: C r�-�1 57 Page:2 -_ 1r _ � W-a;?:.w.yi...; +r m i�::'t+ �-S?ti_wwcd,$rFSE'td..'fe..:;}•-•. ...._,. _ ....__ ...,._____ ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that unless a prior Court order is obtained, the . defendant shall be entitled to perform construction of any improvement on the property after June 21, 2001. J .. HON. !If GLA/ IRKLE cc: Hon. Douglas Zirkle (Judge Pro Temppre) Clvii Calendaring --Jean MOSKOW, Esq. George Feulner, Esq. Charles (Bud) Cardinal, C & C Construction Company, 6700 N. Oracle Rd., #234, T/A-04 Beth Hooves NewHomeNetwork -- Results i ubv - -- Viit our newneighborhood,��lli�:ll�C:� �f3 s .- —- '' a- .-io,w:1.£ �` r7Iit;311cf Ne� �rne �� «, f- Results Homes 1-16 of 16 o m Search Us in _ _ _ .-'et §�='� ra f z Myi'�.�'.L'tE`1isa"'mil y'L��r'�FC�i i t.� il t - ._.„ [i tf,- 3r-. tii r+t l i�`'��i� 5 t f t Y ' -1111=Magni 1'4 Special Offer Mt Media Gallery 1 Available Homes Desert Vista builder community 11237 N. Medow Sage Dr. • Oro Valley South, AZ 85737 • (520) 907-1718 A residential community by C & C Construction Bsmnt. ■ome Name Priced From Sq- Ft. Bed Bath Type Car oronado mid $300,000's 3329 5 3 S 2G no Heights_( _he) builder community Trailer On Tall Grass Dr. • Oro Valley North, AZ 85737 • (520) 515-6633 A residential community by C & C Construction Home Name Priced From Sq. Ft. Bed Bath Type Car Bsmnt. Sonora 5 high $300,000's 3378 5 3.5 S 3 +Gno Catalina 5 high $300,000's 3398 5 3 S noneno Coronado 5 high $300,000's 3293 5 4 S 3 +Gno /1 Catalina 4 mid $300,000's 3177 4 2.5 S 3 +Gno o Coronado 4 mid $300,000's 3090 4 3.5 S 3 / -` ______—_ ---- �----- _ -- Ranch o Camino Palo Verde builder community 4141 N. Avenida de Primeria Alta • Tucson, AZ 85749 • (520) 760-1428 A gated, residential community by Sombra Homes Home Name Priced From Sq. Ft. Bed Bath Type Car Bsmnt. 3320 high $300,000's 3320 4 2.5 S 3 +Gno Skyline Ridge a part of Skyline Country Club 5028 E. Calle Brillante • Tucson, AZ 85718 • (520) 615-0256 A gated, residential community by Southwest Foothills Home Name Priced From Sq. Ft. Bed Bath Type Car Bsmnt. A high $400,000's 2428 3 3 T 2G no C high $400,000's 2470 2 2 T 2G no D1 high $400,000's 2348 1 2 T 2G no D2 high $400,000's 2932 2 3 T 2G no htto://www-newhomenetwork-com/cgi-bin/homes' A 1399L5D95n9389/Results/create seat--. 6/13/2001 gA e (XeityleA, a ac- Djalky by C & C Construction Building "Certified Performance Homes" MINI-SONORA 3 BR-2 BA 2509 Sq. Ft. Elevation A $335,000.00 2509 Sq. Ft. Elevation B $340,000.00 2509 Sq. Ft. Elevation C $345,000.00 CIMARRON-R 3 BR-3 BA 2272 Sq. Ft. Elevation A $338,000.00 2272 Sq. Ft. Elevation B $340,000.00 2272 Sq. Ft. Elevation C $348,000.00 SONORA 3 3 BR-2 1/2 BA 2706 Sq.Ft. Elevation A $355,000.00 2706 Sq. Ft. Elevation B $360,000.00 2706 Sq. Ft. Elevation C $365,000.00 SONORA 4 4 BR-2 1/2 BA 2925 Sq. Ft. Elevation A $375,000.00 2925 Sq.Ft. Elevation B $380,000.00 2925 Sq.Ft. Elevation C $385,000.00 SONORA 5 5 BR-3 1/2 BA 3378 Sq. Ft. Elevation A $395,000.00 3378 Sq. Ft. Elevation B $399,000.00 3378 Sq. Ft. Elevation C $405,000.00 REDDINGTON 4 BR -3 BA 2767 Sq. Ft. Elevation A $360,000.00 2767 Sq. Ft. Elevation B $365,000.00 2767 Sq. Ft. Elevation C $370,000.00 CORONADO 4 4 BR-3 1/2 BA 3090 Sq. Ft. Elevation A $390,000.00 3090 Sq. Ft. Elevation B $395,000.00 3090 Sq. Ft. Elevation C $400,000.00 CORONADO 5 5 BR-4 BA 3293 Sq. Ft. Elevation A $410,000.00 3293 Sq. Ft. Elevation B $415,000.00 3293 Sq. Ft. Elevation C $420,000.00 CATAI,INA 4 4 BR-2 1/2 BA 3177 Sq. Ft. Elevation A $378,000.00 3177 Sq. Ft. Elevation B $381,000.00 3177 Sq. Ft. Elevation C $388,000.00 CATALINA 5 5 BR - 3 BA 3398 Sq. Ft. Elevation A $400,000.00 3398 Sq. Ft. Elevation B $403,000.00 3398 Sq. Ft. Elevation C $410,000.00 PRICES SUBJECT TO CI IANGE WITI TOUT NOTICE MARKETING BY CUSTOM DESIGN'CONSUI,TANTS 6700 N. Oracle Road, Suite 234 "Tucson,AZ 85704 (520) 575-0600 02/0R/01 a h.c-.•.r,J P.0G 0 RILED PATRICIA A.NOLAND CLERK,SUPERIOR COURT ARIZONA SUPERIOR.COURT, PIMA COUNTY June 29, 2001 (10:16 a.m.) By: Curtis Marshal JUDGE: HON. LIrNA,RODRIGUEZ CASE NO. C-20012573 COURT REPORTER: Mary Bernal DATE: June 28,2001 JEFFREY NUNN and PAMELA NUNN,h/w Bruce R. Heurlein Plaintiff Plaintiff's Attorney vs. C&C CONSTRUCTION;DOUG George J. Feulner for Defendant C& C BRAUNREITER, Construction Defendants Robert I Hooker for specially appearing for Defendant Braunreiter MINUTE ENTRY COURT TRIAL RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Pamela Nunn present. Bud Cardinal,a representative of C&C Construction, also present. Mr. Hooker explains to the Court why he is specially appearing and makes statements to the Court regarding this Court's jurisdiction over Doug Braunreiter in this matter. Mr.Peulner concurs with Mr.Hooker's position in this matter. Mr.Heurlein makes statements in response. Mr,Feulner moves to invoke the rule and Carrie Richards Pomp and Dennis Braunreiter are ._ --- _ sworn, admonished,and excused from the court room. Plaintiffs' Exhibits 1 through 49,a description of each which is more fully set forth in the exhibit list, are identified. FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Mr.Heurlein indicates the parties have stipulated that C&C Construction is the builder,Bud Cardinal is the qualifying party of the general contractor of C&C Construction,that the broker was Custom Design Consultants,the designated broker is Penny Cardinal,the spouse of Bud Cardinal, and Curtis Marshall Deputy Clerk �' MINUTE ENTRY Page: 2 Date: June 28, 2001 Case No: C-20012573 that Susie Terry was a sales agent of Custom Design Consultants, Mr.Feulner concurs with the stipulation as stated by Mr. Iieurlein. Jeffrey Nunn is sworn, examined and partially cross-examined 12,20 p.m. The Court recesses until 1:20 p.m. 1:20 p.m. Same parties, counsel and court reporter present, Jeffrey Nunn resumes the stand and is further cross-examined and questioned by the Court. Pamela Nunn is sworn, examined,cross-examined and questioned by the Court. Defendant's Exhibit AA,being a copy of a Deposit Receipt and Agreement for Purchase of a Custom Home and attached addendum, is identified and admitted. Defendant's Exhibit K,being a 4" x 6" color photograph of the Plaintiffs' home and surrounding area, is identified and admitted. Carrie Richards Pomp,previously sworn under the rule, takes the stand and is examined and cross-examined. Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 through 49 are admitted. Plaintiff rests. u1ner.rnoves that the Appiicatic r r li y-Inj ,onbe srx4ssed and-argues-to-the, Court. Mr.Heinlein argues in response. THE COURT FINDS that the Motion to Dismiss the Application for Preliminary Injunction is well taken. THE COURT HAVING HEARD THE EVIDENCE,HAVING OBSERVED THE CREDIBILITY AND DEMEANOR OF THE WITNESSES,HAVING CONDUCTED AN ON- SITE LNSPECTION,AS WELL AS HAVING HEARD ARGUMENT,FINDS AM) ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Curtis Marshall Deputy Clerk .1uG VJ Gr_k:JL 1G• f i P.04/05 MINUTE ENTRY Page: 3 Date: June 28, 2001 Case No: C-20012573 THE COURT FINDS that the Plaintiffs' lot will continue to have "breathtaking views"of Puscb Ridge and the Catalina Mountains even if the Braunreiters build their home on Lot 17. The statements made by the Defendant's representatives were merely hyperbole and/or descriptive statements usual in describing views in conjunction with the sale of realty and did not constitute misrepresentations, consumer fraud nor binding promises. The Plaintiffs were not induced to buy the property with regard to any representations made regarding the city view. Rather, the back of the home faces east toward the Catalina Mountains and not towards the city. There were Palo Verde trees on Lot 17 blocking some of the city view. Further,the city views from the two windows in question are limited by the Plaintiffs' own decision not to purchase the seamless windows as well as the additional obstruction caused by Plaintiffs' large southeast patio pillar. See for example Exhibits 31, 32, and 18. Additionally, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden that any promises or representations were made that the homes would be staggered to guarantee city views. In fact, the Court's own inspection during its on-site visit revealed that some of the homes were staggered in the reverse direction. See for example Lot 14 on Exhibit 49, _. —_Paaintiffs rtsophisticateri_realtors-And r ely4Inderstood#heilature wt u i ey- reviewed. The Plaintiff Jeffrey Nunn's own testimony indicated that he understood that, if in fact oral promises regarding the views were made and relied upon by Plaintiffs,such provisions should have been included in the written contract, IRE COURT FINDS AND CONCLUDES with regard to the Application for Preliminary Injunction that on the current state of the record,Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiffs' original Complaint did not seek injunctive relief,but rather, only compensatory damages. Even the Amended Complaint seeks primarily damages by way of rescission and other forms Curtis Marshall Deputy Clerk uL ✓�?-GwJkJ 1 1 G•''I P. 5/�J5 • MINUTE ENTRY Page: 4 Date: June 28,2001 Case No: of relief compensable by way of money damages. Based on the state of the record before it, TILE COURT FINDS that Plaintiffs carp show no irreparable injury and that damages at law are adequate. THE COURT FURTIIER FINDS that the balance of hardships does not ter necessarily Plaintiffs herein as compared to the Defendants Braurirei favor the _ THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that public policy favors the landowner's freed®m to build on hislher roe subjectonly property rights and property rty to appropriate legal restraints. Consequently,if there are to be Iimitations on neighboring homes and homeowners' property use,such must be under the law. On the facts here, the public policydoes enforceable not favor Plaintiffs'position. THE COURT FINDS AND CONCLUDES on the state of the record before it with t. the Application for Preliminary Injunction, that Plaintiffs' request regard to � est for injunctive relief fails. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED dismissing the application for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs' remaining claims for compensatory damages shall proceed, In view of the Court's ruling, it appears there are no viable claims remainingwith Defendants Br'at:nreiter. inasmuch as Defendants Braunreiter regard to were only recently served, the Court defers .r�alin any nth-mgard to st _saidDekndan ------ --. _.._..... • HON. LING RODRJG cc: Hon. Lina Rodriguez Civil Calendaring Bruce G. Heurlein, Esq.-Karp, Heurlein &Weiss ,--George 1.Feulner,Esq.- Law Offices of George J. Feulner Robert J. Hooker,Esq.-Hooker&Rodriguez Curtis Marshall Deputy Clerk TOTAL F.05 THE LAW FIRM OF , HEURLIN & WEISS, P.C. ' �� , '' 3060 NORTH SWAN TUCSON,ARIZONA 85 ROAD 25 J U L 2 3 2001 t� TELEPHONE(520)325-4200 FACSIMILE(520)325-4224 www.khaw-Iaw.cam BY: frifr-1-1 Leonard Karp Divorce/Family Law To: Dan Dudley Bruce R.Heuriln Real Estate Securities Arbitration Of- Admin istrative&Govt. Stephen M.Weiss Fax No.: 229-4774 Personal Injury Criminal Defense Malpractice Civil Rights From: J. Michael Van Alsburg Appeals Laura C.Belleau Re: Nunn Building Permit Appeal Divorce/Family Law Gregory J.Foster Personal Injury Date: July 23, 2001 Malpractice Criminal Defense DUI Administrative/Govt. Documents: Michael van Alsburg Real Estate Number of Pages: 17, including cover sheet Business-Corporation &Partnership Contracts Arbitration Comments: Enclosed are additional copies of documents that we may use at the Land Use Sc Zoning July 24, 2001,Board of Adjustment hearing. If you have any Cyndy Valdez questions,please feel free to give me a call. Employment Armando de Leon If there are any problems with this transmission, please call Personal Injury Gina Williams at(520) 325-4200 immediately. Thank you, Criminal Defense Military Charles R.Hamm Personal Injury Criminal Defense Divorce/Family Law Brian A.Laird Construction Defects Professional Negligence Products Liability Insurance Bad Faith The information contained in this facsimile message Is Information protected by attorney-client and/or the attorney-work product privilege. It is Emended only for the use of the individual named above and the privileges are not waived by virtue of this having been sent by facsimile. If the person actually receiving this facsimile or any other reader of the facsimile is not the named recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver It to the named recipient,any use,dissemination, distribution,or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received thi.c communication In error,please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S.Portal Service. JUL-23-01 10:26 FROM- uat iur --_. T-549 P.03/19 F-938 Sac.1-401 ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE 1-4a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMiSSiOR Sec.1.401 Scope The Planning and Zoning Commission pmari _ xiaea+ham Town Council on planning and zoning policies, plans. amendments and regulations as authorize by A.R.S.Tile 11,Chapter4. The Planning-and Zoning Commission is the planning agency for the Town of Oro Valley,and has the powers necessary to enable ft to fulfill its planning function,in accordance with A.R.S.9-451.O1A and B,as described in Section 1-402. Sec.1-402 Powers jkod Duties The Planning and Zoning Commission performs the following duties: A, Ptar nina&Zoning Work Pik The Planning and Zoning Commission initiates and rovides lotions to the Town Coun ' n the annua wo plan, w c • es a evelopment review of Town fan use plans which shag,_be review—ell by the n Council on a qua y asps_ B. general Plan - The Plennln and Zoning Commission initiates,develo mmertds to the Town Council a General Plan which esta is es e9oa s a o alley regarding-future development of the Town. 'Me Commission s res ns ®l for maintaining the adopted General Plan. C. Land Use Plans The Planning and Zoning Commission Initiates the development and review prowess on all other land use plans and, subsequent to plan preparation, provides recommendations to the Town Council on the draft plan. D_ Zoning Code Amendments • The Planning and Zoning Commission initiates and provides recommendations'to the Town Council on amendments to this Code in accordance with Article 3-1_ E. Sector Platt The Planning and Zoning Commission initiates and develops sector plans and provides recommendations to the Town Council on proposed sector plans.. • Oro usury r clams Retiatid Can.]!9I) • • 1 -6 L•� •�t" . :L._:.141.,tee.T.n C.:71�4�j:C.piM:rr:n 1��j��3 nor y-• •- ••'- • • - ...• . •a.xri;,B;4•444Altligif3i;.*Ai�t�Ll1T,:i•'�::.,ne.75T•F.ZI„4s...4.•.d•S..o.-.7a:a,s.7 i e..; �z's:•:�.i�ir'at�•s�.•:I��rn;+.j�,�. JUL-23-01 10:27 FROM- 4b( • T-549 P.04/i 9 F-938 ANAN S RATXON Sec. 1.402 F. a-q 1. *The Planning and Zoning Commission may initiate rezoning of property in accordance with • Chapter 3 of this Code. 2_ The Planning and Zoning Commission provides recommendations to the Council on any proposed rezoning or a nditional use permit. - 3. Planning and Zoning Commission reconmendatior,s will be limited primarily to Land use • entitlement issues, with the deferral Of detailed design considerations to the Development Review Board. However, this does not enjoin the Commission from considering design issues where these affect uses. denaitiiee, development intensity, development standards or other entitlements such as those listed in Section 3-104.C. Addrtionaliy, the Cornmrssion shall consider ail condltiORS listed as requirements in the OVZCR ter a given conditional use permit. G cult tmarove ments Prim The Planning and Zoning Commission will annually review the capital Improvements program of the Tcwn. H. OJ}er tiat<ters The Planning and Zoning Commission may initiate or, at tha request of the Town Council, shall conduct specie)studies or perform other functions relating to planning and zoning matters. Sec. 1-403 Transaction of Business A. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall conduct its business in accordance with the A.R S., applicable Town regulations and its rules and procedures as approved by the Town Council. B. The Planning and Zoning Director shall be the Executive Secretary of the Planning and Zoning Commission_ ' C. The Planning and Zoning Commission Chair, or hislher designee, has the right to appear before the Town Council on items of interest to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Sec.1.404 Effect of Decisions • All Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations. final actions and findings of decisions shall be Transmitted to the Town Council re-ardfeas of vote. • - — — Oce vsUey Zor10 Code Revi:eo( . (Rev.�HS3 i-7 JUL-23-01 10:27 FROM- - . T-549 P 05/19 F-936 **AMENDED 72t1 100, 4:30 p.m_) AGEND ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION DECEMBER 18, 2000 -- ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS • 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SE5SIOF4 AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL E ECU tv S O AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM _ Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(7) discussion regarding the possible lease andlor purchase of real property (90 acre parcel located adjacent to CDO Wash, east of La Canada Drive) 2. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3) & (A)(7) legal advice and pending litigation regarding Town of Oro Valley v Canada Hills Water Company , Ltd_ partnership et al (Pima County Cause#332525) 3. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3) legal advice regarding Comcast Cable proposed lease 4. " Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) legal advice regarding Water Utility Projects (Water Plant#14, a 16'°Transmission Line Serving Water Plant #14) (and related Infrastructure) REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS —TOWN MANAGER The Mayor and Council may consider andlor take action on the items listed below: ORDER OF BUSINESS:MAYOR WILL REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE MEETING CALL TO AUDIENCE_According to the Ari2ona Open Meeting Law, the Town Council may only discuss matters listed on the Town Council Agenda_ Matters brought up by the public under"Call to Audience"cannot be discussed by the Town Council as they have not been placed on the agenda. Any items must be addressed to the whole Council, not a specific member. In order to speak during "Call to Audience",please specify'what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. -JUL-23-01 10:28 FROM- - - T-549 P.06/19 F-938 • 1zrt$r00 Agenda,Council Regular Session 2 • 1. ��C O��N��VENTAGet4 tf"vt�.......-•'•- —::a U.t=^ 1—. ) A. �-=Minutes=TFT13700;iii 120100; *el 1/29/00 B. Finance Report—Month ended October 31, 2000 C. Coyote Run Monthly Report—November 2000 D. Police Report—October 2000 E. Public Works Project Status Report F. Resolution No. tRJ00-100 Award of contract for Project No. OV30- 99/00 07 Professional Engineering Services for Lambert Lane from First Avenue to Rancho Sonora ultimate 4 lane cross section improvements to Entranco inc. in the amount of$401,070 G. Res_olution No. (R)0O-10IA resolution approving a License Agreement accepting existing mailboxes, masonry walls, fences and other landscape elements within the Naranja Ranch I subdivision H. Resolution No. (RjOO-108 A resolution accepting those streets located within the Naranjo Ranch I subdivision as public streets 1_ esolutlon No. (R}OQ-1 O9 Cansenting to the expansion of the Metropolitan Domestic Water improvement District Boundaries J. Oyl2tas-12 Rancho Vistaso Neighborhood 5- Professional Offices Public Art 2, PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO PHYLLIS CUTCHER FOR VOLUNTEER SERVICES RELATING TO THE ORO VALLEY TOWN LOGO 3. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (p}00-40 ADOPTION OF 2000 ICC ELECTRICAL CODE—ADM1N1STRATIVE PROVISIONS DECLARED A PUBLIC RECORD BY (R)00-101 4. FISCAL YEAR 2001-'06 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT AND REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTS Explanation: Staff will update the Council on the status of the Capital Improvements Plan and wilt request that the Council consider approving the CIP project evaluation criteria and weights so the Technical Advisory Committee can rank each project for funding, 5• DISCUSSION AND/OR POSSIBLE ACTION RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY REGARDING TOWN OF ORO VALLEY VS, CANADA HILLS WATER COMPANY 6. SO TIUN NO. 00-I10APPROVAL OF A LEASE OF TOWN OWNED REAL PROPERTY BY COMCAST CABLE COMPANY rrtunl- aar T-549 P.07/19 F-938 t2J18r00 Agen$a,Council Regular Session (PROPERTY LOCATED 601 NARANJA DRIVE)(CONTINUED FROM 12- 06.00) 7_ DISCUSSION AND/OR POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TO HIRE AN OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR 8. Ovi2-00-11 STONE CANYON III PRELIMINARY PLAT, LOTS 235-275 COMMON AREAS A AND C, LOCATED ON TORTOLITA MOUNTAIN DRIVE WITHIN RANCHO VISTOSO, NEIGHBORHOOD 11 Explanation: Stone Canyon Ill will feature a.variety of custom homes built on one-acre lots with 41 proposed lots within a 90.25-acre site. 9. OV12 96 j REVISED FINAL PLAT, TANGERINE HEIGHTS, LOTS 1- 80 LOCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY Y. MILE EAST OF LA CANADA DRIVE Explanation: The applicant is requesting a revision to the final plat of Tangerine Heights to increase the grading limit for R1-20 lots (except Lot 30)from 10,000 sq. ft. to 12,000 sq. ft. In addition, to add drainage easements for Lots 25, 30 & 31 10. DISCUSSION'ANDiOR POSSIBI.E`A `rIt7N REGARDING A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE ASSETS OF THE MIDVALE WATER COMPANY 1 t. ""RECONSIDERATION BY COUNCIL MEMBER DICK JOHNSON - RESOLUTION NO. R(00)-105 OV12-OO-20A SETTING POLICY REGARDING DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WITH SLOPES 25% AND GREATER WITHIN THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT(CONSIDERED AT 12/06/D0 MEETING) 12. ' POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION AND/OR ACTION RELATING TO RESOLUTION NO. R(O0)-105 OV12-o0-20A SETTING POLICY REGARDING DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WITH SLOPES 25%AND GREATER WITHIN THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT(CONSIDERED AT /2106/00 MEETING) TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT CALL TO AUDIENCE-According to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, the Town Council may only discuss matters listed on the Town Council Agenda. Matters brought up by the public under"Call to Audience"cannot be discussed by the Town Councils as they have not been placed on the agenda. Any items must be addressed to the whole Council, not a specific JUI-23-01 10:29 FROM- l�> T-549 P.08/19 F-938 12.1*!OO agenda.Council Regular Session 4 member, In order to speak during "Call to Audience; please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. ADJOURNMENT POSTED: 12/08/00 AMENDED AGENDA POSTED: 12115100 4:30PM 4:30PM LH lh A packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the Council meeting in the office of the Town Clerk between the hours of 8.00 a.m. —5:00p,m. The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify Kathryn Cuveller,Town Clerk, at 229-4700. INSTRUCTIONS 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 o r consideration and action by the Town Council during the course of their 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 Town Council 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 Town Clerk. Please indicate on the speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on, or if you wish to speak during "Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. Please step forward to the podium when the Mayor announces the ttem(s) on the agenda which you are interested in addressing. . Please state your name and address for the record. 2_ Speak only on the issue currently being discussed by Council. Please organize your speech, you wilt only be allowed to address the Council once regarding the topic being-discussed, 3- Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. 4_ During "Call to Audience'you may address the Council on any issue you wish. 5. Any member of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present. • Thank you for your cooperation. yv .JU! 23.U1 10:30 ._ FROM- T-549 P 09/19 F-936 • MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION DECEMBER 18,2000 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N.LA CANADA DRIVE ItE SESSION CALL TO ORDER 6:07 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis,Mayor Dick Johnson, Council Member Bart Rachman, Council Member Werner Wolff, Council Member EXCUSED: Fran•LaSala, Vice Mayor EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to go into Executive Session at 6:07 p.m.for the following purpose; 1. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(7) discussion regarding the possible lease and/or purchase of real property(90 acre parcel located adjacent to CDO Wash,east of La Canada Drive) 2. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3)& (A)(7)legal advice and pending litigation regarding Town of Oro Valley v Canada fills Water Company,Ltd.partnership et al(Pima County Cause#332525) 3 Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3)legal advice regarding Comcast Cable proposed lease 4. Pursuant to ARS 38-431,03(A)(3) legal advice regarding Water Utility Projects (Water Plant#14, a 16"Transrrussion Line Serving Water Plant 014) (and related infrastructure) Council Member Rochman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4—0. Mayor Loomis announced that in addition to the Town Council,the Town Manager and the Town Attorney, Community Development Director Brent Sinclair and Town Engineer Bill Jansen would be present for Item I and Water Utility Director Alan Forrest would be present for Item 4. MOTION: Council Member Wolff MOVED to go out of Executive Session at 7:08 p.m. Council Member Roclunan SECONDED the motion. Motion carried,4—0. JUL-23-01 10:30v v FROM- __ -_ T-549 P.10/19 F-938 ' 11118/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session 2 1 .AR SESSION' CALL TO ORDER 7:20 p.m_ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis,Mayor Dick Johnson, Council Member tart Rachman,Council Member 'Werner Wolff, Council Member EXCUSED: Fran LaSala,Vice Mayor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Loomis led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Town Manager Chuck Sweet reviewed the upcoming Town meetings. CALL TO AUDIENCE Nancy Young Wright, 1 005 W. Wilkenson Drive,reported that the deadline for submitting for tax credit for donations to public and private schools is December 29, 2000. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Loomis pulled Items G and I from the Consent Agenda. MOTION; Council Member Johnson MOVED to APPROVE the Consent Agenda with the exception of Items G and I. Council Member Rachman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried,4—0. A. Minutes— 11/15/00; 11/20/00; 1 I/29/00 B. Finance Report—Month ended October 31,2000 C_ Coyote Run Monthly Report—November 2000 D, Police Report—October 2000 E. Public Works Project Status Report F. Itesolztion No. IR)00-100 Award of contact for Project No,OV30-99I00 07 Professional Engineering Services for Lambert Lane from First Avenue to Rancho Sonora ultimate 4 lane cross section improvements to Entranco Inc_ in the amount of$401,070 G. oluti n )00-102 A resolution approving a License Agreement accepting existing mailboxes,masonry walls,fences and other landscape elements within the Naranjo Ranch I subdivision(PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) JUL-23-01 10:31 FRO -M- T-549 P.11/19 F-938 ,12/)8/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session ; H. Resolution No. (R)OO-108 A resolution accepting those streets located within the Naranja Ranch I subdivision as public I. Re$Qlution_N o, (R'OO-I 09 Consenting to the expansion of the Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District Boundaries streets (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) J. OV12-99-I2 Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5 •Professional Offices Public Art G. RMS+�L1LTION NO.1000-10'7 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LICENSE AGREEMENT ACCEPTING EXISTING MAILBOS,MASONRY WALLS, FENCES AND OTHER LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS WITHIN THE NARANJA RANCH I SUBDIVISION MOTION: Council Member Rochman MOVED to APPROVE the License Agreement for Naranja Ranch I with a correction to the signature page of the contract. Council • Member Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried,4—0. 1. RELQUILION NO. (R)00_I09 CONSENTING TO THE EXPANSION OF THE METROPOLITAN DOMESTIC WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES STREETS Mayor Loomis asked for a continuation of Resolution No, (R)00-109 in order to get some information on whal the impact to Oro Valley may be if the incorporation of Casas Adobes is or is not approved. MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to CONTINUE consideration of Resolution No. (R)00-109 until the January 17th Council meeting. 2. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO PHYLLIS CATCHER FOR VOLUNTEER SERVICES RELATING TO THE ORO VALLEY TOWN LOGO Mayor Loomis presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Ms.Phyllis Cutcher for het volunteer service in updating the Town's logo_ 3. PUELIC 1 �i 1G--ORDINANCE QJO)O0-40.ADOPTION OF 2000 ICC ELECTRICAL CODE—ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS DECLARED A PUBLIC RECORD BY(R)00-101 Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing_ There being no speakers,the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to APPROVE Ordinance No. (0)00-40, the adoption of the National Electric Code, 1999 Edition and amendments thereto attached in Exhibit A,and the ICC Electrical Code-Administrative Provisions,2000 Edition. Council Member Wolff SECONDED the motion. Motion carried,4— 0. • fin d. 1 A. ••• - FROM- T-549 P.12/19 F-938 1211$!00 Minutes,Council Regular Session .4 4. FISCAL YEAR 200I--`06 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT AND REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF TIIE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTS Nina Trasoff, consultant and facilitator for the Capital Improvements Plan(CIP) Technical Advisory Committee,updated the Council on the status of the CIP. She explained that surveys were sent to the Town's residents and more than 2,000 responses were received, The surveys were utilized to find out which project categories the residents would like to spend Town funds on and the responses would also help plan for the Town's future projects. Ms.Trasoff then reviewed the recommended Evaluation • Criteria and Weights: 1_ Public, Health,Safety and Welfare 95 IL Supports Stated Community Goals - 85 III. Fiscal Impact - 75 IV. Impact on Service Levels - 75 V. impact on Operation&Maintenance - 75 VI. Legal Ramifications _ 70 VII. Relationship to other Projects/Coordination - 65 MOTION: Council Member WolffMOVED to APPROVE the Capital Improvement Plan evaluation criteria and weights depicted in Appendix C(listed above.) Council Member Rochman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4--4. 5. DISCUSSION AND/OR POSSIBLE ACTION RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY REGARDING TOWN OF ORO VALLEY VS. CANADA HILLS WATER COMPANY Town Attorney Dan Dudley briefly reviewed the background on the settlement regarding the Town verses Canada Rills Water Company. MOTION; Council Member Johnson MOVED to APPROVE the settlement as discussed in Executive Session. Council Member Rachman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried,4—O. 6. RESOLUT[QN NO, 120APPROVAL OP A LEASE OF TOWN OWNED REAL PROPERTY BY COMCAST CABLE COMPANY (PROPERTY LOCATED 601 NARANJA DRJVE)(CONTJNUED FROM 12-06-00) Town Attorney Dan Dudley explained that Comcast Cable Company has requested a continuance of Resolution No. (R)00•I 10 regarding a lease of Town owned property trail the January 17, 2001 Council meeting, MOTION: Council Member Rothman MOVED to CONTINCJE Resolution No, (R)Q0- 110 until January 17, 2001. Council Member Wolff SECONDED the motion. Motion carried,4 0. JUL-23-01 10:32 FROM- T-5d9 P.13/19 F-938 12/18/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session 5 e 7. DISCUSSION AND/OR POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TO HIRE AN OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR Chief Sharp reviewed the Council Communication and explained that the establishment of the Office of Professional Development would provide the Town's Police Department with services that would focus mainly on the areas of peer support, critical incident stress management,family support and education_ He explained that these services would help provide a healthier environment for the individual police personnel, the Police Department and the Town as a whole. MOTION: Council Member Rachman MOVED to allow the Police Department to utilize anti-racketeering Federal Seizure Funds in the amount of$45,000 to establish the Office of Professional Development and to hire a Professional Development Administrator. Council Member Wolff SECONDED the motion_ Motion carried,4—0. Mayor Loomis recessed t c meeting at 7:50 p_rn. The meeting resumed at 8:00.p_m. 8. OV -00„11 STONE CANYON III PRELIIfIXNARY PLAT, LOTS 235-275 COMMON AREAS A AND C,LOCATED ON TORTOLITA MOUNTAIN DRIVE WITHIN RANCHO VISTOSO,NEIGHBORHOOD 11 Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reviewed the Council Communication and explained that the property is located in the far northwest corner of the Rancho Vistvso Planned Area Development(PAD.) The property is zoned as Very Low Density Residential(VLDR)and is proposed for 42 lots within the 90.25 acre site, Mr. Sinclair reviewed the four main issues with respect to the plat: ▪ Platting into PAD Open Space ▪ Use of Conservation Easements ▪ Dedication of a trail ▪ Timing ofwater availability Council discussed The following issues: ▪ Conservation easements offering best protection ▪ Infrastructure improvements before Final Plat recordation Trail issues (Public access, Width,Maintenance) • Notification to potential buyers Charles Hulsey, The WLB Group,representing Vistoso Partners,reviewed the conditions as proposed for Stone Canyon III Preliminary PIat He stated that they feel that: Regarding Condition#): The conservation easements being recorded on the Final. Plat and with'the Deed is too much. JUL-Z3-UT 10:32 FROM- T-549 P 14/19 F-938 alt t100 Minutes.Council Regular Session 6 • ■ Regarding Condition 143: They propose leaving the trail easement in the wash and they feel 3 5 feet is more appropriate. They are also asking that it be dedicated to The Homeowner's Association as are all the other trails in the PAT). • Regarding Conditions#5 & 6: They ask that they be allowed other alternatives sueb as utilizing a temporary pumping station until such time as the infrastructure is completed ■ Explained that they could not close on the lots until the Final Plat is approved and recorded Dick Macs,representing Vistoso Partners,explained that all prospective buyers must be informed of any special information,restrictions,or conditions regarding the property (such as utilities,air flight paths, roads,conservation easements,etc.)He explained that the signed acknowledgement is received through the State of Arizona Department of Real Estate Report and must be submitted before closing on the property. Mayor Loomis stated that the Town needed to assure that the buyer is aware of any restrictions on their property and to make sure that the system works Iike it is supposed to. He stated that the Town is concerned about how each subsequent buyer would be made aware of said restrictions_ Mr. Hulsey stated that the restrictions are recorded with the plat and the plat is the common element that follows the property. Mr. Macs explained that standard real estate contracts that are used in every transaction of a sale of property must provide full,legs)disclosure. The seller has to disclose any and all restrictions on the property at the time of the sale. In response to questions from Mayor Loomis regarding the building area going into the conservation easement,Mr.Hulsey stated that they would correct the pad on Sheet 4,Lot 268. Regarding Lot 239 on Sheet 3,he explained that the building area does not go into the slopes but follows the edge of the 25% slope. Mayor Loomis opened the floor for public comment. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place,stated that the trail should be secured with a guaranteed public access and connectivity at both ends. He stated that the trail should be buffered from the riparian area to be consistent with the Harris Environmental Study. He also stated that there is no support in the General Plan for extending private property rights into open space_ He asked that the General Plan be preserved. Hector Conde, 14040 N.Lobelia, stated that the General Plan requires clustering to protect the Environmentally Sensitive Land(ESL)ordinance and buffer zones near open space. He also stated that the lot sizes are platted in the ESL and he asked that the ESL be protected even though the ESL Ordinance has not yet been implemented. V. r V VA. Zia V J. i V z V a{a as V r V v r v z r r z a\L o a\i a s aJ L'a\L 1 1. N r r aJ L V V JUL-23-01 10:33 FROM- T-549 P_15/19 F-938 l Z/l S/D4 Minutes,Council Regular Session 7 Patty Estes, 11700 N. Joi Drive,recommended denia of the Stone Canyon III Preliminary Plat until such time that some of the major problems could be resolved. She explained that her major concern was regarding the mil through Canada Agua. She stated that the Tortolita Mountain Park and the Eastern Pima County Trails Master Plans require that a public trail run through Neighborhood I I. She stated that the Riparian Ordinance discourages building anything in,riparian areas;therefore,a trail should be made outside the riparian area. The current proposed trail has no trail head with no public or private access. Ms. Estes also stated that the preliminary plat does not satisfy the General Plan's requirements. Council further discussed the trail,providing public access and connectivity and the requirements of notification to the potential buyers through the State of Arizona Department of Real Estate Report In response to questions from Mayor Loomis and Council Member Johnson, Mr.Macs explained that: ■ The State of Arizona Department of Real Estate Report has a signature line that states"By signing this document,the buyer acknowledges that he has read and fully understands this document." a Most trails in the Rancho Vistoso PAD are accessed where it crosses a roadway in the subdivision • The Rancho Vistoso PAL)does not require a public trail head at the end.of the trail • Condemnation by.the municipality with the rights of condemnation could provide a public access ▪ Would be willing to work with Pima County to help resolve problems that are within Vistoso Partners' ability to resolve MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to APPROVE OV12-00-11; Stone Canyon III Preliminary Plat,Lots 23 5-275, Common Areas A and C, Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11,subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit"A"with the following changes: Condition#3 be changed to"A primitive trail easement with public access at least 15 feel in width...,," Condition#5 will be changed to read"Al)prospective buyers shall be informed via a State Report hem (the State of Arizona Department of Real Estate Report)signature of acknowledgement that will also include acknowledgement of the airport issue_" Delete Condition#6 and adding a new condition,# 10, "Lot 268 shall be redrawn to eliminate encroachment into the protected area(Sheet 1 &4)." A) (Revised per motion.) _ Conservation easements shall be recorded with the Final Plat and with the deed to each lot within the subdivision for all no build areas. 2. All 100-year floodplain areas,Riparian areas and Open Space limits or whichever is greater shall be recorded as conservation easements on the Final Plat. 3. A primitive trail easement with public access at least 15 feet in width shall be shown on the Preliminary Plat and dedicated to the Town of Oro Valley. The rRCm T-549 P.16/19 F-938 12/18/00 Minutes;Council Regolar Session 8 developer shall provide a bond,prior to recordation of the Final Plat for the constriction, sigoage and maintenance of said trail. 4. All lots within the subdivision shall have aviation and hazard easements recorded on the deeds to each lot_ 5. A General Note shall be placed on the Final Plat that water is not available until the IT Zone infrastructure and Water Plant 14 are completed per the Oro Valley Water Utility and all perspective buyers shall be informed via a Stare Report Item signature of acknowledgement(the State of Arizona Department of Real Estate Report) that will also Include acknowledgement of the atrpopt issue. • • 7. The correct cross-section identifying label shown on plat sheet 4 for the proposed channels downstream of 10 shall be shown. 8. A note shall be added to the Final Plat that identifies all lots by number that will require special analysis by a Registered Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of Arizona, to determine the adverse impacts of subsurface flows down stream of diverted channels- 9. The line type for the 100-year floodpltiin on the legend of sheet 1 does not match with the line type used on the plat, The line type shall be adjusted to match. 10. Lot 268 shall be redrawn to eliminate encroachment into the protected area (Sheet 1 &4). Council Member Wolff SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 3 — 1,with Mayor Loomis opposed. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 9:25 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:38 p.m. 9. , VI2-96-I4A REVISED FINAL PLAT,TANGERINE HEIGHTS,LOTS I.80 -koCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY%MILE EAST OF LA CANADA DRIVE Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reported that Tangerine Heights has two zonings,RJ-20 and R1-36, with a request for the revision to the Final Plat affecting the fifty (50).lots in the R1-20 zoning. He explained that the applicant has requested an increase in grading limits from 10,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet. He also stated that the applicant is requesting the removal of"driveways"in Condition Al- In response to a question from Council Member Johnson,Mr. Sinclair explained that the grading parameters vy with the siz and condition of the ut t own:1 e statthat based on a 20,000 foot square tot, allowances have been made to up to 15, 000 square feet for grading or at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Administrator, es/18/2E4E51 to; ; .•�,. •---- T-549 P_17/19 F-938 —- a , R 12/i a/O0 Minutes,Council Regular Session 9 Mayor Loomis expressed his concerns that the Revised Final Nat for Tangerine Heights references Lots 1 —50,but the original Final Plat covered Lots l 80. He stated that originally the restrictions of the Final Plat were placed on all the lots. Planning and Zoning Administrator Bryant Nodine explained that the amended plat would reference Lots 1 —50 and would be recorded as such. He stated that the western edge of the natural areas would not be affected by the plat. Charles Hulsey,The WLB Group,representing the applicant C& C Construction, stated that he felt that the intent was to re-describe the open space on the eastern boundary. He . also explained that it is common to re-plat portions of lots in larger scale developments when there might be two to three developers building on the same plat_ in response to questions from Mayor Loomis,Mr. Bud Cardinal,C &C Construction, 7575 N. Cortaro Road, explained that not all the lots would require an additional grading area_ He stated that when they develop a community-they look_at th� munit eas-f whole, They work to re e ve elation, e-view-sh +, rivacy an then try to utilize, the existing topography to eliminate cut an aiuc as possihl ,He explaintliat tl;ey have a rnta o buyers,and-1 0,00Tsquare feet would notvide a.family with a anger house, a yard,pool, elc...)iferaTealliiitaiy are asking to have a 12,000 square foot n�ra�ngTxntt with die a�i it}'to go up to 15,000 square feet for those families who need larger homes or have other needs. He also explained that if they have flexibility on the grading limits,they could preserve more of the significant vegetation- Further discussion followed regarding allowing the Planning and Zoning Adrninistkftor' the discretion to allow more grading on a case by case basis and referencing"Lots 1 -- 50"in the conditions for approval. MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to APPROVE OVl2.96-14A,Revised Final Plat Tangerine 1-leights,Lots 1 --50,Final Pla ecfivc on fife d c off motion of conditions listed in Exhibit"A"with the following c ‘es iemo� the wording "driveways and" from Condition#1. Add the wording"The Planning and Zoning • ninistrattir s authorized to allow additional grading up to a maximum of 25,000 square feet on a case by case basis:"to Condition#1_ And add the wording"Lots 1 — 50" on Condit iv`i I et•E- A) (Revised per Motion) 1. Replace General Note 029 in the Tangerine Heights Final Plat with the following General Note 1t29: "For Lots 1 —S0, grading shall be limited to roadways, drainage improve* rt . utility installation,and house pads(including dean y td9)to a maximum of 12,000 square feet except for lot 30 (no limits imposed.) The Planning and Zoning Administrator is authorized to allow additional grading up to a maximum of 15,000 square feet on a case by case basis. All wens not within the gradable limits are to remain as undisturbed natural open space without walls or any other structures or disturbance." . JUL-23-01 ,14:36- FROM- eh/lb/2tiai .L.r.-. --. T-549 P.18/19 F-938 , 12/1 g/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session 10 2. Add a new General Note#30 to the Tangerine Heights Final Plat "For Lots I .50, drainage easements have been added to lots 25, 30,31 to realign the bank protection. The 1-IOA is responsible for the maintenance of Central Wash, Open Space and the drainage easements and bank protection to lots 25,30,and 31 3. Remove duplicate General Note#35. 4_ Resubmit following materials needed to record the revisions_ • Revised tnylars of the Final Plat • Three(3)full-sized(24"X 36") copies of the revised Final Plat • Data diskette(3'/Z inch diskette, zip disk,or CD-ROM)in DXF or AutoCAD �.DWC format. ^____- ---�� _- ---- The motion was SECONDED by Council Member Wolff. Motion carried,3 — 1,with .Xor.Loornis opposed, -. — --- - 10. DISCUSSION AND/OR POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE ASSETS OR THE MIDVALE WATER COMPANY Town Attorney Dan Dudley reviewed the Council Communication. He explained that it was time for the Council to determine whether the Town should move forward with the purchase of the land and the Central Arizona Project (CAP)water or to determine that it was no longer in the Town' best interest to move forward with said purchase. Council Member Johnson stated that it was still his desire that the Town secure the property on the eastern side of Oracle Road from La Reserve north to the existing Town boundaries. MOTION: Council Member Rothman MOVED to direct the Town Attorney to advise the seller that the Town will not be exercising its rights of purchase pursuant to the Assett Purchase Agreement and the Real Estate Purchase Agreement. Council Member Wolff SECONDED the motion. Motion carried,4—0. 11. RECONSIDERATION BY COUNCIL MEMBER DICK JOHNSON - RESOLUTION NO. (R)00-105 OV12-00-20A SEt-riNG POLICY REGARDING DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WITH SLOPES 2a%AND GREATER WITHIN THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT(CONSIDERED AT 12/06100 MEETING) MOTION. Council Member Johnson MOVED to RECONSIDER Resolution No.(R) 00-105, OV 12-00-20A,setting policy regarding development in areas with slopes 25% or greater within the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development. Council Member Rochrnan SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 3 l with Mayor Loomis opposed. JUL-23-01 ,10:37 FROM- T-549 P.19I19 F-938 - 14, oruu Minutes.Council Regular&cssion 11 POSSIBLE COINS/DER ,TION AND/OR ACTION RESOLUTION NO.(R)aU-105 O'�12-00 20A SE N RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WITH SLOPES 25%fiT;[NG POLICY REGARDINGTHERANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AND GRATER WITHIN 12/06/00 MEETING) AREA I�E�EL,OPR N'I'(CONSIDERED MO'll+ON: Council Member Johnson MOVED to CON 105 to the January 17, 2003 regular meeting in order to schedule Resolution No. ( }00- � member site tour of the Vistvso PAD where theya chcslulc a Town Council 25%sIope interpretation issue and also to provide $t' examine�,�examples 8f'ihe work through any unresolved proposed interpretive ide time for Town staff and land owner to Council Member Rachman SECONDED themotn criteria concerning this issue. Motion carried, 3_1 TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT No report. CALF,TO AUDIENCE No speakers_ ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to ADJOURN Member Wolff SECONDED the motion, .Motion carried, at 10:45 p-m. Council Brri ed,4 0. Respectfully submitted, RoCana.Garrity,Deputy Town gii—c — I hereby +Cep+ that the fore of the regular session of theTown g minutes notes are a true and correct ropy of the minutes on the l t Oro Valley Council of Oro Vall day of erernber, 2000. I further certifyeY�Ax oaa held and held and that a quorum was present. that the meeting was duly tailed Dated this 9-ifit day of Kati, '. E.Cuvelier, CIVIC Town Clerk Sec. 1-501 ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE 1-5. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Sec. 1-501 Scope The Planning and Zoning Department is the lead agency for the administration of this Code and serves as the professional staff of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Sec. 1-502 Powers and Duties of the Planning and Zoning Director The Planning and Zoning Director, with the applicable staff, performs the following duties in accordance with the A.R.S.: A. Supervision The Planning and Zoning Director supervises the various operations of the department. B. Annual Planning Program The Planning and Zoning Director develops the annual plan program after initiation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. C. Plans and Regulations The Planning and Zoning Director maintains the General Plan and the land use plans, policies and regulations for their implementation. D. Specific Plans The Planning and Zoning Director provides recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council on specific plans and administers adopted specific plans. E. Rezoning The Planning and Zoning Director provides recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council on the rezoning of property and administers approved rezonings. F. Subdivision Plats and Development Plans The Planning and Zoning Director reviews, coordinates and administers the processing of subdivision plats and development plans in accordance with Chapter 4. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (Rev.6/98) 1 - 8 -1 ADMINISTRATION G. Boards, Commissions and Committees The Planning and Zoning Director provides administrative assistance to the planning and zoning boards, commissions and committees appointed by the Town Council. H. Compliance Review The Planning and Zoning Director reviews all permits for use or improvement of property prior to issuance by the Town in order to determine if the proposed activity will be in compliance with this Code. I. Interpretation The Planning and Zoning Director interprets the provisions of this Code. J. Enforcement The Planning and Zoning Director enforces the provisions of this Code and acts as the Zoning Administrator, in accordance with A.R.S. 9-462.05, by all means prescribed by law. K. Other Duties The Planning and Zoning Director acts as the Executive Secretary of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Executive Secretary of the Development Review Board. The Planning and Zoning Director is responsible for accurate and complete transmittal and recordation of Commission and Board actions. When functioning as Executive Secretary of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Development Review Board before the Town Council, the Planning and Zoning Director shall represent the Planning and Zoning Commission and Development Review Board actions to the Town Council. The Planning and Zoning Director performs such other functions as may be necessary in the administration of the department or as provided by the Town Council and Town Manager. Rev. (0)92-1,January 15, 1992 Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised 1 - 9 (Rev.8/94) ADMINISTRATION Sec. 1-601 ARTICLE 1-6. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Sec. 1-601 SCOPE The Development Review Board is intended to promote harmonious, safe, attractive and compatible ompat blee. e development and is, therefore, considered to be in furtherance of health,- f lat�d values, aesthetics and good site recognize the interdependence Development Review Board shall ..._ogniz-. planning necessary to protect the distinctive character and natural resources of the Town of Oro Valley. Sec. 1-602 Powers and Duties A. The Development Review Board may review all aspects of a proposed development. .., p n B. The Development Review Board shall review subdivision plats and development plans i Burro accordance cg with Chapter 4, including site planning and the relationship of the development to the environment an d the community. The Development Review Board shall review all proposed architecture, landscape plans and grading pians. Sec. 1-603 Transaction of Business Review Board shall conduct its business in accordance with applicable Town A. The Development Re e regulations and its rules and procedures as adopted by the Town Council. B. The Director of thePlanning and Zoning Department shall be the Executive Secretary of the Development Review Board. C. The Development Review Board Chair, or hisser designee, has the right to appear before the Town Council on items of interest to the Development Review Board. Sec. 1-604 Effect of Decisions All Development Review w Board recommendations, final actions and findings of decisions shall be transmitted to the Town Council regardless of vote. Rev. (0)92-1, January 15, 1992 Rev.N?s1 1 - 10 Oro`'alley Zoning Code Rev�sea ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE 1-7. BOARD OF ADIUSTMENT Sec. 1-701 Scooe The Board of Adjustment shall hear and decide requests for variances and appeals of interpretations of this Code in accordance with Section 9-462.06. Sec. 1-702 Powers and Duties A. Interoretation The Board of Adjustment shall interpret this Code on appeal when: 1. There is a dispute between the appellant and the Planning and Zoning Direc:or 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 offrom the provisions of this Code in accordance with Sec. The Board Adjustment may allow variances 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 cf 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 tame period as provided for by appointments of the Town Council. Oro Vaiiev Zoning code Revised 1 - 1 1 IRev.3/9.1 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 izo RevisedTown Co Statutesl. and applicable Town regulations and any rules and procedures as adopted B. The Town Clerk, or an appointed representative from the Town Clr 'sof office, shall ld proceedings asiris the- the minutes and records Executive Secretary of the Board of Adjustment and 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 bureau of the municipality affected by a decision of an administrative official, within 30 days, by filing or theofficer from whom the appeal is taken, and with the Board of Adjustment, a noticet ofl appeal, .="�: with pacers,:" specifying the grounds thereof. The officer from whom the appeal is e�didaaQoeal shall befiled on a�orm •�`' constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was provided by the Town Clerk. A. An appeal shall stay all proceedings in the matter appealed from unless the officer from whom the by reason of the fact stated in the certificate, the stay would, appeal is taken certifies to the Board that, property. In such case, proceedings shall not be stayed, in his opinion, cause imminent peril•to life or except byrestraining order granted by the Board or by a court of record onapplication a nonotice oticetho � the officer from whom the appeal is taken. The Board shall fix a reasonable e appeal and give notice thereof to the parties in interest and the public. n vote of a majority of the Board shall be necessary to reverse any order or decision of B_ The concurring . an administrative official, or to pass or to affect any variations from the terms and conditions of this ordinance. Sec. i-707 Application for Variances a Application for a variance of zoning regulations shall be made to the Board of Adjustment in b the the form Boar a wrinen application. Said application shall be filed with the Town Clerk upon forms provide y of Adjustment and shall be accompanied by: - �2 O,o valley Zoning Code Revised I . ADMINISTRATION indicate the nature of the project involved and the proposed use A. Plans and description sufficient to d 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 variance owner fromerftha nonconforming sign shall not be required to pay a filing fee when applying a 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 notice- to be posted on the subject property, giving g in at least 15 days notice of said hearing, and the time and place he where said hearing will be held. Said notice, both as published and posted, shall also show tnature or b of the variance or exception requested and state that anyone wanting to protest may appearpersony writing. All property owners within 300 feet must be notified. Sec. 1-709 Findings A variance from the provisions of this Cede shall not be authorized unless the Board shall find upon sufficient evidence: That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the A. p which do not a ( to other application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings apply 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.ev94l 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 vioiation 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 Cooe Revises 1 - 14 (Rev.81941 CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS parking areas. Landscaped islands within parking areas may be considered landscaped open space. The purpose of the landscaped open space is to enhance the visual and aesthetic quality of any structure or development. d. NATURAL OPEN SPACE shall mean any'natural, completely undisturbed,desert area. OUTDOOR TYPE BUSINESS: a business, all or most of whose activities are conducted,or items displayed, in an open area. OVERLAY DISTRICT shall mean any zoning district which provides supplemental regulations to be applied in addition to those of the original zone or provides for density transfers or for coordinated development of several uses and shall include the Hillside District, Planned Residential Development District and Planned Area Development District. Any applicable regulations superimposed by the Floodplain Management Code (Ordinance No. 44)shall be in addition to the requirements of this zoning code. OWNER shall mean the person or persons holding title by deed to land or holding title as vendees under . land contract or holding any other title of record. PAN CHANNEL: dimensional character fabricated to form a pan, i.e. a back and 2 sides. The pan is formed in the shape of the character. The sides are strips of the same material fastened to the back. The open end of the pan is usually capped by a character cut from translucent acrylic, and is known as the face. White neon or low voltage lights are then installed inside the letter to illuminate the face. PARAPET VAI.L: a wall extending above the plate line of a building. PARCEL shall mean an area within legally described boundaries under common ownership and capable of being separately conveyed. A lot within a subdivision is a parcel. PARK: An area of land, designated and used by the public for active and/or passive recreation. Parks are further defined by the size and where the user is located, as follows: PARK,COMMUNITY: Designed to provide centralized recreation facilities for a major portion of the Town with amenities capable of accommodating large groups, and including facilities'such as tennis courts, multi- use courts, playing fields, picnic areas. May also include a community center building. Park size is from 15 to 200 acres and is intended to service a population within a three mile radius of the park. PARK, NEIGHBORHOOD: Designed to provide recreational opportunities for a neighborhood and may include such facilities as play apparatus, multi-use courts, family' picnic areas, and open space areas. Park size is from 2 acres to 15 acres servicing a population within a half mile radius of the park. PARK,REGIONAL: Natural or multi-use area designed to provide recreational opportunities for the entire community. May include such amenities as picnicking, fishing, swimming, camping, trail uses and play areas. Size +200 acres. The service area is within one hour driving time. PARKING AISLE means the aisle on Ntihich vehicles are allowed access to the individual parking stalls and are characterized by slow speeds and high turning movements. PARKING AREA means any public or private land area designed and used for off-street parking. Oro Va lley Zoning Code Revised (Rev.2/01) Sec. 3-206 - DEVELOPMENT-REVIEW Sec. 3-206 Decision Following the conclusion of the public hearing before the Town Council upon the application for a use permit, the Town Council may approve the use permit stipulating those conditions it feels necessary to provisionsof this of the use permit, stamped by the Town Clerk carry out the and intent ordinance. A copy and encased in plastic or otherwise framed shall be posted conspicuously at all times on the premises. Sec. 3-207 Development Review Board No structure or building shall be built or remodeled under the conditions of a use permit until Development Review Board approval has been obtained as outlined in Article 3-3. Sec. 3-208 Violation The violation of any condition imposed by the use permit shall constitute a violation of this ordinance. ,hall to a new Amendment or addition to any use permit is subject to the same procedures as those which apply p y application. ARTICLE 3-3. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Sec. 3-301 Applicability The Development ment Review Board shall review all developments other than R1-144, R1-43, R1-36, and R1- 20 Districts which are not subject to overlay. The Development Review Board shall make recommendations to` the Council regarding A. subdivision plats and the development plans as provided in Chapter 4 of this code. B. The Development Review Board is authorized to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove all applications for development review not included in Subsection A above, subject to Town Council review or appeal. Such applications include architectural design, landscaping plans, use permit developments, permanent signs(not approved by the DRB Agenda Committee, per Sec. 3-301.D) and other matters as provided in this code if not required as part of subdivision plat or development plan approvals. The Development Review Board shall base its decision where the Board shallolely aloe the criteria as set down in Sec. 3-302 except within the Hillside District base its decision on the provisions of Sec. 10-107 (Rev. 3/86). C. Prior to the development, earthwork, construction, remodeling, change or alteration of any proposed or existing project within a zoning district subject to development review, the property owner or his designated agent shall secure approval of the Development Review Board. Staff shall be permitted to approve Minor/common sense changes of architecture or landscape plans in order to avoid delay by using the normal development review process. Minor/common sense changes or alterations include those that: 1. are reasonably similar to the approved plan; 2. are not already completed; (Rev 6.98) Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised 3 -32 DEVELOPMENT-REVIEW Sec.3-301 3. benefit the town or the environment; 4. are not controversial; 5. are consistent with similarly situated property; 6. do not affect mass or streetscape; 7. do not affect pre-approved plats; and 8. are approved by the neighborhood association, if necessary. D. The DRB shall create a DRB Agenda Committee, which shall contain a minimum of 2 DRB members, to review permanent signs, paint color, tile color and other building material products on a weekly basis, or as needed, to determine if the proposed sign application or building material product can be administratively approved. If there is a unanimous decision by the two DRB members, along with staffs recommendation, that the sign or building material product is in conformance, the submitted sign shall be administratively approved. If the sub-committee finds the proposed sign or building material product not complementary or consistent, the proposed sign or building material product will require a majority of the DRB for approval and shall be scheduled for the next available DRB meeting. Sec. 3-302 Criteria In considering any application for development review, the Development Review Board shall be guided by the following criteria: A. The Board shall examine the application to insure that all provisions of this ordinance and all other ordinances, master plans, general plans and standards of the Town of Oro Valley shall be complied with where applicable. B. The proposed development shall not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, nor shall it be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood. C. The proposed development shall promote a desirable relationship of structures to one another, to open spaces and topography both on the site and in the surrounding neighborhood. D. The height, area, setbacks and overall mass as well as parts of any structure (buildings, walls, signs, lighting, etc.) and landscaping shall be appropriate to the development, the neighborhood o muni and the c m ty. E. Ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, off-street parking facilities, loading and service areas and pedestrian ways shall be so designed as to promote safety and convenience. F. The architectural character of the proposed structure shall be in harmony with, and compatible to, those structures in the neighboring environment and the architectural character adopted for any given area avoiding excessive variety or monotonous repetition. G. Mechanical equipment, appurtenances and utilities shall be concealed from view and integral to the building design. n. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (Rev.6/98) 3 -33 Sec. 3-302 DEVELOPMENT-REVIEW • H. The architectural character of a development shall take cognizance of the unique del f t,,1 climate and other environmental factors of this region and promote an indigenous architect ng. I. All buildings and structures and parts of any buildings such as walls and fences shall be designed to be compatible with the surrounding desert and mountains in the background. J. All exterior materials and colors including roofs, walls and fences shall be predominantly muted earth and plant tones and shall minimize contrast and glare. K. Consideration shall be given to the possibility that the development may notand be contours,completed. epd In order to assure a minimum degree of destructionl oe ting vegetation lonct be permitted until the development shall be required. Grading and aimprovements proper assurances have been received and approved by the Town. Sec. 3-303 Administration Administrative procedures for review of subdivision plat and development plans shall beeasS p that v�qd i in n Chapter 4 of this code. Procedures for architectural review, signs and cther such development review shall be according to the provision of this section herein below. A. Aoplication 1. The Development Review Board shall prescribe the form and content of applications and necessary accompanying data. The application shall be filed with the Town Clerk. 2. An application for approval shall be accompanied by a fee according to the fee schedule adopted by the Town Council. Additional fees shall be required if: a. A Development Review application is submitted which does not imng t the o the requirements of this code unless revised plans are provided Development Review Board requirements; or b. There is an appeal by the developer of a staff decision to the Development Review Board; or c. Development plans have to be checked a third time; or d. A landscape plan has to be checked a third time; or e. Site inspection has to be done a second time. • 3. Applications shall be made by the owner of the property or his authorized agent. If the applicant is not the property owner, a notarized letter from the property owner authorizing the agent to act in his behalf shall accompany said application. • (Rev.6i98) Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised 3 -34 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Sec.3-303 B. Findings 1. The Development Review Board may approve, with or without conditions, a development or portion thereof if they find that: a. All provisions of ordinances of the Town of Oro Valley have been complied with. b. Where applicable, all provisions of master plans, the General Plan and development policies and standards of the Town of Oro Valley have been complied with. 2. The Development Review Board may deny a total development, or a portion of a development, if they find that any conditions of this article, the General Plan or the development policies and standards of the Town of Oro Valley have not been complied with. 3. The Development Review Board, upon hearing an application, may impose such reasonable conditions as it may deem necessary in order to fully carry out the provisions and intent of this code. Violation of any such condition shall be a violation of this code and such violation shall render any permit null and void. C. Expiration of Approval 1. The approval of plans for development shall expire and become null and void 1 year from the date of approval if a building permit has not been issued unless a different time period is made a condition of Development Review Board approval. 2. An extension of approval may be granted by the Town Council if the applicant files for the extension prior to the approval becoming void and the Council feels the reasons justify extension of approval. In no case shall an extension be more than 12 months. D. Enforcement 1. The Zoning Administrator shall insure that all matters approved by the Development Review Board are undertaken and completed according to the approval of the Development Review Board. • 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit within any district subject to Development Review, the Building Official shall ascertain that the Development Review Board has approved plans which are in conformance to those presented with the building permit application and that the time limitations imposed by this code or.the Development Review Board have not elapsed. No building permit shall be issued less than 20 days after Development Review Board approval in order to allow appeal or review as stated in Sec. 3-304. Sec.3-304 Appeal and Town Council Review A. The approval, with or without conditions, or denial by the Development Review Board of an Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (Rev.6/98) 3 -35 • Sec.3-304 BUILDING PERMITS application subject to the provisions of Sec. 3-303, or otherwise referenced in this code, shall be final unless, within 20 days from the date of the Board's decisions, the applicant shall appeal therefrom in writing to the Town Council. Such appeal shall be in writing in care of the Town Clerk and shall indicate where, in the opinion of the appellant, the Board was in error. The Town Clerk shall schedule the appeal for a Town Council agenda and the Town Council, at its meeting, shall uphold, modify or overrule the decision of the Board. The decision of the Town Council shall be final. B. The Town Council shall have the right and prerogative to initiate its own review of any decision of the Development Review Board and shall uphold, modify or overrule said decision. Notice of Council-initiated review of any decision of the Development Review Board shall be given to the applicant by the Town Clerk within 20 days after action upon the application in question or the decision of the Development Review Board shall be deemed to be final and binding upon the Town of Oro Valley. ARTICLE 3-4. BUILDING PERMITS Sec. 3-401 When Required A. It shall be unlawful to construct, alter, repair, remove or demolish or to commence the construction, alteration, removal or demolition of a building or structure without first filing with the Building Official an application in writing and obtaining a formal permit. B. The following are excluded from building permit requirements: 1. Fences up through 6 feet in height and free standing masonry walls up to 5 feet unless required as a swimming pool enclosure. 2. Curbs and planter walls up to 30 inches in height and retaining walls up to 30 inches in height unless used to support any surcharge load. 3. A detached building, ramada, playhouse or similar structure not more than 10 feet in height nor larger than 144 square feet. 4. Residential television and radio antenna supported on roofs. 5. Awnings supported only from the exterior walls of buildings. 6. Repairs and remodeling which involve only the replacement of component parts of existing work with similar materials and which do not aggregate over$1,000 in valuation, excluding labor, in any 12 month period and do not affect any structural, electrical, mechanical or plumbing installations. Construction exempt from permit requirements shall not include any conversion of space to a private garage or sleeping area, exit facilities, permanent fixtures or equipment. Specifically excepted from any permit requirement without limit to valuation are: Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (Rev.6/98) 3 -36 CHAPTER 6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS ARTICLE 6-6.R1-20 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec.6-601 Purpose This district provides for low density detached single family residential development. Sec.6-602 Use Regulations A. Permitted Uses Buildings, structures or premises shall be used and buildings and structures shall hereafter be erected, altered or enlarged only for the following uses: 1. Dwelling units, single family 2. Accessory buildings, private swimming pools, home occupations and other accessory uses (see Article 13-1 for additional criteria). 3. Parks,playgrounds and community-owned buildings other than hospitals. 4. Private sport courts, provided that the court is not lighted and is located within all yard setbacks and,further,that fencing around the court shall not exceed 12 feet. 5. Temporary real estate sales office provided the following conditions are met: a. The office shall be located within a model home built in accordance with the zoning where such office is located. b. Temporary real estate sales offices shall be permitted for a period not to exceed 2 years from the date of initial home sales. c. At his discretion, the Planning and Zoning Director may grant extensions of time at the termination of the initial 2 year period. B. Uses Subject to Conditional Use Permit 1. Community buildings and recreational facilities not publicly owned, such as athletic fields and boys' clubs. 2. Model homes. 3. Analogous uses per sec. 5-201 C. Sec.6-603 Property Development Standards Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (Rev.2/01) 6-12 CHAPTER 6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS 1 The provisions of Sec.6-103 shall apply. The following additional requirements shall apply in this district. I A. Minimum lot area - 20,000 square feet ` B. Minimum lot width 1. 80 feet line or the building Cul-de-sac lots: minimum lot width shall be measured at the front lot setback line, whichever width is greater. Street frontage for cul-de-sac lots shall meet the minimum requirements of Oro Valley. 3. "Flag" lots: the driveway, or "pole," portion of any flag lot shall be excluded from minimum lot width measurement, using the flag portion of the lot to satisfy minimum lot width requirements. C. Maximum density - a minimum of 20,000 square feet per dwelling and a maximum of one dwelling ' per lot D. Building height-not to exceed 2 stories and 18 feet E. Yard setbacks ' 1. Front: 30 feet 2. Side : • 1 5 feet 3. Rear : 30 feet 4. For multiple frontage lots, a 20 foot yard setback must be maintained adjacent to any public or private street. The Town Engineer and Planning and Zoning Director may approve reduced side ' yards. 5. For "flag" lots, the driveway, or "pole," portion of the lot shall not be used to satisfy front yard setback requirements. The front yard shall be measured within the area of the "flag" portion of ' the lot closest to any public or private street. F. Detached Accessory Buildings 1. Permitted coverage: 10%of 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 1 ine than the main building. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (Rev.2/01) 6-13 !' I - Sec. I0-001 CHAPTER 10 ISUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS ARTICLE 10-0 TANGERINE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT (TRCOD) ISec. 10-001 Tangerine Corridor District Regulations/Guidelines The provisions herein are adopted as supplements to the applicable zoning requirements of the I underlying zoning district classifications. Regulatory provisions, including standards and measurements, are mandatory. Guidelines are intended as expectations of project quality and amenity. Sec. 10-002 Tangerine Corridor District Established The Tangerine Corridor District is established as'an Overlay District to provide implementation I directions for the Tangerine Road Corridor Specific Plan which has been duly adopted as a refinement of the Town of Oro Valley General Plan. The purrose of these regulations and guidelines is to preserve the value of lands possessing the unique Upper Sonoran Desert character found within the Tangerine Road Corridor, as well as to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public by I encouraging reasonable use and enjoyment of private property. It is the further premise of this Ordinance that attention to the Corridors environmental quality is necessary to maintain a natural coexistence with the desert that enhances the value of all lands with it. IA. Overlay District: • I The District shall include lands located between Naranja Road and Moore Road, or their alignments, within the corporate limits of the Town of Oro Valley (the "Corridor"); and shall be applied to all properties lying within the Corridor at the time cf this Ordinance adoption; and to such lands within the Corridor which may, from time to time, be annexed into the Town. 1. Applicability. Overlay District regulations, as stated herein, apply to all property within one quarter mile of the Tangerine Road centerline (the "Target Area", as defined in the Tangerine Road Corridor Specific Plan). Overlay District guidelines pertain to all uses in the Corridor. Construction, addition to or remodeling of individual residences within the Target Area shall require only observance of frontage tract and setback standards (unless nonconforming building lines exist, in which case the Board of Adjustment may consider granting a variance) and of non-access provisions. . 3/4 Mi. PERIPHERAL AREA I j T r T r r/ J / X vr�t / �T�RG ETARE�, /// I Tangerine Road /1////// / / / / / / /' I (Rev. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised 10—0.1 CHAPTER 10 SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICTS ARTICLE 10-7 RIPARIAN HABITAT PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (Adopted 10/96) Sec. 10-701 Purpose Sec. 10-702 Riparian Habitat Identified A. Riparian Habitat B. Protective Apron Required Sec. 10-703 Applicability A. Exceptions Sec. 10-704 Riparian Habitat Study/Mitigation Plan Requirements Standards Within and Around the Riparian Habitat District Sec. 10-705 Development A. Disposition of Lands in Identified Riparian Habitats B. Temporary Fencing Required C. Disturbance for Essential Infrastructure D. Permanent Walls and Fences E. Outdoor Lighting F. Discharge of Dangerous or Harmful Products into Protected Areas Sec. 10-706 Modification to Zoning District Development Standards in Subdivisions/Developments ' Containing Identified Riparian Habitats A. Modifications to Zoning District Standards ' B.. Applicability Sec. 10-707 Appeals to the Requirements of the Riparian Habitat Overlay District Oro valley Zoning Code Revised 10-5 9 (Rer. 10/%1 Sec. 10-701 RIPARIAN HABITAT PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT ARTICLE 10-7 RIPARIAN HABITAT PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT Sec. 10-701 Purpose The purpose of this Article is to protect and enhance riparian areas by instituting standards for preservation of riparian habitats associated with watercourses AND s;gnificant stands of native vegetation in order to: A. Protect the valuable, limited and endangered natural riparian habitat resources of the Town of Oro Valley; B. Provide an ecologically sound transition between riparian habitat communities and developed developing areas; C. Assure the continuation of existing or natural functions, values and benefits provided by riparian habitat resources; D. Protect aesthetic and environmental values of riparian habitats for the enjoyment of citizens and visitors; and, • E. Maintain linear continuity for riparian habitat. Sec. 10-702 Riparian Habitat Identified; Protective Buffer Required A. Riparian Habitat Concurrent with the passage of this Riparian Habitat Overlay District, a set of maps entitled, Riparian Habitat Maps, which are available in the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Department, are also adopted. Said maps chart all riparian habitats within the Town of Oro Valley, which meet the criteria specified herein. Riparian areas identified must be protected from development, in accordance with the policies set forth in the Riparian Habitat Protection Overlay District, the General Plan and other adopted plans and policy documents by of the Town of Oro Valley. 6. Protective Aoron Required In addition to the defined Riparian Habitat area, as described, and further depicted on the adopted Riparian Habitat Maps, an apron area, not less than 15 feet in width, as measured in any direction from the boundary of a defined Riparian Habitat, shall be provided. Within the required apron area, subsequent to erection of required temporary fencing(see. Sec. 10-704A and sec. 10-705A) and issuance of a grading permit, disturbance may occur, i.e. apron area may be used as a "trample zone" for grading, utility installation and other construction-related activities. If this required 15 foot apron area is disturbed in any way, however, the restoration of the apron, including re-establishing natural grades and soil compaction, must be addressed in me mitigation/revegetation plans, to the satisfaction of the Development Review Board and Town Council. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised 1 0-60 (Rev 1ai9A) \-----... . ..--. - ....• • . , ... ,1 / - (--N __p fie .4_61 i n KI • z I r N , , T_______---:---;-----) ( p„....,...; , ............, ,,,,„ ,,,.. / \\ , .7 . .. ....,. ...4.. ..._. . .. .,, . •:.,,.....„..:.._..,:..,.:_... . 47 . . ft4.-Na..... . .. . ,.... .- ... -, 1 ••1,3*,,lii!:7'..'='-'::.1-'7:'• - ..,,,.‘•.„. ...- ,2%.. ':,,_i.;.::-.4,„.•,,, _ ;,,,..'PI\vii.,„;,,. 400 ---1,;;A•-.,,t,---;,7,-‘,:,:,•...-',.-. - • - - . 1 1'-1;1'04.:i:-.;/ '-.• .,. ,•• ---.1-:.• - .-:--•,'4;.. -4 r,-*,---- --, 6. ,,.///' • :..,.. \ ,•. ,•: . • . / . ----------\ le ., \ i•-__71 / . ------/, i ----____.-----,NN, , 111 ---Z---______is I •( ? I , . 1 7 ---------1. / /aP •4/..-- '. Ay-,,.-\\----48- 1\1V c \ ......,. .. . . . ..:.,..:::,:,,,-. .,••,:;,,,L / / 1%.,//)...'4- 1-\- \,,,-. --C1 ,.,.. ,... • .• ,, . .. . . ... _...,....,, t., ... •. •. . :....,:.; I \ ..... • .... . , . _ . ---.,.................. •.. . ,, . .. ,,. ., / ss. ., . \ / .... / kg----)\.\ \c,------- "-----_ie " .- . . .... , . .,. ., /, .- ..-,-- N) . . • . _ .. ... . :-..,.::. . .....,„ / -••• . , .',., ,,,, `,...,' "• '••• C • '.' ••• t ' C -r-cs-- \\ ', • . \ \•./ 1 . , , p. - • .. • • •. '- . -•,.,.., :• • ' • .'•..--•• . ••••••... -• •••. ..„.. . • • • .- •:. ..' . .. . . .1. . .1'. ' • .-- .''' : -' . . Z (b I\ •,, i\ . . 11A'ir •• .77 \Z \ 2\ \ /' •••.... •-.•..,,•,, • , -,,,•-'.....• ' , .-. ,:-•••,,,.,..•:•, :-.• ' a r \ •-- z• \ 1 .. .. "N., / N. 4 y I -....._., \ \, ,/ Y;,1 ( ../ . 04 I 7/I ;NAL\. --/ ,..,• /\ c III / - 0 1 ,\\ / / '/I . • . .. ., .. . . . - -,,.- ,, (1.. •.E.. . . ..,_. .. , ...,.. . i 72/' itNV A / // ..... • - •.-, .. _ , \\PLLEY ARi ,:: QO �� TOWN OF OR VALLEY /� p ^ 7 Office of Community Development v ;\ ‘- 1 11000 N. La Canada Drive Permit No: B0001355 ' ' '' "�' Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Approved: Aug 18, 2000 A \. , / ► (520) 229-4800 Office • == -- •: (520) 742-1022 Fax Page : 1 1110.7 '°UNDED\-' BUILDING PERMIT Project Address: 12318 N TALL GRASS DR Subdivision/Lot No: TANGERINE HEIGHTS LOT 18 Description of Work: CUSTOM HOME CUSTOM LOT . • APPLICANT C AND C CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC 07/06/00 Phone : 520-575-0600 = 6700 N ORACLE ROAD #23 TUCSON AZ • 857047737 License: 035080007 637 CONTRACTOR C AND C CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC 07/06/00 Phone: 520-575-0600 6700 N ORACLE ROAD #23 TUCSON AZ 857047737 1 License: 035080007 63.7 ._; OWNER C AND C CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC 07/06/00 Phone: 520-575-0600 6700 N ORACLE ROAD #23 TUCSON AZ • 857047737 Also is Applicant Valuation: $232,399. 13 building Permit Fee: 1,823 , 25 . Large Size Prints : . 00 _ Sewer/Septic No: fiaLrrY-PreGw APA Charge : 00 �� Additional Fees : . 00Y_ Parcel No 219510250 Development Impact Fee : 1,494 00 ' . Special Inspection Fee : . 003 k Grading Permit No:- G0000150 Grading Permit Fee : 65. 00 �.;. Total All Fees : $3,382 . 25 ' Less Previous Payments : 713 .00 : Balance Due : $2,669 .-25 _: This permit becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is "h . commenced within 180 days or if construction or work is suspended or abandon. j . for -a period of 180 days at any time after work is commenced. It is the auth orized applicant' s responsibility to determine the location of all existglill -`underground utilities, sewage disposal systems or other obstacles that ,tna interfere with the construction or work authorized by this permit. - _ Ili I hereby certify that I have read and examined this' permit and know the same to be true and correct. All provisions of laws and ordinances governing `his type 'of work will be complied with whether spegified herein or not. The ranting of a permit does not presume to give auth5rity to violate or cancel 'e provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the, `,formance of construction. /94-26061 -'(2---,!2k(-'41- ' Qi rer,;f-ttr- n A. ,-..,.4 w.1/., A,.....,7 4....v.4- T - .. r _ TOWN OF CRC vALLEY - BUILDIr-`l - Mil. APPLIUA l IUN C 6 150 APPLICANT TO FILL OUT TOP PORTION OF PERMIT APPL1C 7 uN. (PLEASE PRINT) PLAN CHECK ALSO, PLEASE COMPLETE GRADING AND CONTRACTOR INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE. gcO /3i' PROJECT ADDRESS LOT NO. PARCEL NO. I R t'j�-Di J O� , 1i2' 1� t� so SUBDIVI N NAME/DP BOOK/PAGE SHEET 1 ZONING SECTION/TOWNSHIP/RANGE I A-t PO/ll--)E- 4)61-KS - 7q7/'?-427 i:zi -zo MAILING ADDRESS ZIP CODE PHONE (°?/e- C- . '-‘:/0-1..50t16-1 (> - OD ' AA'S APPLICANT ) �'i e -ri aq------- n1�o/ a. PROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRESS ZIP CODE i HCNE CONTRACTOR MAILING ADDRESS ZIP CODE PHONE • STATE TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE ALES)TAX S REGISTERED WITH ORO CO RACTOR'S LICENSE l T1CONTRACTOR'S VALLEY FOR TOW"-SALESjl r_D - ORO VALLEY BUST 1 PO4 91 TAX? YES NO (((/6 zvf D LICENSE it ('r ARCHITECT.ENGINEER 0 SIG it le one) MAILING ADDRESS ZIP CODE PHONE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER USE OF BUILDIN n •LICENSE i n't-t)r � [l DESCRIBE W R� G/ � G? � 1�� v lJ1AVji MODEL PLAN NO.AND OPTIONS(If applicable) 06 -A ffavi�_ .. __, ,2_ J A m E :1 -jE STATED VALUATION OF WORK NOTICE: Permits are required for electrical and mechanical installation. A permit becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is not commenced within 180 days or if construction or work is suspended Or abandoned for a period of 180 days at 44 any time after work is commenced. I hereby certify that I hav • •and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct. All provisions of tO 0, laws and ordinances gover•' g this ty.e of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not_ The granting of a permit v`-'J ' does not pi • to gm, autnonty to iolate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the /` erf•mance of cons ton. kOtDATE OF APPLICATfO f o •-"'1 ANT'S SIGNAT' 1 lb OD %.:. )1,1, . 4 (DO NOT WV BELOW THIS , - TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION SQUARE VALUATION PERMIT FEE BASED ON: STATED VALUATION CORRECTED FEET CORRECTED VALUATION VALUATION: L33t7 7 BASIC PERMIT FEE FROM TABLE NO.3-A OF THE U.B.C. C bei I I PLAN CHECK FEE 65%OF PERMIT FEE P /- 0 TOTAL BUILDING PERMIT FEE EP f). /ti-_. j GRADING PERMIT FEE OTHER FEES LARGE SIZE PRINTS GRAND TOTAL ALL FEES — \ EL G LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS o5N. 7 ( ) ._i— _ _ TOTAL AMOUNT DUE /// BUILDING (PLUMBING C/MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL`�OOL SPA WALL MISC . REVIEWED BY y GRADING STATEMENT Stabilization, erosion and drainage control measures: 2 ` s, _ DE-s- 12a- V-- il r 17/A nici2__ 6-1r0.- kk6a-) e_ Estimated quantity of earthwork: CUT j c) cubic yards FILL ` 1 cubic yards Estimated quantity of earth material to be removed from site: cubic yards. Off-site disposal location: A description of the dust control method to be used during grading and until revegetation or stabilization has been completed: OA-1 Proposed starting date: Expected completion date: Attached(Yes/No): Soils Report? Archeological Clearance Letter? Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan? PROOF OF VALID CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE i ned does hereby swear and affirm that s/he is the applicant for a building permit identified in the attached application and s/he: The ders g 1. Is currently licensed as a contractor (or is an employee of a licensed contractor) under the provisions of Chapter 11, Title 32, - Arizona Revised Statutes. ¢� Contractors License !� Y (:) �g Class Privilege License # 2. Owns the property which is not intended for sale or rent and (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): - A. Will perform the work himself/herself;or jointly with their employees; and/or , B. Will perform the work with duly licensed contractors, all of whom are identified below CONTRACTOR'S NAME • LICENSE NUMBER TYPE PRIVILEGE LICENSE # . CONTRACTOR'S MUST PROVIDE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF CERTIFICATES,PRIOR TO BEING ISSUED A BUILDING PERMIT, FOR ALL PROJECTS GREATER THAN $50,000 IN VALUE. 400 Annual Bond Exemption Certificate One-time Exemption ` 3. Receipt for a Bond Identifying the Location of this Project • RECEIVED DATE APPROVED DATE HOLD PLACED/ DATE HELD/ DATE HOLDING/RETURNED BY RECEIVED BY APPROVED RETURNED BY RETURNED RELEASED FOR: 7i -OC3 ((2/ct.; - ..c . 1/iLIc1.: AV' ....7. ..z. /0. �� 000.. �wl�D,4, Rdv, ...,l 0,44 Cov 'e- • • • • m gip() 64,906 * SPECIAL CONDITIONS DRB: • BOA: IMPACT FEE YES BENEFIT AREA NO Thnco f-o.t,t,�aroc aro .1..+.c v......•--••--•- - RECORD OF CON TACTS / COMMENTS _ - - DATE PERSON CONTACTED NOTES/REMARKS • • 1\0LEY 4/y/ TOWN OF ORO V‘LLEY Office of Community Development Permit No: P0100011 11„ 11000 N. La Canada Drive Approved: Jan 31 , / Oro Valley, AZ 85737 4 \\,\\--4; \.\‘ (520) 229-4800 Office Page : 1 (520) 742-1022 Fax * A uNDEo — POOL/SPA PERMIT Project Address : 12318 N TALL GRASS DR Subdivision/Lot No : TANGERINE HEIGHTS LOT 18 ' Description of Work: POOL/SPA APPLICANT CLARKS POOLS INC 01/22/01 Phone : 520-293-4880 2223 W WETMORE TUCSON AZ 85705 License : B05090106 86 CONTRACTOR CLARKS POOLS INC 01/22/01 Phone : 520-293-4880 2223 W WETMORE TUCSON AZ 85705 License : B05090106 86 OWNER NUNN 01/22/01 Phone: 520-297-6271 PROJECT ADDRESS Valuation: $14475 . 00 Pool/Spa Permit Fee: 414 . 5f Surface Area: 567 Large Size Prints: . 0( Portable Spa ? : N APA Charge: . 0( Occupancy Group: R-3 ,U Additional Fees: .0C Special Inspection Fee: , OC Total All Fees : $414 . 5( Less Previous Payments: 161 .04 Balance Due : $253 , 5: This permit becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is r commenced within 180 days or if construction or work is suspended or abandor for a period of 180 days at any time after work is commenced. It is the au: orized applicant ' s responsibility to determine the location of all existi underground utilities , sewage disposal systems or other obstacles that r interfere with the construction or work authorized by this permit . I hereby certify. that I have read and examined this permit and know the sari to be true and correct. All provisions of laws and ordinances governir this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not . T1 granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or canc€ the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or tl performance of construction. (—e / ---------- Signature of Authorized Applicant -bate N, Special Conditions : 1 . POOL CONTRACTOR SHALL INFORM OWNER OF ENCLOSURE REQUIREMS mvEinc (.; UTct,TrIAMVT-1 ')4,1 unv.. DATn wronvc nrAmmvn Amn TMCID TOWN OF ORO ALLY - BU1t )ING PERMTI' APPLICATION APPLICANT TO FILL OUT TOP PORTION OF PERMIT AP ICATION. (PLEASE PRINT) PLAN CHECK ALSO, PLEASE COMPLETE GRADING AND CONTRACTOR INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE. Pc ieoei1/ PROJECT ADDRESS LOT NO. PARCEL NO. 12318 tI . 1 IA l\ lot/ 4 s ?e. /8 — 9-/95"/ agsz7 SUBDIVISION NAME/DP BOOK/PAGE/SHEET ZONING SECTION/TOWNSHIP/RANGE rm.'?c,/yiutze IZ.46 APPLICANT MAILING ADDRESS ZIP CODE PHONE ve,�34 J C'M#44S faddy ZZ2,3 w. ueTh.ov'e • _ os y 2g3-Y86,, PROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRESS ZIP CODE PHONE G�4 v /UPI 1 Z- 318 N, Try Lt 4viefos RR_ 5' i3 7 ?/ CONTRACTOR MAILING ADDRESS ZIP CODE PHONE tA4c IP aots -v3 C- Z L L3 w • ctwu.a tre-- , $sao �•- 2 93• et$Fb CONTRACTOR'S STATE TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE(SALES)TAX I REGISTERED WITH ORO CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE# ORO VALLEY BUSINESS VALLEY FOR TOWN SALES LICENSE# TAX? YES NO 2 S•o 7Q O 1 Q ARCHITECT,ENGINEER OR DESIGNER(Circle one) MAILING ADDRESS ZIP CODE PHONE USE OF BUILDING ARCHITECT/ENGINEER LICENSE# DESCRIBE WORK 5 ) 10,4,0..• pc461. # S Pi MODEL PLAN NO.AND OPTIONS(If applicable) STATED VALUATION OF WORK NOTICE: Permits are required for electrical and mechanical installation. A permit becomes null and void if work or construction 77, " i authorized is not commenced within 180 days or if construction or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days at any time after work is commenced. I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct. All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The granting of a permit c/./� does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the ` Y� performance of construction. DATE OF APPLICATION APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE /p, 00 J'Z 111tc - LS (DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE) TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION SQUARE VALUATION PERMIT FEE BASED ON: STATED VALUATION CORRECTED FEET CORRECTED VALUATION VALUATION: 0, L �J c BASIC PERMIT FEE FROM TABLE NO.3-A OF THE U.B.C. PLAN FEE .. � 65%OFF PERMIT FEE TOTAL BUILDING PERMIT FEE GRADING PERMIT FEE OTHER FEES LARGE SIZE PRINTS GRAND TOTAL ALL FEES 6C LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS ' ''P (lies/t S 11 ( (/. (1 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE BUILDING PLUMBING MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL POOL SPA WALL MISC REVIEWED GRADING STATEMENT �. 1. Stabilization,erosion and drainage control measures: 2. Estimated quantity of earthwork: CUT cubic yards FILL cubic yards Estimated quantity of earth material to be removed from site: cubic yards. Off-site disposal location: 3. A description of the dust control method to be used during grading and until revegetation or stabilization has been completed: 4. Proposed starting date: Expected completion date: 5. Attached(Yes/No): • Soils Report? Archeological Clearance Letter? Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan? PROOF OF VALID CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE The undersigned does hereby swear and affirm that s/he is the applicant for a building permit identified in the attached application and s/he: 1. Is currently licensed as a contractor (or is an employee of a licensed contractor) under the provisions of Chapter 11,Title 32, Arizona Revised Statutes. Contractors License # Class Privilege License # 2. Owns the property which is not intended for sale or rent and (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): A. Will perform the work himself/herself;or jointly with their employees; and/or ' B. Will perform the work with duly licensed contractors, all of whom are identified below CONTRACTOR'S NAME LICENSE NUMBER TYPE PRIVILEGE LICENSE# CONTRACTOR'S MUST PROVIDE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF CERTIFICATES, PRIOR TO BEING ISSUED A BUILDING PERMIT, FOR ALL PROJECTS GREATER THAN $50,000 IN VALUE. 1. Annual Bond Exemption Certificate 2. One-time Exemption 3. Receipt for a Bond Identifying the Location of this Project These Certificates are issued by the State Department of Revenue. Call (800) 634-6494 for assistance in obtaining these certificates. RECORD OF CONTACTS / COMMENTS • DATE PERSON CONTACTED NOTES/REMARKS • • .• ., .• s . . • a _ ORO VALLEY USE ONLY PLAN CHECK RECEIVED DATE APPROVED DATE HOLD PLACED/ DATE HELD/ DATE HOLDING/RETURNED BY RECEIVED BY APPROVED RETURNED BY RETURNED RELEASED FOR: MP./ J 101!u1 • • .\f3 1-3 D- • J31Of' • • • • SPECIAL CONDITIONS DRB: BOA: IMPACT FEE YES BENEFIT AREA NO '/ � � b )LTA .TZ 0 Zq .(3 ?, RA-1/45TEp 5-4 Fti4L s P I\JE E Fie LP I O7.00(n, EF I2P Op, ti il_�,.AI R/P Patio Family Rm. 19.-8"x19'-4" Porch Master Bedroom •- -1 In 20'-8"x14'-8" ., Ii itdnc ^T{-■ ( �w 11 I . Living/Dining Rm. w� ;;El�� ° 29-10"x19'-0" II ,I { I-- MMstr. M'"" ;P t - o.,k i Bath tL:l. i t 1 _ ,' i , Hall --- ' r M,Akk. ■ . ^ r iro WI C. 1;...1._ II GrE AI �: w S J/ 11 Den El ;iI DI PAL 10'-8"X13-10" _L. . -1-maim mum • c.c. f4 Hall Bedroom 3 Q 11'-o"x13'-0" Porch ilik igi Bedroom 5 les ae 11'-0"X11.-0' WWI I I Bedroom 2 w.i.c. I w i.c. i . 2 Car Garage , 1S-8"x13'-2" .____-- __T1 21'-4"X25'-0" w AL Golf Cart iiiim.Yr-----iiii .r awl U / . C' f CATALINA V 5 Bedroom w/ Den Option n•S IS AAI AR ITS TS CCP CEP now or n DESIGNER HOMES PLANS uusnrAr£o ACTUAL aA"s HA r DIFFER Suai n Y Maki 114S DR =NG a,-eat Ow- JaI4 by C& C Construction Building "Certified Performance Homes" CIMARRON 3 BR-3 BA 2226 Sq.Ft Elevation A $289,000.00 2226 Sq.FL Elevation B $294,000.00 2226 Sq. Ft Elevation C $299,000.00 Convert 3rd garage to casita w/bath+$19,000 2502 Sq.Ft. MINI-SONORA 3 BR-2 BA 2509 Sq. Ft. Elevation A $296,000.00 2509 Sq. Ft. Elevation B $300,000.00 2509 Sq. Ft. Elevation C $306,000.00 SONORA 3 3 BR-21/2 BA 2706 Sq.Ft. Elevation A $315,000.00 2706 Sq.Ft. Elevation B $319,000.00 2706 Sq. Ft. Elevation C $325,000.00 SONORA 4 4 BR-2 1/2 BA 2925 Sq.Ft Elevation A $329,000.00 2925 Sq.Ft Elevation B $333,000.00 2925 Sq.Ft. Elevation C $339,000.00 SONORA 5 5 BR-31/2 BA 3378 Sq.Ft Elevation A $365,000.00 3378 Sq.Ft Elevation B $369,000.00 3378 Sq.Ft Elevation C $375,000.00 REDDINGTON 4 BR-3 BA 2767 Sq.Ft Elevation A $319,000.00 2767 Sq.Ft Elevation B $323,000.00 2767 Sq.Ft Elevation C $329,000.00/ CORONADO 4 4 BR-3 1/2 BA 3090 Sq. Ft Elevation A $346,000.00 V 3090 Sq.Ft Elevation B $350,000.00 3090 Sq.Ft Elevation C $3.56,000.00 k�`' 4 CORONADO 5 5 BR-4 BA 3293 Sq. Ft Elevation A $357,000.00 3293 Sq.Ft Elevation B $361,000.00 3293 Sq. Ft Elevation C $367,000.00 VA 1 CATALINA 4 4 BR-2 1/2 BA 3177 Sq. Ft Elevation A $350,000.00 3177 Sq. Ft Elevation B $354,000.00 3177 Sq.Ft Elevation C $360,000.00 CATALINA 5 5 BR-3 BA 3398 Sq.Ft Elevation A $362,000.00 3398 Sq. Ft Elevation B $366,000.00 3398 Sq. Ft Elevation C $372,000.00 PRICES SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE MARKETING BY CUSTOM DESIGN CONSULTANTS 6700 N.Oracle Road, Suite 234 Tucson,AZ 85704 (520) 575-0600 av01105 (fieWroieigit4 at CS/xo, aii, y by C& C Construction ..Building "Certified Performance Homes" STRIKING EXTERIOR FINISHES • Custom homesites to 36,000 square feet with attention to preservation of the natural desert surroundings. • Unique architectural styling in Santa Fe,Territorial,and Mediterranean design including inviting entry courtyards with every design. • Gas-lighted post lamp installed at driveway entrance. • Finished oversized garages with insulated foam-core doors. Remote openers provided for 16 foot door. • Concrete-curbed asphalt driveway from street to garage entrance including a maintenance seal coating within one year. • Sand-finish stucco system over extruded foam sheathing,"Tyvek"stucco wrap and fully covered plywood sheathing to achieve both strength and energy efficient exterior walls. • Concrete walkways from entry to driveway in broom finish. • Covered rear porch with extended patios as per plan. MONEY-SAVING FNERGY FEATURES • High-efficiency gas furnace with 12 seer A/C unit. • Low E dual-glazed insulated windows in taupe finish. • Blown-in blanket insulation in exterior walls and ceilings to achieve minimum R Values of R-22 and R-40,respectively. • 50 gallon high recovery gas water heater w/recirculating system for water conservation and convenience. • Computerized thermostats and electrostatic air filters. • Foam sealers between concrete foundation and exterior walls. • Certified Performance guarantee on comfort and heating/cooling energy usage. CHARMING INTERIOR FEATURES • Hand textured walls and ceilings with special detailing of drywall,trims and casing. • Dramatic volume ceilings in most models. • Hand-set ceramic tile flooring per plan. • Quality stain-resistant carpeting in a wide array of colors and styles. • Paneled interior doors with choices of design. • 8'tall entry doors with decorative handleset and deadbolt lock. • Easy-care cultured marble in all baths except pedestal lay in powder room per plan. • Designer coordinated lighting. • Ceiling fan in family room and fan prewires in all bedrooms. • Gourmet kitchens in every model complete with rollout shelves,gas cooktop,and eye-level oven/microwave. • Cast-iron or stainless steel kitchen sink with Euro faucet. • Plumbed for future water filtration at kitchen sink. • Your choice of oak or maple cabinetry featuring 42"upper cabinets. • Your choice of ceramic tile with wood beveled edging or laminate countertops. • Decorative rocker panel light switches in white or ivory finish. • Designer bath faucets with 8"spread at each lay. NOTABLE CONSTRUCTION FEATURES • Engineered post-tension steel-reinforced foundation and floors with 7-1/4"concrete slabs. • Dual-application termite pretreat applied prior to pouring floor and perimeter treatment at completion of construction. • Passive air exchange to maximize indoor air quality. • Prewired for telephones in kitchen and all bedrooms. • Security system prewire. • Prewired for T.V. location in coaxial cable in family room and all bedrooms. • 10 year"Residential Warranty Corporation"warranty. CUSTOMIZED OPTIONS • Dramatic fireplaces. • Corian or granite countertops. • Ask your sales representative for information on features of interest to you. Marketed by CUSTOM DESIGN CONSULTANTS -6700 N.Oracle Rd.,Suite 234-Tucson,AZ 85704 - (520)575 0600 00/01/11 JUL—ZS—U1 IU:SU rKUM— I-34U r.ui/Is r—usa MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION DECEMBER 18,2000 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER 6:07 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis, Mayor Dick Johnson, Council Member Bart Rachman,Council Member Werner Wolff, Council Member EXCUSED: Fran-LaSala, Vice Mayor EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to go into Executive Session at 6:07 p.m. for the following purpose; 1. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(7) discussion regarding the possible lease and/or purchase of real property (90 acre parcel located adjacent to CDO Wash,east of La Canada Drive) 2_ Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3) & (A)(7) legal advice and pending litigation regarding Town of Oro Valley v Canada Hills Water Company ,Ltd. partnership et al(Pima County Cause#332525) 3. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3) legal advice regarding Comcast Cable proposed lease 4. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) legal advice regarding Water Utility Projects (Water Plant#14, a 16"Transmission Line Serving Water Plant#14) (and related infrastructure) Council Member Rochman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4—0_ Mayor Loomis announced that in addition to the Town Council,the Town Manager and the Town Attorney, Community Development Director Brent Sinclair and Town Engineer Bill Jansen would be present for Item 1 and Water Utility Director Alan Forrest would be present for Item 4. MOTION: Council Member Wolff MOVED to go out of Executive Session at 7:08 p.m. Council Member Rachman SECONDED the motion. Motion carved;4—0. JUL-LJ-UI Iu:JU rRum- 1-J4J r.lu/IJ r-JJo 12/18/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session 2 REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER 7:20 p.m_ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis,Mayor Dick Johnson, Council Member Bart Rachman, Council Member Werner Wolff, Council Member EXCUSED: Fran LaSala,Vice Mayor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Loomis led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Town Manager Chuck Sweet reviewed the upcoming Town meetings. CALL TO AUDIENCE Nancy Young Wright, 1005 W. Wilkenson Drive,reported that the deadline for submitting for tax credit for donations to public and private schools is December 29, 2000. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Loomis pulled Items G and I from the Consent Agenda. MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to APPROVE the Consent Agenda with the exception of Items G and I. Council Member Rochman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4—0. A. Minutes — 11/15/00; 11/20/00; 11/29100 B. Finance Report—Month ended October 31,2000 C. Coyote Run Monthly Report—November 2000 D, Police Report—October 2000 E. Public Works Project Status Report F. Resolution No. 11000-1110 Award of contract for Project No.OV30-99!00 07 Professional Engineering Services for Lambert Lane from First Avenue to Rancho Sonora ultimate 4 lane cross section improvements to Entranco Inc. in the amount of$401,070 G. Resolution No_ (R100-1 07 A resolution approving a License Agreement accepting existing mailboxes,masonry walls, fences and other landscape elements within the Naranja Ranch I subdivision (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) JUL-Z3-U1 1U:31 FROM- T-549 P.11/19 F-938 12/18/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session H. RPcn1*•finn N . (Rl10-1 oR A resolution accepting those streets located within the Naranjo Ranch 'subdivision as public I. PPc.h.ti.,n Na. (R100_11�9 Consenting to the expansion of the Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District Boundaries streets (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) J. 0V12-99-12 Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5 -Professional Offices Public Art G. PT OI.11T1rw NO (''f.-i07 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LICENSE AGREEMENT ACCEPTING EXISTING MAILBOXES,MASONRY WALLS, FENCES AND OTHER LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS WITHIN THE NARANJA RANCH I SUBDIVISION MOTION: Council Member Rochman MOVED to APPROVE the License Agreement for Naranjo Ranch I with a correction to the signature page of the contract. Council Member Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4— 0. 1. R'CfAT:UTION NO. (Rum-rt n9 CONSENTING TO THE EXPANSION OF THE METROPOLITAN DOMESTIC WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES STREETS Mayor Loomis asked for a continuation of Resolution No. (R)00-109 in order to get some information on what the impact to Oro Valley may be if the incorporation of Casas Adobes is or is not approved. MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to CONTINUE consideration of Resolution No. (R)00-109 until the January 17th Council meeting. 2. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO PHYLLIS CUTCHER FOR VOLUNTEER SERVICES RELATING TO THE ORO VALLEY TOWN LOGO Mayor Loomis presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Ms. Phyllis Cutcher for her volunteer service in updating the Town's logo_ 3. PUBLIC HEARING —ORDINANCE NO. (0)00-40 ADOPTION OF 2000 ICC ELECTRICAL CODE—ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS DECLARED A PUBLIC RECORD BY (R)00-101 Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to APPROVE Ordinance No. (0)00-40, the adoption of the National Electric Code, 1999 Edition and amendments thereto attached in Exhibit A, and the ICC Electrical Code-Administrative Provisions, 2000 • Edition. Council Member Wolff SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4— 0. JUL-23-01 10:31 FROM- T-549 P.12/19 F-938 12/18/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session -4 4. FISCAL YEAR 2001-'06 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT AND REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTS Nina Trasoff, consultant and facilitator for the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) Technical Advisory Committee,updated the Council on the status of the CIP. She explained that surveys were sent to the Town's residents and more than 2,000 responses were received. The surveys were utilized to find out which project categories the residents would like to spend Town funds on and the responses would also help plan for the Town's future projects. Ms.Trasoff then reviewed the recommended Evaluation Criteria and Weights: I_ Public, Health, Safety and Welfare - 95 II_ Supports Stated Community Goals - 85 III. Fiscal Impact - 75 IV. Impact on Service Levels - 75 V. Impact on Operation& Maintenance - 75 VI. Legal Ramifications - 70 VII_ Relationship to other Projects/Coordination - 65 MOTION: Council Member Wolff MOVED to APPROVE the Capital Improvement Plan evaluation criteria and weights depicted in Appendix C (listed above.) Council Member Rochman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4—0. 5. DISCUSSION AND/OR POSSIBLE ACTION RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY REGARDING TOWN OF ORO VALLEY VS. CANADA HILLS WATER COMPANY Town Attorney Dan Dudley briefly reviewed the background on the settlement regarding the Town verses Canada Hills Water Company. MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to APPROVE the settlement as discussed in Executive Session. Council Member Rochman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4 — O. 6. RESOLUTION NO. (R)00-110APPROVAL OF A LEASE OF TOWN OWNED REAL PROPERTY BY COMCAST CABLE COMPANY (PROPERTY LOCATED 601 NARANJA DRIVE)(CONTINUED FROM 12-06-00) Town Attorney Dan Dudley explained that Comcast Cable Company has requested a continuance of Resolution No. (R)00-110 regarding a lease of Town owned property until the January 17, 2001 Council meeting. MOTION: Council Member Rachman MOVED to CONTINUE Resolution No. (R)00- 110 until January 17, 200I. Council Member Wolff SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. 4 —O. JUL-23-01 10:32 FROM- T-549 P.13/19 F-938 12t1 a/CO Minutes, Council Regular Session 5 7. DISCUSSION AND/OR POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDLNG THE APPROVAL OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TO HIRE AN OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR Chief Sharp reviewed the Council Communication and explained that the establishment of the Office of Professional Development would provide the Town's Police Department with services that would focus mainly on the areas of peer support, critical incident stress management, family support and education_ He explained that these services would help provide a healthier environment for the individual police personnel, the Police Department and the Town as a whole_ MOTION: Council Member Rothman MOVED to allow the Police Department to utilize anti-racketeering Federal Seizure Funds in the amount of 545,000 to establish the Office of Professional Development and to hire a Professional Development Administrator. Council Member Wolff SECONDED the motion_ Motion carried, 4—0. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 7:50 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:00 p.m. 8. OV12--00l STONE CANYON HI PRELIMINARY PLAT, LOTS 235-275 COMMON AREAS A AND C,LOCATED ON TORTOLITA MOUNTAIN DRIVE WITHIN RANCHO VISTOSO,NEIGHBORHOOD 11 Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reviewed the Council Communication and explained that the property is located in the far northwest corner of the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development (PAD.) The property is zoned as Very Low Density Residential(VLDR) and is proposed for 41 lots within the 90.25 acre site. Mr. Sinclair reviewed the four main issues with respect to the plat.: • Platting into PAD Open Space • Use of Conservation Easements • Dedication of a trail • Timing of water availability Council discussed the following issues: • Conservation easements offering best protection • Infrastructure improvements before Final Plat recordation • Trail issues (Public access, Width_ Maintenance) • Notification to potential buyers Charles Hulsey, The WLB Group,representing Vistoso Partners, reviewed the conditions as proposed for Stone Canyon In Preliminary Plat. He stated that they feel that: ■ Regarding Condition CI The conservation easements being recorded on the Final Plat and with the Deed is too much. JUL-23-01 10:32 FROM- T-549 P.14/19 F-938 12/I g/oo Minutes,Council Regular Session 6 = Regarding Condition #3: They propose leaving the trail easement in the wash and they feel 15 feet is more appropriate. They are also asking that it be dedicated to the Homeowner's Association as are all the other trails in the P .D. = Regarding Conditions # 5 & 6: They ask that they be allowed other alternatives such as utilizing a temporary pumping station until such time as the infrastructure is completed Explained that they could not close on the lots until the Final Plat is approved and recorded Dick Maes, representing Vistoso Partners, explained that all prospective buyers must be informed of any special information, restrictions, or conditions regarding the property (such as utilities,air flight paths, roads, conservation easements, etc.) He explained that the signed acknowledgement is received through the State of Arizona Department of Real Estate Report and must be submitted before closing on the property. Mayor Loomis stated that the Town needed to assure that the buyer is aware of any restrictions on their property and to make sure that the system works like it is supposed to. He stated that the Town is concerned about how each subsequent buyer would be made aware of said restrictions_ Mr. Hulsey stated that the restrictions are recorded with the plat and the plat is the common element that follows the property. Mr. Maes explained that standard real estate contracts that are used in every transaction of a sale of property must provide full, legal disclosure_ The seller has to disclose any and all restrictions on the property at the time of the sale. In response to questions from Mayor Loomis regarding the building area going into the conservation easement, Mr. Hulsey stated that they would correct the pad on Sheet 4,Lot 268. Regarding Lot 239 on Sheet 3,he explained that the building area does not go into the slopes but follows the edge of the 25% slope. Mayor Loomis opened the floor for public comment. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, stated that the trail should be secured with a guaranteed public access and connectivity at both ends. He stated that the trail should be buffered from the riparian area to be consistent with the Harris Environmental Study. He also stated that there is no support in the General Plan for extending private property rights into open space_ He asked that the General Pian be preserved. Hector Conde, 14040 N_ Lobelia, stated that the General Plan requires clustering to protect the Environmentally Sensitive Land (ESL) ordinance and buffer zones near open space. He also stated that the lot sizes are platted in the ESL and he asked that the ESL be protected even though the ESL Ordinance has not yet been implemented. JUL-23-01 10:33 FROM- T-549 P.15/19 F-938 1 2/1810o Minutes,Council Regular Session 7 Patty Estes, 11700 N. Joi Drive,recommended denial of the Stone Canyon III Preliminary Plat until such time that some of the major problems could be resolved. She explained that her major concern was regarding the trail through Canada Agua. She stated that the Tortolita Mountain Park and the Eastern Pima County Trails Master Plans require that a public trail run through Neighborhood 11. She stated that the Riparian Ordinance discourages building anything in riparian areas;therefore, a trail should be made outside the riparian area. The current proposed trail has no trail head with no public or private access. Ms. Estes also stated that the preliminary plat does not satisfy the General Plan's requirements_ Council further discussed the trail, providing public access and connectivity and the requirements of notification to the potential buyers through the State of Arizona Department of Real Estate Report. In response to questions from Mayor Loomis and Council Member Johnson, Mr. Maes explained that: ■ The State of Arizona Department of Real Estate Report has a signature line that states "By signing this document,the buyer acknowledges that he has read and fully understands this document." ■ Most trails in the Rancho Vistoso PAD are accessed where it crosses a roadway in the subdivision • The Rancho Vistoso PAD does not require a public trail head at the end of the trail • Condemnation by the municipality with the rights of condemnation could provide a public access • Would be willing to work with Pima County to help resolve problems that are within Vistoso Partners' ability to resolve MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to APPROVE OV12-00-11, Stone Canyon III Preliminary Plat, Lots 235-275, Common Areas A and C, Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit"A" with the following changes: Condition #3 be changed to "A primitive trail easement with public access at least 1.5 feet in width....." Condition#5 will be changed to read"All prospective buyers shall be informed via a State Report Item (the State of Arizona Department of Real Estate Report) signature of acknowledgement that will also include acknowledgement of the airport issue_" Delete Condition# 6 and adding a new condition, 4 10. "Lot 268 shall be redrawn to eliminate encroachment into the protected area(Sheet 1 & 4)." A) (Revised per motion.) 1. Conservation easements shall be recorded with the Final Plat and with the deed to each lot within the subdivision for all no build areas. 2_ All 100- year floodplain areas, Riparian areas and Open Space limits or whichever is greater shall be recorded us conservation easements on the Final Plat. 3. A primitive trail easement with public access at least 15 feet in width shall be shown on the Preliminary Plat and dedicated to the Town of Oro Valley. The 12118i00 Minutes,Council Regular Session 8 developer shall provide a bond, prior to recordation of the Final Plat for the construction, signage and maintenance of said trail. 4. All lots within the subdivision shall have aviation and hazard easements recorded on the deeds to each lot 5. A General Note shall be placed on the Final Plat that water is not available until the H Zone infrastructure and Water Plant 14 are completed per the Oro Valley Water Utility and all perspective buyers shall be informed via a Stare Report Item signature of acknowledgement (the Stare of Arizona Department of Real Estate Report) that will also include acknowledgement of the airport issue. • b_ '1` e Tee p b .7 • _ - i. The correct cross-section identifying label shown on plat sheet 4 for the proposed channels downstream of 10 shall be shown. 8. A note shall be added to the Final Plat that identifies all lots by number that will require special analysis by a Registered Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of Arizona, to determine the adverse impacts of subsurface flows down stream of diverted channels_ 9. The line type for the 100-year floodplain on the legend of sheet I does not match with the line type used on the plat. The line type shall be adjusted to match. 10. Lot 268 shall be redrawn to eliminate encroachment into the protected area (Sheet I & 4). Council Member Wolff SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 3 — 1, with Mayor Loomis opposed. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 9:25 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:38 p.m. 9. OV12-96-I4A.REVISED FINAL PLAT,TANGERINE HEIGHTS,LOTS I-So LOCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 'A MILE EAST OF LA CANADA DRIVE Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reported that Tangerine Heights has two zonings,Rl-20 and R1-36, with a request for the revision to the Final Plat affecting the fifty (50).lots in the RI-20 zoning. He explained that the applicant has requested an increase in grading limits from 10,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet. He also stated that the applicant is requesting the removal of"driveways" in Condition l_ In response tc a question from Council Member Johnson, Mr. Sinclair explained that the grading parameters va,-v w iH the siz at"i condition of rip lnts thrnuphout thefown stated that basea on a 2U,000 root square lot, a!lowa„,,,.ave been made tow up to 15, 000 square feet for grading or at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Administrator. 05/18/2eif11 13:1 r -_- • 12'l 8/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session 9 Mayor Loomis expressed his concerns that the Revised Final Plat for Tangerine Heights references Lots 1 —50, but the original Final Plat covered Lots I — 80_ He stated that originally the restrictions of the Final Plat were placed on all the lots. Planning and Zoning Administrator Bryant Nodine explained that the amended the western t would reference Lots 1 — 50 and would be recorded as such. He stated that edge of the natural areas would not be affected by the plat. Charles Hulsey,The WLB Group, representing the applicant C & C Constr acti n, stated that he felt that the intent was to re-describe the open space on the eastern boundary. also explained that it is common to re-plat portions of lots in larger scale developments when there might be two to three developers building on the same plat_ Mr. Bud Cardinal, C & C Construction, In response to questions from Mayor Loomis, ^5 N. Cortaro Road, explained that not all the lots would require an additional'grading 75/ .the look at she developa community- Y area. He stated that when they _ whole. They `4llryrk top recerve vegetation, the view-shed,s.-pirivacv And then try to utilize the evistin! for o nntiv to eliminate cut and 1 is much as possiote( He explained anal ilv with obey vatic a mix or buyers, aria t 0,000 square feet woulrl nrovir"e a fair larger house_ a yard,pool. etc, Lte stated mat they are asking to nave a 12,Uuv square toot • gra g ciiTi limit with trig ability to go up to 15,000 square feet for those families who need larger homes or have other needs. He also explained that if they have flexibility on the grading limits,they could preserve more of the significant vegetation Furthe r discussion followed regarding allowing the Planning and Zoning Administfator` the discretion to allow more grading on a case by case basis and referencing "Lots 50" in the conditions for approval. MOTION:: Council Member Johnson MOVED to APPROVE OV 12-96-14A,Revised n Final Plat Tangerine Heights, Lots 1 —50, Final Plat fective on the date of sa of conditions listed in Exhibit "A" with the following cnanges: remo' e the ng "driveways and" from Condition 01. Add the wording "The Planning andZoning A Aminlstrator-is authorized to allow additional grading up to a maximum of 15.000 square feet on '7 cave by case basis. d to Condition#1. And add the wording 50" on Conditions i & L A) (Revised per Motion) 1. Replace General Note#29 in the Tangerine Heights Final Plat with the following General Note#29: "For Lots 1 — 50, grading shall be limited to roadways, drainage imnrovements, it Lt' installation, and house pads (including driveways and yams)to a maximum of utility 12,000 square feet except for lot 30 (no limits imposed.) The Planning and Zoning Administrator is authorized to allow additional grading up to a maximum of 1.5,GOQ square feet on a case by case basis. All areas net within the gradable limits are to remain as undisturbed natural open space without walls or any other structures or disturbance." JUL-23-01 10:36 FROh1- T-549 P.18/19 F-938 12/1 g/00 Minutes,Council Regular Session 10 2. Add a new General Note#30 to the Tangerine Heights Final Plat: added to lots 25, 30,31 to realign "For Lots 1 —50, drainage easements have been the bank protection. The HOA is responsible for the maintenance of Central,Wash, Open P S ace and the drainage easements and bank protection to lots 25, 30, and 31- 3. Remove duplicate General Note#35. 4_ Resubmit following materials needed to record the revisions: a Revised mylars of the Final Plat • Three (3) full-sized (24"X 36") copies of the revised Final Plat • Data diskette (3/ inch diskette, zip disk, or CD-ROM) in DXF or AutoCAD DWO format. The mo tion was SECONDED by Council Member Wolff. Motion carried, 3 — 1, with Mayor Loomis opposed. 10. DISCUSSION AND/OR POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A COMPANY CONTRACT TO PURCHASE ASSETS OF THE MIDVALE WATER Attorney Dan Dudley reviewed the Council Communication. He explained that it Town A 3' with the was time for the Council to determine whether the Town should move foorw rdine that it purchase of the land and the Central Arizona Project ( p;n h said)water or to urchase. deter was no longer in the Town' best interest to move forward P Council Member Johnson stated that it was still his desire that the Town secure the property on the eastern side of Oracle Road from La Reserve north to the existing Town boundaries. MOTION: Council Member Rochman MOVED to direct the Town Attorney to advise the se ller that the Town will not be exercising its rights of purchase pursuant to the Assett Purchase Agreement and the Real Estate Purchase Agreement_ Council SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4 —0. 11. RECONSIDERATION BY COUNCIL MEMBER DICK JOH G ON - RESOLUTION NO. (R)00-105 OV12-00-20A SETTING POLICY REING DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WITH SLOPES 25% AND GREATER WITHIN RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (CONSIDERED AT 1 2/0 6/0 0MEETING) MOTION. Council 1 TMember Johnson MOVED to RECONSIDER Resolution No_(R) . 00-105, OV12-00-20A, setting policy regarding development hi areas with slopes 25% or greater within the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development. Council Member osed. Rochrnan SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 3 — I with Mayor Loomispp JUL-23-01 10:37 FROM- T-549 P.19/19 F-938 1G!1 oluU Minutes,Council Regular Session 11 12. POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION AND/OR ACTION RELATING RESOLUTION NO. (R)00-105 OVI2-00-20A SETTING POLICY YDER REGARDING DEVELOPI NT LEI AREAS WITH SLOPES 25% AND GREATER HIN THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT CONS' IDER AT 12/06/00 MEETING) ( ED MOTION;: Council Member Johnson MOVED to CONTINUE Resolution No.105 to the January 17, 2001 regular meeting in order to schedule a Town Council R)00- member site tour of the Vistas()PAD Where they can examine actual examples of the 25% slope interpretation issue and also to provide time for Town staff and land owner work through any unresolved proposed interpretive criteria concerning this issue. to Council Member Rochman SECONDED the motion_ Motion carried, 3— 1. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT No report. CALL TO AUDIENCE No speakers_ ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Council Member Johnson MOVED to ADJOURN at 10:45 _m. Counc Member Wolff SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4--0_ F il Respectfully submitted, Roxana Garrity, Deputy r ut TownCy . 1, I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 18th day of December, 2000. I further certify that the meeting was dul called and held and that a quorum was present. Y Dated this W\ day ofAl...taitA.hati-L.,a2001. Rath 1, E. Cuvelier, CIVIC Town Clerk C jtic O S1 R UCTION. Su'tF 714 • Tu;.;c,,• • Z d5704 • (510) 57.5 0600 • Fax i:2W 575•t16t;' ..: :.• : L !►.. k. .. . 'ti' .:'.:':'«;1 .:ti.'a.7.`;.,.. ., . .'1'. 4 :. . ,... I . i Acknowledgment Of Grading Restrictions la: Lot 11 Tangerine Heights 12300 N. Tall Gras" Drive hc-tin acknowledge and understand that Oro Valley regulations restrict the .xa�Sing of this property W a mpsinlig Q,. 12.gooR�feri for all ;mprovcrneras - home, phol, wail etc. cxciusive of driveway i 31 p, { 1 it , Op,* ?../1 rev-/ 17,(05/ . y'r.s i tide Date j • I i , _ ' Signature Date I f • 1 r • • • • NC 200 5 8 AGENDA ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION Oro Valley Town Hall Council Chambers 11,000 N. La Canada Drive July 24, 2001 CALL TO ORDER: 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL AT THE CALL OF THE CHAIR,THE AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN IN ANY ORDER,AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE. MINUTES Approval of the Special Session, Rules and Procedures for the Board of Adjustment and Regular Session Minutes of May 22, 2001. EACH PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS AFTERNOON'S AGENDA WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER: PETITIONER/APPLICANT PRESENTATION STAFF REPORT PUBLIC INPUT PETITIONER/APPLICANT RESPONSE AND SUMMATION PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Case No. OV10-01-05 Mr. Steven Conley Barlow requests a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback for an accessory structure from 5 feet to 4 feet, and to reduce the required 10' between structure and main building. Subject property is located in the Canada Ridge Subdivision, 11789 N. Eagle Crest Drive, lot 30, Oro Valley,Arizona 86737. 2. Case No. OV10-01-07 Robert C. Anderson D.C. (Anderson Chiropractic) requests a variance to relocate an existing approved entrance sign, with a reduction from the required 5' setback from lot line to a zero (0') front yard setback. Subject property is located at 8700 N. Oracle Road, Oro Valley,Arizona 85737. 3. Case No. OV10-01-06 Jeffrey and Pamela Nunn, are appealing the decision of the Planning and Zoning Administrator of May 17, 2001 which permitted the issuance of a building permit without Development Review Board approval, for lot 17 of Tangerine Heights subdivision, located at 12300 N.Tall Grass Drive. PLANNING AND UPDATE REPORT 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 297-2591. 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:07/17/2001 Time:4:30 MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 24, 2001 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 3:06 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Henry Suozzi, Chairman(excused) Bill Adler, Vice Chairman Lyra Done, Member Jim Swan, Member Cindy Lewis, Member STAFF PRESENT: Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan Dudley, Town Attorney Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Debbie Moran, Zoning Tech Linda Hersha, Secretary II MINUTES MOTION: Member Done moved to APPROVE the Special Session minutes of May 22, 2001 as written. Member Swan SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. MOTION: Member Done moved to APPROVE the "Summary of Recommended Rules and Procedures for the Board of Adjustment"with the corrections noted. Member Lewis SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. MOTION: Member Done moved to APPROVE the regular session minutes of May 22, 2001 with the correction noted. Member Swan SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. 1. CASE NO OV10-10-05 MR. STEVEN CONLEY BARLOW REQUESTS A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FROM 5 FEET TO 4 FEET, AND TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 10 FEET BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND MAIN BUILDING. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CANADA RIDGE SUBDIVISION, 11789 NORTH EAGLE CREST DRIVE, LOT 30 ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA 85737 Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Steven Conley Barlow, 11053 North Eagle Crest Drive, explained that the dimensions of the structure would be approximately fourteen feet in length by ten feet in width and ten feet in height. He stated that the sole purpose for the structure would be to provide a usable shaded area for his friends and family to enjoy away from the afternoon and west facing sun. Mr. Barlow explained that the rear portion of the home connects to three properties, which are separated by a common wall. He explained that the difficulties resulting from complying with the zoning requirements was that the width of the yard from the home to the back fence was only 20-feet 07/24/01 ivlinute, Board of Adjustment 2 Regular Session and 8-inches. He explained that the zoning easement of ten feet lies almost in the center of the yard, prohibiting maximum shade coverage from the southwest afternoon sun. Therefore, he asked that with the Boards approval to impede upon the Zoning Code restrictions by 5-feet. He said that if the variance were approved, the addition would increase the value of the property and substantially reduce cooling costs. Mr. Barlow explained that after collaborating with the adjoining property owners for possible alternatives pertaining to safety, quality and obstruction, the homeowners in the area have agreed to authorize the erection of the shade covering in writing. He explained that other alternatives were examined, but that it was determined that the options were not feasible for the following reasons: • A cover could be attached to the existing home near the easement, but the home would still be exposed to the west facing afternoon sun. • A smaller shade cover would not be practical or cosmetically attractive. • A portable shade cover would not provide the adequate amount of shade for the area, nor would it provide the necessary longevity needed for the improvement. Member Lewis asked if the proposed structure would provide adequate shade for the home. Mr. Barlow replied, "yes." Mr. Barlow gave a brief outline for the proposed covering using the overhead projector. Member Swan asked the applicant if his concern was with the heat outside of the home or the heat that was emitted through the windows in the bedroom, or both. Mr. Barlow explained that the heat was affecting the entire area. Member Swan recommended using a drop vertical awning. He explained that the awning might alleviate the problem rather than building a structure that was not contiguous to the home. Therefore, he felt that a variance might not be necessary because there were other alternatives. Member Done asked the applicant if he would be adverse to using a shading such as the vertical awning. Mr. Barlow explained that he was not adverse to the suggestion. However, he felt that a vertical awning would obstruct the view from the bedroom window. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector, reviewed the staff report. She reported that the applicant requests to reduce the rear yard setback in an R-4 zoning district from 5-feet to 4-feet, and the required distance between structures from 10-feet to 8-feet. She explained that the extra shade would provide coverage for the rear northwest portion of the backyard. She reported that the applicant has submitted with his request for variance a letter from Laura Lann, Lot 34, Sean and Valerie Patmore, Lot 31 and Penny Ulmer, Lot 28, which states that they have no objection to the proposal or the encroachment. Ms. Widero explained that if the structure were approved, it would be fourteen foot in length by ten feet wide and 10-feet high. She explained that the detached accessory structure must meet a minimum distance of 10-feet between it and the main building. She explained that the proposed shade cover 07/24/01 Minute, Board of Adjustment 3 Regular Session would be 8-feet from the main building leaving the rear year setback reduced from the required 5-feet to 4-feet. Staff finding of facts: • The special circumstances or conditions (refer to Assessor's Record Map) are due to the topography, and location of lot and homes surrounding (lot 30) the subject property. Lot 34 (parcel 543) the home sits forward leaving approximately 100 feet of open area to the rear of that parcel. Lot 28 (parcel 537) lies approximately 15-feet lower that lot 30, the owner of lot 28 will not have a view of Mr. Barlow's addition,because he sits much lower than lot 30. • The applicant or owner did not create the special circumstance or conditions. • The authorizing of this variance request will allow the homeowner to enjoy his home, with the shade cover protecting his home from the effects of the afternoon sun. • The immediate surrounding homeowners have no objection to this proposal. Vice Chairman Adler asked Mr. Dudley, the Town Attorney for clarification of what constitutes "substantial property rights." Mr. Dudley explained that, "the only way I can clarify that phrase is by giving an example, but the determination of what a substantial property right is really within the sound discretion of this board. In my opinion, and my opinion only, a substantial property right would be a property right where that you may prevent a significant use of the property. Example: You couldn't use the back yard. That's as close as I can come to a definition of substantial property rights." Vice Chairman Adler asked the applicant if he had any additional information that he would like to share with the Board. Mr. Barlow explained that he has taken extreme and meticulous thought as to how the landscaping for the small area would be done. Vice Chairman Adler opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Member Swan moved to APPROVE Case No. OV10-01-05, a request to reduce the rear yard setback from the required 5-feet to 4-feet, and the required 10-feet between main building and accessory structure. Member Done SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Member Swan stated that"property rights"was a very loose term, which could be interpreted in many ways. But, he believed that the homeowner had the right to provide the qualities necessary for a comfortable living space; and he felt that the addition would not be detrimental to any of the adjoining homeowners in the area. Vice Chairman Adler inquired that if a variance were granted, would it be granting "special privileges." Mr. Dudley explained that the decision would be within the sound discretion of the Board. He said that based upon the description that the applicant has provided that there were some significant differences between the applicant's property and the properties facing the same direction. He stated 07/24/01 Minute, Board of Adjustment 4 Regular Session that if the information submitted by the applicant is correct, there would not be a granting of"special privileges." ROLL CALL VOTE Vice Chairman Adler—nay Member Lewis—aye Member Done— aye Member Swan—aye Motion passed, 3-1, Vice Chairman Adler oppose. 2. CASE NO. OV10-01-07 ROBERT C. ANDERSON D.C. (ANDERSON CHIROPRACTIC) REQUESTS A VARIANCE TO RELOCATE AN EXISTING APPROVED ENTRANCE SIGN, WITH A REDUCTION FROM THE REQUIRED 5 FEET SETBACK FROM THE LOT LINE TO A ZERO (0 FEET) FRONT YARD SETBACK. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 8700 NORTH ORACLE ROAD, ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA 85737 Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Dr. Robert Anderson of Anderson Chiropractic, explained that the company requests a zoning variance that would allow the placement of the entry sign in an unobstructed position on the lot. He then proceeded to review the site using power point and videotape. Dr. Anderson read the following letter for the record. To: Oro Valley City Council From: Helen C. Roach, 818-0535 Re: Current signage for Dr. Bob Anderson's Office I have been a patient of Dr. Anderson's for about 20 months, coming for an adjustment biweekly. During that time I have always found it difficult to find his office because the signage is so low to the ground and set back so far that it is not visible until my car is upon it. Quite quickly I discovered that the only way to find his office was to look for the American flag which fly's at the business just to the north of his. I have sent many new patients to him telling them to "look for the flag because you can't see the sign". To my dismay, I discovered that the flag now is missing. (I don't know if it will be replaced or not in the future.) The posted speed limit on that part of Oracle Road is 50 m.p.h., the actual speed seems to be significantly higher. With this kind of speed and the large amount of traffic on Oracle Road, it is very dangerous to approach his office because his signage is not visible until the last minute. Therefore, it is imperative that some type of adjustment be made to the signage to increase visibility. Thank you, Helen C. Roach Dr. Anderson explained that the proposed relocation of the sign would allow for visibility from both directions on Oracle Road and would alleviate confusion with regard to the location of the business. 07/24/01 Minute, Board of Adjustment 5 Regular Session He added that this would also enable the public to safely reach the facility without disrupting the traffic flow. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector, reviewed the staff report. She explained that Anderson Chiropractic requests a variance to reduce the setback of their(Enterprise Car Rental shares this sign) permanent Office/Employment Center Entry-way Sign from 5-feet to 0 feet. She reported that the OVZCR Sec. 12-502.D.4 requires a minimum 5-feet from the property line. Anderson Chiropractic and Enterprise Car Rental are requesting a variance for the following reasons: 1. The required buffer wall for landscaping is blocking 30% of the sign. 2. Vegetation is obscuring the sign. 3. The shape of the lot is an odd shape; with the front half of the lot parking, landscape and walls. The building is setback to the east rear of the lot with a 6-foot wall to the south, further blocking anyone sighting the sign or building from north bound traffic on Oracle Road. Ms. Widero reported that at the time of the report preparation, staff received a call from Mr. Mac Gregor, who was in support of the sign being relocated and placed at a zero setback for safety purposes; there were no other comments submitted regarding the matter. Ms. Widero reported that the site was a 13,116 square foot parcel located approximately 1/4 mile south of Hardy Road on the eastside of Oracle Road. She said that the property is a small triangle shaped parcel that lies 150 feet from the centerline of Oracle Road. She explained that the applicant is proposing to relocate the existing sign to the entryway at the property line; there are no other proposed changes to the existing sign; the sign meets the Zoning Code in all other respects. Staff Finding of Facts: • Special circumstances were self imposed or created by the owner or applicant. The current owner acquired the structure and parking lot. They have not been changed from the previous use (a 7-11 Market). • To relocate the sign would place it at the entry as required by OVZCR Section 12-502-D2. The existing sign can not be relocated to the entry without either encroaching in the parking area or the setbacks. • The visibility of the business is low; the lot is on an angle in relation to Oracle Road and the buildings are set to the rear of the lot. • The authorizing of the variance would improve visibility and safety to the citizens and customers of the establishment. Vice Chairman Adler asked for clarification that the sign ordinance did not have landscaping requirements. Bryant Nodine, the Planning and Zoning Administrator replied, "that is correct. The sign ordinance does not deal with landscaping at all, except to allow planters around the sign. " Vice Chairman Adler asked what was the purpose of the wall. Mr. Nodine explained that the wall was actually a requirement of the Code to screen the asphalt in the parking lot. He reviewed the site diagram for the proposed setback. He explained that the sign could 07/24/01 ivlinute, Board of Adjustment 6 Regular Session meet the Zoning Code requirements if it were placed 5-feet back from the property line at the entryway, but that the applicant was looking for greater visibility for the reasons given. Member Swan suggested repositioning the sign, as it relates not to the end of the wall, but back from the right-of-way. Dr. Anderson explained that it would be less visible than the existing sign location, because of the large mesquite tree located at the entryway of the SunnySlope Townhomes. He explained that to relocate the sign within the easement 5-feet setback, would place the sign directly along side of the tree. Member Swan asked if the mesquite tree was on the Anderson property or on the SunnySlope property. Dr. Anderson replied, "no sir it is not. It's SunnySlope's." Member Done expressed concern regarding safety issues. She explained that while driving north on Oracle Road, and driving under the speed limit, that it was difficult to locate the business. She suggested that the existing wall could be used as a height enhancement. Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Jerrilyn Billings, Planning Technician, explained that staff had been working with Dr. Anderson extensively for possible improvements with regard to safety and visibility. She reported that after reviewing all aspects for the relocation of the sign, that by placing the sign at the 0-foot setback would be the most logical solution. Member Lewis asked if by moving the sign closer to the street, if it would look out of place compared to the existing signs located along Oracle Road. Ms. Billings explained that there might be some variation in appearance because of the angle of Oracle Road and the landscaping in the area, but there would be no dramatic effect. Mr. Dudley explained that as a result of the relocation of the sign, the Town might conclude that the sign would need to be relocated due to traffic considerations and sight visibility. He suggested that the Board include a condition regarding the future relocation of the sign. He also reported that he anticipated Oracle Road to be expanded in the future from 4-lanes to 6-lanes. He felt that if such a condition were not included, the Town might be responsible for the cost to relocate the sign. Vice Chairman Adler agreed. MOTION: Member Lewis moved to APPROVE OV10-01-07, request to relocate and reduce the required front yard setback from 5-feet to 0-feet from the property line of an existing approved sign, with the condition that has been outline by Mr. Dudley. (Condition: If a future relocation of the sign is required due to expansion of Oracle Road, the cost of the relocation shall be borne by the property owner.) Member Done SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Vice Chairman Adler explained that he considered a sign as identification and not advertising. He explained that as a participant in the creation of the sign ordinance, the issue avoided specific reference to the visibility of a sign. He explained that in other words, there was no assurance 07/24/01 ivlinute, Board of Adjustment 7 Regular Session that a sign needs to have or guarantee visibility in any direction. He explained that the reason he remembered the discussion was because there was considerable debate regarding the issue. Therefore, he intended to vote against the motion because he did not think that the conditions on the property required the sign to be relocated. He explained that if in fact, the Board accepted the idea that the sign was used for identification, he felt that there was other media available to the advertiser that could direct the public to the business location. He explained that he did not believe that the purpose of the sign would be to draw people to the business location, and hoped that it would never serve that purpose. ROLL CALL VOTE Vice Chairman Adler—nay Member Lewis—aye Member Done— aye Member Swan—aye Motion carried, 3-1, Vice Chairman Adler opposed. 4. CASE NO. OV10-01-06 JEFFREY AND PAMELA NUNN,ARE APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF MAY 17, 2001, WHICH PERMITTED THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL, FOR LOT 17 OF TANGERINE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 12300 NORTH TALL GRASS DRIVE, ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA 85737 Dan Dudley, Town Attorney, explained that the issue that was before the Board was an appeal of a decision that was made by a Town official which granted a building permit to C&C Construction Company. He explained that the Boards' deliberation should be limited to the following: • Which specific decision was actually being appealed? • Was the appeal done in a timely manner in light of the decision? • Did the official have the authority to make such a decision? • Was the official consistent with the State Law and Town Ordinance? • Whether or not the decision was an abusive stretch. He further explained that the required vote to overturn the decision by the Zoning Administrator and/or Building Official in this case requires a majority of the Board, which would be 3 members. Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Jeffrey Nunn, 12318 North Tall Grass Drive, distributed an additional packet of information to the Board and staff. He explained that this case has been a very confusing and frustrating process. He felt that hopefully the documents submitted and his testimony would reveal that the process used to obtain the permit, to build the home on Lot 17 was flawed. He stated that the authority that granted the permit was excessive. Mr. Nunn gave the following reasons why C&C Construction should not be allowed to build the home on Lot 17: • Believes that this could possibly be a discriminatory practice 07/24/01 iviinute, Board of Adjustment 8 Regular Session • The 5600 square foot home was being built without the approval of the Development Review Board or Homeowners Association architectural approval • Has paid a$29,000 premium for the views, which was one of the very highest premiums paid due to the view. • The purchase of Lot 18 intended to be a dream home consisting of 3380 square feet with a dream view. He was also told that his home would be the largest model as it pertained to the square footage. • Was lead to believe that the home located on Lot 17 would not obstruct the views. • Believes that the permits submitted are false and were not consistent with the original plans • The home in no way resembles the "Catalina B" model home (as shown in Exhibits #2), and believes that the Planning and Zoning Department has been mislead. • The "Catalina B"model home does not come with a casita or 7 bedrooms. Vice Chairman Adler asked the applicant what was the error he felt the Planning Administrator had made in terms of the process and abuse of authority. Mr. Nunn explained that he believed that the Planning Administrator allowed the permit to be submitted without the pre-approval of the Development Review Board (DRB). He stated that he was curious to know which criteria were used to determine the approval of the permit. Vice Chairman Adler explained that as confusing as the situation may have been, it was not an abuse of authority. He asked if the appeal was for the decision made to issue the building permit. Mr. Nunn explained that the main issue was that the DRB's approval should have been required. He stated that he also had concerns with the grading limit change. He felt that there should have been some due process regarding the grading limit change because he should have been notified about the modifications; and felt the home was not compatible with the other homes in the surrounding area. He explained that he only asked that the homebuilder take the appropriate measures and follow procedure like everyone else. Therefore, he requested that the permit be revoked. Vice Chairman Adler informed the applicant that his point was well taken and he understood his concerns. Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator reiterated that the Nunn's were appealing the administrative decision that allowed issuance of a permit for Lot 17 in Tangerine Heights, without architectural approval of the home by the DRB. He explained that some of the facts are that the Nunn's reside on Lot 18, in a 2200 square foot home. He explained that a 2300 square foot home would be placed on Lot 18. He explained that Tangerine Heights was a subdivision which was zoned R1-20 and R1-36 and the subject site is an R1-20 Zone. He explained that the homes for these lots can be submitted individually or can be submitted as models and that the applicant can make a one-time revision to the model. Mr. Nodine explained that Section 3-301 of the Zoning Code is applicable in this case. He explained that based on this section of the Zoning Code, staff does not send architectural plan for R1-20 and larger lot subdivisions to DRB for review. (Section 3-301 —the Development Review Board shall 07/24/01 minute, Board of Adjustment 9 Regular Session review all developments other than R1-144, R1-43, R1-36, and R1-20 Districts, which are not subject to overlay.) Mr. Nodine reported that C&C Construction had submitted an application for DRB approval of the model in the subdivision and was approved by DRB. He explained that C&C Construction submitted the application for a one-time revision within this subdivision and that the Planning and Zoning staff forwarded these applications to the DRB for approval,but that per code was an error. He explained that the error has been recognized. Mr. Nunn has been refunded the DRB fee for having to send the model one-time revision to the DRB. Pertinent Facts: • The Nunn's reside on Lot 18 a 22,090- square foot lot in the Tangerine Heights Subdivision. • The subject lot (Lot 17) is a 22,698 square foot lot just to the south of Lot 18. A house is under construction, frame and sheathed, on the lot. • Tangerine Heights is a custom built subdivision, zoned R1-20 &R1-36, recorded April 8, 1999. C&C Construction is the builder. • Section 3-301 of the Zoning Code is applicable to this case. Based on this section staff does not send architectural plans for R1-20 and larger-lot subdivisions to the DRB for review unless an overlay district could affect the design of the homes, or unless (in accordance with various sections in Article 6) the homes are two story homes. • Applicability— Sec.301 The Development Review Board shall review al developments other thatn R1-144, R1-43, R1-36, and R1-20 Districts which are not subject to overlay. • C&C Construction, having built primarily in Desert Vista Subdivision, which is zoned R1-7, did not realize that DRB approval was not required. They submitted an application for DRB approval for the models in the whole subdivision, and subsequently, they submitted revision to DRB for any of the models where they proposed a change in the front elevation (these are termed"one-time revisions.") • C&C Construction submitted three applications for one-time revisions within this subdivision. Planning and Zoning staff forwarded these to the DRB for approval. Over forty other homes approved within the subdivision were not submitted to DRB. • The Zoning Code's design guidelines encourage diversity and character of neighborhoods by varying setbacks, building elevation setbacks, building elevations, and architectural treatments. All zones have development standards. In Tangerine Heights lots 1-50 are zoned R1-20, with a maximum building height of 2 stories and 18 feet. Setbacks are, front 30 feet, side 15 feet, and rear 30 feet. Also a maximum grading limit was placed on the plat for this subdivision, which is 12,000 square feet (administrative approval is possible for up to 15,000). There are no limits as to the square footage or size of the home as long as the other standards are met. • The plan for Lot 17 meets all setbacks and other standards of the Zoning Code and the plat. The area graded on Lot 17 is less than 12,000 square feet. In conclusion, he explained that the Zoning Code does not require DRB approval for architecture in the Tangerine Heights subdivision. Member Swan inquired that if the builder submits a certain number of model home for approval, and additional changes were made to the home that had already been approved, what would be the requirement from a processing standpoint. 07/24/01 ivlinute, Board of Adjustment 10 Regular Session Mr. Nodine explained that if home is located in a subdivision that requires DRB review, those homes would be brought back before the DRB for consideration. Member Lewis asked if there was a procedure to follow when a project has been completed and the error has made by the staff. Mr. Dudley explained that not only could staff correct their mistakes but also he felt that it would be the obligation of staff to correct any mistakes that were made. Vice Chairman Adler expressed that he would like to get the matter of the grading limits addressed. He asked if at any point, there had been a practice to notify the existing residents of the change in the grading limits. Mr. Nodine replied, "once, because of a similar case that had been brought before the Town Council." Vice Chairman Adler asked if this was a matter of procedure now to notify residences of grading limit changes. Mr. Nodine replied, "yes, it is." Member Lewis asked that when the permit was granted, was there anything out of the ordinary that needed to be address outside of the normal paper work. Ms. Widero replied, "no." Member Swan asked what would be the ramifications if Mr. Nodine were to be found at fault for processing the application for Lot 17, as it relate to the construction process. Mr. Dudley stated that a stay could be automatic or could be requested. But, he could not clarify which would be used at this point. He explained that the court would issue the stay and the Town would effectively execute the stay for the construction of the home. Mr. Dudley clarified for the record that he had requested that C&C Construction discontinue the construction on the project pending a discussion from the Board of Adjustment. Vice Chairman Adler opened the public hearing. Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Barbara Murray, 4804 North Camino Luz, stated that she was a real estate sales person who has been associated with C&C Construction Company over the pass few years, and felt that the company made a very good product. Although, she was under the impression that a home could not be constructed any larger than 3400 square feet. She also pointed out that each home had been situated on the lot to ensure privacy from the adjacent homes. In answer to a question from Member Swan, Mr. Dudley explained that a stay would be granted at the discretion of the Superior Court. He further explained that the stay would not be automatic but would require an application for stay by the interested party. 07/24/01 iviinute, Board of Adjustment 11 Regular Session Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. George Feulner, 262 North Main Ave, the attorney representing C&C Construction Co. explained that much of what had been told to the Board has been inaccurate. He explained that he would not take the time to point out the inaccuracies if he did not believe that the only issue was whether the Planning Administrator should be consistent with the law. He felt that the planning administrator had clearly and irrefutably complied with the Zoning Code. He explained that his concern was that the Board had heard things that may sway them emotionally and gave the following reasons why the appeal should be denied: • The Braunreiter's home is not 5600 square feet but is 4400 square feet. He explained that this pertained only to the living area of the home; as compared to the Nunn's home, which was 3400 square fee of living area, therefore there was only a discrepancy of 1000 square feet. • Tangerine Height consists of 50 lots and 22 homes have been constructed. Five homes in addition to the Braunreiter's home are of comparable size. Therefore, the size of the Braunriter's home was not unusual for the subdivision. He explained that as far as the court case was concern, the Nunn's attempted to stop the construction of the home and lost. He explained that if there had been any violation of any law, rule, ordinance or covenants, conditions and restrictions with respect to construction of the home, then there would have been a reason for the court to stop construction. There was not. Vice Chairman Adler closed the public hearing. Mr. Nunn explained that he had also done an analysis of the square footage of the homes in the area, and the average square footage to date is 2956 square feet. He stated that he was still a little confused with some of the semantics between a custom-built subdivision and a custom graded subdivision. He explained that by looking at the exhibits for the "Catalina B"model home, there was not any correlation what-so-ever between the information written on the building permit and what was actually submitted and being constructed. He stated that he did not believe that there was a permit for the home because it was not truly a"Catalina B"model home. Vice Chairman Adler stated that the applicant's point has been well taken. He asked that with regard to the reference to models by name, if the building permit were issued for the model by name or was it referenced in an another generic way. Mr. Nodine stated that there were 2 ways that a model home is referenced by: (1) the model is submitted originally as a model plan and is reviewed as a model plan. Then placed in a hanging file. (2) An individual lot using the model plan can reference the model on the permit. Vice Chairman Adler clarified that this would not necessarily tie the buyer to the specification of the original model. Mr. Nodine agreed and explained that the buyer was allowed to do a one-time revision to change the model. Member Swan read the following paragraph: "Section 3-301 of the Zoning Code was applicable to this case. Base on this section staff does not send architectural plans for R1-20 and larger-lot 07/24/01 minute, Board of Adjustment 12 Regular Session subdivisions to the DRB for review." He stated that based upon that statement and believing that it is accurate and true, he would move to deny the variance. MOTION: Member Swan moved to DENY Case No. OV10-01-06 finding that the Planning Administrator's decision was not an error. Member Lewis SECONDED the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE Vice Chairman Adler—aye Member Lewis— aye Member Done— aye Member Swan—aye Motion carried, 4-0 to deny the appeal for Case NO. OV10-01-06. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE None Discussion: Vice Chairman Adler recommended that the following items be placed on the next meeting agenda for discussion. • The Board of Adjustment should take an opportunity to comment on the revised Volunteer Application Form. • The Board of Adjustment receive the Planning and Zoning and Council meeting minutes, so that the Board is kept appraised of what is in the pipeline and what is actually occurring in the Town. • The Board of Adjustment should consider requesting that a member of the Board of Adjustment be included in the Capital Improvement Plan process. • The Board should be aware of the Oro Valley merchandise available for purchase and strongly encourage the board member to acquire a shirt with the logo. He explained that this might enable the board members to receive more public comment and input while in the field. Member Lewis asked what was the revision being made with the Volunteers Application Form. Vice Chairman Adler explained that the Government Review Task Force was currently reviewing the application form to try and get more information from the volunteers, so that the process of screening and interviewing was more precise. He said that the following topics were under review and consideration: • Establishing a job description so that the applicant would have an understanding of what to expect when applying for the position. • Questions for the interviewing process and who should actually conduct the interviews. • The process of applying term limits. • The process of evaluating the volunteers during the course of their term. He reported that the Government Review Task Force was nearing a point where the report would be submitted to Council. Member Lewis asked if there was going to be any training sessions in the near future for boards and commissions members. 07/24/01 iviinute, Board of Adjustment 13 Regular Session Mr. Nodine stated that he would contact the Department of Commerce regarding training session seminars. Mr. Dudley asked if the Board members found the Primer beneficial. He stated that he was also open to suggestions. Vice Chairman Adler stated the specifically he wanted be sure that the Board understood whether the 5 Criteria were in fact legally binding as standards, or whether they are in fact criteria that only needed to be addressed. He expressed that he also had concerns with the making of a motion and whether the motion needed to specifically reference the standard or criteria that were met or not met. He stated that the Primer was extremely helpful and thanked Mr. Dudley for providing the information. ADJOURNMENT Member Done moved to ADJOURN the meeting at 5:47 p.m. Member Swan SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Respectfully submitted, Linda Hersha, Secretary II .. J81. E � ) �g21i },rYcn, S e { • • • S r s • • • EEE Se yy��,, i ti �.x� �t • .. �:t;'«at�'S�°�,�L • a2 ate_ { .a set • r ! ^' Y>y a:P w;h &.Y"Ros x�4kY'} cTF Y :: +�ae�.�; z '£.�zt �Ka rn De».,r. a Viz«. '}'14 ohe s 5 `" . #7 q ,.•x 9ek `l,. '.3` -'r'"" erg, k5`c'°. ° ''^�y. s 3 �'at }+A } ��w :r 'SNr�6.4fna y"�Y4�C'�'` � R�\ * .. g• .. . a+- .. ''z >* eA ,. e a Y a i x^. .3 aF,� x fi e p s7,x. ��` <a`Y.w�`" 'n'r•F��,��S�r a ::Y:.<.��fil;" '.�;is 4 Photo by Mark B.Evans The owner of the house on the left,Jeffrey Nunn,wanted to stop construction of the house on the right,saying he was promised no home would be built blocking his view to the south,but the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment refused the request.The houses are on Tall Grass Drive just north of Tangerine Road.. Adjustment d won 't stop. . house by Bob Svejcara The request for the injunction was denied by news@explorernews.com Judge•Lena Rodriguez on the grounds that the Nunns presented no evidence of irreparable . -An Oro Valley homeowner failed to have the injury because they would still have "breathtak- town halt construction of what he termed "an ing views," although deprived somewhat of side absolute white elephant" of a home blocking views because of the sighting of the lot,and that views from his home. The town's Board of public policy favored the landowner's property Adjustments voted 4-0 July 24 to deny the rights and freedom to build on the property sub- request. ject only to appropriate legal restraints. Jeffrey Nunn and his wife, Pamela, residents The suit for compensatory damages was in the Tangerine Heights area,claimed that they allowed to proceed. had been promised no home would be built ` Following the filing for an injunction, the blocking the views they paid for when they Nunns appealed to the Board of Adjustment the shelled out$29,000 as a premium• decision by Oro Valley's Planning for unobstructed views of the Santa and Zoning administrator allowing Catalina Mountains, Pusch Ridge .construction of the neighboring and city lights. If there had home. That all began to change around C&C Construction was asked to Memorial Day, five months after been any cease construction on the larger 'the Nunns closed on the purchase home until the Board of of their home at 12318 N. Tall violation of Adjustment could rule and was Grass Drive, when they came warned that they were proceeding across plans for a home being built any law or at their own risk if they continued. at 12300 N. Tall Grass by C&C Ordinance (�/� C&C Construction took the risk Construction Co.,the same compa- and while continuing construction, ny that built the Nunn home.. order would won with a unanimous 4-0 vote by Nunn had mistakenly been told the Board of Adjustment denying by town officials that he needed have been Nunn's request to have the permit approval for minor changes to his for the larger home withdrawn. home and complied with that issued to stop -Much of what has been told to directive. you is inaccurate," George Feulner, He became enraged when he construction. an attorney representing C&C discovered that neither he nor the Construction told. Board of neighboring home required such Adjustment members. approval, even though the neigh- George Feulner "This is not the albatross boringhome had been drasticallyAttorney for C&C described to you," he said, explain- changed in size from the model Construction ing that the home being challenged plans presented to and approved 'g is only about 4,400 square feet by Oro Valley planners. compared with the Nunn home of Instead of a home of about about 3,400 square feet, and not 5,600 square 3,400 square feet, what was being built was a feet as described by Nunn. "monster" home of about 5,500 square feet "If there had been any violation of any law or inconsistent with the size of other homes in the ordinance, an order would have been issued to area, Nunn said. stop construction, but they could not," Feulner The Nunns sued C&C Construction for corn- said of the Nunns. pensatory damages in Pima County Superior The board denied the Nunn appeal after find- Court and sought a temporary injunction to halt ing the town zoning administrator's decision to construction of the home to the south until the issue a permit for the home neighboring the suit is settled. Nunn home was not in error. v IrlSt4e— i u c,---&41-- 1/4-1-. - - , _, _,`4--12:.,,a.,.-4,1 i. f. ille..:i(.,..,,.-:.:..-.APiri „:';.y .. July 23, 2001 Page 8 . .:. \ , '- < ..,..,.,..._._ .::,;„,i,.,..„.„:,, iIf . ._ Homeowners see )ver diminishing view By KYLE SCHLIESMAN from our eating space, and from our _ „m Inside Tucson Business back yard patio ... We lose our view of ( ..,:::. „..,,, ...::, .::: zaf u. < Surrounded bythe Sonoran Desert, Pusch Ride. We lose our view of the ,-',, •;r,:>:r 9� :«:;r > '>>' E>- .:.:,� the Catalina Mountains and the night- citylights,"said Jeff Nunn. • • x g g . beauty of its owns sparkling urban At the tune the Nunes icked lot 18 ;;;,.-.}.:}::.:....:.:::::::::: ..:r:.: r:. . ,::>. •.: ::.::<r::::: . >:><:>::<.;::.:r - n'<S,.>-'�;�• tune e P g P �:�;. � <�� .. . 01.• $ty . . population, . . ....... it ni y. t ♦'" �{ to s f Tan Brune Hei ht h �}�:':::<.<::<:>::< .�•�� .Y.rr Old Pueb o s ouses ahead ' ''' �'_� citizens manyof the : :. t 3 on occupiedlots19 and 1 ,n':�� based 6. According rdun to ...,... .:.:.............:.::::. <.:: ::Y.::<... .. �.::: treasure their homes c o was ..v7--. v:� :�: ��i>':'r..�� y°•f:SS::'s::'~i SX'�"../�.Y.\��.�`•��(;?.�,i.\i'^.�':%H. those breath-taken scenic views a fact Jeff Nunn the couple told that the :r.)..:. •.::!. ,..- -, ._:�, .. -s.., ':i homes alongtheir portion of Tangerine >r' ::,;::..l:.: area home builders must always oe ..�)Yx <>c which oe. L�� :{:v ��.Y:ia ys.,�: �.y, r%�:::tkk wS t { h weretostaggered � ' ..�.r`....�.h. ?:?'�f. ,.::<.:. f.<; :�.. nJ �>� account. However one Oro Heights be a not to . . <.., ::::>' �;<F:.?:_' :,�",f'�:.,!a:!% take into cco g ,•��t<;�.;;::?•t:,<:,� ..~ �:-4< u:><:'�, ::y<: < ,:�}::��;�' � `�. � .Y , :.;'y„}.,.:t �:�._. .'"d','i:::" t� 'iv h� �K' \�xY):3.=v)if:�.:::�„i< -,qv'' -4)<: ::r:�' tt?�L%':'C�4 .�;y5'; .if' 'nsb•'?'' ."}S:.x:.. h.6 another h .� .�s.. `, 1 Nunn blockhome's view of the city �. Pamela Jeff and ��;} r. , . Valleycouple, .n:>: .r rah: �.. t • './:....AL`N.....n.. t: :..fff:::" v:.:::, �::. ' ' ,.hl.:lights.Therefore,the ... n. ... .r, .'.....,a au-ist the li sNunns constructed fightingdesperately : w :k,are :.:... )::>:.}} ... g g n .. ,fit. .....):...... ....�:::.<..'.f<.:....:...,._:':. wtheir home back on the lot ' ' '�- • - _views, o o so as not to Ni.,..„.:.,. :..':.::.r .... ::::::. _ �':'>:j�<:<: obstruction of their sweeping - - �'C J air:..: � n.uw �.<: .: '. <. :" axis m, <.' r,: - view • �:r.,his::f>::;;;..;s;:":;;'>`��>:"%'::: d r aran- obstruct the from lot 19 but such �'�E"`'`" which theyfelt were burl e ' -'.�:;:. }.: ...,t...n:.:�::..}....:,....�:J..;; �:.:::<::<<.<:;:->n�!.<a;:` :�>; measures were not taken with the lace- '.. -' :':: �<::>:f:>�:::;... .t��':t<:t (`-:�--"-°� teed. p ��. h:;�.. s N. ., Valley ment of the home on lot 17. `.' _ The Nunns moved to Oro y _. �- : ► "The �_ - n'"` - -r� •'t,�`. Photo bySc Weisman from Minnesota last year and worked bottom line is:We were told we ITB with Long Realty and C&C had to put our house at a certain place, Homeowner Pamela Nunn, center, joined by daughters Ashley, left, and Alison, is Construction to find the perfect lot with which in hindsight turned out to be false angry that her family's view of city lights will be blocked by a home now under-con- struction perfect view. The Nunns closed on information,"said Nunn."This was our struction adjacent to their property. their Tangerine Heights home on Dec. " dream home.We looked for months for 22,but,around Memorial Day,they dis- this lot and we paid dearly for it." Heights. According to C&C was unnecessary and apparently covered plans for a home on a neighbor- Securing their lot, the Nunns paid a Construction owner Bud Cardinal, "the occurred due to a staff error. ing lot, also being built by C&C $29,000 lot premium. The premium is homes are not designed for side views... Though plans for the home on lot 17 Construction, which would eventually based on the comparative value of the There is never any intent to provide include more customization than those block the Nunns'view of the city lights. lot,which includes the-potential view. views to one side or the other,nor do we for the Nunns home,they did not have "Now, as we stand in our home, we The rear of the home faces due east really say that there is,because there is td go through the development review see a wall from our family room, from toward.the Catalinas, as do the other going to be a home built there." board.Following their only legal option our master bedroom, from our kitchen, homes along this stretch of Tangerine Completing 56•custom homes in with the city, the Nunns filed an appeal 2000, 29-year-old C&C Construction is of the administrative action which +'A^=at"h.( .h,, >.f,•7`J.fi;F:Ac':i.'-`i<R'"f'{ C,w/>�i�lyr,.S9lftt`4�l-`.�r�}4j>:'.56," }°,•'GiJ-.:,<;.'tt. .�: :;N.,' >.�:' ::%":tn :Yl:i,.t4:' k•"•'f'.'/!'.1. �.v'. �::2 Y%h!i - f,JY.t+,.t.?l.:4t,U .,.,'\<t ::r t..;:n.:nn ".0.:.:j.v:nYb %f•. building:. r. r�� . : ,' y�h:r x .t. :: the issuance of a ••:i:sfdf�-� > :;.>:.r' .-•>`c�:}n r�'`y:!. .ss:t �tr},.:..<�?.s., �hM::.:(:.:.., ,$�� ;:;:, allowed pe ,a. ;9�,��,+c'.`•�1'a .-2-. 7�„"J:n: Y.�.:.}:. ':>:):.. /.-, ctive c : w.>a•�t.::y ..:... " ..-,....:... \ '. >, - :-:??:»;:<>:.... most kz.�: ,!. _l.�`'y. � � '!J < � of the !..�.,,.<.!<:::..<�fi:" :::� ,=:'.�:}.::x ��`" one �� P .�E::r.'�.:4'i:%vti ':S'f :.Y ham' x r. �,h.( . r, A�: review board :y:.� '��.M development.0 mit wi thout�:>e. a P,r> .:.�.Y<:;t;:�:<.� :�. are E�� "�... � Tucson>., ::�.>::<. ..:= J ) : 4_>} ,., ' ' :-: builders in the t, . -`: <- r. < e: s. '� '< home/ ;:f"> '. <> appeal will take of �,n,, <:<.: :.::..:,.::... ..:....:. ,: <+�>;., ,.F. <'�'�`�:r' s;:..: .,f. :.......:....:.:.:. ... . ;� .E,:>r} "�•'` Construction owns That.,,� .. :::. :. :. -��a�.. ��,. �" ��': •:a..> � .: Tangerine.. .. Ns en„ 50 lots in T rine approval for lot 17 :� " ..,: o l ,.>ft :%:.k t , >> in a 3 m.Oro /.�:�, .. ::>6�=:�:::<: <:'.. tea, >.,..� nr.:.. fj>'. -::x ',.,� place on TuesdayValley �,:.....,..�'.r,,:::;;:;><: ..kt,:rzr hh�,�.+.� �;y, �: 'tip.°"",''>. hasP 4= :t. <:�..: X�>:';.�.+. ::.�:<,,�„ '..�,^ .:�" �t� �<ftwhere the company .:.< :g u.fi r•�>1 bi .. ::h�afv ;?f,'h''k Heights, P Y )% .�'. ..� <. arias �:�: public he �.>.h°�` Adj ustment -Yt, of.r+�::�.: Y:, Board .-):c+,� -::.�:.:::t ...::::%'"ihsa.�!;c� . .. � �. vas: "`,:<v::.` �� ::J. g:'.., ..:: .:.::... . h.) :tr...,.,: .y>::f!::tr ;h r., �- .*" 25 homes, ...�:r�,. ..:.!".<:::. .Y.,.t.n:, . . ��:.(:. .�. ...,f:-:.v� .�,. ,:�� constructed over , ti:> . .n:.,-:::. :€ > «fv<.n:.. sy v;,�h. n•4 t a::;: already ,..t 'Y �:><� <::>k:<:< :is,' !r)�~w:h}}�<. �.,c�::):: ..� �. ""«:` a. fails t ,Gf!. J�. appeal:. .,.. .. ...c}:::.<.. .......�}.<v.h`;,::;i: :..� '::ar;if<y-..,. • umf-, .y<"�'- :3:;.: administrative..�. the a rn fbasic ,. .... �. .:::..... ..:. :,..<.:!<:... ..:.. ..�:>:=.::;:::::�,-: ..f. •>_(. versions o r�Y- ,.f✓f ,c.. :.":., .: <t..,}..>::: .-.::_::i::.r}::.::>:::;::.:! :> h.<t<n:!h.:., customized "w f��,,{ ;: . �.. ,, ;<>n -..€ which are superior,r e'��). to th w: ..x� .�. }.:.:: .:. 'ter to _;:<:=:J;:<��-` !<: 'x Fh Ian v '?'�� :[y�J' �:sr.. .. �..!:i:::2:/;:.:.::y. 'n};::....,. .. c.i.y+'::;s::,$, ��_:" -s6t,?� ,y�� Sf ). � Nunn.S .♦0:,?,a N ,:ia\.s., .. ,.✓.%a,,z(..:r::: : .. i�*..;r"-A: ",r,v,2 h, .fi`v.:'-: 1s p PPe K7..G�3:,.�{% :!��' ( 'h`�5<>.Gt.�.�. c,�GiY;... „�:J.ucyr�.... 5,--;,. ,5, a� �?,r: models. �:, :.;�. ..�,�. ,�.,, ,- w>>:�:> }f,:k:.: _<, �.r .,Y~. mod ;tea iF„ >��:'��>::: «.7 " whatev- . w`":l �i.� o.EL >h:✓ Dort ,s fa<� to.s., �: customize a� n. � .. :. �<.Y::,n :.EYt:' :.::�:.... .:� ;:� �:� >z. can ECW$10: /6:}r�b',.. '' ^:,'�a+.,��'i ''nv •u,xj+',�°r•;.. try .. .... ...v....n::,:::,x�-k)�:. ::n.... :.. .vf:;... o.-k•,p :;::;'�=":: .h}fv" Y Y,a.), ..... .� � � .. -,.'�ck'�'..;i<:"t�::o:>Jr::?�:.::�'a::-fi.:.t�o� :'r k..a.hcOns; .. :. ..J, � ;•:" ,:: ::;:t....., :6?<`. The matter is closely:.T . t^E.. .�.��!. <.�:. ; < tis their home being «.r:l,?-r f. .> N::. Bed to sa �r. n .f.a^. :<-.�:r: .+;>� .at. the i� e de �t ,h. id- 1. �. town officials.ered.,c 3f':. has ..::� .,... :^' Everyone ....- .:............ , w.t] . ... . .... .:: :.. :WAS,h„n:..v ' : .:.rn.v .r..G?r$:; .\:ss::E:}.h,. ..r[.4�.a . ... ::::.... .... ....... .r �:C.... > ::}4:, .._<.. tt:'t�:;�S!��'•i/i'xn:!G'v..:F n:.. �-::�''.��Ftrt housing needs. �'a h.' ::uy'.'(.}tf< ''o-�>#a..<.- that x�.. couple o , ... .,.>?.,:':.. .>♦.E� re are t.„..ny>%/.- :f5•:...:=•E:.'?w. ny: .;: #:: .g ;o .h xn:i=fit" �,.. . }+. .-•. :,J,�: ., E::.,,. ." <vsaid Cardinal f = -_. ..... /••=�:n=t.::...:?:�`:<:>>:v}Jrr�<:<.r..�}:Y�<.;;;r..:t-.. into tr ,.;:..r:..::.;.r:.::>:t;.:: :r.,f.�t : }: .w ~._.,<.:.i:f• <t:<::.:.:!:...":::.:.�.�:.-. we re looking" ..�04: . ; . :. ....::.:.. :>.:::: : ...:,.:;:,., :�.-: that to be settled and .;�. ... _.<;..<; �::�. -�� claim r `'�'><^��r :;�; �r opportunity" Nunnsneed - ?�.: �.� :�. .:;;' `-� :%! .'' they were told r.: Bob K w..(:: said ?,p �n:�,. right no • . those .-n.y:;<h::::::.}::::�`:.v:?.,::�:.:4r:;::415<rs:!i}:r' :ii:,Z:�4':h'v �,�,.. .. .`�. .�. to the stan- '. � ass ma =y>F�:' ��;<:H?.r�.!?:?: do k:;�<:� to miza:.}�.• �.'. .:�: cos f<�' any :\v.:.Rc u 9. 4.. :.;�:j}= town 1 l �: ��h'Y� the to t ..t. .....>a...:>:-f��!}, ..,).},�:q J `.. . .- t.. ..� <: .::.' t.�� n officer f ,.f. :.ti<!..,\wrw :��;%tr:.}::>.:. :.,,~:: information x..tk.. �^�.:, ;'�- :>: lie tr•.s:., would..".,.:,f.r>:.:.;:.::::: . . 'Si:: :...;};:f:}.:.�/..::..:.}:..:.}:.>:::>:• home�..tn.,..>:. w.9) !r....."��..". r}�:-,< ��, for their el Ian�!f. mod d !k`�:y:`- ar z. .,. d�....,. }.ter..#: P fi :h: A� •yi n'rv?::?: h::.fin�i:+v:h}:ii;;}:' :" . .�. ... $:<??. E , . I:\. Oro V .. reviewed•.r.`� be� Valley 4`h '.f': }. to �,". 1 ne :t��t � .� _. theby n§ ! .�.g� ..-. require 3 w+tio`�r w.•f., <::� P ..v.rr;;yr:�:-ry ..9../f. 'i?:':`k)Sf 7.:.✓�:J.. :.S.L.__y�; ,:'<`y$%:'\;};"=3" ".s'btiepa'ht '.:ar:sa�v"�'o-i. 4fwd�:"a}nv :z:iaYii:r: �'�-'�!^•}. 1'-'+'`t - ..y. . < ;r:<.:::.:;:.;:.;;:}?..:N�. �:.. ......_�.......................... ::�;.��- filed suit :.r.,_..:?-.t�.. also ." .. <n ,.:::. ,.�:.:-.. ..:n:.::::<::....................:.::.. The Nunns hav e!,-,..^..:. :::.:,::.::..,:..:..-'... >. trValle Development Review :..�,. <::�.:\ :,.Y� the Oro :vf}:v :.f,, Y P �. _- for com 'o.�.� tructr -§ Cons ;T� buil ding "t. ag ainst t C&C : Pg::�. of a issuance s:::: ><s .x ...:. ..: .. for ^c> 4. ,:�"��., �<�.y��.x._,.:,«,>.;� >)': :k� damages, and sought �...:..::.: to the :.y , !.,.t'n. ..t r<,. made minor changes satory g ?!.Y:.r��::Ek,, �'>::.:;;-::.: The NUnnS \,try'' ,_,.. :..?...n...t`.". t?!...t �.;f�:.,r<!::. ::;r> �•>.,v,' ?d},. @ .), G.J.} ..}).- ,�^' ��'��-':<:'::r} �:<-. 4 th rough the thr unc- ,.'��v+ "r.J ._:'. .: �, home designand went g ,,f>\ ,,rt y. \ -,. � ,.. ,.. ...:.i:�n�:x,yr ..::::�..�.,.- :;..,;:!l::;%::::;t«: >::E&�'.� ,,k.. i'ivR ../n: ....� ,�.;.. "? , ,:.n....}„�:::., :� � C VIEW gin:,f.. .. x ter. �.. See page 9 ,¢.,.,.,... " .:n h�f,t.• t E n:!f a.f• vas,., ..w yr vtry: h,:n ,,,,,,,, ... process ...:... . .::�'9.�"K:?,f� w .�.x...<.. ->.oX .�!:. :�:.,;yh.... fact that .>..:, ....f.... .. . .r:.�..,...,...�:...!<h>.,\.,<::...., ..... ........-_.-...... Y :: when in -:>.� ....:,....:........ ........... . ...,a_ .,;:.. .:t;<�;:y.. review board, P `i#::.'-::::'::�:'<. +mot A Y �;r .:,,//»� �� },tom.<!,;.tr..:::c:>:<°' tgq<<,,� :off,, .y: .1 �:'O:J:11S}. ,yg i% ,-;--/:„.--- ...-•-. ,.:.- •- ,,,:v„,,,,,,,K,„:„ xS.c 1 /v oS: 11rracon 24,$08- square-lout, UUt'e-S tor y llle uepat WW1 Rs St.1 ICU U1Cu w uw... .1 on the southeast corner of Vine into the building include has been lacking on campus. K :tie and First Street. Called the Classics/Classical Archeology And "The(UA)Asian community is really st �r-ning Services Building,the structure Religious Studies, German Studies, excited about this project, they feel that cc rill house four departments in the Russian and Slavic Languages, and they've been recognized with these real- College of Humanities and will be the East Asian Studies — a discipline that ly comfortable and beautiful surround- je inspired one of the more unique aspects ings,"said Tang."These students need to n of the building: The Esther Tang have a place to meet and to get acclimat- ti VIEW from page 8B Project. ed;we've lacked that(for the Asian stu- is Named for the well-k n now Asian- dents)." d tion against building on lot 17 until that American community activist and char- The Esther Tang Project will include lc suit is resolved. That application for ter member of the College of Humanities two galleries,a board room for meetings, re injunctive relief was dismissed in Pima Advisory Board,the Esther Tang Project and possibly sculptu and other public n County Court. Furthermore, the court is deScri by the UA as "a variety of art. p minute documentation of that ruling creatively and aesthetically designed The Learning Services Building is a indicated that the Nunns failed to prove indoor and outdoor meeting spaces." scheduled to be completed in March IA promises were made guaranteeingrov city "The(space)won't represent any spe- 2002. fi views,and that"such provisions should have been included in the written con- tract." In order to helpclients achieve their reshard £x Beach Architects congratulates desired views from their homes, C&C Construction takes them out to the site, � 1 versi 0 Arizona to determine the exact location of the house on the property, at which time { � ' �"�?"�' k potential obstructions to views maybe O I'1e substantial completion of discussed. Also, only one-story homes ' �"$' are built in the community,so that taller ry Integrated Lear s,. to building will not block views. While maintaining mountain views ' h ` 'T } as4� xp A} "#� for homes in Tucson and Oro Valley is a y <u< ;,>r 4 y y �" .17‘4 major concern for home-owmn citi- , ' � t" '•'° :::.:::':•::'.:i::: , .�y}u;. {r .y •r � '•i .gyp, i{:%ii:•ryC<,L}::.v.•:} {:, : i _f 1:; {y.+>• zees, local government can do little to � ��,: uarantee those views. One wa that "� g .,. better views g :>�::{;:; <: <: «< Oro Valley helps to provide � � - ,�•�,�,: Ax: ;� � �°-- is through view corridors, which are >" {: , a ` achieved by limiting the size of the :: { 3 - k • , home according to the size of the lot. - f; ss,' f f F ' 4iii . F is k�f d�s.• +.:;., .....:::,,:. However,such measures do not account ''' , _ 4:;::,:.-:*F. for placement of the building on the tiz7:7 {< M � ,:c.,_*.:44.:;...::::::: .,......:. property and the direction the home - might face,among other variables. y tri,..Av,?1,...5...„.,..am"' f °°° .,i;.:: s: "1 think it's hard to come up with a "h �' � y code that is going to address every per- f k sons possible concern, said Kovitz. `, `i ;., , "Can you guarantee that someone is ` ; ` going to have a view in perpetuity? I :- don't know how you do that in a code." It-has been our pri ge and pleasure to be a part o Though many home buyers over the bringing about the successful realizat years have sought to secure the perfect . . Mountain view,neither Kovitz,who has , ,of this state-of-the-art technology and education facility fo been in and out of local government for { • three decades, nor Cardinal can recall Gresham & Beach Architec 1 encountering a view-related legal corn- North Church Avenue, Suite 7!5 Tucson,Arizona 85701 520 plaint similar to the Nunn• :. ve z E � }} ��xr¢ f> a � x a ..•. sY:#�;�aC