Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV100603 ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REPORT CASE NO: OV 10-06-03 Hearing Date: April 25,2006 Agenda Item No.: 1 Prepared By: Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector REQUEST: Harvey Blair, request for a variance to build a 10' wall and 14' ornamental feature with steel gate at the front property line in Tangerine Meadows subdivision zoned R1-144. Subject property: (Parcel 224-02-0380) 11355 N. 1st. Avenue, Oro Valley, AZ 85737. REQUEST SPECIFICS: Harvey Blair is requesting to build a 284 linear foot wall 10' in height with a 14' in height ornamental matching feature and a steel gate, on or within 10' of his front property line. Per the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR), section 23.6.4 — Walls and Fences and section 31 — Definitions are as follows: Walls and Fences Setback requirements shall not apply to walls or fences less than four(4) feet, six(6) inches in height when located in front yards, or less than six (6)feet when located in side and rear yards (see Section 23.5.A.2. for special requirements regarding corner lots). 359. Yard, Required Shall mean those areas established by setbacks to provide an open space at grade level between a building and the adjoining lot lines unoccupied and unobstructed by any portion of a structure from the ground upward except as otherwise provided herein. 360. Yard, Front Shall mean an open, unoccupied space on the same lot with the main building extending the full width of the lot and situated between the street line and the front line of the main building; projected to the side lines of the lot. The front yard of a commercial corner lot is the yard adjacent to the major street as determined by the Town Engineer. Meaning, from the front property line to the closest portion of the main structure, a wall can be no higher that 4'6". From the front of the main structure extending the full width of the lot; running back toward the rear of the property, a wall may be higher than 4'6'. Any wall 6' or higher must obtain a building permit. SITE LOCATION: This site is located in the Tangerine Meadows subdivision. The site is on 1st Avenue just north of Naranja Drive. NOTIFICATION: All property owners within 300 feet of this property were notified by mailing of this hearing. The property is posted with a notice of hearing and the hearing was advertised in the Daily Territorial. At the time of this report preparation, we have the heard from Julian Herrera, owner of the home directly to the west of Mr. Blair's property. Mr. Herrera is in support of the request,but voiced some concerns of drainage. Staff has not received any public comment in opposition to the request. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: On-site Existing home -zoned R1-114 North: Resurrection Lutheran Church—zoned PSC South: Naranja Drive—Canada Del Oro Estates—zoned R1-144 East: Tangerine Meadows lots 1-29—zoned R1-144 West: 1st Avenue—Private Parcels—zoned R1-144 SITE ANALYSIS: Tangerine Meadows lots 30-46 is 16-lot subdivision, Pima County recorded this subdivision in 1974, zoned as SR (Suburban Ranch). The Town of Oro Valley annexed this subdivision in 1994, translating to R1-144. Subject property is a 144,613 square foot; rectangular shape that meanders and slopes upward from 1st Avenue approximately 20 feet to his existing home. There is some drainage at the southeast corner of this property. Jose Rodriguez, Engineering Division Manager, from our Public Works Department, stated that the proposed wall plan, if approved would need a review from engineering when submitted for permit, but that it should not be an issue as far as placement. However, he did suggest that Mr. Blair wait to build the wall until all right-of-way improvements have been completed. SUMMARY: Staff finding of facts: • The proposed wall will match architecturally to the existing home. • The wall will be out of character from the other large open lots and surrounding area. • Property line walls are allowed without permit or approval up to 4'6". • This addition should not pose any other zoning issues. The Board of Adjustment should consider the following findings in making its decision: 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 2 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. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Board may wish to consider the following motions: I move to [approve, approve with conditions, or deny] OV 10-06-03, a request to build a 10' wall with an ornamental feature of 14' and steel gate, at 11355 N. 1st Avenue. ATTACHMENTS: 1. BOA application 2. Location map 3. Site plan 4. Plat map F:\OV\OV 10\2006\10-06-03\REPORT.doc 3 yPI.EY qR 1.,44111 k)', TOWN OF ORO VALLEY • i 1� =, PLANNING & ZONING DIVISION _ ;• 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 Phone: (520) 229-4800 Fax: (520) 742-1022 °UNDED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION FOR: X Zoning Variance Note: Submittals are due by noon . Zoning Interpretation Appeal of Administrative Decision CASE NO.: 0 V/0 -0 NATURE OF REQUEST: © Z3 r,4,A/ PE S a L 4 4 3 LQ co AI M y Pad - z-i .J -rite_ APPLICANT: f /vE Y p / / PHONE: ` FAX: , ADDRESS: /1 3 S�5 /� , S 7- A 1/ �, I/'r OWNER: S 4 A.4 4-5 A-/?o ✓ L ADDRESS: PROPERTY LOCATION FOR VARIANCE REQUEST: PARCEL#: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: CURRENT ZONING: APPLICABLE FEE: i• / 3 ATTACHMENTS: /Z-E . qy L`71J 723 PC-4-NA/ / AJ 4A26 / �l4 At,/At N/ 5 i n® ) -- 5, /Z /i A-/ 0�r2 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT (ALSO PRINT NAME) DATE f��� (-6L(- i-ve /3 Liq /4_ 2- 1 SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS FOR APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE Please provide the following information. addressing 1 -- 5 in the Findings from Section 21.6 I of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised(OVZCR). In order to authorize a variance request,the Board will be searching for sufficient evidence in accordance with the findings. 1. Are there 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? —�c? 5. ILL & A�7�9--� rx 2. Are there special circumstances that exist that are not self imposed or created bythe owner/applicant? yt-„,4 s- c-ee.. A 04- E__/ 41/1/4 j , 3. Is the authorizing of the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights? PLAe)A �`A 4. If granted, will the variance impose 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 roe is located? P S . L� property rty P cAiJ 4 J A.) 5. If granted, will the variance be the minimum necessary to afford relief and will not materially the health, sa affect ty, and welfare of the neighborhood or surrounding properties. --- S • c 6- A I- aflic A) TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 11000 N.LA CANADA DRIVE ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737 PHONE: 229-4800 FAX: 742-1022 RECEIPT ****************************************************************************** REFERENCE NUMBER: OV1006-03 RECEIPT #06P00130 SITE ADDRESS: 11355 N 1ST AV OV TAXCODE: 224-02-0380 DATE: 03/23/2006 TIME: 01:52 PM COMP TYPE: BOA TYPE: ZV DESCRIPTION: BLAIR VARIANCE WALL APPLICANT: HARVEY BLAIR OWNER: BLAIR HARVEY V&DOREEN C JT/RS Notation: Receipt By:DRM ******************************************************************************************* DRM PAID BY: Type Method Description Amount Payment Credit C VISA 153 . 03 TOTAL: 153.03 FEES PAID: Description Account Code Current Pmts BOA INDIVIDUAL FEE ITEM 001-000-408 150.00 CREDIT CARD FEES 001-242-605 3 .03 TOTAL: 153.03 Account#: Ending Balance: $ Supplemental Questions for Application for a Variance 1 . Are there 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? Yes. House orientation is such that the back yard faces First Ave. When purchased in 1986 this was not an issue since there was minimum traffic at that time. This has a direct impact on family enjoyment and relaxation around pool and back yard. Also, the elevation of the lot is raised above the road with the topology between house and road such that only the last 20 feet along the South end of the 284 foot First Ave frontage is buffed at all by the terrain and vegetation. Supplemental Questions for Application for a Variance 2. Are there special circumstances that exist that are not self imposed or created by the owner/applicant? Yes. First Ave ended at Tangerine when purchased. With the major Rancho Vistoso development the traffic has increased significantly. In addition to this, the Fire Department constructed on First Ave and Palisades had originally agreed not to turn on sirens until trucks were past houses. This agreement has not been complied with. Furthermore, the explosion of new housing between Tangerine and Moore has resulted in a steady flow of large construction vehicles. Due to these changes, the privacy and peaceful enjoyment of our property has been significantly impacted. The requested variance would assist in returning this. Supplemental Questions for Application for a Variance 3. Is the authorizing of the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights? Yes. There is no back yard or pool side privacy. The view of the desert and mountains is offset by the continual flow of traffic. The noise from the traffic of autos, construction vehicles, and fire trucks is so significant that back yard conversations are difficult. The enjoyment of my home has significantly diminished. The proposed block wall would be major improvement to my family's qualify of life, and help to return the peaceful and private atmosphere that my property had for many years. Furthermore, it would help to protect my grand children from potential traffic death that could occur from inadvertently wandering down the property onto First Ave. Therefore, the requested variance is not only just for personal enjoyment of the property but for the safety and welfare of my family as well. Supplemental Questions for Application for a Variance 4. If granted will the variance impose 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? Yes. Not only are other property owners not affected by my building a wall along the frontage of my property on First Ave, but I understand that some houses will have walls constructed by Oro Valley. Approximately one year ago Oro Valley made noise measurements on my and my next door neighbor' properties and determined that a wall constructed and paid for by Oro Valley was not justified. Many areas such as First Ave and Thornydale in Tucson constructed walls when the street was widened. Many Subdivisions have constructed their own custom walls/entry ways along major roads throughout our area. Supplemental Questions for Application for a Variance 5. If granted will the variance be the minimum necessary to afford relief and not materially affect the health, safety, and welfare of the neighbor hood or surrounding properties? Yes. The proposed wall will add beauty and prestige to the area. A custom home on 3.3 acres with a matching wall and entry way will enhance the neighborhood and add to the reputation Oro Valley has for high quality housing. The custom wall/entry matches the themes for other gated housing communities. The proposal would be superior to a generic wall running the full length of all houses along First Ave vs custom wall/entries that conform to individual house decor as proposed in this variance request. Based on the elevation of the road relative to the elevation of the house; the planned width of First Ave; the topology of the terrain between the road and the house; and the orientation of the house/backyard, the proposed wall only provides partial privacy and noise abatement. The proposed 8 to 12 inch wide, 10 foot high wall with 15 foot setback entry is the minimum necessary to block wheel noise and provide a visual traffic buffer from autos. My family will still be affected with the visual effects and noise of construction vehicles and fire trucks. The affect traffic has on personal privacy, enjoyment, and quality of life is subjective and difficult to quantify, but I feel the proposed wall should bring the affects of the traffic increase back to what it was like several years ago. . ' THOMAS HAYES CONSTRUCTION, INC., 11425 N. FIRST AVENUE GENERAL CONTRACTING TUCSON, ARIZONA 85737 ` FRAMING CARPENTRY PHONE (520)297-9643 I LICENSE#84351 FAX(520)297-9732 , idiarET /-,5- 4-54 Ow /1 .5-ry ei "bwe /447--/„., "h/ fiOtry izy tog e&7. k--,v 4")vt,-.----ies fi 64-It t",)-5 3 20 _ ;He:4' `7 ih° =�c e, -.4 moo" /9-J lee-` '2 re)ce 49/z1I vl�� Y � 19,✓ g_ szv • 3 22 Property Line Block Wall 11355 N. First Ave Presented to Sarah More Planning and Zoning Director March 1, 2006 Agenda • Meeting Objective • Background • Need for Proposed Wall • Justification for Request • Proposal Description • Proposal Drawing • Oro Valley Impact Meeting Objective • Obtain permission to build a block wall the full length of my property line along First Ave frontage Background Information • Minimum traffic on First Ave when house purchased in 1986 • Major increase in traffic • Noise measurement made approx 1 year ago - finding was "wall not warranted " • Traffic has continued to increase throughout the past year and is still increasing Need for Property Line Wall • Provide back yard privacy - View of continual flow of traffic • Eliminate traffic noise - Autos (Rancho Vistoso and north to Moore) - Trucks (major path for housing construction) - Emergency vehicles (fire station on First) • Maintain mountain and desert views 7\- • Protection for my 10+ grand children from traffic death f Justification • Many noise abatement walls constructed throughout Tucson area • Growth and widening of First Ave supports wall • If wall was built by OV it would be on property line • No valid reason for set back except possibly at gated entry point • Reasonable request as member of OV community • Not reasonable to be expected to live with current/future traffic conditions Proposal Description • Stucco finished concrete block wall • Constructed of 8 inch wide block • 10 foot high - rise to 13 feet a gate entry point • Automatic opening steel entry gate • Painted and decor to match house - White skip trowel stucco finish • Decor tile address inset • Wall on property line with gated drive up area inset for car length Proposal Drawing ...., .-- , 14' 1 i if 1� `� 200' Proposed 8" Block Wall �o, Along Frontage of I 11355 N. First Ave. Oro Valley Impact • Custom Entry matches themes for entry ways to other gated housing communities • Custom entry way to 3 . 3 area custom home lots raises neighborhood value • Adds beauty and prestige to area • No negative impact t' c C' ( Ci,PLLEY 1q , oQ' �y TOWN OF ORO VALLEY n d���" ► BUILDING PERMIT 4 ^""�` Office of Community Development 4 WI I1000 N.La Canada Dr. A A 520-229-4800 Office A .—_ A 520-742-1022 Fax A'OL/NDED 191 Permit Number: W0600063 Issued Date: 09/11/2006 Expiration Date: 03/10/2007 WALL OR FENCE PERMIT Residential Wall DESCRIPTION OF WORK: SFR-CMU SCREEN WALL 283LFX10 ' JOB NAME: JOB ADDRESS: 11355 N 1ST AV OV PARCEL: 224-02-0380 LOCATION: TANGERINE MEADOWS #0035 APPLICANT: BLAIR HARVEY PHONE: ADDRESS: 11355 N FIRST AVE ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 OWNER: BLAIR HARVEY V & DOREEN C JT/RS PHONE: ADDRESS: 11355 N 1ST AV TUCSON AZ 857370000 CONTRACTOR: PHONE: ADDRESS: BUILDING DATA VALUATION: $4, 711.95 OCCUPANCY: U TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V NUMBER OF STORIES: 1 TOTAL SQ. FOOTAGE: 0 OCCUPANT LOAD: 0 SPRINKLERED (Y/N) : N NUMBER OF UNITS: 0 GRADING PERMIT NO: FIRE AREA: 0 TOTAL FEES PAID: $331.56 SEWER RECEIPT NO: REQUIRED WATER METER SIZE: ?? Inches FIRE FLOW: 0 NOTICE TO PERMIT HOLDER • This permit shall become invalid unless the work on the site authorized by such permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance, or if the work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. It is the authorized applicants responsibility to determine the location of all existing underground utilities, sewage disposal systems or other obstacles that may interfere with the construction or work authorized by this permit. This building permit or copy shall be kept on the site of the work until the completion of the project. It is the responsibility of the permitee to obtain the required inspections. Failure to notify this department that the work is ready for inspection may necessitate the removal of some of the construction materials at the Owner's expense in order to perform such inspection All contractors or subcontractors are required to have a Town of Oro Valley business license to perform work within Town limits. 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 this type of work will be complied with whether specified herin or not. The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the performance of construction. Access to the work to be inspected under this pe ill be provided, including any special means such as ladders, lifts or other means as necessar Initial Here 09-11-2006 .7Signat re o Aut orized Applicant Date Note: Signature indicates acknowledgement and acceptance of all special conditions listed on the reverse side of this permit. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: BUILDING PERMITS FROM: JOSE RODRIGUEZ, P.E., ENGINEERING DIVISI CHERYL HUELLE, ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJECT: BLAIR SCREEN WALL, PERMIT#W0600063 DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 2006 The following shall serve as a comment letter from the Town of Oro Valley Public Works Engineering Division, A review of the Blair request for a permit to build a 10' x 283' screen wall provides the following comments: 1. The wall shall not be constructed in the 10' x 50' Permanent Drainage Easement for the drainage structure at plan station 186+20 until the Town's Contractor has completed the drainage improvements in that area for the First Avenue Widening project. Mr. Blair shall coordinate with Cheryl Huelle (229-4873) at the Oro Valley Public Works Engineering Division for consent to construct in the Drainage Easement. 2. The structural engineer, Randy Hamilton, and the property owner, Harvey Blair, have been provided information from the First Avenue Widening project. The information provided includes drainage design information for the two structures associated with the Permanent Drainage Easements. To this end, they shall be accountable for the design of the wall openings at these drainage structures. In summary, the permit is approved, with the addition of the above comments as conditions. --I, Issue History' No Bate§ Descrlptlorw , , 1 8/23/06 Issued N", L,JTRY APRON BY —\ , OTHERS 511,5' y 29'-7' -� / -- c �: t \ZFICATE� rat ENTRY WALLS _ _— \• SEE SHEET S4 i M 20990 y16,„ ! RANDALL K, NEW DRIVE WAY ! HAMILT N GRADED TO SECOND ENTRY GATE LOCATION 'TRY i - 134,17 34 si ' +1 9RIIIINA U,S P, o PROPOSED inI—f Z a CONSTRUCTION C/) O v EASEMENT 0.'I Q ate a....,W U .f.) El Z xEw EXISTING in i., RESIDENCE o EXISTING DRIVE WAY co o Q0 NEW EN RY cU z I APRON :Y OTHERS iM ccuo PRIMARY TRY \ ,.- W SEE SHEET 2---\\ r 1 , / NEW�CMU SCREEEN WALL i W C4 ilk a 10-0 MAX ABOVE GRADE I r� a SEE DETAIL 1 AND 2 ON Si i U +' cn LO 7'X20' F. in p PROPOSED ! �- ,—a CONSTRUCTION r- U ,.....11 EASEMENT 1 , 1 11111 Iao I._ U :.i PROPERTY LINES o L i Sheet Title 511,5' SITE 20'-0� ! PLAN SITE PLAN N 30'-01± 90i-oi± '1'SCALE: 1 = 40' 'I' R/W '� ROADWAY 00'61'4 ` TOWN OF ORO VALLEY©E`EILOPMEN T SERV!C S SITED.VELOPr' T PLAN REVI V+f__ DEPARTMENT APPRO\ED BY DATE_ PLANNING&ZONily.3 _ j Pro,Ject #6-122n PUBLIC WORKS --\\: Sheet Number, BUILDING SAFETY t APPROVAL OF PLANS SHALL.NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE A PERMIT FOR,OR AN APPF;l DF,ANY VIOLATION OF ANY OF tt THE PROVISIONS OF ORO VALLEY CODES AND ORDINANCES S O 1 SPECIAL CONDITIONS AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION f i p9 STATE OF ARIZONA ) ss. COUNTY OF PIMA ) Audrey Smith, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)he is the Legal Advertising Manager of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tucson, County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 25, 2006 OV10-10-06-03 HARVEY BLAIR REQUEST FOR VARIANCE was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE DAILY TERRITORIAL for 1 issues; that was first made on the 10th day of April 2006 and the last publication thereof was made on the 10th day of April 2006 ; that said publication was made on each of the following dates, to-wit: 04/10/06 at the Request of: Town of Oro Valley , Legal Advertising Manager Subscribed and swo o bef Acme ths 10th day of April 2006 . ----- ()V\r`,,(1 0 finOn 0/Th �r z C, MACIAS _ Notary!Puui;c-Arizona .. i tar\ Public in and for the County of Pima, State of Arizona Pima County Expires 02/04/08 ;%�,Ul —� � Mycommission expires: 'i' • rvoLIL,r7CH iIryU BEFORE.'THE ORO VALLEY ' BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT In accordance with Sec.21.6.H of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revisec and Arizona Revised Statutes Sec. 9-462.06, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of Adjustmenr will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,kph, 25.2006,commencing at er after 3:00 p.m.The meeting will be held at the Oro Valley Town Hall, 11000 N. La Canada Drive and the subtect matter will be as rurtner described below OV10-06-03:Harvey Blair,request for variance to build a 10'wafi and orna- mental steel gate on the front prop- erty line for R1-144 zone. Subject property: (parcel #224-02-0380) lo- cated at 11355 N. 1st.Avenue.Oro Valley.AZ.85737. Site plans are available for review dur- ing normal business hours at the Ors Valiey Town Hall,Development Service Center. Persons interested may appear in person,by agent or attorney,and the Petitioners must appear or be repre- sented.Any person seeking further in- formation on this request for a variance may contact Dee Widero 229-4812 or e-mail:dwidero@orovalley.net. REO:Sarah More, Planning and Zoning Administrator PUBLISH:The Daily Territorial April 10,2006 hrovl0-06-03 o.t NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT In accordance with Sec. 21.6.H 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, April 25,2006, 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: OV10-06-03: Harvey Blair, request for variance to build a 10' wall and ornamental steel gate on the front property line for R1-144 zone. Subject property: (parcel #224-02-0380) located at 11355 N. 1st. Avenue, Oro Valley,AZ, 85737. Site plans are available for review during normal business hours at the Oro Valley Town Hall, Development Service Center. Persons interested may appear in person, by agent or attorney, and the petitioners must appear or be represented. Any person seeking further information on this request for a variance may contact Dee Widero 229-4812 or e-mail: dwidero@orovalley.net. RE . Sarah More, POSTED 4-06-06 Planning and Zoning Administrator time: 3 :3 0 p.m. by: drm NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT In accordance with Sec.21.6.H 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,April 25, 2006,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: OV10-06-03: Harvey Blair, request for variance to build a 10' wall and ornamental steel gate on the front property line for R1-144 zone. Subject property: (parcel#224-02-0380) located at 11355 N. lst Avenue,Oro Valley,AZ,85737. Site plans are available for review during normal business hours at the Oro Valley Town Hall,Development Service Center. Persons interested may appear in person,by agent or attorney,and the petitioners must appear or be represented.Any person seeking further information on this request for a variance may contact Dee Widero 229-4812 or e-mail: d wdero@orovalley.net. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT In accordance with Sec.21.6.H 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,April 25, 2006,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: OV10-06-03: Harvey Blair, request for variance to build a 10' wall and ornamental steel gate on the front property line for R1-144 zone. Subject property: (parcel#224-02-0380) located at 11355 N. 0. Avenue,Oro Valley,AZ,85737. Site plans are available for review during normal business hours at the Oro Valley Town Hall,Development Service Center. Persons interested may appear in person,by agent or attorney,and the petitioners must appear or be represented.Any person seeking further information on this request for a variance may contact Dee Widero 229-4812 or e-mail: d wdero@orovalley.net. OV10-06-03 300 feet from parcel 224-02-0380 iiii akin wrrr iMril,♦11�Mi' rur ter.:� ♦ 0 •rariiw 0.tS 10' ... ••,..RIA lee � + �lug : ♦'* *Nag in 3 41,40 ill,itie,*1 Illai lik,s, -iltly Nil ♦♦:��` 1 I ram �tt�i1t�♦ 11111. �Ilti■ i11itt■ It ei•si fiirr � ._., t 0//10/1//1 — ----\,, tilii ' IMP mall ++++;+'♦♦ . , +'e++ +o�, IP ii. rr/o e�0 sr L 1 lit►- .4 g as I • iii►� �• 7 Mal •414.44; k 11111.11.1 lta 0 i , iiill 11 L ‘ fi,ii OW IiiiP _ 6 I II 01/044°r4‘\ Vit4 I .,,,,,,,,--\\ / / ' \ / W / E S MINUTES 410 ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION APRIL 25, 2006 ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER at 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Colleen Kessler, Chair John Hickey, Member Bart Schannep, Member Andy Martin, Member EXCUSED: Paul Parisi, Vice Chair MOTION: A motion was made by Member Hickey to approve the February 28, 2006 and March 28, 2006 minutes. Member Martin seconded the motion. The motion carried, 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CASE NO. OV10-06-03: HARVEY BLAIR, REQUEST TO BUILD A 10' WALL AND 14' ORNAMENTAL FEATURE WITH A STEEL GATE AT HIS FRONT PROPERTY LINE. AT 11355 NORTH 1ST AVENUE (PARCEL 224-02-0380) Harvey Blair, 11355 North First Avenue, explained that the request was to obtain permission to build a block wall on the front property line. He reported that the wall would be the full length of First Avenue frontage that would provide as a buffer for noise reduction and a parameter for the safety and welfare of the surrounding properties. There was discussion regarding the following issues: • Would the wall provide a buffer for noise reduction and still remain aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood? • Would there be any. affect to drainage flow on the southeast side of the property if a wall was constructed? • What was the distance of the home from 1st Avenue? • Will other homes in the community have walls constructed by Oro Valley? • What would be the minimum height of the wall? • Would the wall provide the safety the applicant was seeking? De Widero, Senior Planning and Zoning Inspector, reviewed the staff report. She 110 reported that Mr. Blair was requesting to build a 284 linear foot wall. She reported that the Tangerine Meadows lots 20-45 was a 16 lot subdivision; Pima County recorded the subdivision in 1974, zoned as SR (Suburban Ranch). She reported that the Town of Oro Valley annexed the subdivision in 1994, translating the area to R1-144. She 04/25/06 Board of Adjustment 2 Minutes reported that the subject property was 144,613 square feet; rectangular shape that .4110 meanders and slopes upward from 1st Avenue approximately 20 feet to the applicant's home. She said that there was some drainage at the southeast corner of the property. She reported that Jose Rodriguez, Engineering Division Manager, from the Town's Public Works Department, stated that the proposed wall plan, if approved, would need a review from engineering when submitting for a permit, but that it should not be an issue as far as placement. However, she explained that Mr. Rodriguez suggested that the Blair's wait to build the wall until all right-of-way improvements had been completed. Staff finding of facts: • The proposed wall will match architecturally to the existing home. • The wall will be out of character from the other large open lots and surrounding area. • Property line walls are allowed without permit or approval up to 4 feet and 6 inches. • This addition should not pose any other zoning issues. Chair Kessler opened the public hearing and swore in the witnesses that were intending to testify. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, was opposed to the wall because it would be in violation of the goals and policies identified in of the General Plan. Nab Sue Hayes, 11425 North 1st Ave, supported the request and did not consider the structure to be obtrusive or obstruct any scenic routes, roadways, bike path but would enhance the area as well as provide a barrier to reduce the noise level. Tom Hayes, 11425 North 1st Ave, was in favor of the wall being erected and believed that it would help alleviate some of the noise pollution created by the traffic flow. Chair Kessler closed the public hearing. MOTION: Member Schannep moved to APPROVE Case No. OV10-06-03, a request to build a 10 foot wall with an ornamental feature of 14 feet and steel gate located at 11355 North 1st Avenue. Member Martin SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Member Schannep pointed out that some properties in the immediate area were allowed to install a wall, and that traffic was getting increasingly worse. He explained that the applicant's property was impacted the most as well as some other frontline properties in the area. He explained that the "special circumstances" were not created by the owner but by the progress of Oro Valley. He stated that any home that was subjected to loud traffic noises and traffic view would affect a homeowner's "property rights". He explained that the variance for the wall was being granted to help reduce the noise level and to shield the view of the busy road. He felt that this would not be a granting of special privilege other than the need "preserve the preservation and i enjoyment of substantial property rights". He added that the structure would not be detrimental to the vicinity. 04/25/06 Board of Adjustment 3 Minutes Member Martin explained that the applicant did not create the size, shape, topography NJ or surroundings, but that the area surrounding the home had changed over the years. He stated that to have peace and quiet on your property was a property right and would give the applicant some level of comfort. Member Hickey did not support the motion and stated that he did not see a special circumstance to the applicant's property that was unique, and he believed that the variance would be a granting of "special privilege". He explained that he had concern with Criteria #5 regarding safety and welfare in that the proposed structure would have a zero lot line, and with the turnout proposed, any vehicle over 15 feet long would automatically be in the public right-of-way as it waited for the gate to open on the property. Chair Kessler agreed that the property surroundings had changed over the years, and she believed there was definitely some safety issues involved as it related to children being on the property. She said that the applicant should be allowed to enjoy peace and quiet, therefore agreed with the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE Motion carried, 3-1, with Member Hickey opposed. 2. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE UPDATES TO ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED (OVZCR); BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS RULES AND REGULATIONS AND BOARDS AND COMMISSION TRAINING MANUAL Chair Kessler suggested not making any changes to the Rules and Procedures Guidelines since the document had already been approved by the Town Council. Discussion followed regarding: • A memo from the Town attorney regarding an appeal of a variance. • Amending the Zoning Code. • The definition of what constitutes a board majority versus what constitutes a quorum majority. • The Rules and Procedure Handbook "member of conduct" section. • Updating the "training manual". Chair Kessler opened the floor for public comment. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, explained that there were significant differences in the information handed out at the Citizens Planning Institutes class that relates to the Board of Adjustment and the Board's training manual, such as the ex- parte and description of duties as well as conditional use permits. He suggested that the Board address the issues and determine what process the Board would follow to be consistent. 1110 ADJOURNMENT 04/25/06 Board of Adjustment 4 Minutes MOTION: A motion was made by Member Hickey to adjourn the meeting at 4:21 p.m. Member Schannep seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. Prepared by, Linda Hersha, Office Specialist MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION MARCH 28, 2006 ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE • CALL TO ORDER at 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: John Hickey, Chair Colleen Kessler, Vice Chair Andy Martin, Member Paul Parisi, Member Bart Schannep, Member PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CASE NO. OV10-06-02, GEORGE HOLGUIN REPRESENTING MR. DEHLINGER, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH BY 3', INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 15', FOR R1-36 ZONE. LOCATED AT 131 WEST ROLLING HILLS STREET (PARCEL 410 225-11-1330). Chair Hickey swore in the witness that was intending to testify. George Holguin, a representative for the applicant explained that the request was for a reduction of the side yard building setback line from 15 feet to 12 feet to accommodate a two-car garage to the home. There was discussion regarding the setbacks and easements of the adjacent properties and the size of the two-car garage and the approximate 6 foot drop on the west side of the home. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector reviewed the staff report. She explained that the applicant was requesting to encroach 3 feet into the east side yard setback which would be a reduction from the required 15 feet to 12 feet to add a two-car garage to the existing home. She reported that at the time of the report preparation, staff received letters from Mike and Jan Wilson, Curtis Gregory, Jon Sjorgren and Nancy O'Connor who were all in support of the request. She further explained that Pima County recorded the Shadow Mountain Estates subdivision in 1959. A portion of the Shadow Mountain Estates was a part of the original incorporation of Oro Valley in 1974 and the remainder of the subdivision was annexed in 1979. She reported that in 1981, the Town adopted the current Oro 3/28/06 Board of Adjustment 2 Minutes Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR), and the subdivision was zoned R1-36, and the original carport was enclosed in 2001 to create a 343 square foot hobby room. Staff finding of facts: • The home was built in 1959 and the applicant purchased the home in 2002. • The existing home is approximately 2200 square feet and the proposed addition is 704 square feet. • There is a 20 feet utility easement running along the west property line as well as the 4 foot slope. • The proposed addition will match architecturally to the existing home. • This addition should not pose any other zoning issues. In answer to a question from Member Schannep, Ms. Widero explained that the reason the proposed garage could not be placed further south and slightly west to maintain the setback requirements was because the yard area had already been established with a pool. Mr. Holguin explained that the easements current design was based primarily on the reaction of the neighbors not wanting a structure so close and so tall to their home. He added that the original plan was to have a 10 foot side yard setback VIO which was a Pima County requirement but when the property was annexed into the Town, the side yard setbacks increased. Chair Hickey opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Member Martin moved to APPROVE Case No. OV10-06-02, request for variance to encroach into the required 15 foot side yard setback by 3 foot at 131 West Rolling Hills. Member Parisi SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Member Schannep supported the motion because the home had been built in 1959 and a 20 foot side yard setback could have been used. He said that the proposed garage would not infringe upon the neighbors views, and that there was at least a 40 foot gap between the home and the neighbors. Vice Chair Kessler agreed that there were some "special circumstances" involved such as the topography and easements. She explained that many of the neighbors had 2-car garage; therefore, it would not be "atypical" to see the home with a 2-car garage attached. She stated that she believed the "variance was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of their substantial property rights." MOTION carried, 5-0. 3/28/06 Board of Adjustment 3 Minutes 2. CASE NO. OV10-06-01, VICTOR BOLDUC, SAYLER-BROWN LARA ARCHITECTS, REQUEST A RECONSIDERATION TO THEIR REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 23.4 TABLE 23.2.B, TO ALLOW A 34' BUILDING HEIGHT. LOCATED AT 8950 NORTH ORACLE ROAD (PARCEL 225-12-066C). (Any reconsideration motion must be made and seconded by only the BOA members who voted to deny the original case, all members present may vote on the actual motion. In the event that the BOA votes to reconsider this matter, Case OV10-06-01 will be placed on the agenda for full debate in front of the BOA for their next regularly scheduled meeting). In answer to a question from Member Schannep, Town Civil Attorney Joe Andrews explained that if an applicant were to reapply for a variance the evidence would need to change considerably. He expounded on wording in a paragraph written in a letter from the applicant that read, "3 - It appears that the Board may have more flexibility in granting a variance based upon the actual wording found in the Oro Valley Zoning Code regarding height requirements for a C-1 zone, Table 23-2B, Dimensional Requirements, states that the maximum building height was 25 feet or 2 stories. Other districts, S&C and POS, are restricted to 1 story and 24 feet to 45 feet. We believe that the use of the "or" implies flexibility in designing with either a restriction in height or a restriction in 1110 the number of floors." Mr. Andrews explained that the "or" as written in the letter would be an interpretation of the Code that would need to be addressed by the Zoning Administrator and her interpretation would rule. He reiterated the fact that the Boards' current responsibly was to address and determine whether or not those members who voted on the variance at the previous meeting would like to move to reconsider the case. MOTION: Vice Chair Kessler moved to RECONSIDER Case No. OV10-06-01. Member Martin SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Member Schannep explained that after reviewing the applicant's letter, he believed there had not been any new information or substantial changes that would warrant a reapplication for reconsideration. He explained that even though the applicant had made some steps in the right direction, the request still did not fit within the Town's Zoning Code limitations. Member Martin explained that the request to reduce the overall building height from 34 feet to 29.9 feet in conjunction with the possible change of the interpretation of the Code by the Zoning Administrator, in his opinion, was enough to reconsider the case. 3/28/06 Board of Adjustment 4 Minutes 'NJ ROLL CALL VOTE Chair Hickey— nay Vice Kessler—aye Member Martin — aye Member Schannep— nay Member Parisi - nay MOTION failed 2-3, to reconsider the case, with Vice Chair Kessler and Member Martin in favor of the motion. 3. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE No report. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Schannep moved to ADJOURN the meeting at 3:33 p.m. The motion was SECONDED by Vice Chair Kessler. Motion carried, 5-0. Prepared by, Z/ 5/a41/A-7 Linda Hersha, Office Specialist