Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV100608 ti AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA ) COUNTY OF PIMA ) ) ss. 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 JUNE 27, 2006 3:00PM OV1 0-06-08 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 7th day of June 2006 and the last publication thereof was made on the 7th day of June 2006 ; that said publication was made on each of the following dates, to-wit: 06/07/06 at the Request of: Town of Oro Valley tr (by kk(1 )\-9--1 - .n&---4 al Advertising dv,.rtising Manager Subscribed and sworn be Ai a his 7th day of June 2006 . i\c--\ �.� A,.IAS �'�l ci:,.= Notary Public-Arizona ota Public in and for the County of Pima State of Arizona t Pima County Expires 02/04/08 ' - —1 My commission expires: �eTh 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, June 27 2006,commencing at or af- ter 3:00 p.m.The meeting will be held at the Oro Valley Town Hall,11000 N. La Canada Drive and the subject mat- ter will be as further described below: OV 10-06-08: Scott Leska. Engineering and Design Assoc., representing Lodestone Builders.Inc..reauest for variance from the required: (1) 40' setback from the north property line for lot 4(eastern most building)to 15';and(2)40' setback from the north property line for lot 2(northwest buildingl to 30'on the north and 22'at the northwest corner of the lot. Sub- ject Property:is zoned R-S.and is adjacent to R1-36 to the north and northwest boundaries,(par- cel#225-11-1880)located on N. Oracle Road.just south of Calle Concordia, Oro Valley, AZ, 85704. Site plans are available for review dur- ing 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 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. REQ: Sarah More,AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator PUBLISH:The Daily Territorial June 7,2006 hrovl0-06-08 j.m 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, June 27 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: OV10-06-08: Scott Leska, Engineering and Design Assoc., representing Lodestone Builders, Inc., request for variance from the required: (1) 40' setback from the north property line for lot 4 (eastern most building) to 15'; and (2) 40' setback from the north property line for lot 2 (northwest building) to 30' on the north and 22' at the northwest corner of the lot. Subject Property: is zoned R-S, and is adjacent to R1-36 to the north and northwest boundaries, (parcel #225-11-1880) located on N. Oracle Road, just south of Calle Concordia, Oro Valley, AZ, 85704. 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. AICP POSTED: 6-5-0 6 Sarah More, time: 10:00 a.m. Planning and Zoning Administrator 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,June 27 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: OV10-06-08:Scott Leska, Engineering and Design Assoc., representing Lodestone Builders, Inc., request for variance from the required: (1)40'setback from the north property line for lot 4(eastern most building)to 15';and(2)40'setback from the north property line for lot 2(northwest building)to 30'on the north and 22'at the northwest corner of the lot. Subject Property: is zoned R-S, and is adjacent to R1-36 to the north and northwest boundaries, (parcel #225-11-1880) located on N. Oracle Road, just south of Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ,85704. 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. 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,June 27 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: OV10-06-08: Scott Leska,Engineering and Design Assoc.,representing Lodestone Builders, Inc., request for variance from the required: (1) 40' setback from the north property line for lot 4(eastern most building)to 15';and(2)40'setback from the north property line for lot 2(northwest building)to 30'on the north and 22'at the northwest corner of the lot. Subject Property: is zoned R-S, and is adjacent to R1-36 to the north and northwest boundaries, (parcel #225-11-1880) located on N. Oracle Road, just south of Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ,85704. 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. ['own of Oro Valley �`>`� ` 6� .,,�-.- 1000 North La Cana give x' P�"� �' .ciw— -,,Q )ro Valley, AZ 85737 �� ,r, (..itir..,. e _ �`" (J Il Nt�r'3.Ak -�I .-.ti.,..C;�10.; $ 00.24° ‘tit.�.�}+� t 02 1 A +r # • 0004337343 JUN 05 2006 • MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 8 5737 225112180 SCHREIBER REBEKAH 9111 N ORACLE RD STE 112 JUN 2 0 ,.,,`' TUCSON AZ 85737-0000 X 050 NO 1 C04 C 40 015.E09/06FWD T"ORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND SSCHREIE3ER'REE3CKAH S -575J5 E RIVER RD APT 3701 TUCSON AZ 0.5750--8730 RETURN TO SENDER ,,r, : lI,llitiiI►I,uItilitlmIIImi ceu:4A .4( ['own of Oro Valley . 6);:' .1000 North La Canada Drive PM uo -,oesPo6). )ro Valley, AZ 85737 . . . .m. ?fag.jrahrou.Aaratim=nur —E r 0 4.7:7; j pmniivisowts . 0 MN t r 00.24° zu nip 05 2006 c • MAILED FROM ZIPMDE 85737 225112030 LONGMIRE ALVIN 8776 N ARNOLD PALMER DR TUCSON AZ 85741-0000 ,y)DRESSED NIXIE ASSO 40 06/12/06 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD DC: 05737701599 *1679-09027-11-07 Town of Oro Valley `4.er A.� , .R [1000 North La Canada Drive c r" ` Jro Valley, AZ 85737 z :'• . �r Lt.. - •it .. 1 lJ lF.r ., �....9 i*. v,TN ►_. .�; �0.24° r. .r4 t 02 1A ..,,k .ir-! .��- 0004337343 JUN 05 2006 4}3 i. t rJ.. MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 85737 225120720 YANG-WEN UN Returned for A 57 Additional 3-27-4 HIGASHI-CHO postage. When retailing, cross KICHIJOJI MUSASHINO-SHI out this notice or paste stamps 180 TOKYO over it. JAPAN 00000-0000 MOW" 'own of Oro Valley t> Y 1000 North La Canada Drive P M )ro Valley, AZ 85737 t, �� r •, �. ° ;+ �� �r R •ham PITNEY BQ1p& ■lAle•e : , $ 00.24° 1101744kA1353- ZP UN 05 2006 •• • MAILED FR• CODE 85737 225112320 VISTA DEL ORO HOMEOWNERS ASSN PO BOX 36116 TUCSON AZ 85740-6116 £3 O NI I 40E" C 40 06./.1.0/06 RETURN TO SENDER : VISTA DEL ORO F-1OA BOX CLOSED UNABLE TO FORWARD D RETURN TO SENDER 111413e1D131lfl11i)»;13,1)11;11 B i 0 �X A ['own of Oro Valley ;,< 6J ---..- -----.... 1000 North La Canada Drive ..w..� )r`,o Valley, AZ 85737 s '.°'i } '• ° _in._ . r::r A ! •• $ 00 24° W + ',;� ._. ';._': "337343 ' JUN 05 2006 \ S '�''1 . ,.''•' MAILES(//yeIIA ZtPGODE 85737 .;c11 , 225112070 ,, Nnl ALI FRANCESCO&DEANNA CP/RS 9111 N ORACLE RD TUC ON AZ 85 7-0000 _ ` ( II EE jF } iiF ii iii #i li if' iiF ii i '.J�..':. iiiiiElfiill}ifilf�{i f}i }}! !iffdf 3 f} iiif t}fli !f ['own of Oro Valley �, AZLA .1000 North La Canada Drive (`' P (' )ro Valley, AZ 85737 A, sun Y it .�►aids --RETURN UR To C 7.{` j ! per O -. •- 0001317 ,• Q�N 05 2006 PHOENIX► �'.' 1't? `•� 'i�t �' 9 44=t: ,c•: O �1P'CODE 85737 225112290 LEON ARACELLI 1250 W ROLLER COASTER RD TUCSON AZ 85704-0000 ANK . ti l�lltF�tliltflt�l{iti�{i�iiifitifltft{11itt�i�3ii1�littliiil 'W � '1 "wI Puy 4- 1 7 POr4 " , jL 1 / AR► 1,4 ,jr 0 ,.- siir op .....854„, ________________ cii ,.., ______, _ tit* • _ S . t•.� as s%i==%tar,J,� hi 1 rerr. : uca, ...Ware , .e.:1. I-1=1 7-7,2440*.-..i. t it '73b.zio li AP.;Ar a 41111 = 4111 hi 4.,,,Et!! , 44 • _,,-, * • - impi‘,iimilimillimilit 4 cii....3.:,-:*, ii‘ _ * 1 ,74E-Ei , .j-- MN 11111. bop uumi shis..._11. iii • `h111U1[i►.k 41,...,....,���� ier ) frii WI- Iff‘veirmi _ CC) .111 Mill Ink ,CO __ CALLE Al M NhRA "�..* � ►. **alb, ,, iw 0>�'►�// / Ma,Elm AV. I 1 \ ° HIM _ ' :LT 0 ohmit _ Elm 1m h 4, .. - T c ME mut iiikw,i.0 mil ow i pi U 040 ., -0 ° Littrifiejb a* I, . vairat, _c_ co kit go . . 4v :I wg( co 0 Elk iiiKt *Ab , .: slut AGENDA ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION JUNE 27,2006 Oro Valley Town Hall Council Chambers 11,000 N. La Canada Drive CALL TO ORDER: at or after 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of May 23, 2006 AT THE CALL OF THE CHAIR,THE AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN IN ANY ORDER,AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CASE NO. OV10-06-08: Scott Leska, Engineering and Design Assoc., representing Lodestone Builders, Inc., request for a variance from the required: (1) 30' setback from the north property line for lot 4 (eastern most building) to 15'; and (2) 30' setback for lot 2 (northwest building) to 22' at the northwest corner of the lot. Subject property: is zoned R-S, and is adjacent to R1-36 to the north and northwest boundaries, (Parcel 225-11-1880) located on north Oracle Road, just south of Calle Concordia, Oro Valley, AZ 85704. 2. Planning and Zoning Update. 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. "Notice of Possible Quorum of the Oro Valley Town Council: In accordance with Chapter 3, Title 38, Arizona Revised Statutes and Section 2-4-2 of the Oro Valley Town Code, a majority of the Town Council may attend the above referenced meeting as a member of the audience only." Posted: 6-15-06 4:00 p.m. rg Presentation on 27 June 2006 to the Hearing of the Town of Oro Valley Board of Adjustment Concerning CASE NO: OV 10-06-08 by Stephen A. Langford resident with Joann K. Nakagawa (wife) at Town of Oro Valley Arizona 85704-6742 27 June 2006 Hearing,Town of Oro Valley Board of Adjustment,CASE NO:OV 10-06-08 Page 2 of 6 OPENING REMARKS. Thank you very much for your invitation to partake in this Hearing. I rise to object in the strongest possible terms to any change to proscribed setbacks on the South, West, and North sides of the property in question. We have no objection at all to setback variances that this Board might deem to be permissible on the East side of the property, along Oracle Road. = - Please allow me to revise and to extend my remarks in writing at a later date. BACKGROUND. We have lived in our home at the above address since 1981. The view out our kitchen window and from our back yard were what convinced us to buy this home instead of one of several others we were considering. We realized at the time that building to our East might occur, but we hoped that—when that would happen-we could garner cooperation from the builders to proceed with some regard to mitigating their impact upon our view (distribution of Exhibit A). CURRENT SITUATION. In what I have called Exhibit A are three photographs taken yesterday. The first is through our kitchen window. The second is from just outside the same window. The third is from about 15 feet North from the second view. 1 ■ I. .I ; a e: .. ''` II t: , ! *• S'a Y7,K r°a,,.t`i,,^i ' pfT k.�>k5 � '-, -....---47—cf-- ---.'_,Yrir '-'''.- _ 3 I 3. � - , �� .. 26 June 2006 , cir 17 �.. �� �1-r' ?"1 ', + .�{ rr -� 94 ill Y ;ice F i - } t � _.. '- - View from kitchen. y�'4 1 qb Fa )� '*.v ,... ,,,.... . .- • .. „, -[ NiriN . _�/4 { A�4 is,f ,slk• ���4 �a }� I R� ;--F.; F�. _ • C !t',1 (1 r 11 :I fa l4i� i � / I. -7: 4 3, ���' !'�`-a -�+'+� �'"n.'o5"g by Yt �� 7(,'2 .. /$I I� '��i -7 d'` F3+'w"!. -i. Yi Zvi-'••'i y • :1. ':r.- 'I ,J 1 � 4y'i'rti-.:'+s Y 1 'met s: _ ,��•.�, 119'�/ ..�' 'i �{ «� I'J�Y 1 a� �. b- -' ..fJ^���r$�" `• i. ed..I w�$ fly � -1. ti.� - , I e •I 26 June 2006 t ;, ' '�, "` ;�• !,1!i, ,p h�'�1. Similar view from i`` ,�f.,,,-',:;--.- . ' .,..ii':'.t-' �' just outside kitchen window. ,, - i; 0 y> r I,t i '--`"rot r p' j t. a. ' I I t 1. I��� + I., � 4y-'�: r•I ,i►J " IIII II��I�IIIII I I I f�tl.illy .:,,i -It' �f. `T!� * it I _ �FF �1`� •4 i I ' i i.. 4 {I I II', �I) rtN)Fe1j'I � 1. t t. .are ,,",'„: !� 4 i • t _ r :• +mot 1L f, w ! tip i,-, ... .... L, r 1I n is ri s''fi ar e- - •^ u 3 „:: .4 J - f` .0',,':-::- ..4 5 ,1 �'v .-,,, sue• - I S :• se''''''''''':* * ) -{1 -,� g, 3.�i, � s , `-' I 26 June 2006 Outside View from 15 feet h l�JJ fr i yy I itit d' 1.ci' '.t tri, y ,s` ..-•'R' . '*_• 1��-sY•- :1/4I/41 , s , � F,' .,oikk 1 - 4 3 •{ h North from Kitchen Window. ' r _C vv� 7 I nil',I J•;r , • h7 r) •,� I y 1 r I LI L' 'm...,;'K' ', ,(-r- —--... = : ..� Exhibit A `; ;�" -- = . _ '` '� Town of Oro Vallry Zoning Board ;n s z+ ,, • at o ` _ 27 June 2006 PublicHearing ti_� '' 'i^ r ,,�_,. _" by t ,1'•,.N: ta..,t Steve Langford of 9140 N.Shadow Mt Dr.,AZ 85704 27 June 2006 Hearing,Town of Oro Valley Board of Adjustment,CASE NO:OV 10-06-08 Page 3 of 6 There is something quite remarkable about the view in all of those pictures: Except for telephone poles and the lines they carry, absolutely no other human structures are to be seen beyond the fence that sits atop the brick retainer wall. We have encouraged growth beyond that fence to the point that we only occasionally see the tops of 18-wheelers and other large vehicles such as buses, passing on Oracle Road. This view is not only invaluable to us, but it would certainly be a strong selling point, were we to sell our home. It is difficult to assess how much an impact on our property value will be made when the so-called "improvements" to the lot in question are actually put into place. IMPACT OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. I stand before you not merely as one who hopes to reduce to the greatest possible extent the visual impact from the planned development, but as one who is actually fighting to preserve a way of life: Years ago, when the Town Hall was located on Calle Concordia, a developer told the Town Council that homes in their subdivision would be built as though having been dropped down from a helicopter onto undisturbed desert. When the Town Council nodded in approval, I knew that we had moved to the right place. Since then, I have fought hard against trespassers who typically want to go from the apartments to our East on their way to and from school at CDO. We welcome the javalinas and other wildlife, which is why we have not built a fence. But we have not welcomed trespassers either in transit or those who come to use our property as a campground and a 27 June 2006 Hearing,Town of Oro Valley Board of Adjustment,CASE NO:OV 10-06-08 Page 4 of 6 place to do whatever it is that teens and other youngsters do, nowadays. Much of the pressure on our property has been mitigated by having the undeveloped property in question, to our East. With that gone, we'll have more intruders to contend with, I fear. Too much runoff water is also going to be a problem, unless Town Engineers and the Lodestone Builders can figure out a way to increase permeability downslope from their buildings. Already, our little wash to the North of our home is presenting erosional problems that are exacerbated by the pathways and thereafter waterways created by trespassers —despite all my best,efforts. We certainly could use some help with those problems. Another problem is that of noise. To be sure, buildings between our home and Oracle Road will help to cut down on the noise we hear from traffic on Oracle Road. But we almost never can see the traffic on Oracle Road. I have been seeing pickup trucks in the easement between our property and the one under discussion, lately. I am hoping that we won't be seeing traffic in parking lots located to the West of whatever are the buildings that will be built. I hope that a wall will be built to protect us from both the visual and the audible impacts of such traffic, wherever that may be on that lot. This brings me to the last and probably most significant problem that we have with changing setback limits on the property in question: visual impact (distribution of Exhibit B). In Exhibit B, I have tried to show to the best of my ability, by the white rectangles, the region where buildings will be built and other developments will be done on the lot in question. I frankly have a very hard time not just breaking down in tears over the impact this will have on us. 1111.11111 • F d ` k I. • � 1 ,I j r, qq 7• y �j }j fir, .: �t 5 I m, ;: k7sr � � .•:" 1-",_ •,. i ,II, .,... —,-; ,: '..-'':'-J•',":l''•'-''',4,'.''',”.7*., 1.,-- rt. , , _ -,,..... , ..,,,9 „:„.....„.i..,„: ,.....,,..,::4,,,.., ...2.:r* S._4,..',:.'4,-41 4:',„e4.,..1 1 '-'* P • '' Estimated potential visual = Future :.' i :»F impactngs of new build, - • ; T • x414 � ' �m�y, = � •`�_` �'', View from kitchen. ,,----:57,42,--.:-- c-,,. ."-4,),-.„„„,, $k.-. `.--,•.--'.''.....W.,...,....'...-'-. i i ..• ••.e,- ,.- '-• . ;.„ .z• ,,.•:'--'.,.".f7,'''',': 'r.7..',,5...'... ,...'.''':,."7..,-.4;.-.....•;.,..',-_..,.'.-'-..."„-4'..-„'.•,._',#...._,4,,._..!7.!.,',.,1:i:.4.etk1-...v,:-...:-,%.'',R,7,'1,p,.:,.4" S'Ii7X'3'.1.1-•-...z,--.,..44.4,..-1..,•.44..4.'4,.31'E„,,.-.'...4.I,,....„..t.4.•..i:',k:_',.'''i..o.,,..„..'„-....,'.-:.....,_`k.‘.1'',-4*.-'t".,.'..o.W:.)-.......i...0,,4,.'.4,I,,l..t.•' i`11 , r I _ `i .r.,,._.'s7 tiee q = sir, ...i_. "s s; bit y ! 'z s m?p t 'ti - t. /i, , .l "_Fix a-:y..d�+-' � "•f i '7' 3 "dbnt "f_ t . /1 F 1 1 .I t-, ' 'e ry r y „-x ,t 7.- a i 3 -'" Y,ij I I 11 F ,t• m, t- . `! s1 r '''' '•' 5 _ 2;; iH , k.-f I. 'r Ic.. . ,-..,'.vi-,i.","4r."-,,,z 11:',,ii.y.:,.."..4'.--Ala.;;I:,,,,,r..",__ 1 '"' a Cis ; Offr17*-- '.i',"..1 '� s.' '�•li (;!!1 Future `' r'- 'ice'', .i ,:sy;F i"., ° - - ,' ).E' o Estimated potential visual f 1 ‘4,4• Similar view from • impact of new buildings. r'?tl ; t just outside kitchen window. "> / f. ,.I `.,� ..�.Jr +-'!-mow , -, '. * -,,, f I I�I i 1-t ,, .f i/lK 'ii Y -_.- iiii I,1 ar • II 1 l rj I a1j, 1j, cS'L TLr t .,r , ft.f: ....--•...,---,---,.,-,-. . -.-----,- ---.--,---'.:4--- . ----: "-:-.,--j,k'''''''''' - ft t'' 01, 1kC� �v A _ • ,fY ,Y' '1'',lief- '"' .4' .' ;;;;:',;if.:' k,,,• ' 3R, ,,#" a . .' - C: 1^ '•t:4 L .. jf4 '- � r M + 4 , , — " i � .�: I:,' _ � 0. =f -4 Future i P j �+, { ,R .:;•'A' • s ' 'c ': Outside View from 15 feet ;,� 'i▪ t Estimatedpotent,alvisual North from Kitchen Window. 1.11 impact of new buildings. _ i,�� A L ° �i '� �'ti I � „?I ! 3- y � f. . , .. ..... .,.... ...„6 :- --.--.. - --a...12-. /;'it.' rn--e;-il''''''''''7-',1"?4.'Al"4 44'-‘'''.::"41';•, '44174''‘..,-.- F--.,,-P'''lit'.'-',' -- _- , "-:-.4..." 104"▪'', A 1'- ..-.- -,i 1 ;,,,,1 i • • ..- 4. .74.--:'-.........- '...-- . -- --,-----..,....- Exhibit B A'' r.' -. I. 1 I �e' a, -_ p sec - - t0 � Town of Oro Valley Zoning Board r .a %" z e+.•,_ 27 June 2006 PublicHearing 4.1' !��� - - :� by j i :,I '\ _ .. ..••..:e _ t _ :, -,.., ,,.-. Steve Langford 9140 N.Shadow Mt.Dr.,AZ 85704 • r r. 27 June 2006 Hearing,Town of Oro Valley Board of Adjustment,CASE NO:OV 10-06-08 Page 5 of 6 Whereas I notice in the particulars of the OV 10-06-08 Summary that neighbors to the South were contacted, nowhere do I find mention that we, the neighbors to the West, were contacted. In fact, the first official word we received about all this was the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING that was mailed on the infamous date 6/6/6. However, I am nonetheless pleased to find the statement 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 . [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". I must take issue with the statement that the " . . . proposed one story development will have less impact on the surrounding area than other RS uses, and the setback reductions are necessary to provide for this one-story, compatible development". I suggest that just as we bought our property knowing that we might some day have to suffer the consequences of having somebody build something to our East, the owners of the property in question bought knowing that they might have to live with existing zoning restrictions. While I can not realistically hope that they can be convinced to build their complex completely underground or not at all, I can realistically hope that this Board of Adjustment will take to heart our need to preserve our way of life and our property value. So far, until this very Hearing, our needs have been totally ignored by both those owners and by the Oro Valley Board of Zoning. A 27 June 2006 Hearing,Town of Oro Valley Board of Adjustment,CASE NO:OV l 0-06-08 Page 6 of 6 Unless and until the owners of the proposed development offer sufficient mitigations to their highly deleterious various impacts upon our lives, my wife and I must strongly object to any setback variances that would increase the impact on us. In particular, setback variances to the property's North and South borders would increase the breadth of visual impact upon us; a setback variance to the West would make the buildings seem to be that much higher, from our perspective; but that effect could be reduced by a concomitant lowering of building heights; or, by building into a deeper cut. Finally, I would like to suggest that the developers offer to decrease the impact of their complex on us by artful landscaping that hides the entire complex with shrubbery and trees that are nicely spaced but that do not ever grow so high as to block our view of Pusch Ridge any more than necessary; in other words, Italian Cyprus trees, and the like, would not be an effective choice from our perspective, as they grow too tall. Thank you again for allowing us this opportunity to make our feelings and needs known. Sincerely, Steve Langford Stephen A. Langford Joann K. Nakagawa 9140 N. Shadow Mt. Dr. Town of Oro Valley AZ 85704-6742 Phone 520/297-0448 D. Jeffery Carreon ECEIIVE Oro Valley,AZ 85704 JUN 2 6 2006 IB June 26, 2006 ( ' r©U Oro Valley Board of Adjustment 11000 N.La Canada Drive Oro Valley,Arizona 85737 Re: Notice of Protest Request for Variance of Setback 40'-0 to 15'-0 Southwest Lot Calle Concordia and Oracle Hearing June 27,2006 3:30 p.m. Dear Sir or Madam: I am responding to the Notice of Town Hearing in regards to the above referenced subject. My Name is Jeffery Carreon,the owner of the property 130 East Calle Concordia, Oro Valley,AZ 85737. I grew up on this land bought buy my parents in 1960. I am a graduate of Canyon Del Oro High School and Northern Arizona University. My mother Ethel Wall Carreon was Oro Valley's first Town Clerk. I am standing in protest of this Request for Variance on the subject property in question because of the following: 1. The south side of my property is our last peaceful area. It borders the subject property, and is directly visible to and from the property. Oracle road to the East has become a nightmare with the incredible amount of traffic it now holds,and Calle Concordia to the North is the same with severe traffic. 2. The purpose of the setback code is to protect peoples privacy, so that they can enjoy the"openness" of the desert areas that Oro Valley can still offer it's residents. 3. There should be strict enforcement of setback codes where commercial complexes converge with residences. 4. Privacy of residents should not be ignored to accommodate progress. Codes are written for the public good, in which this case,this Request for Variance is in direct conflict with the established code. Your consideration is appreciated in this matter. Please let me know your findings as soon as possible. Please call me at(520)297-1520. Respectfully Submitted, .C=44./Z2_,7 D. Jeffery Carreon Oro Valley Resident OV10-06-048 This is the. case post phoned from the June 27t'' meeting. Please refer to last month's packet for information regarding this case. ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REPORT CASE NO: OV 10-06-08 Hearing Date: July 25, 2006 Agenda Item No.: 1 Prepared By: Patty Hayes,Zoning Inspector REQUEST: Scott Leska, Engineering and Design Assoc., representing Lodestone Builders, Inc., request for variance from the required: (1) 30' setback from the north property line for lot 4 (eastern most building) to 15'; and (2) 30' setback for lot 2 (northwest building) to 22' at the northwest corner of the lot. Subject Property: is zoned R-S, and is adjacent to R1-36 to the north and northwest boundaries, (parcel #225-11-1880) located on N. Oracle Road, just south of Calle Concordia, Oro Valley,AZ, 85704 REQUEST SPECIFICS: The specific request is to reduce setbacks on the north and northwestern property line for a four-lot townhouse subdivision in an RS zoned parcel. The applicant has requested the 30' setback, required abutting R-1 districts, be reduced to 15' and 22' as shown on the attached plans. The setback requirements for an RS zoned property abutting an R-1 or an alley abutting R-1 zoned properties are as follows: OVZCR Section 23.7.C: R S Residential Service District Per OVZCR, Sec. 23.7.C.1,residential development in the R-S District is subject to R- 4 guidelines. The R-4 setbacks are as follows: • Abutting an R-1 district, the building setback may not be less than thirty(30') feet for single-story structures NOTIFICATION: All property owners within 300 feet of this property were notified by mail of this hearing. The property is posted with a notice of hearing and the hearing was advertised in the Daily Territorial. Staff has not received any public comment in support or opposition to this request. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: On-site: Vacant property-zoned R-S,Townhouse use R-4 standards apply South: Vista Del Oro Townhouses—zoned R4 East: Across Oracle Road—zoned R-S West: Shadow Mountain Estates—zoned R1-36 North: Shadow Mountain Estates—zoned R1-36 SITE ANALYSIS: The subject property is a 1.3 acre rectangular shaped vacant parcel, within the Shadow Mountain Estates subdivision. The property was incorporated as part of the 1974 original Town limits. The north and west property lines border a 20' alley and a R1-36 zoned subdivision platted in Pima County in 1959. The south property line borders a townhouse subdivision zoned R-4,platted in Pima County in 1973. SUMMARY: Staff finding of facts: • Current R-S zoning allows the proposed townhouse use per R-4 regulations. • The applicant submitted a conceptual site plan to the Development Review Committee(DRC)on April 28,2006. • All variance requests are for the north and northwestern property line only. • The applicant states they contacted the neighborhood to the south for a shared access thus possibly reducing the need for a variance, but was denied by the neighborhood. • The applicant indicates that the proposed townhouses will be one story. • The General Plan designation for this parcel is NCO, Neighborhood Commercial/Office. However, the underlying R-S zoning prevails over General Plan designation. The proposed use is also compatible with the existing surrounding residential subdivisions. In summary, the proposed townhouses are allowed in the R-S district, meet other zoning code requirements, and are supported by staff. The Board of Adjustment must 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 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. CONCLUSION: The proposed residential development, while located on Oracle Road in a zone that is principally for higher density and non-residential development, is an allowed use. The site is surrounded by residential development. The proposed one story development will have less impact on the surrounding area than other RS uses, and the setback reductions are necessary to provide for this one-story, compatible development. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Board may wish to consider the following motions: I move to [approve, approve with conditions, or deny] OV 10-06-08, a request for variances to: 1. Reduce the 30' setback from the north property line for lot 4 (eastern most building) to 15'; 2. Reduce the 30' setback from the northwestern property line for lot 2 (northwest building) to 22'. ATTACHMENTS: 1. BOA application 2. Location and Concept Plan 3. OVZCR attachments F:\OV\OV l0\2006\10-06-08\REPORT.doc arah More, FAICP Planning and Zoning Administrator TOWN OF ORO VALLLIL PLANNING DEPARTMENT 11000 N.LA CANADA DRIVE ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737 PHONE: 229-4800 FAX: 742-1022 RECEIPT ****************************************************************************** REFERENCE NUMBER: OV1006-08 RECEIPT #06P00249 SITE ADDRESS: TAXCODE: 225-11-1880 DATE: 05/26/2006 TIME: 10:29 AM COMP TYPE: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TYPE: DESCRIPTION: SOUTHWEST OF ORACLE RD AND SHADOW MT.ESTATES APPLICANT: SCOTT LESKA/ENGINEERING AND DESIGN OWNER: LEE MICHAEL A&LEE MEI-GEE CP/RS 50%& Notation: Receipt By: SG ******************************************************************************************* SG PAID BY: Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 995 600 . 00 TOTAL: 600.00 FEES PAID: Description Account Code Current Pmts Board Of Adjustment 001-000-408 600.00 TOTAL: 600.00 Account#: Ending Balance: $ • • ' oQoqq�?off TOWN OF ORO VALLEY n PLANNING & ZONING �t G DIVISION ,04,„, ; 11,000 N.LA CANADA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY AZ 8wki, - A Phone: (520) 229-4800 Fax: � (520) 742-1022 �,� 2�� -LANDED A91a BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION CIA Vi 0- 126 °E) FOR: Zoning Variance Note: Submittals are due by noon _Zoning Interpretation _Appeal of Administrative Decision CASE NO.: (3 V\ }O - NATURE OF REQUEST: The nature of the request is to allow a set back variance that will allow the required set back of 30' on the northwest edge of LOT 2 and the north property line of LOT 4 to be reduced to 22' and 15' respectively. This request is required due to the narrow size and shape of the parcel, and the ability to develop this lot that is suitable to the end user. APPLICANT: _ �`C �-�� E-13 6 10 ee l hc� 1 ) S AcS6c. J PHONE: 5 gm-0-4-I ) FAX: S ADDRESS: 53to /y ' Lei C_-O\\c j‘ v G, • -Pe N7- OwNER: t-e O .ST-e}) 6v t 1 t/ -L-"e- a ����� C k) ADDRESS: 3i0% ) • CaC - 5Tree Tiz_. PROPERTY LOCATION FOR VARIANCE REQUEST: So L-44•v 5-=1' 0 ©(-c.,elf C 14X PARCEL#: v� a' I - ) EGAL DESCRIPTION: b L (e WQ CenCot---J � 5 CURRENT ZONING: ia - APPLICABLE FEE: 1 (DO ATTACHMENTS: I I X 1 b F Y 1 O'r ?k o SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT (ALSO PRINT NAME) DATE 1 • 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? The property is located between a single family subdivision (to the north of the property) with access to Calle Concordia, and a townhouse community (to the south of the property) with access to Oracle Road. The dimensioned width of the property has an approximate average width of 145' and an approximate average length of 375'. The current zoning of the property is R-S, which makes the property desirable to develop for a multitude of different uses. Currently, the planned design for the property is to subdivide the parcel into four (4) lots to allow town homes to be developed. The width of the property makes the use for development of any other type of use illogical because it is so narrow. To develop a commercial use of the property would require setbacks that would make any structure that would fit on the property too small for any practical use. The current configuration for the residential use allows the most efficient use with the least impact to the parcel's narrow width. With the current setback rules required by the Town's Zoning Code, the parcel is much too narrow to place any useable structure either residential or commercial that would be desirable for the end consumer. 2. Are there special circumstances that exist that are not self imposed or created by the owner/applicant? The Owner and the Engineer have evaluated numerous alternatives ranging from a single commercial structure to six townhome units. The owner has agreed to reduce the density and the number of lots on the property resulting in only minor variances to the Town Zoning Code. The orientation of the dwelling units, allows the greatest access to the property with minimal impact to the surrounding environment. The owner has contacted the HOA for the townhome subdivision just south of the parcel and requested access through their subdivision, which may have reduced the need for a set back variance; but the homeowners have denied any access through their private facilities. Additionally, the owner has contacted each homeowner to the north of the proposed development and discussed the various uses. The property owners to the north of the proposed development were in concurrence with the owner as to the best use of this lot is to develop it for residential use. The orientation of the structures also allows for the front and rear of each structure to have access to views of the Catalina Mountains, greatly enhancing the standard of living for the end user. 3. Is the authorizing of the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights? As mentioned in question #2 above, the variance is of utmo t importance to utilize the properties intrinsic views. The front and rear entrances to the structures are facing both easterly and westerly directions. This enables the future inhabitants of the structures to enjoy not only the beautiful sunrises and sunsets that Oro Valley offers; but also allows the enjoyment of the Catalina Mountains that lie just east of Oracle Road. If the structures are reoriented facing north and south, not only are the views impeded drastically: the orientation also would require additional setbacks from the roadway access to the property. 4. If granted, will the variance impose such conditions as will assure that the authorization of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located. Currently, the townhouses just south of the proposed development have little or no setback to the property lines. The townhouses were developed without a setback requirement except adjacent to Oracle Road corridor. The four lots within this proposed development are not requiring any conditions or setback encroachments that are not currently enjoyed by the other property owners adjoining this parcel. The subdivision to the north of the proposed development has an additional spacing between the two adjoining properties and is separated by a 20 foot ingress/egress alleyway easement that is owned by the Town of Oro Valley (legally zoned R-1) and an additional 30' drainage easement. These should provide ample space between properties to ensure that there will be reasonable separation and that the requested variance for setback requirements will not constitute special privileges. 5. If granted, will the variance be the minimum necessary to afford relief and will not materially affect the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood of surrounding properties. After reviewing the numerous variations of the preliminary design and layout of the proposed development, the current proposed configuration requires the most minimal variance necessary to accomplish the proposed development. This variance will not create any material ill health affects, and will not have any perceived safety or welfare issues to the surrounding neighborhoods. o T00 � : . !7o - o W E. 80Ole 6zN O 9200 N e'''''-e,ue 4,.r.,., , r111.4 LITZ.>».r•00_ . ee_Rm,Z.. „ -• u/_;,•3, 441,0 4 Ce...._e.r4 c..=e a.say r.l iiijjj A / _ _,. illik • ;''ni :®i 4el ®e/ass`~ ,y4 *. zcs ® co.®`•_® CD as , /�z zz ro '® 0 /50:;i'5, ,52 /53 /2f , IS ,'� �� 03 r90 _ • .• ;..• J` _ g15r /24 •/23 1 /20 1 113 .A+/i 512/5 `ao1//t ,,, ;/Lb .7 5 Fi ° 3 2 1 8 //$ .. fit,;./ � s. 4. _ ,[✓' 15(. v/ O SCALE:1.•200� W ® Q m y ez /25 : ,22, n/ Re ' 117 ;'1/4_ n3 • 1/0; 94b 6 F E41•.yo : m{e ,2. P cm) s-zoo` za5_�`'(Dr° '.� Q" ?N �'•H w: 1;g13o",••y- SEE RESU•B (VISTA DEL ORO TOWNHOUSES) 9100 i N k 43, 50l ",�5�,441-N '2 9111 •./O -=- a4-.6- ._ =r`, _:r ,rr se} G 58 r •l O ql ohoe as' ® 315 m CD ®;® 91 ® ®+R ,O5-� ♦ ...e. r„r. N 95 ; 9105 (� ,• O �1 .•. ••,yam•• •>r• - ,.-.-t hP. ! 9f 9I 99 ••/00 •/0/ •'/02 /03 •a i.. 3, - •. A7,(0 J O [.re. I >.K>1 y _ / ,-;,• j •Soto V d :' o K .i i210. f floss}� qo 992�os 9/ 90 .9 SO t=87 F86 = .6 9oa5 V;i� � �✓ .9 a«rI 8 ® . .1,33 nV.,®. J z50 CD zw 150 i 130 1 ro,{ r IeZ y l'ir`',,V - w 2� ! +i 1� M ZI - , 4 .j •'39 •t. i:'w C • .i,< /390.5 ® .®• ®▪ 245 ® rt-; r31 •."� ® +r4o•lolZ r� I dl� •� LO CAT/ON•PLA/V 9000- N. )° i. • I S on 24,T/2-S,R•/3-E. ry E $'Q 4r=•%•"." z 73 '74, ,75 S 7f 77 :7D t 79 :.0 r loto • ec 04.4 co....r.'...,1o,r. r ]/37 -/36 �33_�• //t 9 7 i-t s € e�,//,0 So - /3 f� l +OL�.O�%QT/O/V a O 1DT _-W N `�'`,. a, -,�. --_ "• r, Ej900 .F \' y.' w.1e,erd .gned ewK+-a of the b.W shoran on JMs//oJ ak• •'!..- J �•� � •I =�VALLEThe.eey ce ea ro Jhe a•�rn.on s°aad b„dm/he. 8,+1 '7, at -!. _ -... ,s 51 1 i /5 s'j e o,w,...,he,».,.o.,r.,e..n.• PIRA COUNT 7 y,y•, .....,, ..4 tl/ ,,-• 940 "'��•`•- - • ,.• ����'(� //,{.e[h.iwda.o//r♦.,and eroinnye[ nh es desNx h✓an \v�3/0• O ,... 69 6. 67:• cc • -®r i-- • �* V h+:s a.J ui..i hJv.,ea..,e..r,..s.b... a ss h.s N.i...n..e p 515 sio5 y z ti, -- . i0) , ✓.../40,14 440 4..i„ena ce eP 44 ,/,-"1pe/Mr r:/h o 3zo Z�j `°�` SEE ;%od,,.4/ oe �en.o.rot�.;a "sire/'.. •tzo • 4.38,4 5. , • \ 0 e p./.'1 na�......,Mn/h•eound..i41 oP Jh s,6os.:a on only- ..;42:;43 ' (; = ,° , RESUB .e9e..y.,e,•..�. �•T� :44 >o .,'� ��� ; i.de,J.on:the.ao.e..w.rolwe/s tt�,,0 - ar.,'. 45 y .' - 210r 0 `'� - 1( h-1..,✓ee.men.n n[,ye 4C%;•s6rNes•ISrrM /s;:r.4ll.ai b =r,451 O•.; t W-t) -w `2 4 l7 > he•eti.e eeo.et th.o0oere 4•.J ' -Y.,, I: 46 4 Ir:-o, S 62 53 a F1••� L� l/:,,, e5.to7. (t ,a the oao e,..i et the�oee aP s v..r sow. , :- �900 N. u a-< .-......_ M1"- - r. .S !b 225' \"'*7!► o`a `( s V " 99j0 T.•.e,zen.Long T.Ne.se Tie,Ce may,en.iilerN G.' • . M _01ro "•15. •` S E3 /I (f•• nwsMc,r rv,J,W.e.n.nJ.r-e�.sz-r 1 �W 4/ .�o ,. �I r:.. �.." .f:• , 4 155)' BK. 14 �,�=Q (3 LJ _ o :e 47,E:•,.. Sp , O 1 67 i J ,].W.JM:e•✓.1,re,w..J 54/ e" `" PG• . 77 37 1;-3. -``'e ,,A ,4.�s. `49 3 55 :;• 56 _ 6 !, ..r p20 0 i 1 OHO VALLEY COUNTY 1 • TOW N OF PIMA �& 4 a�•qa,..[ s�•�_•� • '' /F, S9�1r,�h'Y�.,,,� _ MAP 163 ;�_, --; 24®•Q sB� ZONE RI-36,R-S L. 4 t :i32 3/ - 2.r r 27_ 25•,' - r 1 e Cee°r - !. jI g I • IAitk _ :s.cauoso:`� : :i 4��,�Q Qr,l9 co 230 .„:i. 2H ! 22 • 8800 —N ' " .e . .. M o is -- --, . — t t s/A»OY ROAD - s.rcr..,w e 8800 N. r fecrt:•24r91Y.rn1 4 21eot1' I[ r I <s•.1,4.---- ---- .. .�T,,....- sJor o,.e.::ono 1 is Ge,n/y o."Pima J V S u 6 a ! y o ` / V\r/ This ns/e✓mMl f'/rd he rcqub,oP Jam A W.%Fie-✓;h/yrs s�,CURVE DATATABLE APPR0 vAL S e//ee..; �.,, rhyme T.e,,,,,od ren- N«s•L3.P C.t/er .,.u.• 0.4ros se...- a e,,q,ye 9S ,,,,,/n ,oP_,Q/r y+us.T�... 2:/j7 F• s+aAc..it.rs• 10•oo•oo• U.oo' is.oo• 11.el' r s(i/(..`,-�,•1.a _,,o.„ I 2 ,.„...,..• U.00' 1..5, et.OW C1,14 Sec•-Cieerr?•L.C.v.ssioN pre StHt/NLfO M.4, 1..DO'ar 14.OS' M"K• COUNTY EN4/NEE/? 0 — ?eCO'de' 4 •••w••.• a.oe• �.•s• s..,r J ,...._77....„"Y • ,. 1u•r•e.- rs.e•I O.n• 17.w• / ::/ � --- 4-ef-S9 y . -- -----G`o" 1 o .•/•er.•- ss.oe• 1e.o• u_.,s' L{�.Ltit1 _._ r •s•sr 1r 1•or rr.Tc' s.a,• ,-, O.rr • •/•••'er SS L. u Ts• /90AR.0 of SUPERV/SORS 1 M A P 1 3 1 ,••A"1,. AS OW 1rY"4L. ZONE CR-1 NO H.D.Z 1 ,o •!•N'M. a.OW u.s.• x.sr I,f/ao 9t/C/eni o/'Mr 9ow,wP S.pn-ri,ws b,rrbr[a/Y J/w/Jh:s del•vs •••4O'a,- 10 or L..s• 1>"Or d D.the A A�P 5 "ro.Y oP Pima C nfy,Stole aPA isr»a•on 1!• Al Ofr N.Pr ..or 44 UM .t •.•ea Sr. �..ae• :i.ia• x..• Sv�IL �.stt�c-� - 5-P ����V/I 5�� /� .• 74. 4•!O- •4 41•Or ea. ie.oe• 44•>' st.x• Oe k,9e.re or S.penvi,ers Der. .e tvas'es• sr.ae' sr.ea:—rs _- .. 4,4, SI.Or tr.00' N' CERT/P/CAT/ON Of SURVEY ESTA TES I.h.-.b,,ce,.,PY/het/he,r.rn..Ppe,.rip shown on 5,.,o/,..,r, • I,••x- 1.0.or >�.Sr .•.IV co,y//e o,.d 4 4,e,r.[hen,,/ /959 8EDYO A SVrO/V/S/OiV OF T/!E BOUT//HALF OF . 17•.r 3, 000 1>• .47.7,• e,'.,.• —�--Ti v n� SECTION 2� T-/2 S R-/3-E.4.E S.R.a.E M. 0 .r 44 es- I.000.rr .,S Or 144.u• .Rq ah.ed awn,Swreyor •• L Y/Nq WEST.of T4E TUCSON PLORENGE//YN!. .S.er Oe- lee ..r•• 1..r NOTES P/AlA COUNTY; AR/ZONA . S.n•er- '.eoe.Or y.M' x.Y' • 4 sr•r•Or .0.Or u.1r .s1.er o •nh,%•t seh w 00.a,ar I •et.. ,>..Se 1..4r • A.m.Ye-4r✓Cam,../P!%. -�.•.!. ./ sr Rs.so. 4a.••• z,•.1r• •oo.ay 0 .M1••••••6.C n(See C4r r A,4.7N✓.1 - MASS.13,1959 4- x•as•or >m.or 140 p• 444.74.' y . 9 i..r.,w•...«,,sa N✓one A. • J, rire4se w.y -L riatiwr,� � 6ian>`o�C cole Architects-Engineers r. 11•..•..• :as.m I.•c :a.sr• - ,v�,•-4,e„r,za•eira:r.ee,.....r FLOOD PLAIN APPROVAL REQUIRED Tucson.Arizona .!. ,.•Sr,•• •.0.Ode 40.1.• .,, _ FOR LOTS,1-6,20,21,23-39,49,49, /— ""�•1d..]]•r!>/•.Ilr — ..r,..a4ni+s•u'44't.semen, 52,53,55-57,59,60 ( OROV • ,,^Rea een1 5r4ro4.0 Seer,Nave. - • - C/1--f9-3 f 3 92 .4 29-30 se-350 II T B OOKUPA4E 7S SOUK ac 1-1A0 s8 NOTES i 4UT,LIT,,WILL BE LOCATED UNDEKGeDuttG tN CONFO¢MANCE WITH A2IL01.4., coley,- 2 / 1_I1.104 v.ST; Cuvp O29TION GoNIM1SSIC, LIME=4DE0 GE M1.1_ J O POF¢ U48 02 AS ,T MAC( .6 AMENOEq.- _-c --/-' - -�/ L1ND7 VIST� ; 2 10.1NO,G AT E< H021ZONITAL CONT¢c�� O O¢AIU/�GF FA SF MFN / F Iy.. I I POI NT ONLY- NOT SET /� O / '—` ; FT-E-1US— elk . 2 11 PHYS,CAL BA221Et2S TO YE,-11CULATZ O OIiillr I I ,4 2 C12GULAT,ON WtLL BE .¢ovt0E0 ALONG ZD.I ALLEY ' M <CALLE CONE 12o,A N Y A T\-IE ONE-FOOT NO ASSESS EASEMENT ` p ADJACENT TO THE TuCSON- 7/ SCALE 1 40'•• u J L.'^O FLO2ENCE NIGHWAY v� Y/ \ �io0 •.] Sort Ou�,Vo-Z AtN I 0 4 SL AOc�W MOU NTAtN e0TACTES t/ ,23 / • Q•i•V—'IQ41ATE �_ tl O BOOK. .5 PAG.. 75 M F 17 - / r Y C 13 .LOCK g �y f/ i • C PG '!jL V I ,¢oul vz r OFJ O/ SREON IdZ • t • sco 1 ►o 0 N N 51.S3 a 5715 75I N I` ^+� v ` r LOGAT1CAI PLA/J r \ SEC-rtom Z4,7. 1ZS,2.ISE, /i532 ,•pe ID], +E ,e]. ,D I IDiI 5742 :]42 �74Z 2 3775 53+7 v •r. f / =31a22i29;24 25c 207 -.-_-c y m -.._40 __ Cr / • Gt1SRBTTM,PIMA COUNTY �W > oQ,M •`' 2] I. ZS flZ 9 Q b ` \'. 0 ^ i 8. ) Y+`J•,Yl�. N: tl .St �o'�,• a'• Z/ , / : /� .� SGALE 3'�1 MILE f 1 (gyp 7 -� j •�> • {135) ? {143}' {53} " {163)-' {173},, $/ �yS n [`�//�� 2 70 • �♦ ?D]i ID]I tall ID t0T 5]42 5742> 742 • 3742 3775M _V /v perCO NOTES , - /O ,/' VISTA DEL ORO CIRCLE - ►.IOiLTNn .7.G • ,g.4124.f A¢E BAseto ON Tom 0 , - ,ty,=c+ sa a au ,a 1•-1 • WESTECGLV ¢\GHT OF WAY OF THE 1- 4N'y _ (flK t JR fE 5•(aE61,' LOT 5,'� _ `i _ TUCSON-FLOztawr H1.,1WAY As J (� 0- tth/ N 3T 73 37 4Z� 57 4Z 74 134 ?+"` Z �]4Z 3- 5„� i V/ ; 0 V7 • \QQ MDLINTAos.,ST'T�-r�eCror-smsoow .n ] v0 ij I)o{lo2}9 {112} F {1221 8� .' o{�52} o{162}P4�{t72}c? `��A V / • s ¢ J iC� 8� i � � Mif � I 2 �Q [ IN r300K IS,PGCE73 OF MAPS O ,bv Z0 a' 19 l 1B ,. 7 n 17 E tl. ' 15 9 II • N / jCr) . PLATS-son,BEAR 1.5 N19Ys,:E A A, r` � 0.r 5]75 c 374L ' 5>K L� 37 A2 ;3>42 2 3>73 I PI O (( F L`' r Z • PE1�PE=ENT'S 4 1/L\¢owl ptN 3 m / &JO 7 F o (G4 32 P O a . f - b Q l(V r C, '^ •SET ANO TACGEO 4255 L S e•Ces, 0 - Q jr/ 0 a A _ 0 0-- Fe ,A po Do �u • U/7 r% 0 0 �/ �/ 0 9 tO : 11 d' /(N) /{ YY /? " V . 01Nez 1Z ,y :'�lol)> {lil} �J } 2 16t}� {I'll} //��N ;3]]5 tI '!"l4i74Z '•v]A2: 1"t7S'? / v ). /� �.EE Gu2VE DATA TOiSLR N,F S D -, Qa 1 • 2 0 (�CO 4 A2EA OF SU601VI�j10N-Z 044 AGES ✓ VIaTA. OEL ORO C RGLE-sou, �q•/ P �� ` `�J ICOw vt IV U a•+ s, s5 E 31 - -.4 y p/ O '/ _ .'Q •, f 5 LENGTH OF NEW tNTEiS10R 3TRECTS F Kt gel-C SIR!'-?)• LOT 55 7/ y tom/ 2 09 Zl j �• ,, p 0 11...Les 0 ci{td /µ• N'..,75 4, Z L 5]42 W 5] 2 5742 L 5',42� 3,42� 5]75 d IE •/: , / 'r O Q �r �'• 2 L THE PRIVATE.�-i,Kt,_,AND {� {100}m {110}n {120}N {lio);(14o)ao 4.150} {Ibo}tl /7ot a 44'lO .] l 7. Q of.• 3 WILL-SE PAVED,eUT NOT TV PIMA. , fI ° s ,3 7 .F 4. T` 5 ,,9 4 I• 9 I. Z P{' `°/ // • Q 7 ^Q[HLt4M^YIoY 1' rr'FJ'!T STANUARDs': N • d / v eR ��r ' __ +s i r / J F1owmF�wNERs ASsuaRrloN vnLL r��E�R wVca f„ 2432 3,73 f 4,42 TAi 5,42 St A2 P-�5747 -97dz 9.1>3 SS i] , / r lT TDA� _ 1en11_1Y 4 1" r4115 �a+`y q e� S2o V z 4 3 D / `.'` as"aM.// ', Cruel/� co,riza-,SAmTY AND I.I eiu-r OF_FR ATEI 7aT blla.Zls AND COMMON AREAS v N 4 y U B9 e 5 m'S S•E 37 p 7 5 / 0 ! •• 0� .s a_� V/ t2 r>Aly / �O .. J i a A ONE FOOT NO Access EASEMENT IS 00 0 6AJ BLOCK 13 I N 0 ,•�+ • NEE-EBY C¢EATEO AS SO0.04,14eRECA.I O • 13 �I S U A O Ow M O U NT O I N ESTATES / '� I �0 r S EE AOPITIONAL NOT-E'S-UPPEi2•LER-T _•� 20 ; QOO,C 1's ,PAGE. '75 M ¢ P OQ , ` , 7 I O O T N • 5ET N 51 55! 575 ¢�N P y • (��J N QECOR�SvwSG DATA �Feuuo SlG`PN BLOCK A /eou..o 5/0 Vloo • COUNTYFOF PM4 SS DE � ( P" CONSENT -re:.OEIICATIOI.N ID TDICLN toµ I TNIS INSTRUMENT WAS F\LEO FOR 12Ec_02D AT STEWAZT TtTLG ANO TEUST OP V2,T}O UNDPILSY.INED RADON OCYFLOFHOIT THe 2EQUEST C)F h'-C- LI UHAPI TUCSON,7,3.121ZE4.I24.G02Foes-oON,TOE AND ILL LENT CORD,AN ARL7zNA 6019:Ft7,- to BOOK.2 E OF MAPS ANO PLATS AT PAGE SP EMERGENCY VEHICLE uoDEYSIGNEO Dot-tEEEBY col- Y T noUG, ATOM F,,,z ,-VIARRANTTN'[T WE/�ALL GNI TH ON TlO TE2EOF -IE 2/sr A OF Y SEPT 1975 CU RV E IOATA we AEE THE TrZUSTCC Accoveo vc, TIE GN_Y FARM H4ThY ANT RFLORD TRIG MT AT 14Y P M TNOF'0 CEYTA,N DEEDS of TNUST 1N EFEST TrIi- L.w SHOWN CNT1.15 FLAT AND 4C . dam- NO A 2 1- Sent-T c THE OFF,CE OF COUNTY QECO2OE¢, CONSENT TO THE 0LCglAr -1 OF of O LAN,IN BY /O�. • t 44�31.OS 40 3109 IV•S7 303o PIM.COUNTY,ANIZONA 1N DOCKET THE MAN ER c�00N 01.IT115 F1.N HE 1 Dr' 'bE PUTY BOOK 4 NHl PAGES 4Z2--0ZS 040 DOCKET pG71[,ATZ S„¢bt7,FPp P1d:1194, VCW N cr5 D REG- I OA MAE sMYTN 2 G4•01 s, ass [.00._5732'mass BOOK 4.510 PAGES 4Z9-A32 ANC/WE 1fftiloN ARy6T7OTHE VISTA DEL ORO FIOMC COUNTY RECORDER 5 [.5•5L 3e GO 44 oG Z345 435d' DO UE2EBY CONSENT TO TUE S Z?0N1 OSO.- CMERS I6 � AND WE FIR/HfG1�IOILA-TE VISION OF TOE OEM_PeoPEETYAs5uovAl VISTA GE,-ORO GR1LE-NoMr11AND SG2r4 AND CERTIFICATION OF SURVEY 4 44•05 23 40 'SZ 15 17 00' 5.29 HEt2•EON AN.TO THC 00ED,CA 10010 T.. 01ZOLWIFS ER EINSPU RwN ND WAINTE 1YYRE ST¢EET PARKING OE.\VEWAY ANO R0Cet OF ROA,gyr AW IN 00R7W UT,LTT,s Z HE2EESY GErrTtFY THAT TNtS PLAT REPRE+yENTS /� 71,1291 Al2E,9 TO THE VISTA OEL O¢O s u!u�OERSIaU essev '4 SU R\/EY GOM PL ETEO UNOE12 MY p1RCT 10N 4N0 A V Przc/•w�p1LS ME O,NNEQS A��OGI47.014 ANO-S66 N5 a 6 'SvvEsn.,. THAT THE MONUMENTS ANO LIT" CON --'S NHNOT .may/ 5 SyGC C3�oQ3 Auo 4�1A S wu4CRIR`ki-g"6S OF► ".'- P6�.�T9 AS SI-IOWµ NEEON OR TNAT A - •- 60WD ��"� 7-.1� 5g vQOM A1JY A oT L�Ca^,+,5 (µ.GtL/�iG h-u�"� 11 �+'�(+"w�"•�- o4MA[!ES t.Tt¢D ,, HA3 BEEN POcS'lEO FOR Tt-IE1R 6VE�jy LAT\OU (`j SA,�¢L.PNV 4N0 -rN wseos R:' P1MA.G N�Y UN1UG D12EGT0¢ OAT[ CUA2LES 4GSON oiFCA N.0 i p�pt ud FV+ u '1'/ / 3 o n.0 oan �vleTatz f'..•i' so 7! EXEGU TIVE v10E P4Es,0ENT c��t.eep tN FTUL t��:Tees i ti=¢sT boO Gg4Cv u¢ N C OL124NO-266,STEEEO P11,�/lyp CQUtj.TY E.NGINEE2 DATE 14,F..sne v....uu uo.,O 1-irr a t"Fi-..ew N1010 -fp �ZF (.�(Vo-q,�C( STATE OF AY_1LON4 Go tuTva �qev 1L O��uE LAND SURV 6Y0R NO 4Z5S G 910-7� 56 8, .., Qsostcv of 5,tE.cv,nu7cs PIMA GOUNTV DEUA ENT OF SAUITATG409TE COUNTY OF PIMA \ t91-� �<L's�Qt ' �\ i ELSA 6 NANNA,CLERK OF TUC BOG2D ON THIS TNE�DAnV OF ry,-lT•UST A2THUR H RAf7E2,PQE510ENT _ hi ' OF SUPEIZVI502S HEREBY CERTFY TMAT 1973 '''FORE ME iwuM I.'''''"f1" 2AUON OEVEL0IT,AE�.IT j INVESTMENT TU15 PLAT WAS AVPccovEn,3Y TUEBOC2p THE UNOE129.IGNE0 CFF4C.E2 Pere...ALLY CO22.0r2AT1424 VISTA DEL ORO TDW1.14 3SES APPEAEEO CI-tA¢LES JAGK.S W,woo ' OF SUN-IN C-3F P1M COUNTY,STATE STATE OF ARIZONA AC KNOWL„,,,c,-I,MXLF TO RE THE �3 Or 4QIZOrA O�T�15�=DAY OF7ort'9A/Ty COUNTY OF f�IM4 LOTS I THOU 33 7 E% CUT\VE VICE P2ESI17ENT OF TOE ..X/('.,1J 9.7/-,Tf 'STEWART TITLEANOTRIISTOFTUCSdi, ON TNIS��OAY OF,4,,,, 1973 gEIN� A IZESUB�1V1s10N OF PA.2TOF r ^ t_ K,15f0A2D OF SUPE2V1'S9^2S OAT, AO 7,2\ZONA CO,O0.2ATIO*Ao0 6E1NG gEFOIZE ME KALV,7e . .. TOE AUTO02\ZEO 50 TO DO,E L.CUTED U*OERstGNEO OFFICQR PE12SONALLY BLOC, 3 all of s- -3oW MIOUNTA\N EST �-T TOE FOCEGOII.Y. 1NST2u 'T MEN Foe APPEARED AITT'NUR IA QAOE¢,WOo L.1� Nv 1 Ec, (C.O^1T D) TOE PLOZVADSE TNETZEto cONTA,NED ACKNOWLEDGED HIMSELF TORE.THE R.ECO(2UE.0 IU Bc,OK i ,,M I P PAGE OF TOE-COW.- 1.12ES\t7E.VT OF¢ADOµ DevELo.mErT 17 TITLF_TO THE I ANLP OF ALL- E_PRIVAT -• ; " - • IS EKECUT\VE F.INVESTMENT Coe' AN ARt4ONA 75 AND LYING IN PART OF TILE SOUTFI AND COMMON AREAS SHALL 5E v0grEp 1, TOWN OF "� CO2POrZAT,Ma ANC,BGNG AUTN0212ED AN ASCLL'IATIDN OF INDIVIDUAL_LOT/ i' OHO VALLEY}I 7L+N --^ ��/2.7'� CO To Do EYECUTEO T4E F02EGOtoo HALF of SECTION Z4 T 1ZS SE.13 E. AS E TAeUSHE:'OP(AJFl•1'ANTSI CON1T71T 101..?i Lll`lY V1111U 1LIG tl M,331DG EXP,2ES INSTYUMENT F02 R72POSE TNEEE\N 7 G. GONTA,I.IEC]BY storm*.THE.NAME OF is es• AND RLSTRICTION_:RIN-H OF IN-OF-I-1 TOE CO2500eAT\O*13Y HIMSELF AS T M,PI►JIA C OUIJTY, AiZ1ZOlUA �K PAGE SIN , I��,»E MAP 16 3 P¢E SICEI- C C0-.2-75-2 0PIMA COUNTY RECORDER ZONE R-4 ,�.�`E ,�. ] ; .` NOTArtY Pu.1C MYCEMMTS ONIX PI¢E5 JOCB 7LNO U106-7-¢76G LANDS U12VEYO2U NE 19T''S /� } ... ..... 1 EYI 'BOOM T �_� �_. .2,s PAGEs8 • • PRHLIMINALNY PLAT FOR 1413 LIN(}1N$TA RI ,: ,8 23 24 I. 2419 PROJECT =I= GENERAL NOTES SHADOW H - LOCATION i S TAT , S III - , , PSc � �., 1. GROSS AREA OF THIS SUBDIVISION IST. 1.25 ACRES. PAR ' T (1 (� o S - las A , R4 NET BUILDING AREA 34,749 SQ. FT. -� L jam-JS j�-JS ®-; ,�` r / r / II�I/ IIIa� >.�,t�1 2. EXISTING ZONING IS R-S. (RESIDENTIAL SERVICE DISTRICT) I i �! man� _; Nisi; 3. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS IS 4. 1:1 Wang �• 'am:-i rlic.4 23 _PA '- 19 4. THE OWNER COVENANTS THAT THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER HARDY Ro SUBDIVIDING OR LOT SPLITTING WITHOUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL S 26 25 Sruoo RMERA Dr? 25 30 OF THE TOWN COUNCIL. SCALE: NTS MOUNTAIN DR LOCATION PLAN 5. THE USE OF THIS PLAT IS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND IS SECTION 24, T12S, R13E G&SRB&M, PERMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 23.7(C) OF THE ZONING CODE PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA SCALE: 3" = 1 MILE 6. THERE SHALL BE 6,000 SQ. FT. OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE. CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2' 7. ALL REQUIRED PARKING WILL BE OFF-STREET, ON SITE. SHADOW MOUNTAIN ESTATES BOOK 13 , PAGE 7 5 8. MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 7,216 SQUARE FEET. SET 1/2"RB(RLS 12537) ZONING R1-36 FOUND 1/2"RB(RLS 26929) Request for SET 1/2"RB(RLS 12537) 9. APPROVAL OF THIS PLAT DOES NOT CERTIFY THE EXISTENCE OR 0.09 SOUTH&0.68 WEST Setback COMPLIANCE WITH ANY PRIVATE DEED RESTRICTIONS. Request for Varience FOUND 1/2"RB(RLS 26929) Setback 0.67 NORTH&0.58 WEST 10. ANY RELOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND/OR Varience 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE AT New 6' Block NO EXPENSE TO THE PUBLIC. 32223(C) 322.26(R(R1) Wall (Typ.) 0'ALLEY PER PLAT 9998 C 7p 69.87' 54' N 89 9;35"W(C)(R)(R1) ° ,Ft? 11. THE BASIS OF ELEVATIONS 1� t - - T t + 7p l�l�R ��l Open Space N I 97.63' / I 47.61 / 53.12 °rC R 'N 12. THE BASIS OF BEARING IS BASED ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 9��� cll�l�= tea. o I -..0� I / I / J��1�'�J THE TUCSON- FLORANCE HIGHWAY AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF SHADOWC l 97.39' o / I / MOUNTIAN ESTATES RECORDED AT BOOK 13, PAGE 75 OF MAPS AND PLATS New Wall (Typ.) 9�" A52. I v LOT 2 V I ao kk:- 25' 1 �_ / LOT 45 5 'A I rn v�- FFE = 2643 v / 1 v / 10,197 Sq. Ft. SAID BEARING BEING N 19'45'10" E co 7,890 Sq. Ft. w / I ° / ��J 25' _ 13' -f> - 1 J' 1 5 _ct Q 7pp A OG FFE = 2634 97.50' / c 53.17' °� ° C 700' Q ) N .23v, �a o R SET 1/2"RB(RLS 12537) "� G' S j- - -� ° / a / `� �� 49.88 97.50' "' 3 D ry 60.5' / 1 / A 13. MATERIALS WITHIN SIGHT VISIBILITY TRIANGLES SHALL BE PLACED SO FOUND 1/2"RB(RLS 26929) pQ I t c" LOT 3 ^cy ? [,, " U, / 7,860 Sq. Ft. �:' I FFE = 2635 ` 1 FFE = 642 ® �U,c O r, AS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH A VISIBILITY PLANE DESCRIBED BY TWO 0.10 SOUTH&0.60 WEST 3� 25' 'I '`F,Q o h V HORIZONTAL LINES LOCATED 30 INCHES AND 72 INCHES ABOVE FINISHED 4: LOT 1 t I 25' ad,/ J / T'1 / ,o tR s b.. ;er 7,216 Sq. Ft. I 0 67.38' 0 �4p. �� GRADE OF THE ROADWAY SURFACE. Vie.,0;•ser 3 ti � - _j L � ;� I _ O. t • "FF 7 _ O °' - - - --4- Ir '� 15. DRAINAGE WILL REMAIN UNDISTURBED EXCEPT AS MODIFIED ON THIS PLAT. �(; 65.1 1' 62.56' -A {' " O,,L-4, w e w w .' w w 28' PRIVATE ROAD o co 0,;,...:,,, ------ SET 1/2"RB(RLS 1 37) 14. ALL WEATHER ACCESS WILL BE PROVIDED TO ALL LOTS WITHIN THIS ;• ;� OpenzSpace, s � o S �Vew 6' Block °F SUBDIVISION. • - 2s j Wall (Typ.) FOUND 1/2"RB(R. 26929) 20.11 (C) 0.05 NORTH&0.'9 WEST �8931'S5"E(C)(R1)(R2) - 30' 378.69 (C) 378.73 (R1)(R2) 7OO(%,, ,p, J�'psy) 16. ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ROADS AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ON OR 1/2"RB• I SET SCREW& TAG(RLS 12537) ADJACENT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO MINIMUM FOUND PK AND TAG(RLS 26929) tv ORO VALLEY STANDARDS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS ACCEPTED BY 0.33 SOUTH&0.64 WEST 2 ORO VALLEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. o EXISTING BLOCK AND WOOD FENCE 17. THE WATER COMPANY THAT WILL SERVICE THIS SUBDIVISION IS CITY OF TUCSON WATER. VISTA DEL ORO TOWNHOUSE BOOK 25 , PAGE 58 18. SEWAGE DISPOSAL FOR ALL LOTS WILL BE BY PUBLIC SEWER. ZONING R-4 LEGEND OPEN SPACE/SETBACK LINE 19. LOCAL STREETS WILL BE DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE THE SU30 DESIGN VEHICLES AT A DESIGN SPEED OF 25 MPH. w WATER LINE SEWER LINE 20. THE DEVELOPER WILL COVANENT TO HOLD TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, HARMLESS IN THE EVENT OF FLOODING. - - PROPERTY LINE 7536 N. La Cholla Blvd. Tuceon, Arizona 85741 Phone (520) 419-0711 Fax (520) e22-219e EID4r) cTh OV CASE NUMBER: 0V1205-24 ,�s � :ram��+, SCALE: NTS OWNER/DEVELOPER PRELIMINARY PLAT ,7...4 a �+ JOB 006-0201 J. R. COOK SHADOW MOUNTAIN ESTATES III scorr A ��4a DATE: 5/t 8/2006 LODESTONE BUILDERS. INC. 1-4 CALL CCUECT 11111171121141iEs�u��� DESIGNED: S.A.L. 3101 WEST CACTUS TREE TRAIL PARCELI225-11-1880 DRAWN: S.A.L. TUCSON. ARIZONA 85742 A PORTION OF SECTION 24. T12S. R13E 44,+... .'- 531-8888 G&SRB&M. PIMA COUNTY. ARIZONA SHEET 1 OF 1 • ovi 0_06..08 Text index Major Street Names // I 4 Minor Road Annotation - Parcels-Orthophoto 'a _ / OV Zoning Pos rrFTTiJ71LI1JLLL .. I- I En __ R1-72 pR - R1.43 �--�� F �" R1-36 �i R1-20 �: a R1-10 __ R1-7 to .far j! R-6 11111P Mr �•li SDH-6 i/ iii/4„,-:,,,,,, , .... ...„,. ., ,, I j Ps&c iiik,iti • �f f �14�. C-1 '�... a " .. C-2 T-P a •. Rd . � PAD f<'f�t ,..._ r%�,�� COUNTY 1 0``.-- N Alai /0. 4 NEWPORT. • Z . \JP. co . t .w— �! to 0.3 0 0.3 0.6 Miles S . : ----,,,,,, ,„:.iltrty \, 7 __,_,I,-11! -Nlli„_,-L-Kil i I i i 1 i. 7.1. ;Ir. l' . / / t. ill \ \'-'---.A il __.---"--\ 'hi '''''''''' 1 II -----74 ...._---i--'CIH)---- ,,,,-,- 111 ill F • '''',.„..„..._____,______./ /A7"--, iii i ii , . ,/ / g---------4 4.- -- ---------, C., /__ _,-.„-- ,..----, / 1 i N I -71 i /1---_____/1 r:, / / . --, N. ‘-\-,,,,Ir =-N11----?1 ;36' �/._,Li -._ter `\r f io �'tr `,'i\v/ il rit , ,� — _____ i \ / \ � { z f ,,,,. .)_, , f \ „, ot ,/, ,,„_„,,, _ 11� ,, , ,„ , {II---------\\=----7,,\ f ___, p---i'r j f j jt i 0 , ,,..,..„._ /_, _ / ,,,,,,,o,„/ / 1 t______„,. L.—_,/, ___. _______ _____ _______, :, f ti,4_21 d l 1r _` / i , i f/1 r !� _ , / I' __ _ L Ltlie T t 1 ■ e.. , 1 , i 1 { r / I `8 k//rr NI f ;` .,a of: ji4 4. . _ lit .� *it `I 4 • '.� "1,1.11 '**it 11.11:„.4.-410.. ' illtililk:.4 7 ur : Fy4etf-- - +r yam` r R� � c '� ' 4 ,,,tik, 1„„-i. ,,, 44,',.-.4, ;:,,,,t, . ' ..-------.4) ..". P - 7%-...1 ii"."4"1 ,o. . ... A { `g ;A '' ^Li ~ ski f.- '- f a.. .+. h �`� ' li i. . 4 , i. 0 ' 1 ,' " - 'fir iii s �t v. • 'sue" ► : 1 ,' ti • • t . Jr, ' A .JS 10.ii. , Ate. 1 i. .., • 1111.11;4. . �$'- f ,i * , ,,, .4 t q r� r y %.' >; + .'vt ' 4 .. ,--..„,...„, Y, . . __ .,,,,.. vg- - ... _ ..._. ..... _ :-_, ., .... -4•61. .01,*' ' • • ��� ry .0a - "'r' :s "'ram .t, - -"{''* ' -- . ' . -*I, , itV.)10.44.i.tvii it, - '-*-,- • � * d, g 4 Ilk:Ai , , � wf 5.i ., Section 2j.. I Property Development Standards for Residential Districts A. R-4 Townhouse Residential District The provisions of Section 2.3.4 and the following.'additional requirements shall apply in this district. 1. Density The minimum gross land area per dwelling unit shall be 5,450 square feet. 2. Open Space Requirements a. A minimum of ten. (10) percent of the total gross land area of the development shall be set aside for recreation uses or other common landscaped areas unless the overall density of' the development is less than five (5) units per acre. The Town Council may waive this requirement because of the relationship of the development to an existing public park or recreation area. b. All accessory buildings for recreational purposes shall not occupy more than 14 percent of the total area reserved for recreation uses .and other common landscaped areas. 3_ Setbacks a. Wherever an R-4 development abuts an R-1 District or an alley abutting.R-1 Districts, the following shall apply. A setback of not less than 30 feet shall be maintained for single-story structures. An additional depth of ten (10) feet shall be. provided for each additional story. b. Wherever an R-4 development abuts any district other than R-1, or abuts an alley adjacent to such other district, a setback not less than ten (10) feet in depth shall be maintained. C. Larger setbacks may be required by the Development Review Board or Town Council if the existing or future development of the area around the site warrants such • larger setbacks. d. No building or part thereof shall be erected or altered In this district that is nearer a dedicated street or private. street than 20 feet, except that the average setback from any dedicated street shall be at least 25 feet. e. No more than 30 percent of the frontage dwelling units shall have hying space above one(1)story in height that is located within 50 feet of any dedicated street or as approved by the Development Review Board. C. R-S Residential Service District. The provisions of Section 23.4 and the following additional requirements shall apply in this district. 1_ Standards for Townhomes "Nhenever dwelling units are to be built as townhouses., the. development standards in Section 23.7.A.Oshall apply. 9nouAck. ofz 3 2. Density The minimum gross land area per dwelling unit shalt be 5450 square feel Open Space Requirements a. There shall be a minimum of 36 percent of the net lot. . area in open space. b. Open space shall be provided in the following proportions:. A minimum of 12 percent of the net lot area shall be provided as frontage open space to provide a setting for the building, visual continuity within the community and a variety of spaces in the streetscape, except that the frontage open space shall not be required to exceed 50 square. feet, per one (1) foot on public street frontage excluding drives. July 21, 2006 Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Town of Oro Valley RE: OV 10-06-08 Hello Dee, I have two questions about this case; Y 1) 23.7.0 (R-S residential service district) refers to "The provisions of Section 23.4..." 23.4 is a dimensional requirements table and under R-S zoning setbacks it refers you to the "additional regulations...in 23.7.C". In 23.7.C.5.a is a requirement for a 40 foot setback, not 30 foot. Can you clarify? F 2) In the applicant's submittal is provided a copy of Book 25, Page 58. This indicates a 20 foot alley along the property. On the preliminary plat, this ; , F: 4, area is shown as a 30 foot drainage easement. Can you tell which it is and t.y .IY from what point (center line or edge) the setback is measured? hank you \7 Iti 1,:ifi - . John Hickey Member, Oro Valley Board of Adjustment CHAPTER 24: Supplementary District Regulations Section 24.5 Oracle Road Scenic Corridor District Regulations and Guidelines and maintenance areas that would otherwise be visible from the Oracle Road right-of-way. e. View Corridors. The applicant shall be responsible for mapping and defining all view corridors existing on a given development site in accordance with Section 24.5.E. The applicant shall provide a clear, graphic demonstration of impacts of the proposed development on view corridors defined by visual analysis. Flexibility from the view corridor requirements defined below shall be determined by express approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Along the west side of Oracle Road, no buildings over 18 feet in height or other structures, including walls, signs, or mechanical equipment over four(4) feet in height may be placed within the 300 feet wide view corridor. ii. Along the east side of Oracle Road, a minimum of 60 percent of the frontage to a depth of 300 feet is maintained as a view corridor (Figure 24 - 14) and is not used for building purposes. Total building exposures or frontages will be measured to calculate the view corridor open area percentage. For properties along the east side of Oracle Road, with an average depth of 400 feet or less, or containing less than 2 acres in size, building heights in excess of 25 feet (as permitted by underlying zoning) shall be limited to 40 percent of the frontage. The remaining buildable area heights shall be limited to 25 feet. Zoning Code/Oro Valley AZ May 2005 187 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, July 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: OV10-06-08: Scott Leska, Engineering and Design Assoc., representing Lodestone Builders, Inc., request for variance from the required: (1) 40' setback from the north property line for lot 4 (eastern most building) to 15'; and (2) 40' setback from the north property line for lot 2 (northwest building) to 30' on the north and 22' at the northwest corner of the lot. Subject Property: is zoned R-S, and is adjacent to R1-36 to the north and northwest boundaries, (parcel #225-11-1880) located on N. Oracle Road, just south of Calle Concordia, Oro Valley,AZ, 85704. 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,FAICP Planning and Zoning Administrator Posted: 7-6-06 Time: 3 : 30 p.m. By: sg AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA ) ss. COUNTY OF PIMA ) Audrey Smith, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)ne 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 ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MENT JULY 25, 2006 @ 3:00PM OV10-06-08 - SUBJECT PARCEL 225-11-1880 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 11th day of July 2006 and the last publication thereof was made on the 11th day of July 2006 ; that said publication was made on each of the following dates, to-wit: 07/11/06 at the Request of: Town of Oro Valley jeo,0rtgat 44' 4ki .a.0 .w ni 'hz � 11 by , Legal Advertising Manager Subscribed and swor o before thys 11th day of July 2006 . \\C (.4)57 ., NotaryPti[Jii - Arizona �� �` �� Cn Pima Count, � f ^ , ;� * of ��ary Public in and for the County o Pima, State Arizona Expires 02/04/08 My commission expires: J (19, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORQVALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT In accc_nance 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,July 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: OV10-06-08:Scott Leska. Engineer- inn nd Design Assoc repres___.entino Lodestone Builders Inc r ecr s variance from the ran i d ii setback from the north Aron r+y line for lot 4(eastern mocr bnijdinal to :151; and121 a0' setback from the north nronert line for lot 2(north west buildina)to 3p'on the north and 22 at the northwest corn r of the lot Subject Prone►+y• >4ned R S and is adjacent to Ri 36 to th north and ri rthweSt bounrtarins (Hama& 225-11-18801 located on N. Oracle Road.just sourh of Calle Con ordia Oro Valley A2 5704 Site plans are available for review dur- ing 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 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. REQ: Sarah More,FAICP Plan- ning and Zoning Administrator PUBLISH:The Daily Territorial July 11,2006 hrju125ov10-06-08 a.s 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,July 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: OV10-06-08: Scott Leska, Engineering and Design Assoc., representing Lodestone Builders, Inc., request for variance from the required:(1)40'setback from the north property line for lot 4(eastern most building)to 15';and (2)40'setback from the north property line for lot 2(northwest building)to 30'on the north and 22'at the northwest corner of the lot. Subject Property: is zoned R-S,and is adjacent to R1-36 to the north and northwest boundaries, (parcel#225-11-1880)located on N.Oracle Road,just south of Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ,85704. 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. 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,July 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: OV10-06-08: Scott Leska, Engineering and Design Assoc., representing Lodestone Builders, Inc., request for variance from the required:(1)40'setback from the north property line for lot 4(eastern most building)to 15';and (2)40'setback from the north property line for lot 2(northwest building)to 30'on the north and 22'at the northwest corner of the lot. Subject Property: is zoned R-S,and is adjacent to R1-36 to the north and northwest boundaries, (parcel#225-11-1880)located on N.Oracle Road,just south of Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ,85704. 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. Town Of Oro Valley TOCSON .t.;;:577 46044a4vok.,,, .. • 11000 N. La Canada Oro Valley, AZ 85737 • 1. F!:Eit"• *°""4-44441"stwifto.44"1"4****Nerie. *14, k.;:. 4:3•4. 0 2 1A 00 24° 0004337343 JUL 07 2006 Ilk:IP 4 ..Ft'14 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 8 5 7 3 7 22511223A CASPER 'OSEMARY A 9111 N 4 RACLE RD TUC.*N AZ 85 7-0000 NIXIE 5 0 AO 07/12/0e RETURN TO SENDER INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS UNADLE TO FORWARD OC: 015737701599 *0379-03090-07-38 0.7-444 Huh!ithIlithiiiiiiiiihinsiginndillithiithihif Town Of Oro Valley 11000N. La Canada LTh AZ: SST 41.1044k, -010,40g4.4„„,,„, Oro Valley, AZ 85737 2• • • • <7., • • ' -3**Z • 1:: • 0 2 1 ::)441 4.4, 0004337343 JUL 07 2006 '; "I'r -4 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 85737 225112060 HEUER GARY P 9111 N ORACLE ROAD# 110 ORO VALLEY AZ 85737-0000 JUL 1 1 2006 X 850 NO 1 60.5 C 40 07/09/06 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND HEUER GARY P PO DOX 69764 ORO VALLEY AZ OS737-002/ RETURN TO SENDER 4+7403 Town Of Oro Valley Tty--47.1,..--31, -*-- .<474zr", toomoviNv,/,:" 4 00"wavieoht„,...0,';1 -,i, ...e. €....4...? 11000 N. La Canada c.. 03ti .•S'A '..4 •• • ,-• . Oro Valley, AZ 8573177 .11-1L 7:19:7;06 Pt:,Ailli.i.kl.iii "eitt- "V t1441.0v,"0000101.$1"1"4/%0601,1 -ge.:1:yrt7.1,911r.'": „ ,064k8V, s ftwouit.40P"- **,. Vcii tiMil • 02 $ 00.2 ,_.,„...--,.,:sr_z7„---„,. L-.,4 . • $ 0004337343 JUL 07 2006 1 l•'.1‘i.•e.'iv"-, • MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 8 5 7 3 7 -:•1 tf,\ X --7r1 22511229V,s(..., ° 9 2006 LEON ARACELLI 1250 W ROLLER COASTER RD TUCSON AZ JUL 1 85704-0000 _ .... ... ,. . RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN UNADLE TO FORWARD DC: 9.50622961Si *1-579-06277-11 - , %,,,-..-- .7:--i= 7411-121-144111 itintiMINHIPM1PririMPERMNIPHrf7:ifnliniti .. .... . . ... . _ Town Of Oro Valley -TUB, .�"''`N "` 4,. " „ `�` If.�..... :..,�.i,.:.y. AZ '.g.�u'�'r.�.t'' if3�'�s`ff �ijlljlfjfffi'#1•,Yd 11000 N. La Canada s�sauj��'� ��' ��� Oro Valley, AZ 85737 4: :: t..1 , 200 • �� 4� *. ,�a, 0► ' �� + ' 02 1A $ 00.24° 04 r ', 0004337343 JUL 07 2006 4-+A'1ti tAti:� MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 85737 225112030 LONGMIRE ALVIN 8776 N ARNOLD PALMER DR TUCSON AZ JUL L 9 2006 85 741-0000 NIXIE •BSO 1 40 0 7/17/06 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: 95737701699 *0379--07922-07-39 -Z .8_:_ !!„!„l,1,i,,,!„lI,I,,,lf,,,!!i„►,,,Il,I,I,l,1„i,!„!►I„I Town Of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada 4.0 POSz.t, Oro Valley, AZ 85737 yF � i �_ �a44:oe r fir/ ...._{„ $ 00.24 �i,F' ,��,,.• . 0004337343 JUL 07 2006 1 lab MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 85737 r 225112: 0 ALI .' NCESCO&DEANNA CP/RS 91 N ORACLE RD 5737 0 OOZ JUL � ' 2006 l NIXIE 050 :1 40 D 7/;1D/0 S RETURN TO SENDER INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD DC: OS737701.5599 *1.679-019E3'3_.t39--16 ))��)„),),),,,I„i) I,,,l) „)I1,►��,►11,),),!,!„I,I„I,!„) Town Of Oro Valley 11.000 N. La Canada .. . •.,t, ` ' `'' 4„ �' , ;.. f Oro Valley, AZ 857370,7V v - '' ' '� � • 02 1 A w 00 24° 0004337343 JUL 07 2006 •+ ' Z MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 85737 225110390 NGUYEN GIAU&DEO YEN B CP/RS 9130 N SHADOW MOUNTAIN DR TUCSON AZ JUL 2 85737-0000 5 2006 NIXIE 050 1 40 07/10,O5 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERAEiLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD 0O: 05737701599 *0379--01633-07-3E ... 42. 45° llr�l��l�1►I�►►1��11f1„�I1,��Ili���„►11,1,1►I�1��1�1,�1�1��1 Town Of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada l'UCSOP4 S5.7 Oro Valley, AZ 85737 laW trar 11.* 0 r V4i •1r44.**4124" -- " 0004337343 JUL 07 2006 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 85737 17 22 A51c1230 DO EDWARD&JANET D CP/RS 9JKN ORACLE RD JUL 1 3 2006 UCSON AZ 85737-0000 NIXIE OSO 40 07/ 11/0e RETURN TO SENDER INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD OC: 057C47 k1414-00367-07-00 M.-744,44 n MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION JULY 25, 2006 ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: at or after 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Andy Martin, Chair Bart Schannep, Vice Chair Paul Parisi, Member Colleen Kessler, Member John Hickey, Member MINUTES: A motion was made by Member Kessler to approve the minutes of May 23, 2006. Member Hickey seconded the motion. The motion carried, 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CASE NO. OV10-06-08: Scott Leska, Engineering and Design Assoc., representing Lodestone Builders, Inc., request for a variance from the required: (1) 30' setback from the north property line for lot 4 (eastern most building) to 15'; and (2) 30' setback for lot 2 (northwest building) to 22' at the northwest corner of the lot. Subject property is zoned R-S, and is adjacent to R1-36 to the north and northwest boundaries, (Parcel 225-11-1880) located on North Oracle Road, just south of Calle Concordia, Oro Valley,AZ 85704. Chair Martin swore in the witness. Jack Cook, a representative for the applicant reported that the nature of the request was to allow a setback variance that would allow the required setback of 30 feet on the northwest edge of Lot 2, and the north property line of Lot 4 to be reduced to 22 feet and 15 feet respectively. He explained that this request was required due to the narrow size and shape of the parcel, and the ability to develop the lot that is suitable to the end user. He reviewed the site using the overhead projector. In answer to a question from Member Hickey, Jack Cook explained that there had been some consideration to place the driveway on the north to avoid moving vegetation. He explained that after reviewing the concept with staff, there was concern that the residents in the area would have a road in front and behind them. 07 25 06 Board of Adjustment 2 Minutes Zoning Inspector Patty Hayes reviewed the report. She explained that the specific request was to reduce setbacks on the north and northwestern property line for a four-lot townhouse subdivision in an R-S zoned parcel. She reported that the applicant has requested the 30 foot setback, required abutting R-1 districts, be reduced to 15 foot and 22 foot. Staff finding of facts: • Current R-S zoning allows the proposed townhouse use per R-4 regulations. • The applicant submitted a conceptual site plan to the Development Review Committee (DRC) on April 28, 2006 • All variance requests are for the north and northwestern property line only. • The applicant states they contacted the neighborhood to the south for a shared access thus possibly reducing the need for a variance, but was denied by the neighborhood. • The applicant indicates that the proposed townhouses will be one story. • The General Plan designation for this parcel is NCO,Neighborhood Commercial/Office. However, the underlying R-S zoning prevails over General Plan Designation. The proposed use is also compatible with the existing surrounding residential subdivisions. In summary, the proposed townhouses are allowed in the R-S district, meet other zoning code requirements, and are supported by staff. Vice Chair Schannep stated that after reviewing the site, he did not find anything peculiar about the property but believed the setbacks were dictating how the homes would be positioned. Chair Martin opened the public hearing and swore in the witnesses that were intending to testify. Jim Kriegh, 40 East Calle Concordia, stated that the variance request was reasonable as long as the project was consistent with the proposal submitted. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, stated that the hardship was not created by the property but by post density. He explained that the property owner was having difficulty because he was proposing more development than the land space allowed. Therefore, he believed the proposed project was creating the hardship and not the land. Steve Langford, 9140 North Shadow Mt. Drive, read from a letter submitted June 27, 2006 that addressed his objection in the strongest possible terms to any change to proscribed setbacks on the South, West, and North sides of the property in question. The document also revealed that the Langfords' had no objection at all to the setback variance that the Board might deem permissible on the East side of the property, along Oracle Road. He proceeded to read from the document explaining his opposition to the variance request. (See attached) Chair Martin closed the public hearing. MOTION: Member Hickey moved to DENY Case No. OV 10-06-08, a request for variance to: 1. Reduce the 30 foot setback from the north property line for lot 4 (eastern most building) to 15 feet. 2. Reduce the 30 foot setback from the northwestern property line for lot 2 (northwest building)to 22 feet. Member Hickey explained that he could not find anything special about the lot and believed a number of things could be built on the site. He added that there were no special circumstances 07 25 06 Board of Adjustment 3 Minutes on the property other than those that were self imposed. He explained that the applicant's substantial property rights could be enjoyed using other options and did not believe Criteria 1, 3 and 5 had been met. Roll Call Vote Vice Chair Schannep—aye Member Parisi—aye Member Kessler—aye Member Kessler—aye Chair Martin—Nay Motion carried to DENY Case No. OV 10-06 08, 4-1, with Chair Martin opposed. 2. CASE NO. OV10-06-07 Copper Stone Development LLC, request for variance from the allowed building height of 25', to allow 34' in height in an R-S zone. Subject property: (parcels 225-11-1970; 225-11-1980; 225-11-1990) located on the west side of Oracle, between Hardy and Calle Concordia, Oro Valley,AZ 85704. Chair Martin swore in the witness. Carl Winter, the Planning Consultant for Copperstone Development, explained that the request for a variance from 25 feet building height (table 23-2A)to 34 feet building height. He used the overhead projector to review the site plan. Dick Green, the architect for the project reviewed the site's elevation and explained that the company felt it was very important that the existing terrain remained in tact. He used the overhead projector to review certain aspects of the project such as the spacing between floors, drainage, lighting, screening, parking and the parapet. There was discussion regarding the placement of the air conditioning unit and alternatives for the location of the unit; and the height of the proposed building, and what type of offices would be opening in the building. Zoning Inspector Patty Hayes reported that the specific request was to increase the building height from the allowed 25 feet in an R-S zone to 34 feet. She added that the applicant proposes to build two office building that would each be two stories. Staff finding of facts: • Current R-S zoning allows a 25 foot building height which may be limited by the Development Review Board and Town Council to one story when abutting an R1 district per OVZCR section 23.7.C.4 • The applicant submitted a concept plan to the Development Review Board (DRB) for the June 13, 2006 meeting for guidance regarding the one story vs. two story issue. • The DRB supported allowing the two story building. • The applicant states they contacted neighbors regarding the height variance. • The apartments abutting the south property line are two stories. 07 25 06 Board of Adjustment 4 Minutes • The apartments abutting the north property line are three stories. The first floor is partially at basement level. • The western property line abuts 20 feet alley and single family single story subdivision. • The site slopes down more than 20 feet for Oracle Road to the western property line. • The applicant proposes to build the buildings with a finished floor elevation 16 feet below Oracle Road and terrace the parking. • An increase in building height does not increase the allowable development FAR. • The General Plan designation for this parcel is NCO,Neighborhood Commercial/Office and HDR, high density residential. However, the underlying R-S zoning prevails over General Plan designation. The proposed use is also compatible with the existing surrounding properties. • In summary, the proposed two story office complex is allowed in the R-S district, meeting other zoning code requirements, and are supported by staff. In conclusion, staff analysis of the variance to allow the proposed office development located on Oracle Road was that the required findings are met. In particular, the proposed two-story office development will fit into and should not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area. Chair Martin opened the public hearing and swore in the witnesses that were intending to testify. Sue Brinley, 9020 North Shadow Mountain Drive, stated that Mr. Winters' and the architect had been very accommodating, however, after the June 27th meeting she was distressed after receiving a letter identifying the request for variance would be changed from 25 feet to 34 feet. She stated that she had concerns because there was no guarantee other changes would not be made. She explained that there could be more of a compromise made regarding the height of the building and hoped the drainage would not be a problem in the area. Chair Martin closed the public hearing. Mr. Winter stated that the drainage was required to meet the code standards. MOTION: Member Schannep moved to APPROVE Case No. OV 10-06-07, a request for variance to include the lighting and parapet height relocation as negotiated with the neighbor. Member Parisi seconded the motion. Discussion: Member Hickey stated that he could not see any circumstances or conditions on the property that would preclude constructing 40 thousand square foot of anything,therefore believes Criteria#1 had been met. He expressed concern with the height being driven by the engineer as well as the placement of the air conditioning unit. Vice Chair Schannep supported the motion and stated that he was very sensitive to the property rights of the neighbors and appreciated the applicant's working with the community so diligently. He suggested that by repositioning the parapets walls on an angle could help preserve the views of the mountain. 07 25 06 Board of Adjustment 5 Minutes Chair Martin explained that the topography in Oro Valley has been an issue in a number of cases, but in this case all 5 criteria had been satisfied. He stated that to enjoy property rights he believed that visibility would constitute as a component. Member Kessler stated that she supports the motion because the proposed structure would be compatible with the surrounding building, so for continuity it would be sensible to have the building approximately the same height as the buildings to the north and south. She agreed that the criteria had been met. Roll Call Vote Vice Chair—aye Member Parisi—aye Member Kessler—aye Member Hickey—nay Chair Martin—aye Motion carried, 4-1, with Member Hickey opposed. Chair Martin recessed the meeting at 4:20 p.m. The meeting resumed at 4:26 p.m. 3. CASE NO. OV10-06-09 Robinette Architects, Inc. representing Frank and Mary Engle, request a variance from the required 18' building height, up to 23',when measured from natural grade on a custom graded lot with a greater than 6% slope. Subject property: (parcel #220-07-0530) located at 11321 N. Charoleau Drive, Oro Valley, AZ 85737, in the Palisades Point subdivision. Lee Pettit, representing the Engles explained that the expiration of the pre-annexation agreement for Palisades Point will prevent this project from being developed to the standard of the existing neighborhood and adjacent properties, specifically with regard to allowable building height. He reported that the current zoning requirements would not allow this project to blend with the existing neighborhood context and would severely limit the views from the property, and would have a negative impact on the property value. He explained that only a very small portion of the project exceeded the current 18 feet-0 inches building height requirement, whereas the entire project was in conformance with the original development standards. He reported that the Oro Valley Development Review Board and the subdivision previously approved a 2-story version of the project, which had a greater overall building height than what was currently being proposed. He added that the project had not been through the permitting process and that the request would be to obtain a variance from 18 feet-0 inches to 22 feet -0 inches maximum building height. In answer to a question from Member Kessler, Lee Pettit reported that the majority of the community was developed and the existing homes were built under the old zoning rule requirements. Senior Zoning Inspector Dee Widero explained that the Engles were requesting approval to build a home on a custom graded lot with an average cross slop greater than 6 % per cent. She reported that the proposed height overall was 15 feet 6 inches in height, with the foyer being visually the highest point at 17 feet 9 inches in height on a 6 inch foundation. She explained that the southwest portion of the home, ranges from 11 feet to 14 feet in actual height; with an 07 25 06 Board of Adjustment 6 Minutes allowed height of 18 feet; adding the amount of full ranging from 8 feet 5 inches to 10 feet inches; requiring a height variance from 3 feet 5 inches to 4 feet 5 inches because the natural grade at certain points of the building was significantly lower than that of other parts of the building site. She reported that the amount of fill dirt accounts for a portion of the allowable building height. Staff finding of facts: • Lot 23 has a 12% slope under the house pad. • The building area of lot 23 is restricted by slope, only driveways are allowed in the slope easement. • The building height varies from 7 feet 6 inches to 15 feet 6 inches with the foyer being 17 feet 9 inches in height. • The section of house in question is 11 feet to 14 feet from finished floor, 11 feet 6 inches & 14 feet 6 inches from finished grade, but exceeds the 18 feet from natural grade. • The owner has been working on the design of their home for over two years. Coming up against some hurdles, one of which is expiration of the annexation agreement. In Pima County the height limit for CR-1 is 34 feet, with a cut and fill of 15 feet. Oro Valley R1- 36, 18 feet maximum height and cut and fill of 6 feet. In answer to a question from Member Hickey, Sarah More explained that it was possible that the variance would be limited only to the information currently presented to the Board. Therefore, if there was a change in the design plan such as adding an additional room in the future, and it didn't meet the height requirement,the applicant would be required to apply for another variance. Chair Martin opened the public hearing and swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Brady Buckely, 11526 North Civano Place, a representative of the home owners association reported that the association was in favor of the request and the design of the home had met the association's requirements. MOTION: Member Hickey moved to APPROVE Case No. OV 10-06-09, a request to exceed the 18 foot building height up to 4 feet 6 inches when measuring building height from existing grade on a greater than 6 % slope. Member Parisi seconded the motion. Discussion: Member Hickey reported that after viewing the site he believed it was a tough lot to build on because of the flood plain and the way the property peeked upward. He explained that the 23 feet would be the minimum the applicant needed to construct the building. He stated that all 5 criteria had been met, especially the fact that it was a unique piece of property. Chair Martin agreed and pointed out the fact that the area in question was lower than the overall height of the home. Roll Call Vote Vice Chair Schannep—aye Member Parisi—aye Member Kessler—aye Member Hickey—aye 07 25 06 Board of Adjustment 7 Minutes Chair Martin—aye Motion carried, 5-0. 4. CASE NO. Randy and Karen Barbera, request a variance from the required 40' rear yard setback to 8', in the Monte Del Oro subdivision. Subject property: (parcel #224-27-1990) located at 11113 N. Guava Drive, Oro Valley, AZ 85737. Chair Martin swore in the witness. Karen Barbera explained that the request for a variance on the rear setback from the existing 20 feet to 8 feet to construct an additional 12 feet onto the rear the existing home. She reported that revision would allow for the enlargement of an existing children's bathroom and closet to accommodate her growing family. Senior Zoning Inspector Dee Widero explained that the Barberas were requesting to encroach into the required 40 feet rear yard setback, for a 12 feet addition to enlarge one of the bathrooms and a closet. She explained that the home was built in 1991, under R1-43 zoning regulations however, it was built at a 30 feet setback to the rear as opposed to the 40 feet required. She added that the current 30 feet setback minus the proposed 12 feet addition, would leave an 18 feet set back from the rear property line. She reported that the Barberas applied for a variance in 2003 to encroach into the side yard to construct a pool and that request was denied. She added that since that time the applicant has applied; received approval and completed a garage extension and modifications; interior modification; retaining walls and archways and pool permit. Staff finding of fact: • Due to the topographic constraints of this site,the location and design of the home when built, the proposed addition/remodel will lie 12 feet from the rear property line if approved. • The home was originally built in 1991; the applicant bought their home in 2002. • The applicant is proposing to reduce the rear yard setback from the required 40 feet to 12 feet. Chair Martin opened the public hearing. There being no speakers the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Member Hickey moved to approve Case No. OV10-06-10, a request to reduce the rear setback for the addition only to 18 feet from the property line, in order to enlarge the bathroom and closet. Member Kessler seconded the motion. Discussion: Vice Chair Schannep stated that he had concerns with the variance approval and recalled that he had ruled on the home before and was sympathetic to the fact that the family was growing. But, he believed the situation was purely caused by the families needs and not by the home. Chair Martin agreed and stated he did not believe the 5 criteria had been met. He said there was no valid reason presented for the approval of the variance other than need. 07 25 06 Board of Adjustment 8 Minutes Member Hickey explained that this property had a substantially unique topography, and in his opinion, there wasn't much else that would be doable with the property, therefore all 5 criteria had been met because the property was unique. In answer to a question from Member Parisi, Patty Hayes explained that a detached accessory structure would be allowed 5 feet from the property line. Member Kessler stated that there were some topography issues with the property and the applicant was certainly entitled to their property rights, therefore agreed with the motion. Roll Call Vote Vice Chair Schannep—nay Member Kessler—nay Member Parisi—nay Member Hickey—aye Chair Martin—nay Motion failed 1-4, with Member Hickey was in favor. 5. Planning and Zoning Update No report. Vice Chair Schannep requested that the section of the staff report labeled"Conclusion"be agendized for discussion at the next regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Vice Chair Schannep, and seconded by Member Kessler to adjourn the meeting at 5:16 p.m. Motion carried, 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Linda Hersha, Office Specialist LEY qR, TOWN OF ORO VALLEY �o :�02 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT o -9 Planning and Zoning•Building Safety 1 vx, 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-4800•Fax(520)742-1022 A Oro Valley Public Library A A,, 1305 W.Naranja Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5300•Fax(520)229-5319 Parks and Recreation DVNDED 19 lb' 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5050•Fax(520)797-2202 July 26, 2006 Scott Leska,Engineering and Design Assoc. 7536 N. La Cholla Blvd Tucson, AZ 85741 RE: Loadstone Builders, Inc.,Case number OV10-06-08, Parcel#225-11-1880, request for a setback variance. Dear Mr. Leska, At their regular meeting of July 25, 2006, the Board of Adjustment voted to deny approval for your variance request. For additional information on your case file,please contact the Clerks office, to receive a copy of the minutes from this meeting. Linda Hersha,will be happy to assist you 229- 4744 or E-mail: lhersha@orovalley.net. Sincerely, ' )' .,.. c*.i--- Patty Hayes Zoning Inspector Town of Oro Valley C: File /palled. cvyfr 7-?6-. 7 www.townoforovalley.com