Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 4/25/2006 MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION APRIL 25, 2006 ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER at 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Colleen Kessler, Chair John Hickey, Member Bart Schannep, Member Andy Martin, Member EXCUSED: Paul Parisi, Vice Chair MOTION: A motion was made by Member Hickey to approve the February 28, 2006 and March 28, 2006 minutes. Member Martin seconded the motion. The motion carried, 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CASE NO. OV10-06-03: HARVEY BLAIR, REQUEST TO BUILD A 10' WALL AND 14' ORNAMENTAL FEATURE WITH A STEEL GATE AT HIS FRONT PROPERTY LINE. AT 11355 NORTH 1ST AVENUE (PARCEL 224-02-0380) Harvey Blair, 11355 North First Avenue, explained that the request was to obtain permission to build a block wall on the front property line. He reported that the wall would be the full length of First Avenue frontage that would provide as a buffer for noise reduction and a parameter for the safety and welfare of the surrounding properties. There was discussion regarding the following issues: • Would the wall provide a buffer for noise reduction and still remain aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood? • Would there be any affect to drainage flow on the southeast side of the property if a wall was constructed? • What was the distance of the home from 1st Avenue? • Will other homes in the community have walls constructed by Oro Valley? • What would be the minimum height of the wall? • Would the wall provide the safety the applicant was seeking? De Widero, Senior Planning and Zoning Inspector, reviewed the staff report. She reported that Mr. Blair was requesting to build a 284 linear foot wall. She reported that the Tangerine Meadows lots 20-45 was a 16 lot subdivision; Pima County recorded the subdivision in 1974, zoned as SR (Suburban Ranch). She reported that the Town of Oro Valley annexed the subdivision in 1994, translating the area to R1-144. She 04/25/06 Board of Adjustment 2 Minutes reported that the subject property was 144,613 square feet; rectangular shape that meanders and slopes upward from 1st Avenue approximately 20 feet to the applicant's home. She said that there was some drainage at the southeast corner of the property. She reported that Jose Rodriguez, Engineering Division Manager, from the Town's Public Works Department, stated that the proposed wall plan, if approved, would need a review from engineering when submitting for a permit, but that it should not be an issue as far as placement. However, she explained that Mr. Rodriguez suggested that the Blair's wait to build the wall until all right-of-way improvements had been completed. Staff finding of facts: • The proposed wall will match architecturally to the existing home. • The wall will be out of character from the other large open lots and surrounding area. • Property line walls are allowed without permit or approval up to 4 feet and 6 inches. • This addition should not pose any other zoning issues. Chair Kessler opened the public hearing and swore in the witnesses that were intending to testify. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, was opposed to the wall because it would be in violation of the goals and policies identified in of the General Plan. Sue Hayes, 11425 North 1st Ave, supported the request and did not consider the structure to be obtrusive or obstruct any scenic routes, roadways, bike path but would enhance the area as well as provide a barrier to reduce the noise level. Tom Hayes, 11425 North 1st Ave, was in favor of the wall being erected and believed that it would help alleviate some of the noise pollution created by the traffic flow. Chair Kessler closed the public hearing. MOTION: Member Schannep moved to APPROVE Case No. OV10-06-03, a request to build a 10 foot wall with an ornamental feature of 14 feet and steel gate located at 11355 North 1St Avenue. Member Martin SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Member Schannep pointed out that some properties in the immediate area were allowed to install a wall, and that traffic was getting increasingly worse. He explained that the applicant's property was impacted the most as well as some other frontline properties in the area. He explained that the "special circumstances" were not created by the owner but by the progress of Oro Valley. He stated that any home that was subjected to loud traffic noises and traffic view would affect a homeowner's "property rights". He explained that the variance for the wall was being granted to help reduce the noise level and to shield the view of the busy road. He felt that this would not be a granting of special privilege other than the need "preserve the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights". He added that the structure would not be detrimental to the vicinity. 04/25/06 Board of Adjustment 3 Minutes Member Martin explained that the applicant did not create the size, shape, topography or surroundings, but that the area surrounding the home had changed over the years. He stated that to have peace and quiet on your property was a property right and would give the applicant some level of comfort. Member Hickey did not support the motion and stated that he did not see a special circumstance to the applicant's property that was unique, and he believed that the variance would be a granting of "special privilege". He explained that he had concern with Criteria #5 regarding safety and welfare in that the proposed structure would have a zero lot line, and with the turnout proposed, any vehicle over 15 feet long would automatically be in the public right-of-way as it waited for the gate to open on the property. Chair Kessler agreed that the property surroundings had changed over the years, and she believed there was definitely some safety issues involved as it related to children being on the property. She said that the applicant should be allowed to enjoy peace and quiet, therefore agreed with the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE Motion carried, 3-1, with Member Hickey opposed. 2. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE UPDATES TO ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED (OVZCR); BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS RULES AND REGULATIONS AND BOARDS AND COMMISSION TRAINING MANUAL Chair Kessler suggested not making any changes to the Rules and Procedures Guidelines since the document had already been approved by the Town Council. Discussion followed regarding: • A memo from the Town attorney regarding an appeal of a variance. • Amending the Zoning Code. • The definition of what constitutes a board majority versus what constitutes a quorum majority. • The Rules and Procedure Handbook "member of conduct" section. • Updating the "training manual". Chair Kessler opened the floor for public comment. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, explained that there were significant differences in the information handed out at the Citizens Planning Institutes class that relates to the Board of Adjustment and the Board's training manual, such as the ex- parte and description of duties as well as conditional use permits. He suggested that the Board address the issues and determine what process the Board would follow to be consistent. ADJOURNMENT 04/25/06 Board of Adjustment 4 Minutes MOTION: A motion was made by Member Hickey to adjourn the meeting at 4:21 p.m. Member Schannep seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. Prepared by, � r / / inda Hersha, Office Specialist