Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 5/24/2005 MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION MAY 24,2005 ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N.LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER at or after 3:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bart Schannep, Chair Matt Adamson, Vice Chair Colleen Kessler, Member John Hickey, Member MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of April 26, 2005 MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of April 5,2005 MOTION: Member Adamson moved to approve the April 26, 2005 minutes as presented. Member Hickey seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. There being no objections, Chair Schannep moved the approval of the April 5, 2005 minutes to follow Item 1 on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CASE NO. OV10-05-04 THE WLB GROUP,ROB LONGAKER, REPRESENTING KS COMPANIES,BRENT SANDWEISS,4605 N. CAMPBELL AVENUE, TUCSON,AZ 85718,REQUEST A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE REQUIRED SETBACK OF 20 FOOT FROM THE FRONT STREET, PER THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED, SECTION 7-104.G.4 FOR A 10-ACRE PARCEL. SUBJECT PROPERTY (PARCEL #224-30-361,362 AND 363) LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAMBERT LANE, SOUTH AND IN FRONT OF THE HIGHLANDS MOBILE HOME VILLAGE, ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737 Chair Schannep swore in the witnesses that were intending to testify. Mr. Brent Sandweiss, the applicant from KS Companies, explained that the proposed residential community would enhance the health and safety of the neighborhood and the surrounding properties while focusing on high-end rental single-story units with two centrally located recreation centers. He reported that the surrounding properties include the Highlands Mobile Home Village to the north, single family residential homes to the west and south, and a proposed single family residential use to the east. He reported that KS Companies were proposing 76 residential units on the site with a density that would be virtually identical to Highlands Mobile 05/24/05 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 2 Home Village. He added that in order to build the best possible community, KS Companies offers many amenities, including attractive well equipped homes, interesting landscaping, recreation facilities and where space permits, garages. He pointed out that the garage was the reason for the request for the variance because of the narrow depth of the site. He stated that on behalf of KS Companies, he requested relief from the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Article 7-1, R-4 Townhouse Residential District, Section 7-104 and proceeded to give a brief Power Point presentation of the site. Rob Longaker, a representative from WLB Group was in agreement with the report given by Brent Sandweiss and further explained that the property was a 10 acre parcel zoned R-4 and he believed the land would be better used as a residential development than a commercial use development. In answer to a question from Member Kessler, Brent Sandweiss reported that KS Companies did have homes in various communities that did not have garages. The following issues were discussed: • Alternative uses for the site. • The total amount of parcels available in the area and how it would affect the variance request. • The 20 foot setback wavier requirement. • Will the low density development have individual ownership? • The 3 to 4 feet setbacks and how it will affect the egress and ingress in the development. In answer to a question from Chair Schannep, Dee Widero explained that there would be no way to revise the proposed plan so that the number of homes would remain the same and allow the proper setback requirements. Chair Schannep opened the public hearing and swore in the witnesses that were intending to testify. Harriett Hough, 10742 North Everest Avenue, a resident of the Heritage Highlands, stated that she and many other residents in the community were in support of the proposal, especially the 1- story design. She said that she did have some concerns regarding the entrances to the proposed property off of Highland Drive,but was confident that the problems could be easily resolved. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, stated that it was the applicant's burden to demonstrate that a denial of the variance would deny him reasonable use of the property, and he felt the applicant had not proven or addressed the issue. He reported the property could be improved and developed because there were alternative designs for the development. He strongly advised the Board to uphold the Zoning Code and he did not believe the granting of the variance would be justified. Mr. Sandweiss clarified that KS Companies were not the owners of the property but had an option of purchasing the property if their plan and unique concept proposal was accepted. He added that the narrow depth of the property did create a"special circumstance" and was not a self imposed circumstance created by the applicant. He believed the development would enhance the safety, health and welfare of the neighborhood as well as the surrounding properties. 05/24/05 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 3 Chair Schannep closed the public hearing. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector,reported that the KS Companies were requesting a variance to waive the 20 feet requirement that no building or a part of the building shall be erected nearer to a dedicated street or private street than 20 feet for a proposed residential community. She further explained that the applicant was proposing to develop a rental community of 76 units that would be well landscaped and have recreational facilities. The concept for the homes would be that all units have a garage; however, most of the garages as well as some of the homes would not meet the 20 foot standards. Staff finding of facts: • The proposed site has three separate parcels, all narrow,presenting a long and narrow strip. • The 20 foot setback is to reduce the effect of rows of buildings directly on the street. • This proposal does not provide additional guest parking. • Placing the garages to the side of the homes is an option. It would reduce the total number of homes. Chair Schannep pointed out that the applicant who was the potential buyer clearly had an economic interest and directed the Board to ignore any speculation of denial based on what would happen next to the property after the parcels were purchased. In answer to a question from Member Kessler, Joe Andrews recommended that the Board allow Bryant Nodine,the Planning and Zoning Administrator to interpret the differences between "having individual ownership" and"rental community" and"individual ownership" at a future meeting. Member Kessler stated that after reviewing the criteria she felt that there were alternative uses for the development by KS Companies that would allow the applicant to stay within the guidelines of the Zoning Code setback requirements. MOTION: Member Kessler moved to DENY Case No. OV 10-05-04, finding that the proposal did not meet the criteria the Board was obligated to follow. Member Hickey seconded the motion. Member Hickey explained that the Board was restricted to adhering to the 5 specific criteria and in his opinion, the applicant had not met all 5 criteria. Member Schannep stated that he also supported the motion because the depth of the property did not preclude this type of use but only precluded the number of units that would correspond with the property. He stated that he could not support the fact the property was special and unique in that it limited the applicant. Member Adamson agreed that the 5 criteria had not been met and he believed that fewer units would suffice on the parcel. 05/24/05 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 4 CALL FOR THE VOTE The motion to DENY Case No. OV 10-05-04 carried unanimously, 4-0. 2. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES AND OPERATING PROCEDURES Discussion and possible action on the Rules and Operating Procedures Joe Andrews, Town Civil Attorney submitted the following suggested revisions for an Appeals Case: 3.6.2 Appeals A decision on an appeal of an administrative decision(Zoning Code Sec. 1-702.A and Sec. 1- 706) is based upon the Board of Adjustment's determination, as to the correctness of the interpretation. The following legal standards provide guidance to the Board in their deliberation to reverse a decision: The Legal Standard for Appeal to the Board of Adjustment The Board of Adjustment should reverse a decision if it finds that the decision was due to any of the following. A. An abuse of the official's discretion A decision is said to be an abuse of discretion if it violates the intent and the policy of the statute that granted the decision-making authority. If an appellant can demonstrate that the decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, unfair, or discriminatory, then the decision should be reversed. In some situations, though, an official has no discretion. If an official denies a permit or certificate of approval that the law states must be granted when an applicant satisfies certain requirements, then the official's decision must be reversed. B. Exceeding the official's power or authority A public official or agency can only make decisions within the limits imposed on it by the statute or ordinance that granted it authority and any decision beyond those limits is invalid. C. An error of law A decision may be appealed if it was based on an erroneous interpretation of statutes, ordinances, or regulations, or if it was based on the wrong statutes, ordinances, or regulations. D Fraud or bad faith Fraud, malice or bad faith can invalidate an official decision, whether they have influenced the context of the decision or the manner in which it was reached. E. Lack of evidence A zoning decision that lacks any reasonable basis in fact is invalid. Decisions based on arbitrary judgment calls should be reversed. If the Board finds, however, that there is sufficient evidence to support the decision, it should be upheld. 05/24/05 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 5 Chair Schannep opened the floor for public comment and reiterated to Bill Adler that he was still under oath. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, addressed a portion of the sentence of the Appeals section which read, "is based upon the Board of Adjustment's determination as to the correctness of the interpretation.". He explained that this was not a determination to the administrator's interpretation but, a determination of the correctness of the interpretation for the Board to decide and arrive at an interpretation that was correct, given the circumstances. In addition, he explained that there were no "legal standards" and felt the "legal standards" did not provide guidance. Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney clarified that"legal standards"does apply to a reversal of an appeal but did not necessarily apply if the Board thinks the interpretation was bad or wrong. Chair Schannep closed the public hearing. MOTION: Member Adamson recommended that Section 3.6.2 Appeals be rewritten to read as follows, "A decision on an appeal of an administrative decision (Zoning Code Sec. 1-702.A and Sec. 1-706) is based upon the Board of Adjustment's determination, as to the correctness of the interpretation. The following standards provide guidance to the Board in their deliberation and to reverse and or amend a decision." Motion seconded by Member Hickey. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Joe Andrews suggested adding an"Item F"which would read as follows, "The Board shall make its interpretation at the end of its deliberations." Chair Schannep agreed. Motion carried, 4-0. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE No report. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Member Hickey to adjourn the meeting at 4:34 p.m. Member Kessler seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0 Respectfully submitted, / (-/ Linda Hersha, Office Specialist