Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 4/26/2005 MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION APRIL 26, 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: 3:01 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENTS: Colleen Kessler, Chair Bart Schannep, Vice Chair John Hickey,Member Matt Adamson, Member Chair Kessler announced that Member Adler had resigned to pursue another Commission position. On behalf of the Board of Adjustment members, she thanked Mr. Adler for his years of hard work and dedication to the Board. MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of February 22, 2005 MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of April 5, 2005 MOTION: Member Adamson moved to approve the minutes of February 22, 2005. The motion was seconded by Member Hickey. Motion carried, 4-0. There being no objections, Chair Kessler postponed the approval of the minutes of April 5, 2005 for further review to the next regular scheduled meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CASE NO. OV10-05-03 DELOY AND DONNA WOLFLEY REQUEST A VARIANCE FROM THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE REQUIREMENTS SECTION 10-105, TABLE 10-101. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND EL CONQUISTADOR WAY, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737 (PARCEL #224-33-131B) Chair Kessler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Carl Kilgore, Project Architect and representative for Deloy &Donna Wolfley explained that the Wolfley's were requesting a variance for relief from the Hillside Development Zone requirements for Section 10-105, including Table 10-101 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised-(OVZCR) for a 2.58 acre parcel. In answer to a question from Vice Chair Schannep, Mr. Kilgore explained that there were no illustrations done to show how the hill would appear after the grading was complete because the company felt it would not be beneficial or necessary. The following issues were addressed: 04/26/05 MINUTES 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • How far would the grading extend? • The proposed footage for the building. • The above-ground parking area and the setbacks located at the western portion of the site. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector, reported that the applicants were requesting a variance for relief from the Hillside Development Zone requirements. She explained that the purpose of the Hillside Development Zone is to provide reasonable use of the hillside areas, while reducing erosion and preserving scenic quality through innovative soil design, minimized grading and renegotiation of disturbed areas. She explained that due to the average cross slope of 21.7%, the Code currently allows 17% disturbance to this site. The applicants are requesting 100% disturbance, in order to develop an office complex. Staff finding of facts: • The average cross slope used in Table 10-101, from the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR)was increased on this site due to the cuts and fills for the construction of El Conquistador Way and for the drainage channel used to divert water away from homes. This is evident in the attached sloped areas map. • Other R-6 zoned properties, for instance the Villas, Boulders and Rock Ridge Apartments, have all disturbed and graded 80 to 100% of property for use. The apartments just to the south are an example of a low amount of grading on an R-6 site. • If the variance is not granted, it is likely that the western portion of the site, closest to the townhomes, would be fully developed. The variance,while increasing the overall development, provides an opportunity to reduce the intensity of development on the west side of the drainage. • The applicant could comply with the Hillside Development Zone by placing the entire project on the allowed 17% of parcel. That would allow a 5,000 to 10,000 square foot building as well as parking on the western portion of the property. Typical R-6 zoning would allow a 22,000 square foot building pad. • The granting of this variance would not allow exceptions to any other provisions of the Zoning Code. For instance, cuts and fills would be limited to 6 feet and 35% of the site would need to be open space. In answer to a question from Vice Chair Schannep, Development Review Division Manager Craig Civalier, explained that staff was confident that an adequate drainage design could be created for the site. Chair Kessler opened the public hearing and swore in the witnesses that were intending to testify. Doris Robmette, 296 East Southern Pines Drive, was opposed to the request because it would allow 100% grading on the property and she felt that the commercial use issues had not been addressed. She that said the proposal would only benefit the developer and not the surrounding area. Harold Kandetzke, 10130 North Sawgrass Drive, was opposed to the request because it would only benefit the applicant. 04/26/05 MINUTES 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, stated that approval for the relief from the Hillside Ordinance so that an applicant is allowed to build was not a substantial property right and not justifiable. He felt there were other alternatives. that he felt the property was beingpenalized by not allowing the area to be Mr. Kilgore stated p p y developed to reach its full potential. Chair Kessler closed the public hearing. MOTION: Vice Chair Schannep moved to DENY Case No. OV 10-05-03, request for variance at this time. Member Hickey seconded the motion. Discussion: Vice Chair Schannep explained that the hill did serve a purpose to reduce erosion andp reserve scenic quality. To dramatically alter the area would be for no other purpose than economic gain. Member Hickey stated that the Board was required to adhere to the 5 criteria only and were prohibited to consider economic gain. He stated that he did not believe all 5 Criteria were o met. He stated that asking for 100% grading was excessive and identified Criteria Items "D" and"E" as not being sufficiently met; therefore, he was in favor of denial of the request. Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator pointed out that there were some slopes on the site that had been manufactured by development. Chair Kessler stated the Hillside Development Zone was very clear with the development criteria and does address the non-residential development, but she would not feel comfortable agreeing to 100% development of the parcel, specifically because it did not meet the criteria g g that the Board was obligated to follow. Member Adamson agreed. ROLL CALL VOTE Chair Kessler— aye Vice Chair Schannep—aye Member Hickey—aye Member Adamson— aye MOTION carried to deny Case No.V10-05-03, 4-0. 2. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES AND OPERATING PROCEDURES Discussion and possible action on the Rules and Operating Procedures The Board addressed some of the concerns discussed at the Joint Study Session with Town Council on April 13, 2005. The following sections were identified and reviewed: Section 2.3 a. Poor citizenship - suggested wording: "poor citizenship consisting of public display 04/26/05 MINUTES 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT considered as either immoral or illegal by which association with by inclusion in this Board that would be considered an embarrassment or otherwise cheapen the Board integrity". Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney suggested removing "poor citizenship"to "moral turpitude". Chair Kessler suggested using"moral turpitude or unruly behavior". The Board agreed. Section 2.3 Recommendation for Removal for Office Item 2- recommended wording—"the chair may initiate a recommendation to the Board for the removal of a member for the following reasons." Item C - recommended wording—"The above does not affect that,per Section 1-704.D of the Zoning Code, the Town Council may remove a member from office, by a majority vote." Section 3.5 — Site Inspections No changes. Section 3.6 - Quorum and Voting Recommended wording—A quorum is required to transact business. Section 3.6.1 —Reconsiderations Change wording to read ", or at the beginning of the next regularly scheduled meeting." Section 3.6.2 —Appeals Staff will work on this section and bring recommendations back to Board. Section 3.7 —Placement of items on the Agenda Take out the words "or more" for the amount of members that are allowed to place items on the agenda. The sentence will read, "Items may also be placed on the agenda by the Chair or by two Board members." Section 4.2 - Standing for Appeals of Decisions or Interpretations No Changes. Section 4.3 —Ex Parte Contacts Take out the word "reasonably" and add the word"may" so that the sentence reads "the Board that may prejudice a decision by the Board." Desirable Attributes of Board of Adjustment Members Change wording to read "A commitment to work for the improvement of the Zoning Code and the Town of Oro Valley." Board of Adjustment Evaluation Procedure Add wording that would allow the member that is being evaluated to meet with the existing Chair to discuss and review their evaluation. 04/26/05 MINUTES 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Joe Andrews stated that staff would work on a provision for the evaluation procedures so that there would be no blindsiding of a member. He added that this document would also address some of the other concerns the Council and Board might have. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE No update. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Member Hickey to adjourn the meeting at 4:25 p.m. Member Adamson seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. Respectfully submitted, I , iT ind Hersha, Office Specialist