Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 4/27/2004 MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION APRIL 27, 2004 ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER at or after 3:03 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Cindy Lewis, Chair Greg Marlar, Vice Chair Colleen Kessler, Member Bart Schannep, Member Bill Adler, Member MINUTES MOTION: A motion was made by Member Kessler to approve the Minutes of January 27, 2004 with the corrections noted. Member Schannep seconded the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NO. OV10-04-02 CARL EWING, REPRESENTING ALLIED HOMES, 1741 N. 6TH AVENUE,TUCSON,AZ 85705, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 18' TO 28'. SUBJECT PROPERTY (PARCEL #224-34-072A) ORO VALLEY ESTATES LOT 72,AT 625 W. ATUA PLACE, ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737 Chair Lewis swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Carl Ewing, explained that Lot 235 was steep and narrow and without a variance, it was doubtful that a home of this size could remain compatible with the neighborhood,therefore,he asked that the grading be increased from 18 feet to 27 feet, 6 inches at the maximum point of measurement. In answer to a question from Member Adler, Carl Ewing explained that the design was based upon what the company felt would be a marketable product that would fulfill the needs of any future owner. He explained that he was unaware of any grading exceptions request and believes it would not be necessary. Member Schannep pointed out that the home seemed to be larger than most of the 4000 feet homes that were situated in the neighborhood. He asked if the proposed home would be the largest home in the neighborhood. Mr. Ewing replied, "I don't think so." Member Kessler stated that there seemed to be some discrepancy between the height listed in the application and the information shown in Mr. Ewing's letter dated February 25, 2004. Mr. Ewing used the overhead projector to review the home's proposed height and positioning. 04/27/04 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 2 Regular Meeting Member Marlar asked if the company had concerns about the lot's shape and size prior to the purchase of Lot 235. Mr. Ewing stated that usually there was a solution but in this case some of the regulations began to cause design considerations that were not easily resolved. Patty Hayes, Zoning Inspector, read the staff report into the record. She reported that the subject property was currently undeveloped and that the applicant was proposing to build a 6238 square foot, two-story, single-family resident. The proposed home would increase the allowed building height from 18 feet to 28 feet from the existing grade. Staff finding of facts: • The eastern elevation is primarily one-story at 16 feet in height. • The north elevation is the two-story portion of the house at 28 feet in height. The permitted height with the proposed 2 feet cut would be 20 feet. • The west elevation is 26 feet in height at the northwestern portion. The permitted height with the proposed 2 feet cut would be 20 feet. • The southern elevation is 16 feet in height using an 8 foot shielded cut. • Houses to the north, south and east are one-story homes. Houses to the west and southwest are 1 and a half and 2 story houses. • The topography of this lot slopes 42 feet from a high elevation of 2582 feet to an elevation of 2540 feet. • The applicant has placed poles as height markers on the property. Members are encouraged to visit the site. • No other height variances have been granted in this subdivision. Member Marlar pointed out that the report did reflect there had been no other height variances granted in the Oro Valley Estates subdivision. He asked if there had ever been any applications submitted in the past from homeowners in the neighborhood. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector,reported there had not. In answer to a question from Member Adler,Patty Hayes explained that the home would be of adequate size in comparison to the larger homes in the neighborhood. Member Adler stated that it was difficult to determine whether or not to bend the Zoning Code to allow the proposed home to be constructed versus other designs or alternatives. He stated that staff has indicated a point-of-view that there was some question as to whether another approach could result in a home of"adequate size". He explained that he did not know how to interpret what"adequate size"meant since the Board did not have information pertaining to other homes in the area to compare sizes. Ms. Widero reported that several homeowners in the neighborhood were remodeling and expanding to create larger homes in comparison to today's standards and that was where the term "adequate size" originated. 04/27/04 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 3 Regular Meeting Member Adler stated that the Board's decision needed to be based upon the proposed home design for the lot, and whether the Zoning Code should be bent in order to accommodate the design. Chair Lewis opened the public hearing and swore in the witnesses that were intending to testify. Anthony Zizzi, 635 West Atua Place, stated that he had concerns with the drainage flowing from the proposed home onto his property. He felt that the drainage would cause erosion and depreciate his property. He stated that he would like to see a certified document from an engineer that guaranteed his home would not be affected by the proposed structure. He added that the new home would not only obstruct his views of Pusch Ridge but his privacy as well. He explained that the greatest asset of his lot was the views and the privacy. He stated that the average home in the area was less than 3000 feet and he was very offended by the architect's attempt to place such a large home on a small lot. Charla Mc Cord, 475 West Golf View Drive, representing the Architectural Review Committee, explained that the committee had approved the height of the home and agreed that the lot was difficult to build upon. She reported that most of the homes in the neighborhood appeared to be two-story homes. She stated it would be a reasonable solution to grant the height variance; however, the committee had not approved the look of the home. She reported the Anthony Zizzi did own the property that would be most affected by the new home. Mr. Ewing stated that if there was anything the company could do to make the home more pleasing it would be done. He explained that a one-story home was considered but would not solve the obstruction of Mr. Zizzi's views because the home would be wider and higher. He reported that he would be working with the Architectural Review Committee to develop an acceptable design and would take the necessary steps to accomplish the goals that the committee set forth. Member Adler stated that it was the Board's responsibility to protect the integrity of the Zoning Code; other solutions for different designs or sizes were not the Board's concern. Mr. Ewing stated that he understood but was confused by the height restrictions because there were homes in the neighborhood that were higher than the regulated height limit. In answer to a question from Chair Lewis, Mr. Ewing explained that the home could not be placed deeper underground because of aesthetic, structural, economic and planning reasons. Chair Lewis closed the public hearing. Member Adler explained that the design of the home was too aggressive for the available space. He stated that the Zoning Code should not be bent to enhance an investment and for that reason alone, he would not vote in support of the request. Also, he felt that the proposal did not meet all of the legal standards. MOTION: Member Adler moved to deny OV 10-04-02 for the reasons stated above. Member Schannep seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE 04/27/04 Minutes,Board of Adjustment 4 Regular Meeting Chair Lewis—Aye Vice Chair Marlar—Aye Member Kessler- Aye Member Schannep - Aye Member Adler- Aye MOTION carried, 5-0. 2. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES AND PROCEDURES Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator, reviewed the Board of Adjustment Rules and Procedures. He reported that several of the boards and commissions have submitted their rules and procedures to the Town Council which have been approved. He explained that staff has taken the rules and procedures created and adopted by the Board in May of 2001 and incorporated those into a standard format that was being used by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Development Review Board. He stated that he was not expecting any action, only to get direction, comments and a decision to move forward in order to get the document approved by Council. Member Adler stated that there were significant additions that were required as a result of the Gillaspie appeal. He stated that the issue of"standing"needs to become a rule of protocol and procedure. The legal standards and basis for determining an appeal and evaluation standings need to become a part of the document. He suggested that this item be continued until after the new members are appointed in June. He added that in the meantime,he would submit his comments to staff and the members of the Board. Member Schannep suggested that this item be tabled for discussion until all Board members had a chance to submit any additional suggestions to the Board of Adjustment Rules and Procedures manual. MOTION: Member Schannep moved to table this item to the next regular meeting. Member Kessler seconded the motion. Discussion: Member Adler stated that he would prefer that this item be tabled to a later date until the new members of the Board are seated and can participate and understand the rules and then make the necessary changes. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Member Adler moved to table this item to the first scheduled meeting when all of the new Board members are seated. Member Kessler seconded the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. 3. REVIEW OF ROTATING CHAIR POLICY AND PROPOSAL TO HOLD A ONE YEAR POSITION Chair Lewis stated that she felt strongly that the rotating chair policy made the Board look unprofessional and was an absolute detriment to what the Board does. She explained that it was chaotic for staff to determine the chair for each month and it seemed to bring no stability or consistency. She stated that the Board needed to return to the 1 year term for chair and vice 04/27/04 Minutes,Board of Adjustment 5 Regular Meeting chair, therefore, she would like some discussion for negating or overturning the rotating chair policy. Member Schannep felt that they had done a good job so far and that the rotating chair brought a fresh attitude and angle to the Board because it gave each member an opportunity to be in charge. Member Kessler stated that being assigned as chair in the rotation was a good learning experience. Member Adler explained that the motion was made for a 1 year on a trial basis and believed it was due to expire in June 2004. He explained that there would be 2 new members who would have input and may want to have the rotation remain in place. He said that he made the motion because it should be a part of the volunteer experience. No action was necessary for this item. 4. DISCUSSION OF APPLICANT STANDING, WHAT IT MEANS; HOW TO APPLY IT Member Adler stated that he could not find anywhere in the Town Code or State Law where "evaluating standing" of an applicant to file an appeal was a part of the Board of Adjustment duties, yet the Board took the responsibility in the Gillaspie case. He asked that the Town Attorney give the Board a set way in which to proceed in an appeal case in the future. He requested that the procedure become a part of the protocol of rules and procedures so that the Board has criteria to evaluate a case and so there was no misunderstanding with the applicant. He explained that the applicant in the last appeal case was taken by surprise by this question and was not prepared. He suggested that the procedures be included in the Zoning Code and the Board of Adjustment Rules and Procedures. Mark Langlitz, explained that the term "standing" is a legal principle which addresses the ability of a person to seek redress of an alleged wrong. He explained that the language in the Zoning Code in using the term "aggrieved person" contains all of the criteria that was necessary. He believed it was not warranted for the Board of Adjustment to develop it own definition of an aggrieved person because it was decided as a matter of law in the courts. He reiterated that every applicant should understand that they are held to a standard of knowledge of the law. He added no board, commission or council member of the Town can adequately beforehand advise nor was it proper for a member to advise an applicant about what their legal rights are and how they should present their case. He explained that a person aggrieved was the same as those who are considered to be specifically damaged. Member Adler suggested that the applicant needed to be alerted in the application regarding the filing of an appeal and aware that they would be required to justify their standing and be prepared to do a responsible job of making their position clear. Mr. Langlitz explained that the applicant does get a copy of the procedures. Mr. Nodine agreed. The following issues and suggestions were discussed: 04/27/04 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 6 Regular Meeting • Wordings of the standards specify that a person must give a demonstration of how they are aggrieved. • How State Law dictates an aggrieved cases. • The efficiency of the Town notification requirements. • The variations of an applicant being"aggrieved" or"not aggrieved". • Is the applicant getting enough direction to understand what their responsibilities are when presenting an appeal case? • Add to the application direction to the applicant are requiring justification or explanation of their standing. • When should a case be heard? In answer to a question from Member Adler, Mr. Langlitz explained that when an application of appeal is submitted the Board relies on the opinion of the attorney to advise them on what the legal standards are at that particular point in time to determine whether the applicant has standing or not. He further explained that this information could be provided to the Board in an executive session. He suggested that the application could include a simple statement that read, "show how you have been aggrieved by the decision you are appealing". Member Kessler stated that it was clear that the application was geared towards variances and not appeal. She felt that it would be the fair thing to do to incorporate some language into the application. No action taken on this item. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE Member Schannep reported that he attended a Joint Boards & Commission Workshop and said that the seminar was very informative. Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator gave a brief overview of the following upcoming projects: • Eckerds has not submitted a revised development plan or improvement plan to date. • Staff will begin reviewing all boards and commissions applications in May and will push to get the appointment process rolling. • The General Plan will go before Council in June with specific recommendations in areas that need to be changed. • There are several General Plan amendments that will be heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission next week. • The May 19th Town Council meeting will review the Development Plan for Steam Pump Village and the 17 acre property located behind Target shopping center and Oracle Crossing south of Magee Road. He explained that these were major commercial properties to be considered by Town Council. • A full update of the Commercial Code will be submitted to Town Council in early June. 04/27/04 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 7 Regular Meeting ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Vice Mayor Marlar moved to ADJOURN the meeting at 4:46 p.m. Member Adler SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. Respectfully submitted, af-/O,‘ Linda Hersha, Secretary II