Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 12/17/2002 MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE DECEMBER 17, 2002 CALL TO ORDER: 3:05 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Cindy Lewis, Chairman (excused) Bill Adler, Vice Chairman Lyra Done, Member Bart Schannep,Member Colleen Kessler, Member STAFF PRESENT: Bryant Nodine,Planning and Zoning Administrator Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Linda Hersha, Secretary II Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Debbie Moran, Development Tech II MINUTES MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler moved to APPROVE the Study and Training Session meeting minutes of September 5, 2002 and Special Session Meeting minutes of September 24, 2002 with the corrections noted. Motion SECONDED by Member Done. Motion carried, 4-0. 1. Case No. OV10-02-04 Sombra Homes Inc., 11115 North La Canada Drive, Oro Valley,Arizona 85737 , requests a variance to reduce the required front yard setback for Pusch Ridge Vistas subdivision, Lot 26. Subject property: 11038 North Pusch Ridge Vistas Drive, Oro Valley,Arizona 85737 Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Mike Mague, 10971 East Fourwing Place,representing Sombra Homes, explained that the company was developing a 31 lot gated community south of Naranj a Drive knows as Pusch Ridge Vistas. He requested that the home layout on Lot 26 be moved forward 20 feet to increase the size of the backyard. He further explained that the current layout setback requirements only allow for a backyard that is at minimum of 2 feet wide at the north end. He pointed out that the fire truck turnaround could be moved, but that this would be a very extensive and delaying process to the project. Vice Chairman Adler asked the applicant if he would like to address the 5 standards. 12/17/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 2 The 5 Criteria were addressed as follows: a. 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? Mr. Mague explained that the fire truck turnaround is the special requirement that has been integrated into the northwest corner of Lot 26. He explained that due to the current layout of the home, the fire truck turnaround greatly reduces the size of the backyard. b. Are there special circumstances that exist that was not self imposed or created by the owner or applicant? Mr. Mague stated that the circumstances were not created by the owner but that there was a mandated fire truck turnaround created in the approved site plan which has affected the site plan. c. Is the authorizing of the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights? Mr. Mague stated that the backyard of Lot 26 sits within 26 feet of the rear property line, therefore did not meet the 40 feet criteria for setbacks. d. If granted, will the variance impose such condition 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? Mr. Mague explained that this variance would not constitute a granting of special privileges. He explained that the turnaround actually protrudes off the edge of the street. He explained that if the variance was granted, the home would actually sit 15 feet further back from the road. e. 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 or surrounding properties. Mr. Mague explained that with the approval of the variance the change would enhance the value of the properties located in the immediate area. Member Schannep asked if the home could be tilted or rotated slightly to bring the home in compliance with the Zoning Code setback regulation. Mr. Mague replied, "no". 12/17/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 3 In answer to a question from Member Schannep, Mike Mague explained that he was not sure when the plot map was approved, but thought that the fire truck turnaround was created before the approval of the plot plan. Member Kessler inquired if there were other model homes that would fit properly on the lot and if there were other available lots that the buyer could choose from. Mr. Mague stated that model #2290 would fit on the lot and the applicant had been given first choice but has favored Lot 26. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector reviewed the staff report. She reported the Sombra Homes, Inc.,was requesting to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 17.79 feet at the northwest corner of the proposed home. She explained that due to the shape and the fact that the street allows for a fire truck turnaround,which affects the northwest corner of Lot 26,the proposed model#3030/3060 will need a variance approval in order to comply. She reported that Lot 26 consists of 17,180 square feet in total area. In size, it is consistent with the minimum of 16,000 square feet and the average of 17,994 square feet. The north property line depth for this lot is 107.85 feet to 153 feet. The current site plan would need a rear yard variance to reduce the setback from 40 feet 26.7 feet. Staff Finding of Fact: • The shape of Lot 26 at the northeast corner does create a special circumstance or condition for this model. • The applicant or owner did not create the circumstance or condition • There are three approved models for this subdivision; models #2290/2450 would fit without a variance. Vice Chairman Adler pointed out that the staff report reflects the fact that the lot's shape had mandated or somehow has been influenced by the fire truck turnaround configuration. He asked if this issue had been added or if it simply is something other than that which has resulted in the shape of the lot as it now appears? Ms. Widero explained that the shape of lot was due to the fire truck turnaround and the turnaround was in the requirements of the plat plan. She said as an alternative, the applicant could apply for an amendment to relocate the fire truck turnaround. Vice Chairman Adler asked staff if there was a law or regulation that mandates where a turnaround should occur. Craig Civalier, P.E.,Development Review Division Manager, explained that the Fire Code states that there needed to be 600 feet between an intersection and a cul-de-sec. He pointed out that this cul-de-sac was longer than usual. He explained that the Fire Marshall approved the turnaround so that there would not be more than 600 feet from the intersection. He explained that the Fire Marshall can allow a longer cul-de-sac street, as long as a turnaround such as this is in place. 12/17/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 4 Vice Chairman Adler asked if staff had looked at relocating the turnaround so that it would not influence the shape of any lot in the community. Mr. Civalier reported that the turnaround could be moved to the north,but staff would need to review the improvement plans and paving and grading plans to see if it was possible to move the turnaround. He further explained that it would also be necessary to do a plan amendment as it relates to the boundary change of the lot. In answer to a question from Vice Chairman Adler,Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator, explained that staff does look at a"lot" and "property" as being synonymous. Although there are instances where a property may become a series of lots especially when reviewing a subdivision, there are opportunities to shift lots within the subdivision. He explained that in this case, the application was for Lot 26 only and has been handled as the subject property for this variance. Vice Chairman Adler asked that, in staffs opinion, was it the intent of the law to refer to the property and the topographical or surface requirements or circumstances relating to the overall property that the Board needed to be addressing; or was it circumstances that relate to an individual lot within a piece of property. Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney, explained that the perimeters would basically depend on what the application was for. Vice Chairman Adler pointed out that it made a difference as to whether the Board was reviewing a large amount of property which would include multiple lots and the conditions of the overall scope of the property were unique; or whether the conditions on a property are not necessarily unique but if the conditions on an individual lot are unique. He stated that there was an important distinction and the Board needed to understand how the law was intended to apply. Member Done explained that time is always of the essence with people. She asked how long it would take to move the fire truck turnaround into an area that would not affect the community. Mr. Nodine and Mr. Civalier agreed that it would take approximately 6 weeks to 2 months to review and revise any revisions made for the fire truck turnaround. Mr. Mague reiterated that the problem was discovered after the lot had been sold and when the plat plans were submitted for the permits to build the home. He explained that during the permit application process, Sombra Homes was told that the plat plan would not work because of the setback violation; therefore, submitted the necessary paper work in November 2002 for a variance. MOTION: Member Done moved that the Board obtain the additional information that has been requested of staff to find out if it is possible to move the fire truck turnaround slightly further north; and to continue this item to the January meeting in order to allow 12/17/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 5 staff to provide additional information regarding the location of the turnaround. Member Kessler seconded the motion. Discussion: Member Schannep stated that if this item was postponed for staff review another month,the seller and the buyer of the property would be placed at a distinct disadvantage. He explained that he would be against the postponement primarily because in viewing the property and plat map,he felt that the fire truck turnaround location was positioned in its current location by the Fire Marshall for a reason; therefore, it would be unfair to push this issue. Vice Chairman Adler explained that the special circumstances applying to the property have really been created by the size of the home and not the shape or nature of the property; therefore, a variance should not be granted. However, he explained that since the applicant seems to have no objections to the delay in order to see if there was another location for the turnaround that would not negatively affect other lots and to allow Lot 26 to go forward without requiring a variance, that he would support the motion. Motion to continue Item 1 to the January meeting carried, 3-1,Member Schannep opposed. 2. CASE No. OV10-02-05 Ansewlmo Alleva,345 East Toole Avenue, Suite 202, Tucson,Arizona 85701,Representing Paul and Kerry Salazar, 10630 North Camino Rosas Nuevas, Oro Valley,Arizona 85737, request a variance to increase the allowed building height of 18 feet to 24 feet. Subject property: Sunnyslope Estate Subdivision,Lot 31 (225-14-1580), 8730 North Glenhurst Place, Oro Valley,Arizona 85704 Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness intending to testify. Anselmo Alleva, 345 East Tools, #202, representative for the Salazar's,requested that a height limit of 18 feet to be increased to 24 feet which would also require a fill of 9 feet. He explained that the existing topography of the land does not allow a residence to be built under the current Town Zoning Code requirements. He explained that the surrounding properties also have very steep slopes and have been allowed to build beyond the 18 feet and 0 inch limit. Member Done had concern with the fact that, after reviewing the topography map, the hill was so severe in height that it would be much higher than the roof line of the home. Mr. Alleva agreed and gave an overview of the site using a diagram depicting the grading, fills and cuts surrounding the site which would be required to construct the home. He pointed out that the home would be a 1-story home. Vice Chairman Adler stated that a request from the Town for a grading variance probably was likely. Mr. Alleva agreed. 12/17/02 Minutes,Board of Adjustment 6 Vice Chairman Adler asked the applicant to restate his need for the height variance. Mr. Alleva explained that if the height variance was granted it would give the company the option to build a lower level garage if necessary. Mr. Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator, interjected that the height was measured from the existing grading. He explained that much of where there is cut, would meet the height restrictions,but where it starts to go into fill was where the particular problems would start to occur. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector,reviewed the staff report. She reported that the applicant was requesting to increase the allowed building height from 18 feet in height to 24 feet in height due to existing topography and the steep slope of the site. She reported that at the time of the staff report preparation, staff had not received any public comment in support of or in opposition to the request. However, she did receive a phone call a few days ago from Mary Nelson who was in favor of the home being built. Ms. Widero reported that the subject property consists of 33,741.6 square feet of area, slightly under an acre. She explained that due to the slope of the land the applicant is proposing to increase the building height from the required 18 feet in height to 24 feet. She explained that the height of a structure was measured from natural grade and due to cut and fill limitations, the option to terrace was a possibility,but would need a height variance to meet the grading ordinance Section 15-401.A. She explained that any exceptions to the grading ordinance would need approval from the Development Review Board. Staff Finding of Facts: • The severe slop of lot 31 does create a special circumstance of condition for this site. • The applicant or owner did not create the circumstance or condition. • Three variance cases have been included with this packet as an aide and reference to any special privileges that may have been granted. • The applicant originally submitted a two story plan that was denied due to height requirements. The plan included with this packet is rough and will require additional consideration from the architect, staff,Board of Adjustment members and possibly the Development Review Board. Vice Chairman Alder inquired that in view of the fact that other Boards of Adjustment in the past have granted variance to height for other properties in the immediate area, if this would create a situation where, if this request were to be denied,would the Board be creating a special privilege for the other properties. Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney, stated that this would not be a special privilege from his interpretation of the code or the law. Vice Chairman Adler opened the public hearing. 12/17/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 7 Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Mary Nelson, 8740 North Glenhurst Place, stated that she was present to support Paul and Kerry Salazar building their home on the site. Vice Chairman Adler closed the public hearing. In answer to a question from Member Done, Dee Widero explained that if the variance were granted the 24 feet height increase, there would be no need for the applicant to come back before the Board of Adjustment; however, the applicant would need to go back before the Development Review Board. Vice Chairman Adler asked that if the Board made a motion to approve the variance could it be conditioned upon approval of a grading exception. Mr. Andrews explained that there would be no problem if the Board were to place conditions to the variance,based upon grading if it was determined to be necessary. Mr. Civalier reiterated that staff would like to give the applicant the opportunity to work with staff if the variance was granted to see if it was possible to utilize the maximum fill under Code before it were to go before the Development Review Board. He expressed concern with the cutting and grading exceptions and explained that he would not want to see this variance tied to a grading exception because there were other alternatives. Vice Chairman Adler stated that he shared Member Done concerns as to how construction in this particular area has been approved and as far as he was concerned, thought that previous Boards had errored in making variance exceptions. He felt that this was a detriment. He explained that to authorize a variance,particularly in height, that the Board was increasing the mass and the bulk of construction that is clearly visible from the Oracle Road area which he considered to be a scenic corridor. He said that some mistakes have been made in the past in allowing over-designed buildings to be constructed in the foothills which are clearly a detriment, in his view, to the community at large, in terms of the scenic amenities and the visual amenities as people entered into and out of Oro Valley. MOTION: Member Schannep moved to APPROVE OV 10-02-05 as submitted by the applicant and that the approval of the request be conditioned upon the approval of a grading exception should that grading exception deemed to be necessary. Member Done SECONDED the motion. Motion to approve the variance carried, 3-1, Vice Chairman Adler opposed. 3. Discussion regarding the Evaluation Process presented by Member Done and Member Schannep 12/17/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 8 Member Done reported that she and Member Schannep had met to examine a variety of Board procedures that involved the evaluation process. They found that after reviewing various Boards in Oro Valley and the surrounding area that it was their consensus that the Board of Adjustment should specifically have some rules for the Board as far as the removal of an individual from the Board. She stated that these rules should be kept very simple and submitted the following recommendation for review: Board of Adjustment Meeting December 17, 2002 Policy to Remove a Member For Cause From the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment: The following suggestion is being brought forth by Member Bart Schannep and Member Lyra Done. Should a member miss or be neglectful in preparedness for/at two consecutive meetings, or three in one year, the chairperson, at their discretion, may call for the revocation of the appointment of said individual. A notification request will be submitted to the Town Council. Vice Chairman Adler stated that he would be opposed to the chairperson having unilateral authority to recommend to the Town Council that someone is removed based upon their judgment that a person has been poorly prepared. Member Done asked if the Vice Chairman was advocating to use the wording"Board of Adjustment, at their discretion, may call for the revocation of the appointment of said individual." Vice Chairman Adler explained that the problem was that this would be related to the evaluation process which was not on the agenda. He stated that it would be almost impossible to determine whether someone is serving adequately or in a well prepared fashion without evaluating what is required in order to be serving properly or inadequately. He explained that for starters, the Board needs to try and establish some guidelines or standards in order for the Board to reach some consensus to determine whether a person is performing adequately. He explained that one of the obvious criteria would be whether they are in fact using the 5 legal standards in their reason for voting in favor or not in favor of any given case. He felt that this would be an objective standard and not a subjective standard to determine whether a member is consistently well prepared. Member Done reiterated that after reviewing the various board's rules that in most cases the removal of an individual involved the member missing too many meetings. Vice Chairman Adler explained that the problem the Board had was creating the standards by which people are going to be judged as to performance such as how well prepared they are and how attentive they are as well as attendance. 12/17/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 9 There following topics of concern were discussed: • How a person is elected to serve on the Board. • How an application is handled if they are not appointed to the Board. • The Board should stay focused on someone who is not performing or is performing poorly. • How an applicant is appointed and evaluated. • If a member understands the legal standards and their use of the legal standards are consistent. Vice Chair Adler explained that it would be considered a lack in performance if a member were to be disrespectful to an applicant or who speaks disdainfully or derogatorily towards an applicant or towards a member of the public and belittled staff' opinion or belittles the opinion of a member of the Board. He explained that it was possible to develop 3 or 4 criteria and that these conditions could be used as a bench mark to judge whether someone is performing up to the Board's standards. He suggested Member Done and Member Schannep spend a week or so reviewing these suggestions. He also suggested that this issue be continued to the January meeting as well, so that the Board could have the ability to vote on this issue at that time. Vice Chairman Adler pointed out that Resolution No. (R)02-107 had been included in the Board's December 17, 2002 packet which pertained to the appointment of volunteers. However,he explained that this was not on the agenda for discussion. He explained that this Resolution contained an evaluation process that had been adopted by the Town Council and read the following: Evaluation Process: Chair or Vice-Chair, depending on whose term is set to expire, shall submit to the Council Liaison a one(1)page evaluation of a volunteer's performance during their term at least sixty(60) days prior to the expiration of the volunteer's term. He explained that he assumes that,by this resolution the Council is allowing each advisory board and Board of Adjustment to develop its own definition which would be presented to the Council for acceptance. He explained that at a future meeting,the Board will need to develop a more specific definition for a criteria relating to what the resolution has identified. Vice Chairman Adler gave a brief recap of issues to be discussed at the next upcoming meeting which include the reconsideration process as well as the Board's volunteer and evaluation process. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator had no report. Vice Chairman Adler announced that the Town Council was conducting public meetings regarding the General Plan. He explained that for the record, he did make an effort to add a policy to the General Plan and had the Board of Adjustment in mind when he made the suggestion. He read the following recommendation: "The Town shall avoid planned area developments which use customized zoning which can result in deviations from 12/17/02 Minutes,Board of Adjustment 10 development standard such as height, setback, grading and density,which may impact visual resources negatively." He explained that this was his suggestion as far as the General Plan was concerned to get this as a matter of policy that the Town would look carefully at planned area developments that included deviation from the Town Zoning Code as a matter of policy. He stated that the General Plan was worth reading and encouraged all Board members to attend the January 6th, 2003 meeting. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler moved to ADJOURN the meeting at 4:35 p.m. Member Done SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. Resp,-ctfully submitted, f � Ti •_ r /. Line a Hersha, Secretary II