Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 8/28/2001 MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 28, 2001 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Henry Suozzi, Chairman Bill Adler, Vice Chairman Lyra Done, Member Jim Swan, Member Cindy Lewis, Member STAFF PRESENT: Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan Dudley, Town Attorney Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Debbie Moran, Zoning Tech Linda Hersha, Secretary II MINUTES MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler moved to APPROVE the regular session minutes of July 24, 2001 with the corrections noted. Member Lewis SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. 1. CASE NO. OV10-01-08 T J BEDNAR& COMPANY REQUESTS A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK OF 20 FEET 10.5 FEET, IN AN R1-7 ZONE FOR A MODEL HOME PLAN #1900. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE COPPER RIDGE SUBDIVISION, 1720 WEST PLACE, LOT 80, ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA 85737 Chairman Suozzi swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Ron Petes, President of T J Bednar and Company, reviewed the plot plan and explained that the variance would allow a smaller home to be constructed on Lot 80. Vice Chairman Adler pointed out that the applicant had not addressed the 5 criteria in the application and asked him if he would like to do so at this time. Mr. Petes addressed the 5 Criteria: (A) "The special circumstances or conditions."He explained that the company had reviewed several alternatives in an attempt to create a home that would fit within the confines of the actual building blueprint. He explained that as a result the company decided that a smaller home would be the most suitable for the community. (B) "The special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant." He explained that T J Bednar had acquired the property from someone else leaving the plotting and engineering of the property already in place. (C) "The authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights."He explained that a smaller home would be detrimental to the community. 08/28/01 MINUTES 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION (D) "Any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that 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." He explained that this would not be a granting of special privileges because there would be a sufficient amount of space between the new home and the neighboring homes. (E) "That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general." He stated that it would not be materially detrimental to the residents in the surrounding area because the proposed home would be consistent with the existing homes in the area. Vice Chairman Adler pointed out that in August of 1999, T J Bednar and Company had submitted model home plans to the Development Review Board (DRB) for approval. He asked if it would not be the responsibility of the applicant to assure the Town that the models that were proposed would fit at least one of the lots. He stated that even if the property was originally purchased from someone else, and the applicant was not responsible for the engineering, that he believed it would be the applicants' responsibility or obligation to certify that at least one of the models fit on any one of the lots. Mr. Petes replied, "with 20/20 hindsight I will admit that you are correct that we should have probably done that at the time. However, we're asking now if it would be possible to extend the 9 1/2 feet and get finished with this community." Chairman Suozzi inquired if there had been any consideration to modify the home. Mr. Petes explained that he would not be opposed to making modifications. But, he felt that it would be easier to build the home according to the proposed plan. He said, "it would be difficult to create an entirely new floor plan,but not impossible." Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector, reported that the T J Bednar and Company requests to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 10.5 feet. She said that due tc_-f-" :irregular shape and shallowness of the lot, model #1900 would be the closest fit for Lt` 'but would require a variance approval to be in compliance. She explained that all property owners within 300 feet of the property have been notified of the hearing by mail. She also reported that the property was posted with a notice of the hearing and has been advertised in the Daily Territorial Newspaper. She explained that staff has received two phone calls that were in opposition of the variance request. Ms. Widero explained that Lot 80 consists of 10,354 square feet in total area. She explained that the distance from the front yard setback, to the rear yard setback at one point was only 35 feet in depth. She reported that the applicant has chosen to request a variance rather than construct a custom home due to the wash at the rear of the property. Staff Finding of Facts: • The shape of lot creates special circumstances or conditions. • The applicant or owner did not create the circumstance or condition. • The approved model home is consistent with the other homes being built for the T J Bednar & Company and in Copper Ridge Subdivision. 08/28/01 MINUTES 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION • The authorizing of this variance should not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity. Chairman Suozzi opened the public hearing. Chairman Suozzi swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Coral Stanley, 11,639 North Desert Holly Drive, Lot 60, strongly opposed the construction of the new home because it would obstruct the view of the city from her home. Chairman Suozzi swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Michael Jason Stack, 1730 West Verch Place, Lot 79, opposed the granting of the variance for the following reasons: • The proposed model home does not fit the lot. • The home will be placed very close to the wash creating a safety hazard. • The home would be pushed closer to the road because of the setbacks. • Because of the irregular shape of the lot he was informed that there was not a model home available that would fit the lot. • Concerned that if a wall is constructed on the property the natural vegetation would be compromised. • Granting the variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Chairman Suozzi swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Keith Riner, the resident of 1741 West Verch Place, Lot 82 agreed with Mr. Stack that the home would be an unsuitable addition to the neighborhood. Mr. Petes stated that if the variance were not approved, a home would be designed for the property. Chairman Suozzi closed the public hearing. Chairman Suozzi asked if the Homeowners Association had been involved in any way. Mr. Petes replied, "no." Vice Chairman Adler explained that T J Bednar and Company had created the special circumstances and conditions applying to the property when they submitted the model plans and neglected to be certain that each model would fit on any of the lots. He stated that he believed that this would be the responsibility of the company. He added that 20/20 hindsight was not being applied here, but was simply assigning responsibility to the applicant to come forward and offer models to the Town, which fit. So, recognizing that the special circumstances and conditions applying to the property were not pertinent to the property, but rather to the models that were proposed. He felt that those models were in fact created by the owner, therefore he would move to deny the variance. MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler moved to DENY Case No. OV 10-01-08 for the reasons stated above. Member Lewis SECONDED the motion. 08/28/01 MINUTES 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION ROLL CALL VOTE Chairman Suozzi —aye Vice Chairman Adler—aye Member Lewis— aye Member Done— aye Member Swan—aye Motion carried 5-0 to deny the request for variance for Case No. OV 10-01-08. 2. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FOLLOWING: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PRIMER; CRITERIA VS. STANDARDS; DESIRABLE MOTION Discussion: Mr. Dudley explained that the legal standard for granting a variance included several categories; and to grant a variance in all of its many aspects was mandatory. Therefore, all of the criteria or standards must be met in order to grant a variance. Vice Chairman Adler asked for direction as to how a motion should be phrased. He stated that if the criteria's were the legal standard, it would seem logical that the motion should indicate which of the findings were met and which ones were not met. Mr. Dudley explained that if the court reviews the record as a whole and determines from the record evidence to support what the Board has done, that could be counter productive. He explained that to itemize specific findings, the Board could effectively"hoist themselves upon their own petards." He recommended that the Board reconsider delineating the facts. Vice Chairman Adler explained that as in recent cases where the presentations were lengthy and questions from the applicant might result in a meandering or wandering type of answer. It would be difficult in an appeal for a court to determine the evidence that was actually considered unless when the motion is made and indicates the member's reason why he or she would move to approve or deny the case. He explained that the member really only has to clarify that 1 of the 5 criteria failed to be met. He said that unless instructed by staff, he would continue to be comfortable with explaining to the applicant the rational behind his making of a motion. He added that he was looking for some kind of template for a motion that the Board could conform to that would be consistent from one case to the next. Mr. Dudley strongly recommended that the Board should not delineate any reasons regarding the decision handed down by the Board to the applicant. However, the issues could be discussed during the hearing. He added that the hearing was available on tape for future reference. Vice Chairman Adler asked if the Board felt that it would be important or unimportant that a motion should follow a similar pattern of expression. Chairman Suozzi stated that this issue had been discussed at a previous Special Session. He explained that several Board members had agreed that the decision should remain under the discretion of the individual. He added that some members had agreed that it should not be necessary to state a reason why the member would approve or deny a variance. 08/28/01 MINUTES 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION Vice Chairman Adler explained that the issue was the making of a motion and whether the motion should be made consistent to follow a certain format so that the record is clear. Member Lewis agreed with Chairman Suozzi that the issue was specifically addressed in the Special Session. She explained that the vote was 4-1, that the decision is left up to the individual and would prefer that it remain intact. She also agreed with Legal Counsel that the Board would be in a more suitable position i f a case was appealed and brought before the Superior Court. Member Done explained that staff does submit several sample motions for the Board to consider for each case. Therefore, she felt that there was a template that provided consistency. Member Swan stated that in an attempt to get an understanding between Board members he felt that it would be important to at least give a legitimate reason why he was making a motion. • THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RECEIVES THE PLANNING AND ZONING AND COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Mr. Nodine suggested the following alternative to the Board: 1. Members could assess the web site to obtain the minutes reducing the duplication process. 2. A synopsis is available regarding all meetings that address the motions and the vote. He explained that this information could be e-mailed to the each Board member. 3. The minutes could be mailed out to the members. 4. The minutes could be picked up in the office. 5. Members could attend the Town Council meeting and Planning Zoning meetings. 6. Include the minutes in the staff report. Vice Chairman Adler stated that he would prefer to stay current. He explained that receiving the minutes was a very good way of being well informed. Therefore, he would like to receive the minutes if it didn't create a hardship to the Planning and Zoning department. Member Lewis stated that she would like to receive the synopsis of the meetings by email or mail. Chairman Suozzi stated that he would like to receive the minutes as well, if it was not a burden on the staff. Member Done suggesting emailing the information to those members who had access; and mailing the information to those who did not have internet access. Mr. Nodine informed the Board that the information would be mailed or emailed to each Board member. • THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SHOULD CONSIDER REQUESTING THAT A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BE INCLUDED IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROCESS Discussion: Mr.Nodine reported that the request to consider a member of the Board of Adjustment to be included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process had been submitted to the Council, but that staff did not recommend the request because the CIP was currently a very large committee. He 08/28/01 MINUTES 6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION explained that the CEP currently include members from the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) and the Development Review Board (DRB). He explained that those members were very involved with many different projects in the Town and that the Board of Adjustment was involved with much smaller projects that are usually more site-specific. • THE BOARD SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE ORO VALLEY MERCHANDISE AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE Linda Hersha, Secretary II, reported that in the Standard Operating Procedure Manual (SOP), Policy No. 36 states that the Town of Oro Valley will pay a one-time fee for the purchase of the Town logo. She explained that it would be the responsibility of the individual to purchase the clothing using their personal funds. Chairman Suozzi reminded staff that according to the rules and regulations that it would be helpful if the Board received the packet communication one-week prior to the meeting. He inquired if there had been any progress regarding Vice Chairman Adler and Member Done's term. Mr. Dudley reported that it was his understanding that on September 19th the recommendations would be presented to the Town Council for consideration. He explained that those Board members would continue serving on the Board until their successors are appointed. Chairman Suozzi suggested that the Board be informed well in advance when a member's term is going to expire. Member Swan announced that as of September 30th, he would no longer be available to attend the Board meetings. Chairman Suozzi announced that, on behalf of the Board of Adjustment, he extends his thanks to Member Swan for his dedication and service to the Town. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE None ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Chairman Suozzi moved to ADJOURN the meeting at 4:20 p.m. Member Done SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. Respectfully submitted, 10 • c dc,C() Li da Hersha, Secretary II