Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 7/24/2001 MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 24, 2001 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 3:06 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Henry Suozzi, Chairman (excused) 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: Member Done moved to APPROVE the Special Session minutes of May 22, 2001 as written. Member Swan SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. MOTION: Member Done moved to APPROVE the "Summary of Recommended Rules and Procedures for the Board of Adjustment"with the corrections noted. Member Lewis SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. MOTION: Member Done moved to APPROVE the regular session minutes of May 22, 2001 with the correction noted. Member Swan SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. 1. CASE NO OV10-10-05 MR. STEVEN CONLEY BARLOW REQUESTS A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FROM 5 FEET TO 4 FEET, AND TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 10 FEET BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND MAIN BUILDING. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CANADA RIDGE SUBDIVISION, 11789 NORTH EAGLE CREST DRIVE, LOT 30 ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA 85737 Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Steven Conley Barlow, 11053 North Eagle Crest Drive, explained that the dimensions of the structure would be approximately fourteen feet in length by ten feet in width and ten feet in height. He stated that the sole purpose for the structure would be to provide a usable shaded area for his friends and family to enjoy away from the afternoon and west facing sun. Mr. Barlow explained that the rear portion of the home connects to three properties, which are separated by a common wall. He explained that the difficulties resulting from complying with the zoning requirements was that the width of the yard from the home to the back fence was only 20-feet 07/24/01 Minute, Board of Adjustment 2 Regular Session and 8-inches. He explained that the zoning easement of ten feet lies almost in the center of the yard, prohibiting maximum shade coverage from the southwest afternoon sun. Therefore, he asked that with the Boards approval to impede upon the Zoning Code restrictions by 5-feet. He said that if the variance were approved, the addition would increase the value of the property and substantially reduce cooling costs. Mr. Barlow explained that after collaborating with the adjoining property owners for possible alternatives pertaining to safety, quality and obstruction, the homeowners in the area have agreed to authorize the erection of the shade covering in writing. He explained that other alternatives were examined,but that it was determined that the options were not feasible for the following reasons: • A cover could be attached to the existing home near the easement,but the home would still be exposed to the west facing afternoon sun. • A smaller shade cover would not be practical or cosmetically attractive. • A portable shade cover would not provide the adequate amount of shade for the area,nor would it provide the necessary longevity needed for the improvement. Member Lewis asked if the proposed structure would provide adequate shade for the home. Mr. Barlow replied, "yes." Mr. Barlow gave a brief outline for the proposed covering using the overhead projector. Member Swan asked the applicant if his concern was with the heat outside of the home or the heat that was emitted through the windows in the bedroom, or both. Mr. Barlow explained that the heat was affecting the entire area. Member Swan recommended using a drop vertical awning. He explained that the awning might alleviate the problem rather than building a structure that was not contiguous to the home. Therefore, he felt that a variance might not be necessary because there were other alternatives. Member Done asked the applicant if he would be adverse to using a shading such as the vertical awning. Mr. Barlow explained that he was not adverse to the suggestion. However, he felt that a vertical awning would obstruct the view from the bedroom window. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector, reviewed the staff report. She reported that the applicant requests to reduce the rear yard setback in an R-4 zoning district from 5-feet to 4-feet, and the required distance between structures from 10-feet to 8-feet. She explained that the extra shade would provide coverage for the rear northwest portion of the backyard. She reported that the applicant has submitted with his request for variance a letter from Laura Lann, Lot 34, Sean and Valerie Patmore, Lot 31 and Penny Ulmer, Lot 28, which states that they have no objection to the proposal or the encroachment. Ms. Widero explained that if the structure were approved, it would be fourteen foot in length by ten feet wide and 10-feet high. She explained that the detached accessory structure must meet a minimum distance of 10-feet between it and the main building. She explained that the proposed shade cover 07/24/01 Minute, Board of Adjustment 3 Regular Session would be 8-feet from the main building leaving the rear year setback reduced from the required 5-feet to 4-feet. Staff finding of facts: • The special circumstances or conditions (refer to Assessor's Record Map) are due to the topography, and location of lot and homes surrounding (lot 30)the subject property. Lot 34 (parcel 543) the home sits forward leaving approximately 100 feet of open area to the rear of that parcel. Lot 28 (parcel 537) lies approximately 15-feet lower that lot 30, the owner of lot 28 will not have a view of Mr. Barlow's addition,because he sits much lower than lot 30. • The applicant or owner did not create the special circumstance or conditions. • The authorizing of this variance request will allow the homeowner to enjoy his home,with the shade cover protecting his home from the effects of the afternoon sun. • • The immediate surrounding homeowners have no objection to this proposal. Vice Chairman Adler asked Mr. Dudley, the Town Attorney for clarification of what constitutes "substantial property rights." Mr. Dudley explained that, "the only way I can clarify that phrase is by giving an example,but the determination of what a substantial property right is really within the sound discretion of this board. In my opinion, and my opinion only, a substantial property right would be a property right where that you may prevent a significant use of the property. Example: You couldn't use the back yard. That's as close as I can come to a definition of substantial property rights." Vice Chairman Adler asked the applicant if he had any additional information that he would like to share with the Board. Mr. Barlow explained that he has taken extreme and meticulous thought as to how the landscaping for the small area would be done. Vice Chairman Adler opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Member Swan moved to APPROVE Case No. OV 10-01-05, a request to reduce the rear yard setback from the required 5-feet to 4-feet, and the required 10-feet between main building and accessory structure. Member Done SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Member Swan stated that "property rights"was a very loose term, which could be interpreted in many ways. But, he believed that the homeowner had the right to provide the qualities necessary for a comfortable living space; and he felt that the addition would not be detrimental to any of the adjoining homeowners in the area. Vice Chairman Adler inquired that if a variance were granted, would it be granting "special privileges." Mr. Dudley explained that the decision would be within the sound discretion of the Board. He said that based upon the description that the applicant has provided that there were some significant differences between the applicant's property and the properties facing the same direction. He stated 07/24/01 Minute, Board of Adjustment 4 Regular Session that if the information submitted by the applicant is correct, there would not be a granting of"special privileges." ROLL CALL VOTE Vice Chairman Adler—nay Member Lewis—aye Member Done—aye Member Swan—aye Motion passed, 3-1, Vice Chairman Adler oppose. • 2. CASE NO. OV10-01-07 ROBERT C. ANDERSON D.C. (ANDERSON CHIROPRACTIC) REQUESTS A VARIANCE TO RELOCATE AN EXISTING APPROVED ENTRANCE SIGN,WITH A REDUCTION FROM THE REQUIRED 5 FEET SETBACK FROM THE LOT LINE TO A ZERO (0 FEET) FRONT YARD SETBACK. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 8700 NORTH ORACLE ROAD, ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA 85737 Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Dr. Robert Anderson of Anderson Chiropractic, explained that the company requests a zoning variance that would allow the placement of the entry sign in an unobstructed position on the lot. He then proceeded to review the site using power point and videotape. Dr. Anderson read the following letter for the record. To: Oro Valley City Council From: Helen C. Roach, 818-0535 Re: Current signage for Dr. Bob Anderson's Office I have been a patient of Dr. Anderson's for about 20 months, coming for an adjustment biweekly. During that time I have always found it difficult to find his office because the signage is so low to the ground and set back so far that it is not visible until my car is upon it. Quite quickly I discovered that the only way to find his office was to look for the American flag which fly's at the business just to the north of his. I have sent many new patients to him telling them to "look for the flag because you can't see the sign". To my dismay, I discovered that the flag now is missing. (I don't know if it will be replaced or not in the future.) The posted speed limit on that part of Oracle Road is 50 m.p.h., the actual speed seems to be significantly higher. With this kind of speed and the large amount of traffic on Oracle Road, it is very dangerous to approach his office because his signage is not visible until the last minute. Therefore, it is imperative that some type of adjustment be made to the signage to increase visibility. Thank you, Helen C. Roach Dr. Anderson explained that the proposed relocation of the sign would allow for visibility from both directions on Oracle Road and would alleviate confusion with regard to the location of the business. 07/24/01 Minute,Board of Adjustment 5 Regular Session He added that this would also enable the public to safely reach the facility without disrupting the traffic flow. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector,reviewed the staff report. She explained that Anderson Chiropractic requests a variance to reduce the setback of their(Enterprise Car Rental shares this sign) permanent Office/Employment Center Entry-way Sign from 5-feet to 0 feet. She reported that the OVZCR Sec. 12-502.D.4 requires a minimum 5-feet from the property line. Anderson Chiropractic and Enterprise Car Rental are requesting a variance for the following reasons: 1. The required buffer wall for landscaping is blocking 30%of the sign. 2. Vegetation is obscuring the sign. 3. The shape of the lot is an odd shape; with the front half of the lot parking, landscape and walls. The building is setback to the east rear of the lot with a 6-foot wall to the south, further blocking anyone sighting the sign or building from north bound traffic on Oracle Road. Ms. Widero reported that at the time of the report preparation, staff received a call from Mr. Mac Gregor, who was in support of the sign being relocated and placed at a zero setback for safety purposes; there were no other comments submitted regarding the matter. Ms. Widero reported that the site was a 13,116 square foot parcel located approximately 1/4 mile south of Hardy Road on the eastside of Oracle Road. She said that the property is a small triangle shaped parcel that lies 150 feet from the centerline of Oracle Road. She explained that the applicant is proposing to relocate the existing sign to the entryway at the property line;there are no other proposed changes to the existing sign; the sign meets the Zoning Code in all other respects. Staff Finding of Facts: • Special circumstances were self imposed or created by the owner or applicant. The current owner acquired the structure and parking lot. They have not been changed from the previous use (a 7-11 Market). • To relocate the sign would place it at the entry as required by OVZCR Section 12-502-D2. The existing sign can not be relocated to the entry without either encroaching in the parking area or the setbacks. • The visibility of the business is low; the lot is on an angle in relation to Oracle Road and the buildings are set to the rear of the lot. • The authorizing of the variance would improve visibility and safety to the citizens and customers of the establishment. Vice Chairman Adler asked for clarification that the sign ordinance did not have landscaping requirements. Bryant Nodine, the Planning and Zoning Administrator replied, "that is correct. The sign ordinance does not deal with landscaping at all, except to allow planters around the sign. " Vice Chairman Adler asked what was the purpose of the wall. Mr. Nodine explained that the wall was actually a requirement of the Code to screen the asphalt in the parking lot. He reviewed the site diagram for the proposed setback. He explained that the sign could 07/24/01 Minute, Board of Adjustment 6 Regular Session meet the Zoning Code requirements if it were placed 5-feet back from the property line at the entryway,but that the applicant was looking for greater visibility for the reasons given. Member Swan suggested repositioning the sign, as it relates not to the end of the wall,but back from the right-of-way. Dr. Anderson explained that it would be less visible than the existing sign location,because of the large mesquite tree located at the entryway of the SunnySlope Townhomes. He explained that to relocate the sign within the easement 5-feet setback, would place the sign directly along side of the tree. Member Swan asked if the mesquite tree was on the Anderson property or on the SunnySlope property. Dr. Anderson replied, "no sir it is not. It's SunnySlope's." Member Done expressed concern regarding safety issues. She explained that while driving north on Oracle Road, and driving under the speed limit, that it was difficult to locate the business. She suggested that the existing wall could be used as a height enhancement. Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Jerrilyn Billings,Planning Technician, explained that staff had been working with Dr. Anderson extensively for possible improvements with regard to safety and visibility. She reported that after reviewing all aspects for the relocation of the sign, that by placing the sign at the 0-foot setback would be the most logical solution. Member Lewis asked if by moving the sign closer to the street, if it would look out of place compared to the existing signs located along Oracle Road. Ms. Billings explained that there might be some variation in appearance because of the angle of Oracle Road and the landscaping in the area, but there would be no dramatic effect. Mr. Dudley explained that as a result of the relocation of the sign, the Town might conclude that the sign would need to be relocated due to traffic considerations and sight visibility. He suggested that the Board include a condition regarding the future relocation of the sign. He also reported that he anticipated Oracle Road to be expanded in the future from 4-lanes to 6-lanes. He felt that if such a condition were not included, the Town might be responsible for the cost to relocate the sign. Vice Chairman Adler agreed. MOTION: Member Lewis moved to APPROVE OV 10-01-07, request to relocate and reduce the required front yard setback from 5-feet to 0-feet from the property line of an existing approved sign, with the condition that has been outline by Mr. Dudley. (Condition: If a future relocation of the sign is required due to expansion of Oracle Road, the cost of the relocation shall be borne by the property owner.) Member Done SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Vice Chairman Adler explained that he considered a sign as identification and not advertising. He explained that as a participant in the creation of the sign ordinance, the issue avoided specific reference to the visibility of a sign. He explained that in other words, there was no assurance 07/24/01 Minute,Board of Adjustment 7 Regular Session that a sign needs to have or guarantee visibility in any direction. He explained that the reason he remembered the discussion was because there was considerable debate regarding the issue. Therefore,he intended to vote against the motion because he did not think that the conditions on the property required the sign to be relocated. He explained that if in fact, the Board accepted the idea that the sign was used for identification, he felt that there was other media available to the advertiser that could direct the public to the business location. He explained that he did not believe that the purpose of the sign would be to draw people to the business location, and hoped that it would never serve that purpose. ROLL CALL VOTE Vice Chairman Adler—nay Member Lewis—aye Member Done—aye Member Swan—aye Motion carried, 3-1, Vice Chairman Adler opposed. 4. CASE NO. OV10-01-06 JEFFREY AND PAMELA NUNN,ARE APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF MAY 17,2001, WHICH PERMITTED THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL, FOR LOT 17 OF TANGERINE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 12300 NORTH TALL GRASS DRIVE, ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA 85737 Dan Dudley, Town Attorney, explained that the issue that was before the Board was an appeal of a decision that was made by a Town official which granted a building permit to C&C Construction Company. He explained that the Boards' deliberation should be limited to the following: • Which specific decision was actually being appealed? • Was the appeal done in a timely manner in light of the decision? • Did the official have the authority to make such a decision? • Was the official consistent with the State Law and Town Ordinance? • Whether or not the decision was an abusive stretch. He further explained that the required vote to overturn the decision by the Zoning Administrator and/or Building Official in this case requires a majority of the Board, which would be 3 members. Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Jeffrey Nunn, 12318 North Tall Grass Drive, distributed an additional packet of information to the Board and staff He explained that this case has been a very confusing and frustrating process. He felt that hopefully the documents submitted and his testimony would reveal that the process used to obtain the permit, to build the home on Lot 17 was flawed. He stated that the authority that granted the permit was excessive. Mr. Nunn gave the following reasons why C&C Construction should not be allowed to build the home on Lot 17: • Believes that this could possibly be a discriminatory practice 07/24/01 Minute,Board of Adjustment 8 Regular Session • The 5600 square foot home was being built without the approval of the Development Review Board or Homeowners Association architectural approval • Has paid a$29,000 premium for the views, which was one of the very highest premiums paid due to the view. • The purchase of Lot 18 intended to be a dream home consisting of 3380 square feet with a dream view. He was also told that his home would be the largest model as it pertained to the square footage. • Was lead to believe that the home located on Lot 17 would not obstruct the views. • Believes that the permits submitted are false and were not consistent with the original plans • The home in no way resembles the "Catalina B"model home (as shown in Exhibits#2), and believes that the Planning and Zoning Department has been mislead. • The"Catalina B"model home does not come with a casita or 7 bedrooms. Vice Chairman Adler asked the applicant what was the error he felt the Planning Administrator had made in terms of the process and abuse of authority. Mr.Nunn explained that he believed that the Planning Administrator allowed the permit to be submitted without the pre-approval of the Development Review Board (DRB). He stated that he was curious to know which criteria were used to determine the approval of the permit. Vice Chairman Adler explained that as confusing as the situation may have been, it was not an abuse of authority. He asked if the appeal was for the decision made to issue the building permit. Mr. Nunn explained that the main issue was that the DRB's approval should have been required. He stated that he also had concerns with the grading limit change. He felt that there should have been some due process regarding the grading limit change because he should have been notified about the modifications; and felt the home was not compatible with the other homes in the surrounding area. He explained that he only asked that the homebuilder take the appropriate measures and follow procedure like everyone else. Therefore, he requested that the permit be revoked. Vice Chairman Adler informed the applicant that his point was well taken and he understood his concerns. Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator reiterated that the Nunn's were appealing the administrative decision that allowed issuance of a permit for Lot 17 in Tangerine Heights, without architectural approval of the home by the DRB. He explained that some of the facts are that the Nunn's reside on Lot 18, in a 2200 square foot home. He explained that a 2300 square foot home would be placed on Lot 18. He explained that Tangerine Heights was a subdivision which was zoned R1-20 and R1-36 and the subject site is an R1-20 Zone. He explained that the homes for these lots can be submitted individually or can be submitted as models and that the applicant can make a one-time revision to the model. of the ZoningCode is applicable in this case. He ex ���� ed Mr.Nodine explained that Section 3-301 pp P that based on this section of the Zoning Code, staff does not send architectural plan for R1-20 aY larger lot subdivisions to DRB for review. (Section 3-301 —the Development Review Board shall 07/24/01 Minute, Board of Adjustment 9 Regular Session review all developments other than R1-144, R1-43, R1-36, and R1-20 Districts, which are not subject to overlay.) Mr. Nodine reported that C&C Construction had submitted an application for DRB approval of the model in the subdivision and was approved by DRB. He explained that C&C Construction submitted the application for a one-time revision within this subdivision and that the Planning and Zoning staff forwarded these applications to the DRB for approval,but that per code was an error. He explained that the error has been recognized. Mr.Nunn has been refunded the DRB fee for having to send the model one-time revision to the DRB. Pertinent Facts: • The Nunn's reside on Lot 18 a 22,090- square foot lot in the Tangerine Heights Subdivision. • The subject lot (Lot 17) is a 22,698 square foot lot just to the south of Lot 18. A house is under construction, frame and sheathed, on the lot. • Tangerine Heights is a custom built subdivision, zoned R1-20 &R1-36,recorded April 8, 1999. C&C Construction is the builder. • Section 3-301 of the Zoning Code is applicable to this case. Based on this section staff does not send architectural plans for R1-20 and larger-lot subdivisions to the DRB for review unless an overlay district could affect the design of the homes, or unless (in accordance with various sections in Article 6) the homes are two story homes. • Applicability— Sec.301 The Development Review Board shall review al developments other thatn R1-144, R1-43, R1-36, and R1-20 Districts which are not subject to overlay. • C&C Construction, having built primarily in Desert Vista Subdivision,which is zoned R1-7, did not realize that DRB approval was not required. They submitted an application for DRB approval for the models in the whole subdivision, and subsequently, they submitted revision to DRB for any of the models where they proposed a change in the front elevation(these are termed"one-time revisions.") • C&C Construction submitted three applications for one-time revisions within this subdivision. Planning and Zoning staff forwarded these to the DRB for approval. Over forty other homes approved within the subdivision were not submitted to DRB. • The Zoning Code's design guidelines encourage diversity and character of neighborhoods by varying setbacks, building elevation setbacks,building elevations, and architectural treatments. All zones have development standards. In Tangerine Heights lots 1-50 are zoned R1-20, with a maximum building height of 2 stories and 18 feet. Setbacks are, front 30 feet, side 15 feet, and rear 30 feet. Also a maximum grading limit was placed on the plat for this subdivision, which is 12,000 square feet (administrative approval is possible for up to 15,000). There are no limits as to the square footage or size of the home as long as the other standards are met. • The plan for Lot 17 meets all setbacks and other standards of the Zoning Code and the plat. The area graded on Lot 17 is less than 12,000 square feet. In conclusion, he explained that the Zoning Code does not require DRB approval for architecture in the Tangerine Heights subdivision. Member Swan inquired that if the builder submits a certain number of model home for approval, and additional changes were made to the home that had already been approved, what would be the requirement from a processing standpoint. 07/24/01 Minute, Board of Adjustment 10 Regular Session Mr.Nodine explained that if home is located in a subdivision that requires DRB review, those homes would be brought back before the DRB for consideration. Member Lewis asked if there was a procedure to follow when a project has been completed and the error has made by the staff. Mr. Dudley explained that not only could staff correct their mistakes but also he felt that it would be the obligation of staff to correct any mistakes that were made. Vice Chairman Adler expressed that he would like to get the matter of the grading limits addressed. He asked if at any point, there had been a practice to notify the existing residents of the change in the grading limits. Mr. Nodine replied, "once,because of a similar case that had been brought before the Town Council." Vice Chairman Adler asked if this was a matter of procedure now to notify residences of grading limit changes. Mr. Nodine replied, "yes, it is." Member Lewis asked that when the permit was granted, was there anything out of the ordinary that needed to be address outside of the normal paper work. Ms. Widero replied, "no." Member Swan asked what would be the ramifications if Mr.Nodine were to be found at fault for processing the application for Lot 17, as it relate to the construction process. Mr. Dudley stated that a stay could be automatic or could be requested. But, he could not clarify which would be used at this point. He explained that the court would issue the stay and the Town would effectively execute the stay for the construction of the home. Mr. Dudley clarified for the record that he had requested that C&C Construction discontinue the construction on the project pending a discussion from the Board of Adjustment. Vice Chairman Adler opened the public hearing. Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Barbara Murray, 4804 North Camino Luz, stated that she was a real estate sales person who has been associated with C&C Construction Company over the pass few years, and felt that the company made a very good product. Although, she was under the impression that a home could not be constructed any larger than 3400 square feet. She also pointed out that each home had been situated on the lot to ensure privacy from the adjacent homes. In answer to a question from Member Swan, Mr. Dudley explained that a stay would be granted at the discretion of the Superior Court. He further explained that the stay would not be automatic but would require an application for stay by the interested party. 07/24/01 Minute,Board of Adjustment 11 Regular Session Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. George Feulner, 262 North Main Ave,the attorney representing C&C Construction Co. explained that much of what had been told to the Board has been inaccurate. He explained that he would not take the time to point out the inaccuracies if he did not believe that the only issue was whether the Planning Administrator should be consistent with the law. He felt that the planning administrator had clearly and irrefutably complied with the Zoning Code. He explained that his concern was that the Board had heard things that may sway them emotionally and gave the following reasons why the appeal should be denied: • The Braunreiter's home is not 5600 square feet but is 4400 square feet. He explained that this pertained only to the living area of the home; as compared to the Nunn's home, which was 3400 square fee of living area, therefore there was only a discrepancy of 1000 square feet. • Tangerine Height consists of 50 lots and 22 homes have been constructed. Five homes in addition to the Braunreiter's home are of comparable size. Therefore,the size of the Braunriter's home was not unusual for the subdivision. He explained that as far as the court case was concern, the Nunn's attempted to stop the construction of the home and lost. He explained that if there had been any violation of any law, rule, ordinance or covenants, conditions and restrictions with respect to construction of the home, then there would have been a reason for the court to stop construction. There was not. Vice Chairman Adler closed the public hearing. Mr. Nunn explained that he had also done an analysis of the square footage of the homes in the area, and the average square footage to date is 2956 square feet. He stated that he was still a little confused with some of the semantics between a custom-built subdivision and a custom graded subdivision. He explained that by looking at the exhibits for the"Catalina B"model home, there was not any correlation what-so-ever between the information written on the building permit and what was actually submitted and being constructed. He stated that he did not believe that there was a permit for the home because it was not truly a"Catalina B"model home. Vice Chairman Adler stated that the applicant's point has been well taken. He asked that with regard to the reference to models by name, if the building permit were issued for the model by name or was it referenced in an another generic way. Mr. Nodine stated that there were 2 ways that a model home is referenced by: (1) the model is submitted originally as a model plan and is reviewed as a model plan. Then placed in a hanging file. (2) An individual lot using the model plan can reference the model on the permit. Vice Chairman Adler clarified that this would not necessarily tie the buyer to the specification of the original model. Mr.Nodine agreed and explained that the buyer was allowed to do a one-time revision to change the model. Member Swan read the following paragraph: "Section 3-301 of the Zoning Code was applicable to this case. Base on this section staff does not send architectural plans for R1-20 and larger-lot 07/24/01 Minute,Board of Adjustment 12 Regular Session subdivisions to the DRB for review." He stated that based upon that statement and believing that it is accurate and true, he would move to deny the variance. MOTION: Member Swan moved to DENY Case No. OV 10-01-06 finding that the Planning Administrator's decision was not an error. Member Lewis SECONDED the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE Vice Chairman Adler—aye Member Lewis—aye Member Done—aye Member Swan—aye Motion carried, 4-0 to deny the appeal for Case NO. OV 10-01-06. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE None Discussion: Vice Chairman Adler recommended that the following items be placed on the next meeting agenda for discussion. • The Board of Adjustment should take an opportunity to comment on the revised Volunteer Application Form. • The Board of Adjustment receive the Planning and Zoning and Council meeting minutes, so that the Board is kept appraised of what is in the pipeline and what is actually occurring in the Town. • The Board of Adjustment should consider requesting that a member of the Board of Adjustment be included in the Capital Improvement Plan process. • The Board should be aware of the Oro Valley merchandise available for purchase and strongly encourage the board member to acquire a shirt with the logo. He explained that this might enable the board members to receive more public comment and input while in the field. Member Lewis asked what was the revision being made with the Volunteers Application Form. Vice Chairman Adler explained that the Government Review Task Force was currently reviewing the application form to try and get more information from the volunteers, so that the process of screening and interviewing was more precise. He said that the following topics were under review and consideration: • Establishing a job description so that the applicant would have an understanding of what to expect when applying for the position. • Questions for the interviewing process and who should actually conduct the interviews. • The process of applying term limits. • The process of evaluating the volunteers during the course of their term. He reported that the Government Review Task Force was nearing a point where the report would be submitted to Council. Member Lewis asked if there was going to be any training sessions in the near future for boards and commissions members. 07/24/01 Minute,Board of Adjustment 13 Regular Session Mr.Nodine stated that he would contact the Department of Commerce regarding training session seminars. Mr. Dudley asked if the Board members found the Primer beneficial. He stated that he was also open to suggestions. Vice Chairman Adler stated the specifically he wanted be sure that the Board understood whether the 5 Criteria were in fact legally binding as standards, or whether they are in fact criteria that only needed to be addressed. He expressed that he also had concerns with the making of a motion and whether the motion needed to specifically reference the standard or criteria that were met or not met. He stated that the Primer was extremely helpful and thanked Mr. Dudley for providing the information. ADJOURNMENT Member Done moved to ADJOURN the meeting at 5:47 p.m. Member Swan SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Respectfully submitted, ind. Hersha, Secretary II