Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 5/22/2001 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL SESSION MAY 22, 2001 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA CALL TO ORDER at 2:06 p.m. PRESENT: Henry Suozzi, Chairman Bill Adler, Vice Chairman James Swan, Member Lyra Done, Member Cindy Lewis, Member(excused) STAFF: Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Debbie Moran, Zoning Tech. Linda Hersha, Secretary II 1. REVIEW AND/OR POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES AND PROCEDURES Chairman Suozzi opened the floor for discussion regarding the draft summary of the recommended rules and procedures for the Board of Adjustment. Bryant Nodine, the Planning and Zoning Administrator, submitted suggestions to the Board for review. The following suggestions were made regarding: 1. Staff duties Bryant Nodine suggested that the Board continue to contact the Clerk's office regarding attendance and meeting schedule. Chairman Suozzi stated that the added language for this section for the rules and procedures should read as follows: "Make room arrangements,mail materials, take minutes, schedule meetings and contact the Board regarding attendance and meeting schedule." Member Swan asked if there was a primary contact person in the Planning and Zoning Department for the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Nodine explained that Dee Widero, the Senior Zoning Inspector, was the primary contact person for both the public and the Board. Vice Chairman Adler suggested that the following modifications be made: 05/22/01 Minutes 2 Special Session Board of Adjustment • As a part of the staff report, any contact made between the staff and the applicant prior to the hearing are summarized in the staff report if it is germane or pertinent to the case. He explained that, as a part of the Planning and Zoning staff responsibility, discussion with the applicant regarding alternatives or approaches pertaining to their application should be summarized as part of the staff report. Ms. Widero agreed. • The applicant should coordinate all necessary materials that can be presented to the Board of Adjustment like at Town Council and Planning and Zoning meetings, and they should be suitable for overhead display. He explained that if an applicant comes before the Board with exhibits, and given enough notice, the applicant could make the transparencies so that the Board can view them all at once. He added that this would be consistent with other requirements. • The notification of all surrounding property owners within the 300 feet should be consistent with the Zoning Code,because the surrounding area could be more than 300 feet. • It would be helpful for the public testimony and the applicant if a laminated card were placed on the podium that identified the 5 Criteria. He explained that this would serve as a reminder to the witness that their testimony should be addressing the 5 Criteria and would facilitate the testimony. Discussion: Chairman Suozzi asked if these were practical suggestions that could be carried out by staff on a regular basis. Vice Chairman Adler stated that he considered the additional details for"applicant contact"to be a major issue. He said that if there are no objections,the modifications should be incorporated as a part of the Planning and Zoning responsibility or activity. Member Swan asked if the information contained in the packet included all communications with the applicant regarding the case. Ms. Widero replied "yes." Vice Chairman Adler explained that what he was looking for was any incidental contact of a substantial nature. When the applicant inquires about how he or she can get relief for a particular project, there could be contact between staff and the applicant concerning alternatives while seeking a variance. Therefore,he would like to know that the discussion had taken place and not repeat questions that had been addressed by staff. Ms. Widero agreed with Vice Chairman Adler. She explained that she believed what Vice Chairman Adler was asking for was direct information, such as, if specific questions were asked and what was the response. She explained that this information would be implemented and placed in the section of the staff report entitled, "Summary of Facts." Vice Chairman Adler explained that after discussing the current case with Ms. Widero over the phone,there had been contact with the applicant that was not summarized in the 05/22/01 Minutes 3 Special Session Board of Adjustment report. He explained that this was how the subject was brought to light. He explained that the suggestion was not a calamity,but to help create a more thorough staff report. Member Swan expressed that he was unsure where the responsibility should fall,but felt that it is the Board member's responsibility to form their own conclusions and ask questions that he or she believes would be relevant to the case. Member Done stated that the Board was not the Town Council. She explained that most of the applicants that appear before Council are large businesses that have the proper equipment to create transparencies. She explained that the modifications should be "soft peddled"if feasible,because the homeowners might be discouraged and intimidated by the requirements. Chairman Suozzi agreed. Member Swan asked if the Town would support the costs for the transparencies or would the applicant be expected to provide them. Vice Chairman Adler explained that the applicant should provide the necessary reports and materials to the Town that would be suitable for an overhead presentation. He stated that this was not a major expense. He explained that this would facilitate the Board to be able to look at an exhibit at the same time and allow the applicant to communicate more efficiently. Member Done stated that this would be a detriment for the ordinary person, therefore she could not vote in favor of making transparencies a requirement on the application. Mr.Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator recommended that the use of transparencies be encouraged because it would enable the Board to view specific documents at the same time. He explained that this would also prevent the applicant from approaching the dais. Members of the Board agreed that the applicant should be encouraged to use transparencies, if possible. 2. Board Duties Vice Chairman Adler explained that in the Board of Adjustment manual,page 7, it indicates that site tours would be arranged. He stated that as a procedure and subject to approval of the Chair, site tours should be arranged for the same reasons discussed regarding the use of transparencies. He explained that if all of the members go to the location and agree to what is being viewed, misinterpretation or misunderstandings might be avoided. He explained that he would like to add under Item 2 that the Chair arranges site tours when in his judgement it is appropriate to do so. Member Swan suggested that before the Board entertained the modifications that the town attorney review it. 05/22/01 Minutes 4 Special Session Board of Adjustment Mr. Nodine explained that from previous discussions held with Mr. Dudley, the Town Attorney, it would be okay to have site tours, as long as the discussion was fact-based information. Member Swan felt that this could affect the opinion of a Board member and their interpretation of the site. Mr. Nodine agreed. Member Done stated that she personally felt that a lot of the backbone of the Board comes from the fact that they were all independent human beings with their own individual ideas. She explained that she would be uncomfortable attending a tour and avoid conversation that might corrupt the process. Therefore, she did not like the idea of viewing the property with the other Board members. Chairman Suozzi agreed. Chairman Suozzi stated that he liked the idea of being able to view a site on his own terms and stated that it could be difficult for staff to coordinate with the Board specific dates and time for a site tour. Therefore,he opposed having site tours. 3. The Applicant Mr. Nodine clarified that the material should be submitted within 15 working days prior to a meeting. There were no other changes to this item. 4. Board Meetings Vice Chairman Adler stated that he would prefer if the applicant were instructed that they would be allowed to answer specific questions from the Board and not be allowed to give a second presentation. He explained that the applicant typically does make a second presentation, which is repetitive and redundant. He explained that there should be an opportunity for the Board to ask questions of the applicant, and that their comments should be limited to those questions. He explained that this would facilitate getting the meeting on target and keeping it on target. Member Swan stated that the applicant should be given a fair opportunity to respond to questions from the public in a manner that they felt was appropriate. Member Done stated that any applicant that appears before the Board must feel as though he or she has had a fair opportunity to present and defend their case. Vice Chairman Adler stated that for, clarification, this was not his recommendation at all and would take a bit of an exception to that kind of interpretation. He stated that he was not in favor of telling someone what to say and how to say it. He explained that his point was that if the public was to raise questions or issues and if the applicant has raised 05/22/01 Minutes 5 Special Session Board of Adjustment questions and issues in his testimony, it seems that it would be the responsibility of the Board to ask for clarification of those issues from the applicant. Therefore, leaving the applicant ample opportunity to present their case. He explained that it was the responsibility of the Board to listen and sort out the issues that remain to be resolved, and address those issues to the applicant when the public testimony was over. He explained that this would facilitate the information, not restrain it or be unfair. Member Done asked for Vice Chairman Adler to repeat his recommendation. Vice Chairman Adler explained that following the testimony that the applicant would be called back to the podium to address specific issues and questions. He said that it was the responsibility of the Board to zero in on the remaining questions and issues so that the Board can make a proper decision. Recommendation: "Following specific testimony, the applicant is requested to approach the Board and answer specific questions from the Board." Member Swan disagreed and stated that he would not vote in favor of the recommendation. He explained that the applicant should have the latitude that was necessary to address specific questions from the public and the Board. Chairman Suozzi stated that the applicant should be allowed to defend his case and felt that the recommendation may not be necessary. Member Done pointed out that this would be a rebuttal of which did not appear in the document pertaining to rules and procedures as a consideration. She also pointed out that the new rules and new Board members that were unfamiliar with the Board of Adjustment procedure would primarily use the Procedures Guide. Mr. Nodine suggested using the following agenda itinerary: Board Of Adjustment Meeting Order 1. Call to order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Minutes. 4. Presentation for agenda items(s). 5. Petitioner/applicant presentation. 6. Questions/clarifications 7. Staff report. 8. Questions to staff by Board members. 9. Open public hearing 10. Ask for any applicant response/summation. 11. Close public hearing 12. Ask for Board questions/further information. 13. Ask for the pleasure of the Board on agenda item. 14. Planning &Zoning staff update. 15. Motion of adjournment 05/22/01 Minutes 6 Special Session Board of Adjustment Vice Chairman Adler suggested that the applicant questions be held until after the staff report. He explained that rather than the Board asking questions of the applicant, the Board would move immediately to the staff report. He explained that the questions could be asked of either the staff or the applicant so that all the questions from the Board are asked at once giving the applicant the first opportunity to present their case. This should be followed by the staff report, questions from the Board,public testimony, summation and so on. Member Swan disagreed and stated that it would be only fair that the applicants present their case first or have the staff report first, so that the public could hear the staff report first. He explained that the sequence should be the petitioner presents their case, followed by the public input. He stated that the format of the current agenda did not flow. Consensus: The Board agreed that Item 6 and Item 8 should be merged with Item 4 of the recommended rules and procedures draft summary. • Item 6. Conflict of Interest: Issues should be declared up-front so that the Board member can be fair, objective, and impartial and should not be personally involved. It would be helpful here to reference materials related to conflict of interest. The Department of Commerce has a good handout. • Item 8. Other: It was suggested that a more "personal"notification letter be mailed to encourage public response and that the Board recommends to the Planning and Zoning Commission that the radius should be increased to at least 600 or 1000 feet. 5. Selection and Composition of the Board of Adjustment Vice Chairman Adler explained that on page 14, in the Board of Adjustment Manual, that there was a suggestive evaluative process. He suggested that the Board consider using the evaluation process contained in the manual. Chairman Suozzi explained that the additional language for this item should read as follows: "An "objective" evaluation process of a board member's performance would be desirable and perhaps serve as a guideline for the Town Council and the Government Review Task Force, as recommended on page 14, Section 5 of the Board of Adjustment Manual." 05/22/01 Minutes 7 Special Session Board of Adjustment 6. Conflict of Interest Mr.Nodine reiterate that the "Conflict of Interest"recommendations would be more suitable if it was incorporated into the Board of Adjustment Manual rather than the Rules and Procedure Guide. The information contained in Item 6 of the "Draft Summary Recommended Rules and Procedures" for this item has been merged with Item 4. 7. Relationship with other Boards/Commission/Council Mr.Nodine reported that how the Board members present themselves and the actions of the Board to other official bodies of the Town or individuals of these bodies and the public,needs to be included in the rules and procedures. Vice Chairman Adler explained that at a previous meeting, Mr. Dudley offered the opinion that as a Board of Adjustment member, to present a Board of Adjustment decision to another commission or board that might be hearing the same case would be inappropriate. He explained that Mr. Dudley felt that it was inappropriate for a member of the board to appear before the Planning and Zoning Commission that was hearing a case involving, for example, a Conditional Use Permit. To present, as a member of the Board of Adjustment,how the Board concluded in a particular matter would be inappropriate. He stated that it should be expanded upon the fact that when there is a matter that is decided by the Board of Adjustment and conditions are added, the Board needs to be clear because the motion will have to speak for itself. Mr. Nodine explained that the problem with this particular issue was that, "a single person trying to represent a collective decision." He explained that the safest way to accomplish communication with other boards and commissions would be to provide the motions and the minutes. He further explained that the motion should be as clear as possible describing what the Board was trying to achieve. 8. Other Vice Chairman Adler explained that the item was on the Commission work plan to review expanding the radius of notification. Mr. Nodine reported that a letter of notification had been developed and was available for review and that the amendments to the Code for the notification procedure have been added to the Commission work plan. The information contained in Item 8 of the "Recommended Draft Summary Rules and Procedures" for this item has been merged with Item 4. 05/22/01 Minutes 8 Special Session Board of Adjustment 9. Swearing in the Applicant There were no comments or changes to this item. Member Done referenced page 3 of the Board of Adjustment Manual regarding "Officers", and read the following: "The Board of Adjustment shall elect a Chairman and Vice-Chairman from among its own members." She suggested that the procedure be date sensitive and that the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson election be held the seconded meeting of each fiscal year. MOTION: Member Swan moved to APPROVE the recommendations and corrections for the Draft Summary of the Rules and Procedures Guide. Vice Chairman Adler SECONDED the motion. Motion passed, 4-0. (Draft summary attached.) ADJOURNMENT Chairman Suozzi adjourned the special session meeting at 3:04 p.m. Res.-ctfully submitted, f e4a/4-- in.a Hersha, Secretary II RULES AND PROCEDURES MAY 22, 2001 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The following is a summary of the recommended rules and procedures for the Board of Adjustment: (as discussed at several special sessions and at the Board of Adjustment meeting of February 27, 2001 and May 22, 2001.) "Summary of Recommended Rules and Procedures for the Board of Adjustment". 1. Staff Duties: Clerk's Office • Make room arrangements, mail materials,take minutes, schedule meetings and contact the Board regarding attendance and schedule. • Notify the Board through the Clerk's office by the 10th of each month, if a meeting will or will not be held. Board members are to notify staff of inability to attend a meeting. Planning and Zoning Staff • Serves as primary contact for agenda issues, develops agenda and any revisions with direction of the chair. • Notify all surrounding property owners and be consistent with the Oro Valley Zoning Code. • Coordinate all necessary reports/materials/exhibits for the Board's consideration. Presentation materials need to be suitable for overhead display. • Invite all necessary staff to the Board meetings. • All materials and agenda shall be distributed to the Board by staff at least one(1)week prior to the meeting date. • A laminated card should be place at the podium identifying the 5 Criteria. • Any contact made between the staff and the applicant prior to the hearing is summarized in the staff report if it is germane or pertinent to the case. 2. Board Duties: • As outlined in Article 1-7 of the Zoning Code and as specified in the Board of Adjustment manual. 3. The Applicant: • The application materials shall be submitted 15 working days prior to the meeting. • The burden of proof is on the applicant and he/she should address the 5 Criteria in writing on the application. • The applicant should provide all presentation material in a format that can be shown on the hearing rooms audio-visual media and at least 8 copies should be provided for the Board and the clerk and staff. The applicant should not be allowed to approach the dais to show and discuss items individually with Board members. • The applicant should submit in writing the fact that they are requesting a variance for more then one (1) issue, if applicable. 1 4. Board Meetings: • The Board should stay focused and only discuss agenda issues and not discuss issues directly with the applicant, (especially during individual site visits. Staff recommends there be no discussion with the applicant except for questions of fact; if there is it needs to be presented by the member at the meeting). • All questions and comments during the meeting shall go through the Chair. • During the meeting the applicant should have the first opportunity at presenting their case prior to the staff report. • Staff should identify each individual variance and all the issues involved. • It was agreed that the Board could give the applicant some direction and may state their reason(s)why they voted aye or nay. • Following specific testimony the applicant is requested to approach the Board and answer specific questions from the Board and as well as provide a summation. • Board Of Adjustment Meeting Order 1. Call to order. 2. Roll Call. 3 Minutes. 4. Presentation of agenda items(s). 5. Petitioner/applicant presentation. 6. Questions/clarifications/ 7. Staff report. 8. Questions to staff by Board members. 9. Open public hearing 10. Ask for any applicant response/summation. 11. Close public hearing 12. Ask for Board questions/further information. 13. Ask for the pleasure of the Board on agenda item. 14. Planning&Zoning staff update. 15. Motion of adjournment. • Conflict of Interest issues should be declared up-front so that the Board member can be fair, objective, and impartial and should not be personally involved. (It would be helpful here to reference materials related to conflict of interest. The Department of Commerce has a good handout.) The Board of Adjustment Handbook provides guidance in this regard. • It was suggested that a more"personal"notification letter be mailed to encourage public response and that the Board recommends to the Planning and Zoning Commission that the radius should be increased to at least 600 or 1000 feet. 5. Selection and Composition of the Board of Adjustment: • The Board shall be in accordance to the outline specified in Section 5,pages 11 and 12 of the Board of Adjustment Handbook "Desirable Attributes of Board Member." • An"objective" evaluation process of a board members performance would be desirable and perhaps serve as a guideline for the Town Council, as recommended on page 14, Section 5 of the Board of Adjustment Manual. • Thep rocess to replace or re-appoint Board members shall begin by May 1st for new terms that commence on July 1st. 2 6. Relationship with other Boards/Commission/Council: • It was agreed that the Board of Adjustment minutes or excerpts regarding issues should be distributed to the Boards, Commissions and Council by staff in a timely fashion. • To insure communication the Board of Adjustment motions must be thorough and precise. 7. Swearing in the Applicant • It was the consensus of the Board that the recommended oath for swearing in the applicant or witnesses be used and stated as follows: "Do you swear or affirm to speak (or tell)the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth". (Approved by the Board of Adjustment 05/22/01) 3 MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 22, 2001 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 3:08 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Henry Suozzi, Chairman Bill Adler, Vice Chairman Lyra Done, Member Jim Swan, Member Cindy Lewis, Member(excused) STAFF PRESENT: Bryant Nodine,Planning and Zoning Administrator Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Debbie Moran,Zoning Tech Linda Hersha, Secretary II MINUTES MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler moved to approve the minutes of March 27, 2001 as written. Member Done SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. 1. OV10-01-04, 11308 NORTH MEADOW SAGE DRIVE, ORO VALLEY AZ 85737, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO REDUCE REQUIRED 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 9'. SUBJECT PROPERTY: 11308 NORTH MEADOW SAGE DRIVE, ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737. LOT 110 OF DESERT VISTA SUBDIVISION. Robert K. Calof, the applicant, explained that the new hobby shop would require an additional 1-foot on each side of the door. He explained that installing a standard door would result in severe limitations as to the usefulness of the hobby shop. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector, explained that the applicant has made a request to reduce the side yard setback from the required 10 feet to 9 feet on the south side of the backyard. She reported that the applicant was proposing to attach a hobby shop to the existing home with an 8-foot door that would provide access to the shop. Ms. Widero reported that all property owners within 300 feet of the property were notified by mail of the hearing and that the property has been posted with a notice of hearing and the hearing was advertised in the Daily Territorial Newspaper. She explained that at the time of the report preparation, staff had not received any public comment supporting or opposing the request,but a letter was submitted with the variance request application from a neighbor located on the south side of the property who had no problem with the encroachment. She reported that the existing home does meet the required setbacks, but the proposed hobby shop would encroach by 1-foot due to the desired 8-foot door,which would be accessed from the back yard. 05/22/01 Board of Adjustment 2 Regular Session Staff finding of facts: • There are no special circumstances or conditions due to the lot or property. • The applicant or owner did create the circumstance or condition. • The special circumstance is due to the desired 8 foot wide door and construction required for the installation. Vice Chairman Adler asked if there would be ventilation included in the structure without the door being open. Mr. Calof explained that the architect would design the structure and he trusted that the architect would provide the necessary ventilation. Vice Chairman Adler stated that the zoning district does permit a freestanding accessory building. He explained that there appeared to be room to have an accessory building of this size or perhaps an even larger building elsewhere on the property,which would avoid the need for a variance. Mr. Calof stated that Vice Chairman Adler's point was well taken,but felt it would be cheaper to attach the hobby shop to the home because of the existing low bearing wall. Vice Chairman Adler explained that unfortunately, the expense was not a consideration for the Board of Adjustment. Chairman Suozzi asked the applicant if there were any alternatives that would meet the Zoning Code requirements. Mr. Calof explained that the idea of a freestanding accessory building was not a consideration because it would ruin the back yard. He said that he had not spoken with the architect concerning alternatives. Chairman Suozzi opened the public hearing. Chairman Suozzi swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Tonya Martin, a representative for Lewis Management Resources, explained that at this point, Mr. Calof had not submitted the proper information to the Board of Directors regarding the revisions. Therefore, the Board did not anticipate approving the new addition to the home even if the Board of Adjustment approved the variance. Member Swan asked if the Board of Directors had given a reason for their disapproval of the new addition. Ms. Martin explained that the homeowners living in the area were concerned with the possible obstruction of views and the resale value of the homes in the surrounding area. She also stated that portions of information submitted to the Board of Directors had been incorrect. Chairman Suozzi closed the public hearing. 05/22/01 Board of Adjustment 3 Regular Session Mr. Calof explained that about a month ago,when the project began, he contacted the homeowners association and requested that the proper forms be mailed to him to start the process. He explained that, after meeting with the Board of Adjustment, his intentions were to submit the information to the association and work with Lewis Management when it was necessary. He explained that as far as obstructing views, the structure was barely visible from the road. Member Swan asked what was the height of the proposed structure. Mr. Calof explained that the height of the new structure would be around 10 feet. He added that the existing home stood around 13 feet. MOTION: Member Swan moved to APPROVE Case No. OV 10-01-04, a request to reduce the side yard setback from the required 10 feet to 9 feet on the south side only. Discussion: Vice Chairman Adler explained that he had concerns with the fact the Mr. Calof perhaps did not understand how a variance was determined. He explained that in essence, a variance was appropriate when a strict application of the code would create a hardship and effectively prevent reasonable use of the property. "So, if in fact a strict application of the code would effectively prevent a person from a reasonable improvement of the property, then a variance is justified." He explained that the reason why the motion to approve was not seconded, was because that standard could not be applied. He explained that a hobby shop could be installed where it is designed 9-feet rather than 10- feet, as long as the door were of the width that didn't require the additional foot. That might provide some restriction or limitation as to the kind of uses conducted in the structure,but would not effectively deny the applicant the enjoyment of having the hobby shop. Therefore, he felt that at this point, a variance would be necessary in order to avoid a hardship. He believed that there was not a hardship in this case because there were alternatives not only in terms of the suggestion of having a 9- foot width as opposed to a 10-foot,but the possibly of an accessory building located elsewhere on the rear of the property which could possibility be explored with the applicant's architect. He explained that in any case, he did not feel that the proposal fit the requirements for a variance. Motion died due to a lack of a second. MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler moved to DENY Case No. OV 10-01-04, for the reasons stated (see discussion above.) Member Swan SECONDED the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE Chairman Suozzi—aye Vice Chairman Adler—aye Member Done— aye Member Swan—nay Motion to deny carried, 3-1,with Member Swan opposed. 05/22/01 Board of Adjustment 4 Regular Session PLANNING AND ZONING REPORT Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator,reported the following: • The interviewing process for a consultant for the General Plan update will begin the end of May. • The commercial parking and lighting amendments to the Zoning Code are in process and should be completed in September. • There will be major Zoning Code revisions made to change the format and presentation. He reported that these updates should be complete by August or September. • The Citizen Planning Institute will continue to meet in the fall of each year. Chairman Suozzi announced that the groundbreaking ceremony for the new library would commence on Friday, June 1St at 10:00 a.m., and will be located on the north end of the campus. • Vice Chairman Adler asked if the revised Board of Adjustment Application was ready to be implemented. Mr. Nodine replied, "yes." Chairman Suozzi thanked the Board and Staff for working so hard on the development of the Rules and Procedures Guide. He added that the guide would be beneficial to everyone involved. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:51 p.m. Chairman Suozzi SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. Resp tfully submitted /. - 'er. /."-i dt.di ri _,) _),Linda Hersha, Secretary II