Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBA.1991.0409.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 9, 1991 A public meeting of the Fountain Hills Board of Adjustment was convened and called to order by Chairman Roland Britten at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday April 9. 1991 in the Magistrate Court Room located at 16836 E. Palisades, Building C. Fountain Hills, Arizona. ROLL CALL - Roll call was taken and present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Board of Adjustment: Chairman Roland Britten. Vice-Chairman George Bard, Commissioner Joel Katleman, Commissioner Paul Kolwaite. and Commissioner Earl Stavely. Also present were Community Development Director Gary Jeppson and Connie Riley. AGENDA ITEM #3 - INVOCATION AND PLEDGE TO THE FLAG Invocation was given by Commissioner Stavely and the pledge to the flag was given. AGENDA ITEM #4 - CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 12. 1991 Commissioner Katleman made a MOTION to abolish the reading of the minutes. Commissioner Stavely SECONDED and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Kolwaite questioned a statement made on page 4 of the minutes where Mr. Farrell, the Town's attorney, stated that the Board is not bound by the Committee of Architecture's decisions, nor is the Committee of Architecture bound by the Board's decisions. He wanted to know if this was a true statement. Mr. Jeppson answered by saying that the Committee of Architecture can issue a variance to their declaration of reservations independent of what the Board of Adjustment does. Commissioner Kolwaite then asked if the variance had to come before the Board. Mr. Jeppson said yes - the two bodies administrate two (2) individual procedures. The Town's being the Zoning Ordinance and the Committee of Architecture's being the declaration of reservations. Commissioner Bard made a MOTION to accept the minutes as written. Commissioner Katleman SECONDED and the motion passed unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #5 - VARIANCE #91-004 - MCO PROPERTIES Mr. Jeppson stated that MCO Properties is asking for a variance from the fence height requirements of the Town Code. The Town Code states that in a R1-10 zone the front yard setback is twenty (20) feet and the street side setback is one-half (1/2) the distance of the front yard setback, which in this case would be ten (10) feet. The code allows a fence up to six (6) feet in height in the lot with the exception of the front yard setback areas and the street side areas, in which case the fence may not be any higher than three (3) feet six (6) inches. He went on to say that MCO proposes to place a fence six (6) feet high up to the property line along Lost Hills Drive at the intersection of Tumbleweed and Lost (43 Hills Drive. He stated. that the applicant's claim for a variance is that this will 1 Lhelp prevent a maintenance and up keep problem and will increase the marketability of the lot.. Staff did not find anything unique about the lot and found it common 'with the other corner lots in the subdivision and other Ri-10 zoned areas. Staff was unable to identify what, if any, property rights were being denied if the variance was not granted. Also staff found that granting the variance did not appear to be detrimental to the area or to the people living or working in the area. or to any adjacent properties in the neighborhood. However, not being able to identify a special circumstance or any denial of property rights, staff felt compelled to recommend denial of the variance simply because the criteria for the variance did not appear to be fulfilled as defined by state law and the Town Codes. Commissioner Kolwaite asked what is the purpose of the wall? Torn Ward, of MCO Properties, stated that MCO Properties originally wanted was to have a series of monument walls for the subdivision to improve the marketability of the lots in the subdivision. He went on to say that they have walls at Lost Hills and Tumbleweed and at the bottom of Tumbleweed they also have walls entrancing into Mountainside and Tumbleweed and they have also established walls at Palisades and Mountainside. He also went on to say that there are other lots in Fountain Hills that have six (6) foot walls on the property line on corner lots. MCO felt that the wall would leave the property owner with more lot space and privacy. During further discussion on the reason for having the wall, Commissioner Kolwaite asked how the regulation came about? Mr. Jeppson explained that on corner lots, somebody's side yard is another persons extension of the front yard. So it prevents a wall being in someone's front yard extension. Mr. Ward stated that MCO Properties felt that to allow the variance would make the property more pleasing to the eye, since the wall and house could be broken up and there would not be a mass of concrete in one spot. After further discussion Commissioner Stavely made a MOTION to deny the variance. Vice-Chairman Bard SECONDED and the motion passed unanimously. The variance was denied. AGENDA ITEM #6 - ADJOURNMENT Vice-Chairman Bard made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Stavely SECONDED and the motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. FOUNTA -ll)iLLS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT By: R land Britten. Chairman Qi) r�ATTEST: �.� �_Jt1(2: t' Claire Wilhelm, Administrative Assistant 2 '44) CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of' the minutes of the meeting of the Fountain Hills Board of Adjustment held on the 7th of May, 1991. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 30th day of April, 1991. Claire Wilhelm, Administrative Assistant •