Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBA.2017.0620.Agenda O �T AIN yr� 11 5. - = MEETING NOTICE r • " VW • OF THE ►thee is 0 ' BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Board Members: Chairman Paul Ryan, Vice-Chairman Carol Perica Board Members John Kovac III, Nick Sehman and Daniel Halloran TIME: 6:30 P.M. WHEN: TUESDAY,June 20, 2017 WHERE: FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 16705 E.AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS,FOUNTAIN HILLS,AZ A majority of the Council members may be in attendance.No official action will be taken. Board of Adjustment members will attend either in person or by telephone conference call. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to A.R.S. § 1-602.A.9,subject to certain specified statutory exceptions,parents have a right to consent before the State or any of its political subdivisions make a video or audio recording of a minor child. Meetings of the Board of Adjustment are audio and/or video recorded Nino and,as a result,proceedings in which children are present may be subject to such recording. Parents,in order to exercise their rights may either file written consent with the Town Clerk to such recording,or take personal action to ensure that their child or children are not present when a recording may be made. If a child is present at the time a recording is made,the Town will assume that the rights afforded parents pursuant to A.R.S.§ I-602.A.9 have been waived. PROCEDURE FOR ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL Anyone wishing to speak before the Board must fill out a speaker's card and submit it to the Recorder prior to Board discussion of that Agenda item. Speaker Cards are located in the Council Chamber Lobby and near theRecorder's position on the dais. Speakers will be called in the order in which the speaker cards were received either by the Recorder or the Chairman. At that time, speakers should stand and approach the podium. Speakers are asked to state their name and whether or not they reside in Fountain Hills (do not provide a home address)prior to commenting and to direct their comments to the Presiding Officer and not to individual Boardmembers. Speakers' statements should not be repetitive. If a speaker chooses not to speak when called, the speaker will be deemed to have waived his or her opportunity to speak on the matter. Speakers may not(i)reserve a portion of their time for a later time or(ii) transfer any portion of their time to another speaker. If there is a Public Hearing,please submit the speaker card to speak to that issue during the Public Hearing. Individual speakers will be allowed three contiguous minutes to address the Board. Time limits may be waived by (i) discretion of the Development Services Director upon request by the speaker not less than 24 hours prior to a Meeting, (ii) consensus of the Board at Meeting or(iii) the Chairman either prior to or during a Meeting. Please be respectful when making your comments. If you do not comply with these rules,you will be asked to leave. Stow • CALL TO ORDER,PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE,&MOMENT OF SILENT REFLECTION—Chairman Ryan • ROLL CALL—Chairman Ryan n___ 1 _r1 Call To The Public Pursuant to A.R.S.§38-431-01(H),public comment is permitted(not required)on matters not listed on the agenda. Any such comment(i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Council and(ii)is subject to reasonable time,place,and manner restrictions. The Council will not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during"Call to the Public"unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the call to the public,individual Councilmembers may(i)respond to criticism,(ii)ask staff to review a matter or(iii)ask that the matter be placed on a future Council agenda. 1. CONSIDERATION of approving the Board of Adjustment meeting minutes for February 28, 2017. 2. PUBLIC HEARING of the application of Joyce and David Schweikert to receive comments on a requested VARIANCE from Section 5.09.A of the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance to allow a 2.5 foot variance from the 3.5 foot fence height limitation to allow a six (6) foot tall fence wall to be built within a portion of the front yard setback at 15819 E. Sycamore Drive. Case #V2017-01 3. CONSIDERATION of the application of Joyce and David Schweikert to receive comments on a requested VARIANCE from Section 5.09.A of the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance to allow a 2.5 foot variance from the 3.5 foot fence height limitation to allow a six (6) foot tall fence wall to be built within a portion of the front yard setback at 15819 E. Sycamore Drive.Case #V2017-01 4. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION to the Development Services Director. 5. SUMMARY OF BOARD REQUESTS and REPORT ON RECENT ACTIVITIES by the Chairman, Individual Boardmembers,and the Development Services Director. 6. ADJOURNMENT. Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the Board with this genda are a ailable review in the Planning & Zoning Department. DATED this 8th day of June 2017 By: obe R gers,Development Services Director The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 837-2003 (voice)or 1-800-367-8939 (TDD)48 hours prior to the meeting to request reasonable accommodations to participate in this meeting. A majority of the Council Members may he in attendance. No official action will he taken. L n-__ t _rn �,cAINy� TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS v � l Planning and Zoning . X Board of Adjustment that is AvVi' AGENDA ACTION FORM Meeting Date: June 20,2017 Meeting Type: Regular Agenda Type: Regular Submitting Division: Development Services Staff Contact Information: N/A REQUEST TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION: CONSIDERATION for approving the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES from February 28, 2017. Applicant: N/A Applicant Contact Information: N/A Property Location: N/A Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle: Policy or Guiding Principle: A.R.S. §38-431.01 Staff Summary (background): The intent of approving previous meeting minutes is to ensure an accurate account of the discussion and action that took place at that meeting for archival purposes. Approved minutes are placed on the Town's website in compliance with state law. Risk Analysis (options or alternatives with implications): N/A Fiscal Impact(initial and ongoing costs; budget status): N/A Recommendation(s): Approval Staff Recommendation(s): Approval SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to Approve the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES from February 28,2017. Attachment(s): N/A Submitted by: Approved GaiXa- WStkiiilkA, 06/08/17 06/08/17 Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant Date Ro ger elopment Services Director Date Page I of I .evfAINitt, TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Cow Planning and Zoning X Board of Adjustment AGENDA ACTION FORM Meeting Date: June 20, 2017 Agenda Type: Regular Meeting Type: Regular Submitting Department: Development Services Staff Contact Information: Marissa Moore, AICP, Senior Planner mmoore@fh.az.gov (480) 816-5139 REQUEST TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING of the application of Joyce and David Schweikert to receive comments on a requested VARIANCE from Section 5.09.A of the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance to allow a 2.5 foot variance from the 3.5 foot fence height limitation to allow a six (6) foot tall fence wall to be built within a portion of the front yard setback at 15819 E. Sycamore Drive. Case #V2017-01 CONSIDERATION of the application of Joyce and David Schweikert to receive comments on a requested lib. VARIANCE from Section 5.09.A of the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance to allow a 2.5 foot variance from the 3.5 foot fence height limitation to allow a six (6) foot tall fence wall to be built within a portion of the front yard setback at 15819 E. Sycamore Drive. Case #V2017-01 Owner/Applicant: Joyce and David Schweikert Applicant Contact Information: 15819 E. Sycamore Drive, Fountain Hills, 85268 (602) 502-4806 Property Location: 15819 E. Sycamore Drive, Fountain Hills, 85268 (Plat 603-C, Block4, Lot 6) (APN: 176-16-287) Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle: Town Code Article 2-8-4—Board of Adjustment Duties Town Code Article 2-8-6—Variances 2010 Strategic Plan—Conformance with Town Regulations Staff Summary(background): The residence is located in the middle of a long block in the R1-35 zoning district. This zoning district is used for lots that are a minimum of 35,000 square feet. The intent of this zoning designation is to preserve and protect development on these larger lots. The subject property abuts the Town-owned Sycamore Wash to the rear. Because of the steep slope at the rear of these properties, leading down to the wash, the homes are Page I of 6 Variance:15819 E.Sycamore Drive Case:V 2017-01 typically constructed at the top of the slope, near the right-of-way. This is true for a number of the properties along the ridgelines abutting washes in this vicinity(see attached zoning map). The intent of front yard setbacks 46., is to provide visual continuity in a particular neighborhood, to provide light and air movement around properties, and to prevent encroachments on neighboring properties and/or the right-of-ways. The intent of restricting fence/wall height within the front yard setback is to create lines of sight along property lines for visual continuity along the road. The building setbacks for the R1-35 zoning district are as follows: Front=40 feet Side=20 feet Rear=40 feet This zoning district encompasses all of the properties along the south side of E. Sycamore Drive, where the subject property is located. While there are three different subdivisions along the south side of E. Sycamore Drive, they all have the same building setbacks. A portion of the north side of E. Sycamore Drive and across the street from the subject property is zoned. R1-10. This zoning district has different setback requirements from the subject property. In addition, those parcels in the R1-10 Zoning District have different characteristics. Specifically they are much smaller lots,the terrain is relatively flat, and they do not abut a wash. The property owner has submitted a building permit application for renovations and additions to this home. The permit application includes a request for the subject of this variance request: to build portions of a fence wall ranging from 4.5 to 6 feet in height within the front yard setback. The maximum allowable height per Chapter 5 Section 5.09.A of the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance is three feet six inches. The applicant is thus requesting a 2.5 foot variance from the maximum allowed height. The purpose of the wall is to provide a security around the remodeled entry to the home. Per the Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.09 Walls and Fences A. Height: 1. Except as otherwise provided, no wall (whether retaining or not), fence or hedge, more than three (3) feet six (6) inches high shall be constructed or maintained nearer to the front or street side property line than the required front or street side building setback line. Retaining walls that lie within the front or street side yard may be allowed to a maximum height of six (6) feet if all of the following three(3)criteria are met: a. The retaining wall is on a slope gradient that is lower in elevation than the finished roadway surface. Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5 Page 9 of 25 January 16, 2017 b. Both the retaining wall does not exceed three and one-half (3 %2) feet above an imaginary line created by a horizontal extension of the roadway-finished surface. c. No vehicular sight lines are obstructed and road "clear zones" are established that are approved by the Town Engineer and meet with approved Traffic Engineering Standards. Because the wall does not meet the waiver criteria spelled out in 5.09.A.1.a. through c. above, the maximum allowed wall height is three feet six inches. Staff may not knowingly approve the wall that would not be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Page 2 of 6 Variance: 15819 E.Sycamore Drive Case:V 2017-01 CODE REQUIREMENTS: Low Town Code Article 2-8 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Section 2-8-4 Duties B. It shall be the duty of the board of adjustment to hear and decide appeals for variances from the terms of the zoning code only, if because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including its size, shape,topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning code will deprive such property owner of privileges enjoyed by owners of other property of the same classification in the zoning district. Any variance granted is subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized 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. C. The board of adjustment may not: 1. Make any changes in the uses permitted in any zoning classification or zoning district, make any changes in the terms of the zoning code or make changes to the zoning map, provided the restriction in this paragraph shall not affect the authority to grant variances pursuant to this article. 2. Grant a variance if the special circumstances applicable to the property are self-imposed by the property owner. Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2 PROCEDURES Section 2.07 Appeals and Variances B. Variance. 1. Any aggrieved person may appeal to the Board of Adjustment for a variance from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance if, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance will deprive such property owner of privileges enjoyed by owners of other property of the same classification in the same Zoning District. Any variance granted shall be made subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment authority shall not constitute a granting of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the zone in which such property is located. 2. The Board shall hear the appeal at the next regularly scheduled meeting after the required advertising requirements have been fulfilled. Notice of the hearing shall be made by publishing a notice thereof in the official newspaper of the Town and by posting the property affected not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. The notice shall set forth the time and place of the hearing and include a general explanation of the matter to be considered. 3. A variance shall not be granted by the Board unless the alleged hardship caused by literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance results in more than personal inconvenience and/or personal financial hardship, and is not the result of actions of the applicant. Cri Page 3 of 6 Variance: 15819 E.Sycamore Drive Case:V 2017-01 4. In granting a variance, the Board shall impose such conditions and safeguards as are appropriate to ensure that the purpose and intent of this ordinance remain intact. sitr. 5. No nonconforming use or violations of this ordinance with respect to neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same Zoning District, and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other zoning districts shall be considered grounds for granting a variance. 6. Every variance shall be personal to the applicant therefore and shall be transferable and shall run with the land only after completion of any structure or structures authorized thereby. 7. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to empower the Board to change the terms of this ordinance, to authorize uses which violate any other Town ordinance, to affect changes in the zoning map, or to add to or change the uses permitted in any Zoning District. FINDINGS: The four findings which must be made by the Board of Adjustment in order to grant a variance are listed below. The applicants have provided their written justifications for each criterion in their attached narrative. The applicants have also provided photos of the current buildings. Staff has noted their responses below. 1. There exist special circumstances or conditions regarding the land, building or use referred to in the application which does not apply to other properties in the district. Applicant's Response (see attached Applicant Response Letter): The goal is to construct a security barrier that blends with the look of the"soon to be remodeled"front entry. There will be a large area of glass in the front of the house which looks into the courtyard as well as a glass front door. A security consultant provided us advice for several aspects of the remodel, specifically the wall shape and"line of sight"into the house. Angles have been surveyed from street heights for privacy and safety with Sycamore sloping to the east. The entry to the breezeway has been redesigned to have a side gate for both aesthetics and privacy/safety. For this solution to work it requires an intrusion into the setback. The entrance gate for the front door has been designed at an angle for the same reasons. This will intrude into the setback. There will be a pillar on the west end of the wall inside the courtyard matching the 45 degree angle similar to the back of the house. This will intrude into the setback. This pillar is designed to hold up the new entry way roof. This roof line is designed to work with the shape of the wall. Additionally, the wall has been designed to remove any blind spots for the security cameras. Furthermore, as you are aware properties on the south slope of Sycamore Drive to the west have reduced setbacks. Staff Response: There are no special circumstances that exist with this property, or with this area of the property (the front yard), that would prevent the property owner installing a wall, or designed/created a secure and safe front entry area, that would meet the zoning requirements. The front yard has an approximate-5% slope from west to the east. From the road,the property has a zero slope to the area where the proposed wall is to be located. Looking at the property from the road going west, at the point at which the front entry is first visible,there is an approximately+l 0% slope. These slopes are not particularly steep. At no point is there such a slope in the roadway or the property such that one is looking down onto the property at an angle that allows the front entry area to be visible from above. The applicant mentions that the properties on the south slope of E. Sycamore Drive have reduced setbacks. The properties being referenced are in the same zoning district—RI-35—and have the same setbacks as the applicant's property. These properties also have similar characteristics as the subject property— larger sloping lots abutting the Page 4 of 6 Variance:15819 E.Sycamore Drive Case:V 2017-01 Sycamore Wash. In order for this criterion to be met, the Board would have to find that the applicant's security concerns constitute the required special circumstances. �r. 2. The above special circumstances or conditions are preexisting and are not created or self-imposed by the owner or applicant. Applicant Response: The wall is designed at the angles shown on the plans (see attached) to create an aesthetic that matches the proposed house remodel. The angles and heights provide safety and security from views from the adjacent roadway(E. Sycamore Drive). Staff Response: The variance being requested is for a condition that is being defined by the applicant (security). The applicant's proposed design does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance front setback requirements. A different design could be created that complies with the zoning regulations. Therefore the applicant should provide evidence that a different design is not possible given the constraints created by strict application of the zoning ordinance. 3. The Variance is necessary for the preservation of substantial property rights. Without a Variance the property cannot be used for purposes otherwise allowed in this district. Applicant Response: The proposed wall is to function as a "security barrier" and to provide privacy for the "large area of glass in the front of the house...as well as a glass front door". Staff Response: The property is currently being used as a single-family residential dwelling and all setbacks are in conformance with the zoning ordinance. No variance is necessary for the property owners to use their property as permitted in the ordinance. Denial of the requested variances will not alter the ability for the property owner to continue to use the property as a single family residence. There is no loss of substantial property rights. In order for this criterion to be met, the Board would have to find that security and privacy legitimately fall under the definition of"substantial property rights." 4. Authorizing the Variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity,to adjacent property,or to the neighborhood or the public welfare. Applicant Response: The applicant did not address this criterion in their narrative. Staff Response: The proposal appears to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. It is staff s opinion that approving this variance request would not have any detrimental effects on the neighbors in the vicinity, to adjacent properties,to the neighborhood in general, or to public welfare. Risk Analysis (options or alternatives with implications): Approval of the requested variance will allow the applicant to construct a wall with a maximum height of 6 feet in the front yard setback. Denial of the requested variance will require that the applicants redesign the proposal so that it conforms to the minimum setback restrictions of the zoning ordinance. Fiscal Impact(initial and ongoing costs; budget status): No Financial impact to the town is anticipated. Page 5 of 6 Variance:15819 E.Sycamore Drive Case:V 2017-01 Staff Recommendation(s): _ Staff does not object to the proposal, subject to the Board of Adjustment's determinations that the above four Now findings have been adequately addressed. The property is used for a primary use that is allowed in the Zoning District. Staff believes that the variance, while self-imposed,will not create a safety issue or be detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: Move to FIND that the written and verbal testimony (HAS/HAS NOT) addressed the four required criteria as listed in the staff report and based on that information that the Board of Adjustment (GRANT / DENY) the requested Variance from Section 5.09.A to allow a six (6) foot tall fence wall to be built within a portion of the front yard setback at 15819 E. Sycamore Drive. Attachment(s): 1. Application 2. Applicant's Narrative (2 pages) 3. Aerial 4. Zoning Map 5. Sketch Plan 6. Photographs(3 pages) 7. Site and Development Plans (, Subnstted by: CA/ Ckz\_„-----V74/11-1 M rissa Moore,AICP 5/10/2017 Senior Planner Date Approved by: I/ obert Rodgers 5/10/2017 Development Services Director Date trilby Page 6 of 6 O‘)N1 A!IV y! DO Not write ipthis space—official use only �` tv, Filing Date f 4' 11 ('ilift. 7 Accepted By r. UW 0 ift/AlC p ',to.. Fee Accepted _ 1 I i, �', 0') v t 5 k • w = Case Manager �r1 5.0` M ooM, 9p�ha��t is AT"' The Town of Fountain Hills PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT - APPLICATION IAbandonment (Plat or Condominium) Appeal of Administrator's Interpretation Area Specific Plan & Amendments Concept Plan Condominium Plat Cut/Fill Waiver Development Agreement HPE Change or Abandonment General Plan Amendment Ordinance (Text Amendment) Planned Unit Development Preliminary/ Final Plat Replat (Lot joins, lot splits, lot line adjustments) Rezoning (Map) Special Use Permit& Amendments Site Plan Review (vehicles sales) Temporary Use Permit(Median Fee, if applicable) Variance _ Other PROJECT NAME / NATURE OF PROJECT: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Plat Name LO3 C Block `I' Lot t PROPERTY ADDRESS: l 5-6"'I 7 t 5/cG.,;,,, 4• /),', i ,-e- PARCEL SIZE (Acres) 9}./ t-, ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER /1"1 -/1 28'7 NUMBER OF UNITS PROPOSED TRACTS EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING A. •licant d rs. c/t✓ie 4- ll4,✓,<� S�1,urt-//5 e '"/ Day Phone L'.2 50 N,�L'l M Mr.II / Ms. Address: /s ASV/ L r--6,074=7✓1 V r- City: J=j/f'/f,<t5State: !i% Zip: &y.z CS,'--- Email: r.e e 90,0i/1Li. CC"ill Owner / Mrs. 5 //2-- // Day Phone Mr. Ms. Address: City: State: Zip: If application is being submitted by someone other than the owner of the property under consideration,the section below must be completed. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE I HEREBY AUTHORIZE TO FILE THIS APPLICATION. Please Print Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 20 My Commission Expires Notary Public MUNIS --1-10 n - APPLICATION # pdO' T—0 1 • Marissa Moore Attachments: ATT00001.thmx;ATT00002.xml;ATT00003.xml Use Permit May 8, 2017 Dear Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning, Re: Request to allow security/decorative wall to intrude into setback The current front was designed in 1980. We have been systematically modernizing the property to be a desert contemporary design by converting to smooth finishes and the use of metal. Our goal is to construct a security barrier that blends with the look of the "soon to be remodeled" front entry. To accomplish this both aesthetically and functionally there are three areas of the wall that would intrude into the set back. As you can see on page 5 of the architect's drawings, this design is planned with a series of angles that will match the remodeled roof line as well as the back of the property. A security consultant provided us advice for several aspects of the remodel, specifically the wall shape and "line of sight" into the house. There will be a large area of glass in the front of the house which looks into the courtyard as well as a glass front door. Angles have been surveyed from street heights for privacy and safety with Sycamore sloping to the east. The entry to the breezeway has been redesigned to have a side gate for both aesthetics and privacy/safety. For this solution to work it requires an intrusion into the setback. The entrance gate for the front door has been designed at an angle for the same reasons. This will intrude into the setback. There will be a pillar on the west end of the wall inside the courtyard matching the 45 degree angle similar to the back of the house. This will intrude into the setback. This pillar is designed to hold up the new entry way roof. This roof line is design to work with the shape of the wall. Additionally, the wall has been designed to remove any blind spots for the security cameras. Furthermore, as you are aware properties on the south slope of Sycamore Drive to the west have reduced setbacks. In alteration to the plans that were submitted there are 5 slat openings in the wall design showing the use of rebar. We have succeeded in engineering a way to do this in stainless steel cable. This matches the cable railing on the back of the property. So will not be using any rebar only stainless steel cable. Lastly, the mature tree and cactus will be able to remain in place. Please let us know if you need additional renderings or engineering documents that would be helpful in your deliberations. Thank you for your consideration. The Schweikert' s 15819 E. Sycamore Dr. Cell : 602-502-4806 2 • „,- a 4,-4 , .xo ..---* 1:�s�•s 'ry l!w` Kw ,, - "� "r %ti'•xka••t a ♦ ,R,. y,r1 itt + ♦w# air a 3�.' M a.. 4 .C :Ai°1io. 4. '+~' ♦ 'r`rw e ,,, _1s 4. '+t +''`wig' t. ` Tdt ', '4" • Y .x w stt 41+,' •:ice "*-13W ,t 44.. i ** le •!.i ." r-i,�, •e' R1,'♦. .. _r '!R .• . �.4Y.• T.�41.- t,.L.x,-a ` ti`*•s.:w 4,• •♦ • f fy ♦ 't` • - �'# '" O,• .�f • 1TF .x� -*At** ♦ 1 w a. • twt t, r M ''N 'S•R'** . ai � '+ +a�+v eta A- � ' wb r.' ` , oxo w _ ••. * .Y #iv, 74.` v ,likM� •«`•.,,-Le -• ,w. w t 'M`x w r". �`K'Sa' ' .t * .. ,' -S i *, • - ,,--•. 1t t ',. 't« _, !'.� I' Z «P? ,#II J,wx ' t .t' - " �• wt` j -T \. • "' *, j. d } 47 N ..11 ,f` « r*ap 2 ' ti • �Y ''�ba 0•,�gala 4 t)yy,�� .:t. • , o �11l... s �" i Q • '�6a*wwM{'a i+ - "` '.,,*V4,,,,1 , n *`�' �, ''VI. *' "•,kr w • w .«w,,�, 9k ' y�i`_ v.sr,� . �" '� or** p '". 4 4w 1,a +� t" k 0t r 4,, • .., • . ., : : . . .. ..,.,.._: : • . . , a a th.),, . . . ? , lit. .. , . '....$tr:r. *- . „„iik. . . „:. . ./ ,.. _ • „ Y�.` �`y t ,R• YDF't♦ '�4 A. -:a I` r -N.`.", ifµ` . /1:it.'4$4*-,..„-4 Oa � + �4,..11 ff ," a 7"fir}` ' a , e �r g`,• '. r', �`4' 1,. e'^Y4...40...ro.:::' ,• �M 4 ♦r.0 a k +a rY «tJ: .:J;Pi $&:'; wwf.,a$-, a r•t / 4•.. ` «1 �4 iB,. s KJ f 'Ark`44;*1 'P'.{#' M y' ' fi? ' 1 ▪,. , & ,4 • "Wj if - , Ir.,t as ,� f ?, qt v r, It'' ' •.. x^ i ;4 %t r by)w" f �I y I � ,l� . ' la. ''.. :lac ctI I I �,Ib :+i Y. .� " a,#,.t 9t . t ' ;OM'~� �,#, °�'" wry` •R .� 'y I +I ,,...� .' `* * A. "�, St"'.cam. ., '� .. ;3t.�d,. ...` �i'' •- s _ •rs. f ! a • T*e' .,e� '.'''t g ' I, s Fa•. .thy • y`� .-A. -. . ' ' .t. " •r ..l 17'1wy M(t .yam r 7'• `f: ° t �' ' ,4 a Hit t 'N.Y x r1 *' - #~ 'm v, - +?. w , ax, o y'�f.'�tAr c': s .p`;4!i xt r; 8��'k°Et ..t,y t /i," ,, r 1 Af,: rY,��!/g fps � ..w\. ,T.rv. I, � `. ,��i]iT� i n .. , ` M• + i�Per 3�°" �. '_� ., r if-,-,:.:A p� • t�'Lh /� /, ''ryf. '. Wig..~ ii' "t t 't ,}i „; 7r x� ' �l �, /� �' _ • • ;y {{�_F.` ;. ., -‘,r4t1-.- -.*.. ttif ,. - ic, E' ---- ' ' 4, 4-) -''..' ' '.:.... - * It, r•r ilk kt" ' ' ' '. ' *.'" • 114,10 '• _ tor .sti, • .„.., . ti< „40 r , „,,,.... Lit-44...•.. -, ,.*-. 4., . „...‘ rtt.....4.? ,,r, 41.. . . r, -:-.1, .. i 7., „ ....., , ,; ,.-. 0 1.4 Al ,....;;r tk.At 4.41404 ..A. 4`1.-: •. • ' 4ttlit t. Mt-.. III+ t, w.. . J ..' i "�, , \. •r ''''...;''i'''ip'''.,.t. 'I +54 '" k'• `mac 4 '„ : 4 4ix y. ittow {k T' � nhLyF d` , 1 ,t j; if i I ,�1 " r • t* a. r 1 i - , ,„ 4-, it,* yDz /).* Fir 11 il* =sk iy 4* (.,) . rn o 11 ***,I*a* ,1it %ot. iv L'i F)'- *I* 41* dit, 0 * i 44 4°'*;4.. , / u 1 Looking west on E. Sycamore Drive and the intersection with Twin Deer Run ry,,, Subject Property ,;. w •h w . f` i WEST ' Twin Deer Run Looking west: Colair „- Subject Property Existing Entry •`''' 4 '- 'i.R x .. s x ✓x,. v , „s Y f '• ' a ,� ter'.}.. ate. • . y 1111, filll, F 44}4'2 vk . f WEST _ �;,,► ; • - Google Earth Looking east: - - Subject Property, _1 " ' ..4 4 C �Air� R F EAST «.r ` t, 0 Google i r.rtl-i Looking east near the intersection of E. Sycamore Drive and Twin Deer Run: III , - - ..3 .. Subject Property Existing Entry '" ''t ., Twin Deer Run St- EAST -4` ' t�i ''"`t.' 4 .}11'1' ? ,, ` " Goo•Ie,Eoutt Looking south at the subject property from E. Sycamore Drive: Q "' Subject Property v „, ti r b 11• 7 11.1, ii. .. t ' . j, to• a . ..,- .. ., ..... II"' ' ..-0,•:"—rm.' 07 7, j., ' '4"(t.. re r4 ' a r 4. .:: ... ,. e + h �* at n 14 3n ' G E. oo"ar- t6 r Paula Woodward From: Marissa Moore ent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 6:09 PM ro: Paula Woodward Subject: Variance Public Notice for newspaper PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 6:30 P.M. in the Town Council Chambers located at 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountain, Fountain Hills, Arizona, The Fountain Hills Board of Adjustment will hold a PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on a requested VARIANCE from Section 5.09.A of the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance to allow a 2.5 foot variance from the 3.5 foot fence height limitation to allow a six (6) foot tall fence wall to be built within a portion of the front yard setback at 15819 E. Sycamore Drive. Case #V2017-01 A complete copy of the proposal is available for viewing in the Fountain Hills Planning & Zoning Office, 7:00 AM - 6:00 PM Monday through Thursday. For more information, contact Marissa Moore, AICP, Senior Planner, Development Services, Town of Fountain Hills, 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountain, Fountain Hills, AZ 85268; or by calling 480-816-5139. All interested citizens are encouraged to attend. (Posted in the 5/24/2017 and 5/31/2017 editions of the Fountain Hills Times.) Marissa Moore, AICP Senior Planner Town of Fountain Fin 16705 E.Avenue of the Fountains _ Fountain Hills,AZ 85268 .s +nr. vk.. J mmooreCafh.az.gov Direct: 480-816-5139 Fax:480-837-3145 1 PRESENTATION NOTES Schweikert Variance 15819 E. Sycamore Dr- Case V2017-01 SLIDE 1 — Cover This is a variance request by a property owner, Mr. and Mrs. Schweikert, at 15819 E. Sycamore Dr. Slide 2 Here is a zoning map showing where the property is located. In this case, the property is located in the R1-35 zoning district. SLIDE 3 Here is an aerial of the property SLIDE 4 Here is a view of the front of the property where the wall is proposed to be ocated. Slide 5 In the R1-35 zoning district the front yard setback is 40 feet. Within this front yard, a fence wall can be a maximum of 3.5 feet in height. The property owner is requesting a variance from this maximum height to allow a fence wall to be 5 to 6 feet in height within this setback. The variance request is for relief from Section 5.09. of the Zoning Ordinance which pertains to the height limitations for fences and walls within the front yard setback. Slide 6 Here are the design plans with the areas of the proposed wall to be 5 feet in height highlighted in orange and the areas proposed to be 6 feet in height highlighted in blue. On the top shows what the wall would look like facing the front of the house. Jn the bottom is a view of the wall looking down. Slide 7 . hese are the four variance criteria. As you know, the board must find that all four have been satisfactorily met in order to grant a variance. The applicants have provided a written narrative with their arguments in favor of the variance. They're also present to answer any questions.