Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV101205Catalina Ridge Lot 39 Zoning Variance OV1012-05 Engineering Comments, 1st Submittal David Laws, P.E. August 27, 2012 The Town of Oro Valley Permitting Division has no Engineering comments regarding the proposed zoning variance. The requested variance for the front and rear yard setbacks will not in itself result in hazard to persons or property if granted. However, the existing sight visibility triangle easement along the west property boundary will must still be adhered to. Review of other engineering code requirements such as drainage conveyance will take place at time of Building/Grading Plan submittal for permit. If you have any questions, please call David Laws at (520)229-4808. Eng-var-01-20120118 ID O�PIIEY Aq� O Development and Infrastructure Services Planning Division 11000 N La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 , 520-229-480 • 52fl( POUNDED '%91 a BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION NOTICE TO APPLICANT— It is the applicant/owner's responsibility to ensure all private rules and regulations of the subdivision are adhered to. Conte o r HOA or property management company to determine all applicable requirements. Initials s FOR Zoning Variance Note: Submittals are due by noon Zoning Interpretation ` I r1 Appeal of Administrative Decision CASE NO.: __( V �� [�l b� NATURE OF REQUEST: If necessary, please attach a written narrative. /_\=4C97\zif PHONE: —; �� FAX: ADDRESS: city, OWNER: ADDRESS: City State Zip Email State An PROPERTY LOCATION FOR VARIANCE REQUEST: PARCEL M CURRENT ZONING: ATTACHMENTS: SIGNATURE-0 SAP - LEGAL DESCRIPTION: APPLICABLEEE: T (ALSO PRINT NAME) August 13, 2012 Board of Adjustment Application for Zoning Variance Supplemental Information Applicant Subject Property Name: Bill Leedy Owner Leedy Family Revocable Trust Address: Location: 400 E Haleigh PI — Lot 39 Phone: Zoning: Oro Valley PAD Variance Requested: 1. Reduce the front setback to 20 feet as required to place a house not larger than 3,500 square feet equal distance from the east and west Property boundaries. Please mote that the northern boundary of the Property is set back from the street approximately 10 feet. As a result, this variance amounts to no - reduction of the front set back requirement when viewed as a set back from the street. 2. Reduce the rear setback requirement from 40 feet to 20 feet as required to place a house not larger than 3,500 square feet equal distance from the north and south Property boundaries. Summary Justification: The variance request is necessitated by a unique set of circumstances or conditions not created by the owner of Lot 39 ("the Property"). Approval of the variance request does not represent a grant of special privileges and does not encroach on any surrounding neighbor. Failure to grant approval of the variance request imposes an unreasonable and unnecessary restriction on the property rights of the owner of the Property and could have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community, especially the surrounding neighbors. The owner of the Property has discussed this variance request with the nearest three existing neighbors (owner/occupants). None has expressed objection to this variance request. Exhibits A, B and C include photographs of the Property and vicinity that illustrate how the elevation of the Property relative to the elevation of the lot immediately to the south of the Property mitigates the encroachment that might otherwise occur by granting the variance request. They also illustrate how failure to grant the requested variance would result in a very unattractive location of the house on the Property. Exhibit D illustrates how even a 2,500 square foot house located to the far west of the Property would require a modest set back variance. Exhibits E and F illustrate the set back variance required for centrally locating on the Property a 3,000 square foot house and a 3,700 square foot house. Exhibits G and H illustrate the requested set back variance for both the 3,000 and 3,7000 square foot houses centrally located on the Property. Supplemental Information: 1. Are there special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district? Yes. The relatively wide, below average size and trapezoidal shape of Lot 39 ("the Property), as well as th6 elevation of the Property relative to the lot to the rear of the Property, are unique within the Catalina Ridge subdivision. The Property is approximately 154 feet along it western boundary and only approximately 75 feet along its eastern boundary. After imposing the front 30 foot and rear 40 foot setback requirements, the building envelope is reduced to approximately 5 feet at the eastern boundary. This circumstance is the result of the combination of the general layout of the subdivision and the location of the Haleigh Place turn -around which combine to significantly reduce the width of the east half of the Property. Catalina Ridge has 45 lots. The average lot size is approximately 27,500 square feet. The Property is 19,847 square feet, 28% smaller than average. Only? of the 45 lots in Catalina Ridge are smaller than 19,000 square feet. The combination of the size and shape of the Property are what constitutes the special circumstances or conditions. We are considering a variety of floor plans offered by several builders active in Catalina Ridge. These floor plans range from 2,900 to 3,700 square feet. All represent a nearly square envelope shape with optimal construction cost and energy efficiency. Without approval of the variance requested, we would be forced to build a smaller house with higher cost and lower energy efficiency that is located entirely within the western half of the Property. In addition to being an unreasonable burden on us, such a result would be aesthetically awkward and materially inconsistent with the architectural character of the community. It would also, more than likely, be viewed unfavorably by current and future neighbors. The northern boundary of the Property is set back from the street approximately 10 feet. As a result, the front set back variance requested actually amounts to no front set back requirement reduction when viewed as a set back from the street. Finally, the requested rear setback requirement variance does not represent a significant encroachment on the future neighbor to the rear as the Property is approximately 15 feet higher than the elevation of the lot to the rear. This elevation difference eliminates any view potential to the north and requires that the primary focus of view opportunities and outdoor activities be on the south side of this lot to the rear of us. 2. Are there special circumstances that exist that are not self imposed or created by the owner/applicant? Yes. None of the special circumstances described in the response to item 1 above were created by the owner/applicant. 3. Is the authorizing of the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights? Yes 11-h addition, absent approval of the variance request, the house would necessarily =- be located entirely within the west half of the Property, an aesthetically awkward result that could have an adverse impact on neighboring property values. 4. If granted, will the variance impose such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located? Yes. Approval of the requested variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges but rather gives us the opportunity to design a house and locate it on the Property in a manner that is consistent with the aesthetic and architectural character of the neighborhood including the houses that have been built thus far. 5. If granted, will the variance be the minimum necessary to afford relief and will not materially affect the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or surrounding properties? Yes. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief. In fact, as described in the response to question 3 above, failure to approve of the requested variance could have an adverse impact on the welfare of neighborhood, especially the surrounding properties. August 13, 2012 Board of Adjustment Application for Zoning Variance Supplemental Information Applicant Subject Property Name: Bill Leedy Owner Leedy Family Revocable Trust Address: 12222 N. Cloud Ridge Dr. Trustee: Bill and/or Marianne Leedy Oro Valley, AZ 85755 Location: 400 E Haleigh PI — Lot 39 Phone: 520-344-9759 Oro Valley, AZ 85737 E-Mail: Leedyjr@yahoo.com Zoning: Oro Valley PAD Variance Requested: 1. Reduce the front setback to 15 feet as required to place a house not larger than 3,500 square feet equal distance from the east and west Property boundaries. Please note that the northern boundary of the Property is set back from the street approximately 10 feet. As a result, this variance amounts to a reduction of the front set back requirement of only 5 feet when viewed as a set back from the street. 2. Reduce the rear setback requirement from 40 feet to 20 feet as required to place a house not larger than 3,500 square feet equal distance from the north and south Property boundaries. Summary Justification: The variance request is necessitated by a unique set of circumstances or conditions not created by the owner of Lot 39 ("the Property"). Approval of the variance request does not represent a grant of special privileges and does not encroach on any surrounding neighbor. Failure to grant approval of the variance request imposes an unreasonable and unnecessary restriction on the property rights of the owner of the Property and could have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community, especially the surrounding neighbors. The owner of the Property has discussed this variance request with the nearest three existing neighbors (owner/occupants). None has expressed objection to this variance request. Exhibits A, B and C include photographs of the Property and vicinity that illustrate how the elevation of the Property relative to the elevation of the lot immediately to the south of the Property mitigates the encroachment that might otherwise occur by granting the variance request. They also illustrate how failure to grant the requested variance would result in a very unattractive location of the house on the Property. Exhibit D illustrates how even a 2,500 square foot house located to the far west of the Property would require a modest set back variance. Exhibits E and F illustrate the set back variance required for centrally locating on the Property a 3,000 square foot house and a 3,700 square foot house. Exhibits G and H illustrate the requested set back variance for both the 3,000 and 3,7000 square foot houses centrally located on the Property. Supplemental Information: 1. Are there special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district? Yes. The relatively wide, below average size and trapezoidal shape of Lot 39 ("the Property), as well as the elevation of the Property relative to the lot to the rear of the Property, are unique within the Catalina Ridge subdivision. The Property is approximately 154 feet along it western boundary and only approximately 75 feet along its eastern boundary. After imposing the front 30 foot and rear 40 foot setback requirements, the building envelope is reduced to approximately 5 feet at the eastern boundary. This circumstance is the result of the combination of the general layout of the subdivision and the location of the Haleigh Place turn -around which combine to significantly reduce the width of the east half of the Property. Catalina Ridge has 45 lots. The average lot size is approximately 27,500 square feet. The Property is 19,847 square feet, 28% smaller than average. Only 7 of the 45 lots in Catalina Ridge are smaller than 19,000 square feet. The combination of the size and shape of the Property are what constitutes the special circumstances or conditions. We are considering a variety of floor plans offered by several builders active in Catalina Ridge. These floor plans range from 2,900 to 3,700 square feet. All represent a nearly square envelope shape with optimal construction cost and energy efficiency. Without approval of the variance requested, we would be forced to build a smaller house with higher cost and lower energy efficiency that is located entirely within the western half of the Property. In addition to being an unreasonable burden on us, such a result would be aesthetically awkward and materially inconsistent with the architectural character of the community. It would also, more than likely, be viewed unfavorably by current and future neighbors. The northern boundary of the Property is set back from the street approximately 10 feet. As a result, the front set back variance requested actually amounts to a front set back requirement reduction of only 5 feet when viewed as a set back from the street. Finally, the requested rear setback requirement variance does not represent a significant encroachment on the future neighbor to the rear as the Property is approximately 15 feet higher than the elevation of the lot to the rear. This elevation difference eliminates any view potential to the north and requires that the primary focus of view opportunities and outdoor activities be on the south side of this lot to the rear of us. 2. Are there special circumstances that exist that are not self imposed or created by the owner/applicant? Yes. None of the special circumstances described in the response to item 1 above were created by the owner/applicant. 3. Is the authorizing of the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights? Yes. In addition, absent approval of the variance request, the house would necessarily be located entirely within the west half of the Property, an aesthetically awkward result that could have an adverse impact on neighboring property values. 4. If granted, will the variance impose such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located? Yes. Approval of the requested variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges but rather gives us the opportunity to design a house and locate it on the Property in a manner that is consistent with the aesthetic and architectural character of the neighborhood including the houses that have been built thus far. 5. If granted, will the variance be the minimum necessary to afford relief and will not materially affect the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or surrounding properties? Yes. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief. In fact, as described in the response to question 3 above, failure to approve of the requested variance could have an adverse impact on the welfare of neighborhood, especially the surrounding properties. View from across the street looking southeast View from across the street looking east View from across the circle looking southwest Placing the house on the extreme western half of the Property would look very awkward and inconsistent with the location of the other houses in the neighborhood especially the three other existing and new houses on the same street. Exhibit B Picture taken from south edge of the first lot to the south of the Property Picture taken from south edge of the second lot to the south of the Property Encroachment is not an issue as the lot immediately to the south of the Property is at an elevation 15 feet below the elevation of the Property. Additionally, the focus of the lot to the south will be south primarily and east secondarily. Exhibit C Taken from center of Property facing south, no neighbor Taken from center of Property facing north; house is builder's model, across the street and two lots away Taken from center of Property facing west; neighbor contacted, no objection to proposed variance Taken from center of Property facing east; neighbor contacted, no objection to proposed variance Exhibit D This drawing illustrates that even an —2,500 square foot house located in the far western half of the Property requires a modest set back variance. 4 E N...� c Dp;INAGE ESMT.� a �� Exhibit E N� This drawing illustrates an N31000 square foot floor plan centrally located on the Property. r E MT. V - umA NAGS i, Exhibit F N This drawing illustrates an —31700 square foot floor plan centrally located on the Property. Exhibit G Nt This drawing illustrates an —3,000 square foot house centrally located on the Property with the existing and requested set back requirements indicated. 9 Exhibit H N This drawing illustrates an —3,700 square foot house centrally located on the Property with the existing and requested set back requirements indicated. OVZC 23.5.C.l.b For multiple frontage lots, a 20 foot setback must be maintained adjacent to any public or private street. The Town Engineer and Planning and Zoning Administrator may reduce this requirement for side setbacks, but in no case may the setback be less than that required by the zoning district. OVZC 25.2.D. Swimming Pools 1. No swimming pool shall be located closer than 5 feet to any rear property line. 2. Swimming pools shall be subject to the front and side setbacks of the zone in which they are permitted. Page 1 of 2 Hayes, Patty From: Bill Leedy [ Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:11 PM To: Hayes, Patty Subject: Re: Variance case for lot 39 River's Edge/Canada Del Oro Estates That's perfect. Our preference is for a Haleigh driveway access. Cheers, Bill Sent from my Verizon Wireless B1ackBerry From: "Hayes, Patty" <phayes@orovalleyaz.gov> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:07:49 -0700 To: Subject: RE: Variance case for lot 39 River's Edge/Canada Del Oro Estates Mr. Leedy, Thank you for the return email. The driveway access into the lot must remain on Haleigh regardless of setbacks. You can turn the house or garage any angle within those setbacks as long as you drive in and out on Haleigh. I hope that answered your question. If not, please let me know. Thank you, Patty Hayes Zoning Plans Examiner Development & Infrastructure Services Department Town of Oro Valley 520-229-4819 (office) 520-742-1022 (fax) From: Bill Leedy [ Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:00 PM To: Hayes, Patty Subject: Re: Variance case for lot 39 River's Edge/Canada Del Oro Estates Hi Patty! ! We've reviewed your draft letter and it gives us the flexibility we needed. Is it the case that the flexibility you've indicated is not affected by location of the driveway on Haleigh? Unless the driveway is an issue we have no objection to withdrawing our variance application and cancelling our item on the BOJ meeting later this month. Thanks for your help. Cheers, Bill Sent from my Verizon Wireless B1ackBerry 09/18/2012 Page 2 of 2 'fine. I look forward to hearing from you and please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Patty Hayes Zoning Plans Examiner Development & Infrastructure Services Department Town of Oro Valley 520-229-4819 (office) 520-742-1022 (fax) 09/18/2012 18.23.030 - Development standards —General.. - A. B. C. D. Minimum lot area: Sixteen thousand square feet. Minimum area per dwelling unit: Sixteen thousand square feet. Minimum lot width: Eighty feet. Minimum yard requirements: 1. 2. 3. E. F. Front: Thirty feet; Side: Ten feet each; Rear: Forty feet. Building height limitations: 1. 2. Maximum height: Thirty-four feet; Maximum stories: Two. Minimum distance between main buildings: Twenty feet except as required in Section 18.09.0201) (General Residential and Rural Zoning Provisions) for a rear dwelling Pima County Zoning Code 18.03.020 - Definitions — A. Definitions "A." 10. Lot line, front: a. Y. 701 Definitions "Y." 1. 2. In the case of a lot abutting only one street, the line separating such lot from the street; In the case of a comer or through lot, the owner may elect any street lot line as the front lot line, provided such choice, in the opinion of the zoning inspector, will not be injurious to the existing or desirable future development of adjacent properties. Yard: An open and unoccupied space on a building site and, except as otherwise provided in this code, open and unobstructed from the ground to the sky. Yard, front: A yard extending full width of the building site between the front lot line and the nearest line of the main building or the nearest line of any enclosed or covered porch. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Oro Valley Board of Adjustment The Board of Adjustment hearing scheduled for Tuesday, September 25, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. has been cancelled. OV1012-05, Request for a Variance for Lot 39 of the River's Edge/Canada De Oro Estates to reduce the required front and rear yard setbacks, located southeast of Naranja Drive and Joy Faith Drive. For questions and additional information, please contact Patty Hayes, Zoning Plans Examiner, at (520) 229-4819 or phayes@orovalleyaz.gov. POSTED: TIME: BY: SApermplus\docsW1012-05\Z_Cancel notice 9-12-12.doc r NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Oro Valley Board of Adjustment The Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 3:00 p.m. Oro Valley Town Hall, 11000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, Arizona Request for a Variance for Lot 39 of the reduce the required front and rear yard Drive and Joy Faith Drive, OV1012-05. River's Edge/Canada De Oro Estates to setbacks, located southeast of Naranja The hearing will be in the Town Council Chambers. The public is encouraged to attend and will be invited to speak. Site plans are available for review during normal business hours at the Oro Valley Town Hall, Development and Infrastructure Services Department. An agenda for this meeting will be made available at least 24 hours prior to meeting time and can be viewed at www.orovalleyaz.gov. For questions and additional information, please contact Patty Hayes, Zoning Plans Examiner, at (520) 229-4819 or phayes@orovalleyaz.gov. POSTED: 09/07/2012 TIME: 4:00 P.M. BY: rmf SAPERMPLUSTOMOV1 01 2-052B of A notice 9-25-12.doc N W S L I bTHE DAIN TERRITRIAL 2 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA } } ss. COUNTY OF PIMA } Monica Akyol, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)he is the Inside Sales Manager of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tucson, County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and hereto attached: NOTICE OF HEARING Town of Oro Valley River's Edge/Canada De Oro Estates OV 10 1 2-05/September 25, 2012 was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE DAILY TERRITORIAL for 1 issues; that was first made on the 101h day of September, 2012 and the last publication thereof was made on the 10'h day of September, 2012; that said publication was made on each of the following dates, to -wit: 9/10/12 at the Request of: Town of Oro Valley by , Inside Sales Manager, subscribed and sworn to before me this 10'h day of S ptember, 2012. 1 otary Public in and for the County of Pima, St C of Arizona CELINDA ARGUE NotaryPublic-Arizona y commission expires 10/31/2015 pima County My Commission Expires '�` October 31, 2015 REQUEST FOR RECORDS TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA Phone (520) 229-4700 Fax (520) 297-0428 Name: �Ll�ity /"r��EG Date:`_ Business: Z'`7��=�1 Telephone: Address: / Item(s) requested: /'% ' C66- Date(s), if known: NOTE: Copy charge is $.25 per page. nature PLEASE COMPLETE IF COPIES ARE TO BE USED FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. [ ] These reproductions of public records will be used for the following commercial purpose: Signature 'Commercial purpose means the use of a public record for the purpose of sale or resale or for the purpose of producing a document containing all or part of the copy, printout or photograph for sale or the obtaining of names and addresses from such public records for the purpose of solicitation or the sale of such names and addresses to another for the purpose of solicitation or for any purpose in which the purchaser can reasonably anticipate the receipt of monetary gain from the direct or indirect use of such public record. Commercial purpose does not mean the use of a public record as evidence or as research for evidence in an action in a judicial or quasi-judicial body of this state or a political subdivision of this state. (Arizona Revised Statute 39-121-03.D) (NOTE. There is a 50 cents per page charge for documents used for commercial purposes.) *TO BE COMPLETED BY TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF* DATE/TIME REQUEST RECEIVED: (AM / PM) STAFF: DATEITIME REQUEST COMPLETED: (AM / PM) COPY COSTS: FAForms\Request for Records