Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 1/26/1999 MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 26, 1999 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: James Swan, Chairman Hayward Thresher, Vice Chairman Jon Michell, Member Henry Suozzi, Member EXCUSED: Richard Moreno, Member STAFF PRESENT: Clif Lutich, Senior Zoning Inspector Tobin Sidles, Town Attorney Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator Linda Hersha, Administrative Secretary MINUTES A MOTION was made by Member Suozzi, and seconded by Member Vice Chair Thresher to approve the minutes of the December 22, 1999 meeting with the corrections noted. Motion carried 4-0. 1. OV 10-99-01: JOHN AND CATHY HUNSPERGER, 10333 NORTH ORACLE ROAD, #10102, ORO VALLEY, AZ. 85737; REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A POOL ENCROACHING A REAR YARD SETBACK. SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1810 EAST STARMIST PLACE (LOT 362, CATALINA SHADOWS SUBDIVISION). Clif Lutich, Senior Zoning Inspector, reviewed the staff report. He explained that Mr. and Mrs. Hunsperger request to construct a pool in the rear yard of a home they will be constructing in the Catalina Shadow subdivision. At the time of the preparation of this report on January 15th, all property owners within 300 feet had been notified of the hearing. The property had been posted and a hearing notice had been advertised in the Territorial Newspaper. No input from the public has been received however, an inquiry was received and will be reviewed. Mr. Lutich informed the board that this subdivision is a planned area that was developed under the Pima County regulations and was annexed into the Town in 1994. The site is approximately 100 feet wide and 100 feet deep. The lot is graded and slopes slightly to the street to allow site drainage. The applicant proposes to build a home of 2030 square feet. Staff supports the granting of a variance of the Hunsperger's to allow the pool to approach January 26, 1999 MINUTES,BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2 the rear setback by three (3) feet. He stated it is staffs belief that the intent of the rear setback requirements is to prevent the homeowners from building a pool at the rear of the lot line that would be a common lot line to properties to the rear, thus, invading the privacy of the property owner who shares the rear property line. The lot has a common area of approximately 100 feet at the rear of the lot, which is utilized as a drainageway. Therefore, there is a buffer in the rear yard and the yard to the north. In answer to a question by member Mitchell, Mr. Lutich confirmed that there was a 3-foot setback in the sideyard. Member Suozzi inquired if there was any information on the size of the pool. Mr. Lutich stated that the applicant has described the pool in the site plan as being approximately 25 feet in length (which is not a factor in this application) and a 9-foot width at the narrow end and a 14-foot width at the large end. Chairman Swan opened the Public Hearing. Chairman Swan swore in the applicant, witnesses and those intending to testify. John Hunsperger, 10333 North Oracle Road, Apt. 10102. Mr. Hunsperger explained that he purchased the property in the spring of last year from High Desert Homes. He proceeded to explain the type of pool he desired. Conventional in shape and large enough for children to swim a modest distance. Member Suozzi inquired if they had considered other alternatives for the location of the pool on the lot. Chairman Swan asked Mr. Hunsperger if he was familiar with the five- (5) criteria that the board has to adhere to in making a judgement for a variance. Chairman Swan cited two of the five. (B. That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant. C. That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights) He stated that technically speaking if we are able to grant a variance, all five of those items must be present. Chairman Swan swore closed the Public Hearing. MOTION: A MOTION was made by Vice Chairman Thresher to move to request the approval OV 10-99-01: John and Cathy Hunsperger request for a variance to construct a pool encroaching a rear yard setback because it does meet the 5 criteria and it is relatively isolated from all sides, especially from the rear. Seconded by Member Mitchell. No Discussion. January 26, 1999 MINUTES,BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 3 ROLL CALL VOTE Member Suozzi—Nay Member Mitchell—Aye Vice Chairman Thresher—Aye Chairman Swan—Nay MOTION was denied. (Attorney Tobin Sidles explained that a tie vote (2-2) according to the Town rules means it has been denied.) Chairman Swan suggested to Mr. Hunsperger to do more research on relocating the pool to avoid a request for variance or to come back and ask for reconsideration. The motion to approve OV 10-99-01 was denied 2-2. 2. OV 10-99-02: TOM HARTMAN, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY BUILDING EXCEEDING THE HEIGHT OF THE MAIN BUILDING. SUBJECT PROPERTY: 840 WEST CALLE CONCORDIA. (A PORTION OF LOT 43, LINDA VISTA TRACTS NO. 2 SUBDIVISION) Mr. Lutich explained that Mr. Hartman is requesting a variance to construct an accessory building, which will be used as a stable and barn exceeding the height of the main building. He is requesting to exceed height of the main structure by 1 foot 4 inches. The code requires that accessory buildings shall not exceed the height of the main building. The property is located on the north side of Calle Concordia and is approximately 3100 feet east of the intersection of North Calle Concordia and La Canada Drive. At the date of the report all property owners within 300 feet had been notified of the hearing, the property was posted, and the hearing notice was published in the Daily Territorial Newspaper. At the time of the report, staff had not received any comments in support of or in opposition of this request. Mr. Lutich stated that a letter has been received from Mr. Carl Kuehn, which was submitted to the board. Staff supports the granting of the variance to Mr. Hartman. Mr. Lutich stated that the subdivision is zoned R1-144. The subject lot is approximately 329 feet wide and has a depth of approximately 631 feet. There is a dwelling on the property that is approximately 500 feet north of Calle Concordia and the lot has terrain that is typically like other lots in this subdivision. The lots on each side of the subject lot are improved. The zoning for this district requires that an accessory structure shall not exceed the height of the main structure. Mr. Towle, the agent for Mr. Harman, stated in his application that the requested height will provide necessary ventilation to avoid heat build up in the summer which would cause stress to the animals and to allow adequate head room. Staff understands the logic of the explanation but requested that Mr. Towle present a letter from a veterinarian or some other qualified professional stating that this is a reasonable and necessary need. Staff supports the granting of a variance and believes the finding of items B through E is satisfied in this request. January 26, 1999 MINUTES, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 4 Chairman Swan opened the Public Hearing. Chairman Swan swore in the applicant, witnesses and those intending to testify. Mr. John Towle, 1751 South San Juan Place, Tucson and is representing Mr. Hartman in this case. Mr. Towle proceeded to read a letter from the veterinarian to the board and gave an overview regarding the height variation. Carl Kuehn, neighbor, complained about grading at the site. Chairman Swan stated that is not a matter before the board. Gina Govia, neighbor testified she objected to the variance. Her concern is lighting Chairman Swan closed the Public Hearing. MOTION: A MOTION was made by Member Mitchell, and seconded by Vice Chairman Thresher to approve OV 10-99-02, a request for a variance to construct an accessory building exceeding the height of the main building by one foot, four inches. ROLL CALL VOTE Member Mitchell—Aye Member Suozzi—Aye Vice Chairman—Aye Chairman—Aye Motion carried 4-0 to approve OV 10-99-02. 3. OV10-99-03: LEE AND KATHY BECKER, 11951 NORTH JOI DRIVE, ORO VALLEY, AZ., 85737 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO REDUCE FRONT YARD SETBACK. SUBJECT PROPERTY: 11951 NORTH JOI DRIVE, TANGERINE HILLS SUBDIVISION, LOT#106. Mr. Lutich reviewed the staff report. He explained that the owners request a variance to Chapter 6, Section 605.E.1 of the Zoning Code, R1-36 Single Family Residential District, Yard Setbacks. Setback requirements are developed to create uniform development within a zoning district and to create standards for life safety (fire)protection, while enhancing privacy and property values. Mr. Lutich stated the home could be reached by travelling approximately 1,200 feet west from the intersection of E. Tangerine Road and Rancho Vistoso Blvd. North First Ave, to the intersection of East Tangerine Road and North Tami Lane. Turn south on Tami Lane from this intersection. The first street on the left is Joi Drive. The subject property is the first house on the right hand side. All property owners within 300 feet of this property were notified of this hearing. The property was posted and the hearing was advertised in the Daily January 26, 1999 MINUTES,BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 5 Territorial. At the time of this report, staff had received two letters from the public supporting the approval of the variance request. No comments have been received in opposition to the request. Staff supports the citing of the addition as planned by the Beckers. The placement of the garage on the west side of the home is the only practical location. Kathy Becker, applicant,presented her request to the board. She stated reasons why a garage could not meet the required setbacks. Chairman Swan opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Member Mitchell questioned would the variance apply only to the garage, and not the porch. Vice Chairman Thresher stated that the item did not meet the criteria and he stressed the importance of maintaining the 30-foot setback. Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator informed the board that by placing the 30-foot setback there will not be a uniform line. Therefore, the porch will be outside the variance and the garage will setback 2 1/2 feet. Mr. Lutich clarified that the Becker's were requesting a variance to reduce the front yard setback by 5 feet. Mr. Nodine stated that staff had noticed the request as strictly a reduction in the front yard setback and that there was no specific language regarding the porch. If a variance is granted, it could apply to either area. A MOTION: A motion was made by Member Jon Mitchell to approve OV 10-99-03 to reduce the front yard setback 25 feet to construct a new garage a shown in the proposed drawing. The motion seconded by Chairman Swan. ROLL CALL VOTE Member Suozzi—Aye Member Mitchell—Aye Vice Chairman—Thresher—Nay Chairman Swan—Aye Motion carried 3-1 to approve OV10-99-03, Vice Chairman Thresher opposed. Tobin Sidles, Town Attorney informed the petitioner that the variance requested was specifically for the garage and if they were interested in extending the porch to submit a new variance request. January 26, 1999 MINUTES,BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 6 4. Planning and Zoning Update Bryant Nodine briefed the board of the following: • Jim Copus, Senior Planner for Planning and Zoning had resigned and was relocating to Texas • A request for applications has been announced for the Senior Planner position • The Planning Tech Position will become full-time; this person will do all of the simple permits review for a one day turn-around time • Staff is working on translational zoning for the newly annexed areas which will be going before Council at the next Town Council Meeting Mr. Lutich explains how an application is reviewed and submitted to the board. He expressed that it is difficult to stress the importance of how the petitioner makes their presentation. Mr. Lutich stated that staff would appreciate any input from the board as to the way the reports are being prepared. Staff has to be objective in the regulations and can only suggest alternatives. But if the board has specific example for staff to follow for the gathering of information presented that those examples would be greatly appreciated. Vice Chairman Thresher complimented staff on the site location information. Chairman Swan inquired if the deadline could be setup to give staff more time. Bryant Nodine stated that the deadline could be change but not sure that it would change staff's ability to effect the presentation of the applicant. Chairman Swan communicated that if there is more definitive information given to the board prior to the meetings that it is easier to formulate some preliminary thoughts and questions. Mr. Nodine informed the board that it was possible to revise the code and suggested staff get input from the board on those things that are important to help make the decisions and indicated which of the specifics to put in the code. Mr. Nodine suggested that the board could say at the time of the hearing"the board requires more information and are going to continue this item until the next meeting". Mr. Suozzi agreed with Chairman Swan and suggested that staff delay information presented to the board until all the necessary documents has been submitted. Mr. Sidles stated that the board had its own rules and regulations and suggested that one of the stipulations could reflect that the information would not be excepted beyond a certain date. Member Mitchell expressed that all information should be sent in the packet and that's what the board decision will be based on. January 26, 1999 MINUTES,BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 7 Mr.Nodine reiterated that the issue is this is a public hearing and if there is new information coming in at the time of the public hearing the board has to consider the new information and deliberate. Information can not be denied a week before the public hearing. All board members agreed that all information should be submitted to the board if possible before the hearing. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: A MOTION was made by Member Jon Mitchell to adjourn the meeting at 5:24 p.m. Motion SECONDED by Vice Chairman Thresher. Motion carried 4-0, to adjourn the January 26, 1999 Board of Adjustment meeting. Respectfully submitted, "d&40 i a Hersha, Administrative Secretary