Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV100303 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT In accordance with Sec. 1-708 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised and Arizona Revised Statutes Sec. 9-462.06, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 27, 2003, commencing at or after 3:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Oro Valley Town Hall, 11000 N. La Canada Drive and the subject matter will be as further described below: OV10-03-03: RANDY AND KAREN BARBERA, 11113 N. GUAVA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 20' SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 5'. SUBJECT PROPERTY: 11113 N. GUAVA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY, AZ., MONTE DEL ORO SUBDIVISION, LOT 87 (224-27-1990). The applicant requests to reduce the side yard setback from 20' to 5',to allow for a pool. Site plans are available for review during normal business hours at the Oro Valley Town Hall, Development Service Center. Persons interested may appear in person, by agent or attorney, and the petitioners must appear or be represented. Any person seeking further information on this request for a variance may contact Dee Widero at 229-4812 or E-mail: dwidero@orovalley.net. POSTED: 5-7-03 t M. No me,AICP time: 3 : 15 p.m. by: drm AFFIDAVIT (Ir PUBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA) w, • .ss. COUNTY OF PIMA ) RO Y.N MCCOMBS being first duly sworn, deposes and says that (he) (she) is the Legal Advertising 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 Tuc- son, County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached OV 1.O—03--03 PUBLIC NOTICE was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE DAILY TERRITORIAL for issues; that was first made MAY 63 on the day of 9t h20 and the last publication thereof was made on the day of 20 ; that said publication wi,, ;d;4,o,o Ich of the following dates, to-wit: Request of TOWN OF ORO VALLEY __ Daily Te 17.4tori.al __ . ........„_ ,, By `� / i Sri6scrifbed and sworn ' ore � ;' day of 7t, MAY 20 93 J / / OFFIPIAL SEAL Kf y ;;- ZI E?dBRiG !-.yotPublic Late ofHZp r i Notary Public in .or h Pi �.R u 4��0, g f Arizona N"y o . My Commission Expires: re"µ fr ' 1 p. L i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VA-----BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT In accc.wiance with Sec.1-708 of the Oro Valley Zoning Cod ed and Arizona Revised Statutes Sec.9-462.06, ••- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of P ant will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,May 27,2003,com- mencing at or after 3:00 p.m.The meeting will be held at the Oro Valley Town Hall,11000 N.La Canada Drive and the subject matter will be as further described below: OV10-03-03:RANDY AND KAREN BARBERA,11113 N.GUAVA DRIVE,ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737,REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 20'SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 5'. SUBJECT PROPERTY:11113 N.GUAVA DRIVE,ORO VAL- LEY,AZ.,MONTE DEL ORO SUBDIVISION,LOT 87(224-27-1990). The applicant requests to reduce the side yard setback from 20'to 5',to allow for a pool. Site plans are available for review during normal business hours at the Oro Valley Town Hall,Development Service Center. Per- sons interested may appear in person,by agent or attorney,and the petitioners must appear or be represented.Any person seek- ing further information on this request for a variance may contact Dee Widero at 229-4812 or E-mail:dwidero@orovalley.net.REQ: Bryant M.Nodine,AICP Pub:The Daily Territorial May 9,2003 Req:Town of Oro Valley pnovl0-03-03 kb MAY 9, 2003 The Daily Territorial PAGE 23 Public deleted from the lease. Notice is hereby given that on the 23 day NOTICE OF PUBLIC AUCTION Summons/John F.Weylor of your response or answer upon the Notice Capital Equipment: County will pay of May, 2003, at 10 o'clock A.m., Pursuant to the provisions of Arizona In The Superior Court Of The State Of Petitioner,and such response or answer Tenant $6 million to purchase new PRINCE SELF STORAGE, located at Revised Statues §11-251(9) notice is Arizona In And For The County Of Pima should be addressed as follows:Caro'" bed inpatient hospital and psychiatric capital equipment to be used at the 455 E PRINCE,Tucson,AZ given that a Public Auction will be held Milton Silverman And Shirley M. Gulledge 3508 S.8th Ave#12,Tuc triage center with 23 hour 59 minute hospital, the following property will be sold at by Pima County on Saturday, May 17, Silverman, husband and wife Plaintiff, 85713 Petitioner's Name and Comp observation beds. Tenant must provide Purchase of Equipment,Furnishings and Auction: 2003,beginning 9:00 a.m.at 1301 South vs.John F.Weylor,A Single Man;Beth Mailing Address_ a minimum number of full time Supplies: Tenant will purchase County LOCKER # NAME DESCRIPTION OF Mission Road, Tucson, AZ. All items Ford, Treasurer of Pima County, If service is made by publication,a copy physicians in sub-specialties of hospital- owned equipment, supplies, and PROPERTY may be inspected at 1301 South Mission Arizona, John Doe and Jane Doe 1 of the Petition and other papers filed in based physicians, medical specialists, furnishings located at the hospital for 140 GUITTEREZ MISC ITEMS Road between 8:00 a.m.and 4:00 p.m. through 10;ABC Partnership 1 through this matter may be obtained from the and surgical specialists of not fewer than $2.5 million amortized over ten years. 172 LEET FURN,TOYS,MISC on May 15,2003 and May 16,2003 and 10;XYZ Corporation 1 through 10; the Clerk of this Court whose address is as 11 physicians by 7/01/2003; not fewer PUBLISH:The Daily Territorial 242 GALLEGO FUN, MW, HSHLD prior to auction time on May 17,2003. unknown heirs of any of the defendants follows:Put in Paper. than 27 physicians by 1/01/2005; not April 25,2003 GOODS All items are sold"AS IS"and"WHERE and parties in possession, Defendants, REQUEST FOR REASONABLE fewer than 44 physicians by 1/01/2006; May 2,9,16,2003 410 NIELSEN MISC,HSHLD LOCATED" at the time of sale. No No. C20032323 Summons Assigned to ACCOMMODATION FOR PERSONS and not fewer than 58 physicians by pnuniversity kb 426 POKORNY FURN,MISC guarantee or warranty of any nature, Judge Christopher Browning The State WITH DISABILITIES MUST BE MADE 1/01/2007. Tenant will provide at least The Auction and Sale will be held either expressed or implied,is made. Of Arizona to the above named TO THE DIVISION ASSIGNED TO THE four residents per year at the hospital pursuant to the rental agreement and A detailed vehicle listing may be Defendants John F. Weylor, a single CASE BY PARTIES AT LEAST 3 during at least the initial 10 years of the - A.R.S. 33 1604, and any other obtained at the Pima County Automotive PUBLIC NOTICE man, 3323 West Tres Nogales Road, JUDICIAL DAYS IN ADVANCE OF A lease. applicable Arizona Statute for satisfying Services Division, 1301 South Mission Tucson,Arizona 85705.You Are Hereby SCHEDULED COURT PROCEEDING. • Three Points Fire District gives notice to g Road, Tucson, Arizona, Monday County will pay Tenant $2.75 million the lien of Prince Self Storage on said Summoned and required to appear and GIVEN UNDER THE HAND AND SEAL their taxpayers that a Public Hearingwill annually for first 4 years and$250,000 property,which include unpaid rent,late Friday,8:00 am to 5:00 pm.,after April defend in the above entitled action in the of the Superior Court of the State of be held at Fire Station #92 11777 S. annually for years 5-10. charges and costs incurred to date. 24,2003. above entitled court, within Twenty Arizona in and for the said County,this_ Camino Lucido on June 9, 2003 at paymentIf you require special assistance to Psychiatric Services to County: Tenant To avoid this sale, IN FULL, Days,exclusive of the day of service,if day of MAY 7 2003,20 . 6:00PM to receive comments oral or chargesP participate fully, please call us at 740 must provide at a minimum all medical includingall late and costs plus served within the State of Arizona, or PATRICIA A.NOLAND CLERK OF THE clearance, psychiatric evaluations, written from the Public on the following additional unpaid rent and charges to 2670 within Thirty Days,exclusive of the day SUPERIOR COURT (SUPERIOR PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL treatment and physician testimony for date of payment,must be received prior PUBLISH:The Daily Territorial of service,if served outside the State of COURT SEAL) By Signature Deputy YEAR 2003/2004 Arizona,and you are notified that in case Clerk the County's adult civil commitment to the date of sale. Landlord will not May 7,8,9,2002 ESTIMATED REVENUE: proceedpayment slmayl7 sm proceedings under A.R.S.Title 36 and a with the sale if a ment IN you fail so to do,judgment by default will Pub:The Daily Territorial TAXES: minimum of 50 psychiatric beds at all FULL is made in CASH or MONEY be rendered against you for the relief May 9,16,23,30,2003 Real/Personal Property $830,968 times for County's use for five years, ORDER only,prior to date of sale. Summon Sdemand in the complaint.You must file Req:Clerk of Superior Court Asst.Tax $146,057 with County's option to extend for up to DATED 5/6/03 BY:Signature MGR. an answer,in writing,in the office of the smgulledge sm Prior Year $135,563 five additional years. for PRINCE SELF STORAGE Summons/Lawyers Title Of Arizona Clerk of Superior Court, 110 West Interest $ 5,136 • County will pay Tenant$14.6 million Pub:The Daily Territorial ,Law Office of Jeffrey M. Neff, 6375 E. Congress, Tucson, Arizona, INTERGOVERNMENTAL accompanied bya necessaryfilingfee, annually for these beds,payment will be May 9,16,2003 Tanque Verde, #130, Tucson, Arizona p SUMMONS Grants $498,897 in the amount of$116.00.A copyof the increased annually by 7% or the Req:Prince Self Storage 85715-3835 (520) 722-8030 PCC No. In the Superior Court, adjustment in AHCCCS reimbursement Charges for Services $421,700 slguitterez sm answer must be mailed to the attorney P ZION NATIONAL BANK 41908 Ariz. Bar No. 5603 Attorney for State of Arizona rates for psychiatric services,whichever whose name appears below.Charles H. isgreater. LEASE/PURCHASE $3,353,000 Plaintiff Superior Court Pima County Whitehill,2606 East 10th Street,Tucson, In and for the County of PIMA CAPITAL FUNDS $100,000 -State Of Arizona Palatine Properties, In Re the Marriage of: JOSE I A •Tenant will pay County's actual costs to L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability AZ 85716(520)792-2785 Given under In Re Petitioner and MORMA L A placepatients in other facilities if all 50 MISCELLANEOUS $32,533 NOTICE OF SALE AT PUBLIC my hand and the seal of the Superior company, Plaintiff, v. Lawyers Title Of LOPEZ Respondent D20031536 No. TOTAL ESTIMATED Court of the State of Arizona in and for p beds are not available for County's use; AUCTION Arizona, an Arizona corporation, as SUMMONS IN DISSOLUTION OF REVENUE $5,523,854 the Countyof Pima,this_dayof Apr 23 County will pay Tenant for beds used by NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT Trustee under Trust 5602-T; Martin p MARRIAGE ACTION BY PUBLICATION ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES: 2003. Patricia A. Noland, Clerk By /s/ County in excess of 50. PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF Gerst and Bradley Edson,as Trustees of DAVID R.OSTAPUK PERSONNEL SERVICES: Yvonne Davis Deputy Clerk Requests Liquidated Damages: While County is ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES. Pacific Rim Development Trust Under Pry q TO THE ABOVE RESPONDENT: Fire Chief $61,048 for reasonable accommodation for utilizing the hospital for psychiatric Salaries&Wages . $562,817 CHAPTER 15 SELF SERVICE Trust Agreement Dated May 15, 1989; . YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and patients for Title 36 purposes,if Tenant g STORAGE,SECTION 33-1701 ET SEQ, Beth Ford,Pima County Treasurer;John persons with disabilities must be made required to appear and defend in the Benefits $243,842 to the court byparties at least 3 working q PP fails to provide such psychiatric services, THAT SHURGARD OF SPEEDWAY, Does 1-10; ABC Corporations 1-10; g above entitled action within SIXTY(60) SUPPLIES AND days in advance of a scheduled court Tenant will pay Landlord the equivalent HAVING GIVEN NOTICE TO THE Unknown Heirs Or Devisees Of Any Y DAYS after the first date of publication. SERVICES $975,015 proceeding. A co of this Summons of two months compensation for PARTIES OF THE LOCKERS HEREIN Deceased Defendants, 1-10; p g' P In order to a ear and defend,you must CAPITAL $3,681,132 and its accompanyingCom Complaint maybe pp psychiatric services. While County is STATED, AT THEIR LAST KNOWN Defendants. C-20032353 Summons P file a proper response writing TOTAL ESTIMATED obtained bycontactingcounsel for the P Pe p (answer)in utilizing the hospital for psychiatric EXPENDITURES $5,523,854 ADDRESS, THAT THE STORAGE Assigned to: Jane L. Eikleberry The with the Clerk of This Court, 110 W. patients for Title 36 purposes,if Tenant CHARGES PLUS OTHER FEES ARE State Of Arizona to the above named Plaintiff at the address shown on the Signature Barbara McKillip Clerk of Summons. Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701, loses its license to provide psychiatric NOW DUE AND THAT UNLESS SAID Defendants: I.A lawsuit has been filed accompanied bythe required filingfee. Governing Board Pub:The DailyTerritorial p q services, Tenant will pay Landlord the CHARGES ARE PAID IN FULL,SHALL againstyou. II. Ifyou do not want a Pub:The Dolly Territorial May9,16,23,30,2003 Failure to so appear and defend will same amount of liquidated damages and May7,8,9,2002 BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION TO BE Judgment token against you for the relief result in a judgment by detauit being additionaliybe liable for excess actual HELD AT:1159 N.COLUMBUS BLVD., Req:MK Consultants,Inc. demanded in the accompanying rendered against you for the relief Req:Three Points Fire District smweylor kb g damages not to exceed$5 million. TUCSON,AZ.85712 you must file a in y pnbudget2003 sm Complaint, Responserequested in the Petition.A copy of the Use of Improvement Parcel: Tenant ON 5-19-03 AT 9:00(AM) writing in the Office of the Clerk of the response must also be mailed to the may construct and occupy a medical LOCKERS TO BE SOLD ARE: 3072 Superior Court, 111 West Congress, named petitioner,above. office buildingof not less than 25,000 s.f. Sales Notices 1138 3114 1237 3023 SUMMONS Tucson, Arizona, accompanied by the This is a legal document, If you do not on the Improvement Parcel on or before Pub:The Daily Territorial necessaryfee. A of the SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, 12/31/2010. If construction of the NOTICE OF SALE May 9,12,2003 filing copy COUNTY OF PIMA understand it's consequences, you Response must also be mailed to the should seek the advice of an attorney. medical office building is not begun by NOTICE OF SALE AT PUBLIC Req:Shurgard of Speedway laintiff/attorne whose name In re the marriage of Carol A.Gulledge, AUCTION AND NOTICE TO PAY TO plaintiff/attorney appearsGIVEN UNDER THE HAND AND SEAL that date,the Improvement Parcel will be s13072 sm below. III.The Response must be filed Petitioner, and Robert B. Gulledge, AVOID SALE of the Superior Court of the State of within Twenty Days, exclusive of the Respondent, CASE NO. D20031689 Arizona in and for the said county,this_ date of service,if served within the State SUMMONS FREDERIC J.DARDIS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING day of APR 25 2003,_ • of Arizona, or within ThirtyDays, The State Of Arizona To The Above BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ,Y PATRICIA A.NOL.AND CLERK OF THE In accordance with Sec.1-708 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised and Arizona Revised Statutes Sec.9-462.06, exclusive of the date of service,if served Named Respondent: ROBERT B. SUPERIOR COURT Signature DEPUTY Adjustmentpublichearing yMay outside the State of Arizona.IV.This is a GULLEDGE. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN. that the Oro ValleyBoard of will hold a on Tuesday, 27, 2003, CLERK ROBERT SIKORA p.m. meetingValley subjectlegal document.Ifyou do not understand YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and commencingat or after 3:00 The will be held at the Oro Town Hall,11000 N.La Canada Drive and the 9 REQUESTS FOR REASONABLE matter will be as further described below: its you,consequences, should seek the required to appear and defend in the qACCOMMODATION FOR PERSONS OV10 03 03:RANDY AND KAREN BARBERA,11113 N.GUAVA DRIVE,ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737,REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO advice of any attorney. Witness My above entitled action within TWENTY WITH DISABILITIES MUST BE MADE REDUCE THE REQUIRED 20'SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 5'. SUBJECT PROPERTY:11113Hand and the Seal of the Superior Court. (20) DAYS, exclusive of the date of N.GUAVA DRIVE,ORO VALLEY,AZ., TO THE COURT BY PARTIES AT if served within the State of Requests for reasonable service, MONTE DEL ORO SUBDIVISION,LOT 87(224-27-1990). q LEAST 3 WORKING DAYS IN The applicant requests to reduce the side yard setback from 20'to 5',to allow for a pool. accommodation for persons with Arizona, or within THIRTY (30) DAYS, ADVANCE OF A SCHEDULED COURT Site plans are available for review during normal business hours at the Oro Valley Town Hall,Development Service Center. Persons disabilities must be made to the court byexclusive of the date of service, if PROCEEDINGS. at least 3 workingdays in service is made without the State of interested may appear in person,by agent or attorney,and the petitioners must appear or be represented.Any person seeking further parties Y Pub:The Daily Territorial information on this request for a variance may contact Dee Widero at 229-4812 or E-mail:dwidero@orovalley.net.REQ: Bryant M. advance of a scheduled court Arizona. If service is made by May 2,9,16,23,2003 Nodine,AICP proceeding.Dated:Apr 23 2003 Clerk of publication,service is complete THIRTY Req:Jose I A Montez Pub:The Daily Territorial _ the Superior Court Seal By.Patricia A. (30) DAYS after the date of FIRST smmontez sm May 9,2003 Noland By Jud F.Whitnell Deputy Clerk. PUBLICATION and you must appear Req:Town of Oro Valley Attorney's Name, Address, Phone: and defend within THIRTY(30) DAYS pnovl0-03-03 kb Jeffrey M. Neff, Esq., 6375 E. Tanque thereafter. 4. Verde, #130, Tucson, Arizona 85715, In order to appear and defend,you must SUMMONS ] ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT, PUBLIC HEARING 520-722-8030, Computer No. 41908, file a proper response or answer in PIMA COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD by the PIMA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION on WEDNESDAY,MAY 28,2003 Ariz.Bar No.5603. writing with the Clerk of this Court, MARITZA R MERO LOPEZ Petitioner at or after 9:00 a.m.at the City/County Public Works Building,201 North Stone Avenue,Conference Room'C', Tucson,Arizona. Pub:The Daily Territorial accompanied by the required filing fee. MA.NUEL GUADALUPE Respondent No This is not a complete agenda and may not reflect the order in which cases may be heard. Please call the PLANNING DIVISION at May 9,16,23,30,2003 Failure to so appear and defend will D20024267 SUMMONS SHARON 740-6800 one week prior to the meeting for the correct agenda order. Publicly noticed items may be continued during the Req:MK Consultants,Inc. result in a judgment by default being DOUGLAS Commission's meeting. If an item is continued from the Public Hearing date noted above to a future date,the new date will be smpalatine kb rendered against you for the relief THE STATE OF ARIZONA to the above announced at the above noticed hearing. requested in the Petition. Please forward correspondence regarding these cases to Pima County Development Services Department,Planning Division,201 You are required by law to serve a copy named Respondent: North Stone Avenue,Second Floor,Tucson,Arizona 85701 by noon(12:00 P.M.),Monday,MAY 26,2003 in order to have materials WWW.AZBIZ.COM I.A Petition for[x]Dissolution[]Legal submitted to the Commission at the start of the meeting on WEDNESDAY,MAY 28,2003. Separation[]Annulment[]Other:_has Individuals with disabilities who require accommodations, including auxiliary aids or services, for effective participation and communication in the meeting may call the Planning Division at(520)740-6800 at least one week prior to the meeting. Our meeting site NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ' is wheelchair accessible. .. , . BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE PIMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON TUESDAY,JUNE 17,2003, at or after In accordance with Sec.1-708 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised and Arizona Revised Statutes Sec.9-462.06, 9:00 a.m.in the Board of Supervisors Hearing Room,First Floor,Administration Building,130 West Congress Street,Tucson„Arizona. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 27, 2003, This is not a complete agenda and does not reflect in the order in which the cases will be heard. commencing at or after 3:00 p.m.The meeting will be held at the Oro Valley Town Hall,11000 N.La Canada Drive and the subject ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT matter will be as further described below: . FOR NEW PUBLIC HEARING OV10-03-02:PATIO POOLS-MIKE JURADO, 6320 N. ORACLE ROAD, TUCSON, AZ 85704, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO Co8-02-04 RECREATION AREA IN SUBDIVISION AND RECREATION AREA DESIGN MANUAL REDUCE THE REQUIRED 30'FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 20'. SUBJECT PROPERTY:668 W.SOARING HAWK PLACE,ORO An Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of Pima County,Arizona;Relating to Zoning;amending the Pima County Code(Title 18)by VALLEY,AZ.,SUNRIDGE II SUBDIVISION,LOT 52(219-50-0600). Establishing Standards for Residential Recreation Areas in Subdivisions(Chapter 18.69 Subdivision Standards)and Amending General The applicant requests to reduce the front yard setback from 30'to 20',to allow for a pool in the front yard. Residential and Rural Zoning Provisions(Chapter 18.09 General Residential and Rural Zoning Provisions)and Development Plan Site plans are available for review during normal business hours at the Oro Valley Town Hall,Development Service Center. Persons Standards(Chapter 18.71 Development Plan Standards). (All Districts) interested may appear In person,by agent or attorney,and the petitioners must appear or be represented.Any person seeking further DONE BY ORDER OF THE PIMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THIS 30TH OF APRIL,2003. Jim Mazzocco,Executive information on this request for a variance may contact Dee'Widero at 229-4812 or E-mail:dwidero@orovalley.net. Secretary; Pima County Planning and Zoning Commission.Telephone:Development Services Department, Planning Division:740- REQ: Bryant M.Nodine,AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator 6800. Pub:The Daily Territorial PUBLISH:The Daily Territorial May 9,2003 May 9,2003 Req:Town of Oro Valley pnrecreation kb pnovl0-03-02 kb 1 ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REPORT CASE NO: OV 10-03-03 Hearing Date: May 27, 2003 Agenda Item No.: 2 Prepared By: Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector REQUEST: RANDY AND KAREN BARBERA, 11113 N. GUAVA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR MONTE DELO ORO SUBDIVISION, LOT 87. SUBJECT PROPERTY: 11113 N. GUAVA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737. REQUEST SPECIFICS: Randy and Karen Barbera, request to reduce the side yard setback from 20' to 5' for a pool at the southwest portion of their lot. To construct the pool in the location Mr. & Mrs. Barbera are requesting will require a variance approval in order to comply. SITE LOCATION: This site is located in the Monte Del Oro subdivision. The site can be reached by traveling east of La Canada on Naranja Drive approximately 3/4 of a mile to Guava Drive, turn south (right) the third lot on your right is 11113 N. Guava Drive the subject location. NOTIFICATION: All property owners within 300 feet of this property were notified by mailing of this hearing. The property is posted with a notice of hearing and the hearing was advertised in the Daily Territorial. At the time of this report preparation, staff has not received any public comment in support of or in opposition to the request. SITE ANALYSIS: Monte Del Oro is a 187-lot subdivision and was annexed to Oro Valley in 1987, it was zoned CR-1 in Pima County then translated to R1-43 respectively. It lies south of Naranja Drive and Town site property, zoned R1-144. To the east Naranja Ridge Estates zoned R1-144, west lies Canada Hills Estates,zoned Planned Area Development(PAD), and south is The Villages of La Canada a PAD. PLAN ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to reduce the side yard setback from the required 20' to 5'. Lot 87 consists of slightly over 1 acre in area; the topography is hilly, anywhere from 15 to over 25 % slope in areas. To place the pool in the requested area will require a cut of 3' from natural grade. The home was but approximately 11 years ago, four years after Monte Del Oro was annexed into Oro Valley. SUMMARY: Staff finding of facts: • Due to the topographic constraints of this site, the location and design of the home when built, the proposed pool will lie 5' from the property line if approved. • The home was originally built in 1991; the applicant bought their home in 2002. They became aware of the pool restrictions after their purchase. • There are other locations on the site that would comply with the code; the applicant has explained in the narrative why those locations are not feasible for them. The Board of Adjustment should consider the following findings in making its decision: A. That there are 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; and B. That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant; and C. That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and D. That any variance granted imposes 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; and E. That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general. 2 SUGGESTED MOTION: The Board may wish to consider the following motions: I move to approve OV 10-03-03, a request to reduce the side yard setback from the required 20 feet to 5 feet. OR I move to approve OV 10-03-03 as submitted by the applicant with the following stipulations: (Staff does not have any stipulations to recommend). OR I move to deny OV10-03-03 finding that: (Board to state reason why the variance cannot be granted). ATTACHMENTS: 1. BOA application with narrative 2. Code references 3. Site map 4. Plot plans F:\OV\OV 10\2003\10-03-03\REPORT.doc 3 t PP' QOyP)-EY g9/�02 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING &ZONING DIVISION iPi lct„\� ►; 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 � lip_ ' Phone: (520)229-4800 Fax: (520)742-1022 °VMDED 91 a BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION FOR: zoning Variance Zoning Interpretation — Appeal of Administrative Decision CASE NO.: () V iG-6 3-0 3 NATURE OF REQUEST: ( 4) (-ea sp at/ ks-n-Ftc ti IA cr--:KA ‘s APPLICANT: L t ON i�avtcCt..1 l3cr( cc_ PHONE/FAX: ADDRESS: if II-3 t1- GL(Qvrk bi, a (SO)J A-Z737 (., c � OWNER: Ktt re IQ iv, - ,� 2)c,2, rb ADDRESS: ([tt3 N 9(Actyc, 1) r, , -Ittcs o1� , Icz 8S-T3-1 PARCEL NUMBER: a a y- P 7 -/ 9 9'U PROPERTY LOCATION/ADDRESS: ((ID N. Cn r,,( u a. 1)r. i 4 D'Ll 14 on ie di( 0/26 5 A C('c i6 j LEGAL DESCRIPTION: �`JJ ACREAGE: 1, 0 9(,) CURRENT ZONING:APPLICABLE FEE: 41 a/0, ,,j R1-y3 ATTACHMENTS: SIGNAT F APPLICANT (AND ALSO PRINT NAME) DATE K6/14,1„ i 1--e. .___ /ke12{-'-'7t) STh -?,7,2,04- y/2/A --s Nature of request: We are requesting a 15'variance to the current South side set back allowance of 20' for the addition of a pool. We would like to add a 17'x 34' pool on the unimproved portion of our lot located on the south side of our home in the Monte del Oro subdivision. All homes in the Monte del Oro subdivision were built under Pima County codes and became"non-conforming" when they were annexed by Oro Valley. In addition, many homes in the subdivision were built with variances to the Pima County Codes due to the limited build able ridge top topography. We would like to align the proposed pool with the existing footprint of our home, maintaining the symmetry and aesthetic expectations of the area. 1.) Identify difficulties or problems that would result from complying with the present zoning requirements. The only undeveloped and build able area of our lot that is large enough for a pool is on the south side of our home. There are basically two areas large enough to accommodate the size pool we need for our larger sized family of eight. The first and most desirable area is the area presented today for variance consideration. The other site is located approximately 30'to the west and presents the following problems: Not enough room between the set back requirements and the retaining wall to allow access around the perimeter of the pool. Line of sight from the house is not adequate for the safe supervision of children while they are in the pool. Elevation of the pool is approximately 7' higher than the house which also makes supervision of children in pool impossible from the house Oro Valley grading restrictions limit the regrading of the property beyond 6'to help improve the line of sight. Alignment of the pool with respect to the house is not aesthetically pleasing and is not in keeping with the standards or expectations of the neighborhood. Pool is not visible from the house at this elevation(We would like to enjoy the beauty of the pool itself in addition to swimming in it) 2.) We are not able to consider alternative sites for the pool for the following reasons: The house is built on the top of a ridge. A 30' ravine occupies the front 2/3 of the lot (East side of house), and is not build able. The North side of the home is reserved for the driveway and garage entrances and is not build able. The West side of the house (rear) is built on a 30' setback from the rear property line. This complied with code at the time it was built, but does not meet the current 40' Oro Valley set back requirement. There is no additional room for pool construction that would be visible from the house. The build able space on the South side of the home is restricted by an existing sunken patio area that accommodates a walk-out basement egress. 3.)Peculiar conditions in the surrounding area include: A wide range of exceptions to existing Oro Valley zoning codes for most homes in the Monte del Oro subdivision primarily due to the unique ridge top topography. For example: Placement of homes on limited build able land within each lot Exceptions to the Oro Valley and Pima County zoning requirements Retaining walls that impact the placement of improvements The fact that a different set of zoning requirements were in place when the sub division was built View considerations in placing homes Elemental considerations in placing homes (i.e. Hot Western exposures, etc.) Limited areas for acceptable grade driveways that impact home placement Limited areas for acceptable utility easements that impact home placement 4.) A- Yes. Unique ridge top home sites Limited build able land for placement of homes due to ravines/washes Limited areas with acceptable grades to accommodate driveways up steep hillsides Limited areas for acceptable utility easements Unique view considerations in the placement of homes Unique need for retaining walls Unique carved out egress for walk-out basement on this lot in particular Drainage and erosion issues/considerations due to steep slopes and siting of homes on sides of ravines/ridge tops Non-conforming siting of homes with respect to rear property lines (and side property lines) B - Yes The home was sited prior to our purchasing it. In order to maintain the standards and expectations of the neighborhood, the pool should be aligned and symmetrical with the house The pool should conform to the style of the home with classic traditional lines (i.e. not contemporary or trendy) The driveway and garage ingress and egress was already determined. The ravine already occupied the front 2/3 of the yard 1 - w ot.(k-�v, i c ase ca (IL), ax c G V�7 t-c( f e SS '. q ht S - CL Y•A .,A1 C - Yes We need adequate play area for our larger than average family of eight There are no other viable areas in which to place a pool We want to have a beautiful, useable, viewable and SAFE recreational area for the children We want to add to the value of our property without detracting from those of our neighbors We want to have a well thought out pool design and location that is in keeping with the standards of Oro Valley and Monte del Oro D. - The Variance will not grant special privileges to us alone Many of the homeowners in Monte del Oro already enjoy special privileges due to the unique restrictions of their ridge top properties. In order to utilize and enjoy the beautiful settings special accommodations have been made and must continue to be made to maintain and improve the properties. It is the only way that the property values can continue to appreciate. E - Yes. The Neighbor's property to the South of us will still enjoy a 25'buffer of land between our proposed pool and their home. The proposed improvements, hardscaping and landscaping will improve the privacy for both houses and simultaneously increase the property values by upgrading and improving the property. All pool pumps will be place well away from the side property lines to eliminate any mechanical noise. All improvements will in no way impact the neighbor's views of the surrounding mountains, sunsets or landscapes. And the recreational area for our six children will be safe and contained. Cost of pool construction $15,000.00 Cost of hardscaping, lighting, and landscaping $70,000.00 Total improvements to property $85,000.00 I would just like to add that we have unique needs because of the size of our family. We had difficulty finding a 5 BRM home with what we felt was enough land around it so that we wouldn't have to constantly drag our kids off of the neighbors' property. We also wanted an area with a great school district and a home that offers the right amount of entertaining areas, so that our kids would want to hang out at home with their friends (and us). We have made compromises in adding additional space to our home because of set back . , but we felt it was important to pursue this variance because the out door areas are so critical for enjoying the great Southwestern lifestyle...for both kids and adults. And I'm sure you can all appreciate the need to shoo six kids and their miscellaneous friends out of doors from time to time to reduce the chaos in the house. When we moved from Indiana a year ago, we wanted to be able to build a pool for the kids. Having experienced the hot summer months in Tucson, we feel even more strongly about our family's need for a cool recreational option vs. being confined to the limited air conditioned spaces of our home. We also want a safe (snake free) area for the kids, particularly,tiie two four year olds to safely play. Please note that we also want to have a good relationship with our neighbors and have put a great deal of thought and consideration into our outdoor plans. I hope I have made a compelling case for our request. I will be happy to clarify any additional questions or concerns you might have. Thank you for your consideration. 4 Page 4 of 4 410 Chapter 6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS ARTICLE 6-4. RI-43 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec.6-401 Purpose This district provides for low density residential development with lots large enough to accommodate on-site sewer systems. Sec.6-402 Use Regulations A. Permitted Uses 1. The provisions of Sec.6-102 shall apply. B. Conditional Uses 1. Analogous uses per Sec. 5-201C(Rev.4/89). Sec.6-403 Property Development Standards The provisions of Sec.6-103 shall apply. The following additional requirements shall apply in this district. A. Minimum Lot Area-43,560 square feet. B. Minimum Lot Width- 150 feet. C. Density 1. There shall be minimum of 43,560 square feet of lot area for each single-family dwelling. 2. Should more than 1 single-family dwelling be erected upon any 1 lot,the following provisions apply: a. An unobstructed access way for ingress/egress shall be provided for each dwelling. (1) If such access way is intended to serve 2 or more dwellings, the way shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. b. Location. (1) Each dwelling shall be situated so that if the property were to be divided, each resulting lot with a dwelling would conform to the provisions of this article. (2) No dwelling shall be closer than 40 feet to any other dwelling on one lot. D. Building Height 1. The maximum building height shall be 18 feet. 6-8 elp OD Chapter 6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS 2. Any structure of two stories or more shall require Development Review Board approval, in accordance with Article 3-3,Development Review(Rev. 8/93). E. Yard Setbacks 1. Front: 30 feet 2. Side: 20 feet 3. Rear: 40 feet F. Detached Accessory Buildings 1. Permitted coverage: 10%of total area of rear and side yard. 2. Minimum distance to main building: 10 feet. 3. Accessory buildings shall not exceed the height of the main building nor be any closer to the front lot line than the main building. 4. Minimum distance to side and rear lot lines: 15 feet. 6-9 alb S. CHAPTER 13 GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Protection Every swimming pool shall be protected by an adequate enclosure either surrounding the property or pool area sufficient enough to make it reasonably inaccessible to small children. A. Enclosure Details The enclosure, including gates therein, shall not be less than 6 feet above the underlying ground measured on the exterior side of the enclosure. All gates shall be self-closing and self-latching and shall be of a type approved by the Building Official. The self-closing and self-latching device shall be maintained in good working condition. The latches shall be located on the inside of the enclosure and with no means of opening the gate from the outside other than by a person reaching over the enclosure. If the material of construction or design is such that there are openings in the enclosure, such openings shall be of such a size that a spherical object of 4 inches in diameter cannot pass through. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Enclosures in R-1 Districts may be less than 6 feet above the underlying ground if the material of construction or design has no openings or projections that would allow climbing of such enclosure, but in no case may the pool enclosure be less than 4 feet in height. 2. Gates designed to provide access for boats, trailers, campers or other similar vehicles and not used for normal access to and from the property need not be self-closing and may be secured by a padlock or similar device in lieu of a latch. B. Modifications The Building Official may make slight modifications, for good cause shown, in individual cases with respect to the height of the enclosure or the nature or positions of the latch. The Building Official may permit other protective devices, structures or methods to be used so long as the degree of protection is as great as that afforded by the enclosure, gate and latch described herein. C. Location 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 yard requirements of the zone in which they are permitted. 3. Any portion of a pool wall constructed with a distance from a property line less than the depth of the pool may be subject to special structural requirements. ,Sec. 13-110 Golf Safety Nets 13-3 410 18.21.010 Chapter 18.21 Ord. 1985-153 § 1 (part), 1985;Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) CR-1 SINGLE RESIDENCE ZONE 18.21.020 Conditional uses. Sections: A. Uses conditionally permitted: 18.21.010 Permitted uses. 1. Club or lodge: In accordance with Section 18.21.020 Conditional uses. 18.17.030C2(SR Suburban Ranch Zone); 18.21.030 Development standards— 2. Raising of ratites in accordance with Type 1 pro- General. cedure subject to the following restrictions and 18.21.040 Development standards— requirements: Detached accessory buildings. a. Minimum lot area: One acre 18.21.050 Cluster development option. b. No more than one ostrich over fourteen months 18.21.060 Lot reduction option. of age for each ten thousand square feet of site area, or more than one emu or other ratite over fourteen 18.21.010 Permitted uses. months of age for each five thousand square feet of A. Uses permitted: 1. All uses as permitted in Section 18.09.020A (General Residential and Rural Zoning Provisions); 2. Temporary trailer or manufactured home: In accordance with Section 18.17.020A2(SR Suburban Ranch Zone); 3. Agriculture or horticulture: a. Used only for the purpose of propagation and culture and not for retail sales,including any number of poultry, rabbits,and similar small animals, b. On lots of not less than thirty-six thousand square feet not more than one head of cattle, horses, sheep, goats, or other similar animals more than six months of age per ten thousand square feet of lot area,excluding swine; 4. College or governmental structure: In accor- dance with Section 18.17.03006 (SR Suburban Ranch Zone); 5. Community service agency: In accordance with Section 18.17.03007(SR Suburban Ranch Zone); 6. Library: In accordance with Section 18.17.030B1 (SR Suburban Ranch Zone); 7. Playground or athletic field: In accordance with Section 18.17.030B2(SR Suburban Ranch Zone); 8. Temporary real estate office:In accordance with Section 18.17.020A8(SR Suburban Ranch Zone); 9. Museum: In accordance with Section 18.17.030D2 (SR Suburban Ranch Zone). (Ord. 1998-36 § 8, 1998; Ord. 1986-125 § 1 (part), 1986; 18-50.9 (Pima County 7-98) 18.21.030 site area, or if more than one type of ratite is kept, a 18.21.040 Development standards—Detached prorated combination of the area required for each accessory buildings. animal. Two ratites six to fourteen months of age A. Permitted coverage: One-third of the total area of may be substituted for each ratite over fourteen the rear and side yards. months of age, B. Maximum height: Twenty-four feet. c. Maximum lot coverage by ratite corrals and C. Minimum distance requirements: shelter structures within corrals: Thirty percent, 1. To main buildings: Seven feet; d. Animals shall be confined within minimum 2. To front lot line: Sixty feet; six-foot-high, stock-tight corrals. No material shall 3. To side and rear lot lines: be permitted that is not ordinarily used for a stock- a. Four feet if building is not used for poultry or tight fence. Ostrich corrals shall be surrounded by a animals, minimum six-foot-high, stock-tight fence or other b. Fifty feet if building is used for poultry or ani- restraint of sufficient strength and durability to pre- mals, vent ratites from roaming at large as provided in Sec- c. All horses,cattle,sheep,goats,or other similar don 18.07.030B, animals must be confined within a stock-tight fence e. Minimum setbacks for ratite corrals and shelter_ (no material shall be permitted not ordinarily used structures within corrals: Thirty feet from the front for a stock-tight fence)in an area of no less than four property line and ten feet from side and rear property hundred square feet per animal. Such fenced-in area lines; but in no event shall a corral or shelter within shall be set back ten feet from the rear where it abuts a corral be closer than thirty feet to any residence or an IR,RH,GR-1,SR,SR-2,SH,CR-1,CR-2,or MU living quarters on an abutting property; zone and forty feet from the rear where it abuts a 3. Community stable: In accordance with Section zone other than GR-1,RH,IR,SR, SR-2, SH,CR-1, 18.17.030C4 (SR Suburban Ranch Zone). (Ord. CR-2, or MU, and forty feet,from a side property 1994-146§ 6, 1994;Ord. 1986-125 § 1 (part), 1986; line. A setback of ten feet shall be permitted on the Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) side yard where the adjacent property owners have a written recorded agreement to this effect, but, in no 18.21.030 Development neral. event, shall a corral be closer than fifty feet to any A. Minimum lot area: Thirty-six thousand square residence or living quarters in an abutting property. feet. (Ord. 1994-147 § 6, 1994;Ord. 1985-187 § 1 (part), B. Minimum area per dwelling unit: Thirty-six 1985; Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) thousand square feet. C. Minimum lot width:One hundred feet. 18.21.050 Cluster development option. D. Minimum yard requirements: A. This option shall be permitted only for subdi- 1. Front:Thirty feet; vided residential lots as allowed in this chapter, and 2. Side:Ten feet each; their associated open space,in accordance with Sec- 3. Rear: Forty feet. lion 18.09.040(General Residential and Rural Zon- E. Building height limitations: ing Provisions). (Ord. 1985-111 § 1 (part), 1985; 1. Maximum height: Thirty-four feet; Ord. 1985-82(part), 1985) 2. Maximum stories: Two. F. Minimum distance between main buildings: 18.21.060 Lot reduction option. Twenty feet, except as required in Section A. Refer also to Section 18.09.050 (General Resi- 18.09.020D (General Residential and Rural Zoning dential and Rural Zoning Provisions)for the general Provisions)for a rear dwelling.(Ord. 1985-82(part), provisions of the lot reduction option. 1985) 18-51 (Pima County 8-96) 11 , ma County p r � I- N ,v S 1 =- _ - ,,, ,., . , , .► Streets ``,�`� lir r �` • '10 O Ai. . C t,,1 ',, Y ;.t f i. t o N a .f � #J._i, •y Streets All ., , A. ._ .,, , ;Pir 'z ' .* IL* 2 --'`, ,e., 1 ‘ '4-. t4t: . 4 ir .., '41 ' Streets All -With Names ��- �, . ) `I � �w '� ''*h. nj...? 1/44 ' r 11114,;14(ii - — Streets Major-With Names �� � �:Y+ a .- p;} Parcels . , , Parcels(Landbase) r ) 4' F ,,,; .�+ 1 v . ,' ,►S• 2000 Orthophoto Imagery r ;� 4- -------e" " 4, , • �• �,, $ _;, • a , 1 Foot Resolution Y .�+ x t'%� 'i . • :fir. , '� ',Y� T.:, t.,' C y :; I. ;we.. c IR 3 Pie' M� "-. ,� ;era , t� .r ' 4 - _ 4 �'' +, it, }s N SCALE 1 : 2,822 h F—i 1-'1 1 I I 200 0 200 400 600 FEET lk http://www.dot.co.pima.az.us/gis/maps/mapguide/dotmap5.mwf Wednesday_ August 21 2nn2 1 n•51 AM SCALE: 1 "=30' r r � .� �)ffi ' -• ',..' .;.. , •, .:' t: .":.;,: ,.-- - .'..:-- , : '..:--:•",il ,- --: -.7!--ti4i7f5.•_11...'-'.": ' ..', .... ....::,',..:_.' ' 't • -"- ,' :-,,.':::',;'. :-'''.''-;.t.,-;,:::_::';.7-f.:!,''4,1'-.:j.A.':'-' ,.-.'..!..1, n � � - gyp Rr^- y:,r y.,pkh*,^ .Mr:'C.'Ce .. ,K fit. -,.4.-,,:- ___,,,,___ ...... ..----- ,.._. . , if. . (•,. . 1 \ • :'''' 'r . Alf 3 Y t A��yJ}] �� �i� ►.)•[J�/.�, '.,. :�`"Yt` ' c^y.�+i•.' 'S �s{y :t��RH� _.t- p � r +y,,� SAX -_ ^�u - -s. _< ' 5,, te5tk' A • y� �4 „J4 t;_ ..�.�+�,-,�y�,, `>k3 ""'Yes- S >.s "{°' x° xTr' x P "'g"`„ ` ` ,; :: ax - .sy."1C. y 'yw�Mry ,L 'ir ,,,,,,,,. „...,....,: -.A.--,,--, ;� t�IF y,e. � , _ , �r x : F* r -"e �;� a '., • < yS. •'y ;„a' f ' 3"i*%q �.,.. t'"z - sw„'f'�• y {t'�Z..elf .1 14�''F +R '. et . .:1 '. 1::-, .,:-."-"•:',"...,:4 i • ,,ram y' ` ' tx ('I -) r.,.. ' . Aii,„. 7., .._ --, ,:: ..-14:-::•:•,. • - - • . , _ , „,, . . . -, ' ,.j i,, .:- . d. t a • �s , ,.. . ,,s. • 3 hSS t F }9 0,1_ . ,..,, , --:.,'-t,.:_..-:,..'-- '--.--14.‘',',..i.;' ..''-':,,,:-.;'-iigrj.4- "dt. -.: . .• 'It .:-.,''',.,..r..';':.:-...`::::.-::,42'4 "1 • - - it - .... - y, ,. ,fir = k 3 - f � „,—.'-' ' '''-,','s ',-.. ',..li,-.-- x.-",:'''';--.: '":.--,'''.'!-:-ii*, '— ,',F......,-4-:.' ; ii:,../--.... - ./,‘„,.-- —"'"* .i.if,.... . ' CA+'73 f -. k, -,.. W % \ 1 i.:t !,,.. ,.,.. • ,. •,..4,„...- :, _ ;,...... :;":''..- :4:i., .7. ' '..5: .",'::.-. :.Arn,-..,,,„:,.:;.-_,.., ..: - , ,.. - .. ., , .tom .. / ! \ \-,,,,,1 ' i - .• '''' --*—• i k ;.` • s may e�'e` ; - .3 - _ _ , - g - ;tan. • , , 4. . .... . , ,, . ,, • „, , . , s .., ,.: . . . •. : , , . , , ..„. ... .., . . _ ... „. ., . ,. , .. • -_, --- , , . • ..::. - k*,,'„.1..,,V"' . ,,. / \ ./. '1,414.44A' ' ' -' , -4(' ', ' . ..., 1 '-:. ) Y' _ t / . N .. '''''' ' * '.',A : N. " �/ ,,, a fd K ', Vx 4. 01: ,it,- ;�,� r t ..-"1 1- ' ''4,...:'' '' , ''' , ,„/;':-,v sit''Pr/, • 4 � ''''•/ . . q . - - ---` '' , - .-•:,..,::',.;.:4c Ari-s41c..-*, • ''''',...'.. . ..,-.. t s3 iM w+\.. ., j l v , I 1 .fir t ter. ff.:• i Y try.4:, . + ,,- 'w .tea , p. .-1-1.4 ,4-it _~_•_,• `y,__.,.- f f'' ;•:;.. `-ti:,.,,,ff,„, - . . • • . . . / .• • . . , 'ii, • : . : .. „ . , .. . . . .... , . . e, .. — . - . , — - _ _ i. i . ', • `�; .�,r, , ., .. / I. ., ....-,.; ,..„...,, .�,. ' ik ,,,,...,- -.., ,-.,,-...• ,.., . ,,„ , . . •.., .. • -./'A...f',•-•;,..-;,.0 / ... ..„ :f • yam, i ,--,tom J • ____. --- .- -•f.. ' 7 . : -.-.:- -.,-- .....,`'-'- ..t. :,,,,,,.*-- - ..„._„. , , , •. 7• ,.. , -_ • __,.„., ,, - -,,,----,-.....±,,...-------,......... .,,xt....,,, ____-t:,..-3.4,„ ,....,_..• .,.. •,,,, ,....,,• . .4r, -..-----A , ' - -• .'..; ,„1-"..,,, *•, At,,-7.7- . - 1., . * * •- "'• '..1,-.11::1.-w- ,-,I ' ,. - --:-.-.3 „..,- ,..,... ......., . ..,,-,...-..-,,, ,.,-( . .,..• .......... - ..--,-----,--- ,_ ------ __ .5.. --,,----;-----$ '-"------ _*-----7.;t fi,• *:.•gc...-tI .,-71.t-1 • -,,i I-4 ,','''''!',',,"`, '..•.• *-, ' * -'' , ; • '4 'taw • - I- ii . , --,,, i-- ,-.-----,-,.t. 4 ,i ,..,- .:k i',' •.A `, :--- -; f- 4 0,414,- ,I..,'-i''''-ii 1.:1• • -:---=`,.. .,,,''''' :..`4.-.,-.1',4 '.---- -444 ., 1 .-t•,-,....-,,,,„„-- ,,,,,,,.7, • •.: , . = - ;- i t.,-.„.„.,.:i .-,... _ .._ ' '',4.-"''• ,.‘''0.,',-..)' „V.; . ';',31'14-,..., • , ----,- - •- '• ,,,,r4.1„, — Ark : '. • 1 ' t.,, ." ,-44' ;", :',... ''' • "' -t- '-'' r ' *- "ie. - 'fii,.:, 1-:‘,----• , --.4, *. , . .',' ,•,,t,":= ' ' -**-:-**;.=""-**,11 .* 0 •-.- -4,,,- • .4'''',*14.'et-., - -------11* --,,:i.$'.--.7',- *,*.4.".:';'.•'''.*''.. '1,-. ,-,------ -;„..-----'-;, .., .,, . ....„.„.„4„,„ , . . . ..,, ., ....... . .....r.„,—..,...i -, , • .7-4.- . . -,.........,.....= i ,-,.. _ ilgi! •,1).!..,.. .'' ,- 1 ,;:..... .,..-...- ..r, c t v,F;// ..,.., .., I ,"e?/1-7 . . • , . ...._ . • .....„ . .. • i , ... ir_ .. ,.......- _._ ::. :.,s, . •,,f, ., -::+= • -......„ .,,...-- C ..-'.,„,....- , '" ••••**".7?: ' -,• ,i ' I4-1:7 ...,. -..:i_....- t . _ • • - „, ....':- ..-t . . 1Nt • . ., / •c-„:tes' , AGENDA ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 27, 2003 Oro Valley Town Hall Council Chambers 11,000 N.La Canada Drive CALL TO ORDER: at or after 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL MINUTES Approval of the Special Session Minutes of January 28,2003 AT THE CALL OF THE CHAIR,THE AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN IN ANY ORDER, AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Case No. OV10-03-02 Patio Pools, Mike Jurado, 6320 N. Oracle Road, Tucson, AZ 85704, Representing Ron and Rosemary Brown, request for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback for Sunridge II Subdivision, Lot 52. Subject property: (Parcel #219-50-0600) 668 W. Soaring Hawk Place, Oro Valley, AZ 84737. 2. Case No. OV10-03-03 Randy and Karen Barbera, 11113 N. Guava Drive, Oro Valley, AZ 85737, request for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback for Monte Del Oro Subdivision, Lot 87. Subject property: (Parcel #224-27-1990) 11113 N. Guava Drive, Oro Valley, AZ 85737 PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE ADJOURNMENT A packet of agenda materials, as listed above, is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the BOA meeting in the Town Hall Administration Building,during regular business hours. The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If a disabled person planning to attend this meeting requires any special accommodations,please notify the Town Clerk at 297-2591. NOTICE TO SPEAKERS Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted public hearing; however, those items not listed as a public hearing are for consideration and action by the Board during the course of its business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. If you wish to address the Board on any item(s)on this agenda, please complete a speaker card located on the Agenda table at the back of the room and give it to the Clerk of the Board. Please indicate on the speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on. Please step forward to the podium when the Chair announces the item(s) on the agenda, which you are interested in addressing. Posted: 5/23/03 4:00 p.m. lh F:\Agendas\BoA\BOA Meeting 10/03/003doc • MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 27, 2003 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 3:04 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bill Adler, Vice Chaii roan Lyra Done, Member Bart Schannep, Member Colleen Kessler, Member EXCUSED: Cindy Lewis, Chairperson STAFF PRESENT: Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Linda Hersha, Secretary II Mark Langlitz, Town Attorney MINUTES MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler moved to APPROVE the Regular Session minutes of January 28, 2003 with the correction noted. Motion SECONDED by Member Done. Motion carried, 4-0. 1. CASE NO. OV10-03-02 PATIO POOLS,MIKE JURADO, 6320 NORTH ORACLE ROAD,TUCSON,AZ 85704, REPRESENTING RON AND ROSEMARY BROWN, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR SUNRIDGE II SUBDIVISION, LOT 52. SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PARCEL#219-50-0600) 669 WEST SOARING HAWK PLACE, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737 Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Mike Jurado, representing the applicants, explained that the back yard was toward the street, and the front entry was to the rear of the lot; therefore, the home was reversed and there was no other alternative to build a pool and spa. Vice Chairman Adler pointed out that the application did reflect that the Brown's were intending to use their pool and spa for therapeutic reasons as well as recreational purposes. He asked if the Browns had any medical condition. Mr. Jurado explained that the Browns were fairly healthy people but would use the pool and spa for the exercise. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector, reviewed the staff report. She explained that Ron and Rosemary Brown, have requested to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet for a pool. 05/27/03 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 2 She reported that at the time of this report preparation, staff has not received any public comment in support of or in opposition to the request. She reported that Lot 52 consists of 25,147 square feet in area. She explained that the home was turned in reverse to accommodate for views. Also, she explained that there was a slight amount of drainage that runs from the rear of the lot to the front and across, limiting any variation for location of a pool without disturbing the natural flow of drainage. Staff finding of fact: • Due to the location and design of the home when built, the proposed pool is desired to be placed in the front yard. There are limits of grading for this subdivision that allow 10,000 square feet and a maximum of no more than 12,000 square feet. This home,when approved was allowed 10,900, the front has already been disturbed per approved plans. The Town would like to see no further disturbance. Vice Chairman Adler opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, Vice Chairman Adler closed the public hearing. MOTION: Member Schannep moved to APPROVE Case No. OV10-03-02, a request to reduce the front yard setback from the required 30 feet to 20 feet. Member Kessler SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Member Done asked if there was any possible way the pool could be moved closer to the drainage. Mr. Jurado explained that he has offered alternative designs with the pool and spa connected but the owners disapproved because it would be placed to close to the home. Vice Chairman Adler stated that the design of the home was the difficulty and not the topography of the property. He explained that a variance to the Zoning Code is granted when a hardship has prevented reasonable use of the land. He said that this was clearly not the case and a pool could be designed to fit on the property and that Finding#3 had not been met. Therefore,he intended to vote against the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE Vice Chairman Adler—nay Member Schannep—aye Member Kessler— aye Member Done—aye Motion carried, 3-1, Vice Chairman Adler opposed. 2. CASE NO. OV10-03-03 RANDY AND KAREN BARBERA, 11113 NORTH GUAVA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737,REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR MONTE DEL ORO SUBDIVISION, LOT 87. SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PARCEL #224-27-1990) 11113 NORTH GUAVA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737 Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. 05/27/03 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 3 Karen Barbera, 11113 North Guava Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona, explained that she was requesting a 15 feet variance to the current south side set back allowance of 20 feet for the addition of a pool. She explained that the main purpose for the pool was for her children. In answer to a question from Member Schannep, Mrs. Barbera reported that the pool would be positioned at least 5 feet from the property line. She explained that to move the pool further west would make it difficult to monitor the children from indoors because the pool would be situated too high. Vice Chairman Adler asked if the patio area could be reduced in size to allow a pool to be placed within the setbacks. Mrs. Barbera explained that the yard could not be graded down equally to the patio and remain in compliance with the Zoning Code,but that it would be a nice alternative. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector, reviewed the staff report. She reported that Randy and Karen Barbera, have requested to reduce the side yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet for a pool at the southwest portion of their lot. She explained that to construct the pool in the location Mr. &Mr. Barbera are requesting would require a variance approval in order to be in compliance. She reported that Lot 87 consists of slightly over 1 acre in area; the topography is hilly with anywhere from 15%to over 25% slope in the area. She explained that to place the pool in the requested area would require a cut of 3 feet from natural grade. She reported that the home was built approximately 11 years ago, four years after Monte Del Oro was annexed into Oro Valley. Staff finding of facts: • Due to the topographic constraints of this site, the location and design of the home when built, the proposed pool will lie 5 feet from the property line if approved. • The home was originally built in 1991; the applicant bought their home in 2002 and became aware of the pool restrictions after their purchase. • There are other locations on the site that would comply with the code; the applicant has explained in the narrative why those locations are not feasible for them. Vice Chairman Adler opened the public hearing and swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Jim Sheehy, 11090 North Poinsettia, explained that privacy was a very important issue and the pool would be somewhat of an invasion if it were constructed as proposed. He explained that the Barbera's home did sit on an acre or more of land; therefore, should be capable of developing other alternatives. Vice Chairman Adler closed the public hearing. Mrs. Barbera explained that Mr. Sheehy would not be impacted by the pool what-so-ever but appreciated his point of view. MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler moved to DENY the request for variance for Case No. OV10-03- 03, finding that the request for variance did not meet the required legal standard the Board of Adjustment is required to use. Member Schannep SECONDED the motion. 05/27/03 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 4 Discussion: Member Kessler stated that there were alternatives. They could install a smaller pool but they should continue to seek other alternatives. ROLL CALL VOTE Vice Chairman Adler— aye Member Schannep— aye Member Kessler— aye Member Done— aye Motion to deny the request for Case No. OV 10-03-03, carried, 4-0. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator, gave an update of upcoming meetings. He reported that the Town Council would be considering the Proposed General Plan at a public hearing on Thursday, May 29th, 2003, and that Town Council has approved a new fee schedule relating to Development Review fees. He added that the interviews for the Board of Adjustment will be scheduled the 1st, 2nd and 3rd week in June. The following topics were discussed: • The evaluation of a Board of Adjustment applicant or member. • The Board of Adjustment application revisions. • What level of immunity does the Board of Adjustment have in terms of liabilities legally? ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Done moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:04 p.m. Member Kessler seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. Respectfully submitted, L'Z 'CILL 540/13 Linda Hersha, Secretary II JP` Y TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT a 4 - Planning and Zoning • Building Safety ( jrn 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-4800•Fax(520)742-1022 Oro Valley Public Library A AA. 1305 W.Naranja Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737• (520)229-5300•Fax(520)229-5319 �►p , Parks and Recreation SUN D ED\ 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5050•Fax(520)797-2202 June 19, 2003 Randy and Karen Barbera 11113 North Guava Drive Oro Valley,AZ 85737 RE: Case No. OV10-03-03 ,Randy and Karen Barbera request for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback for Monte Del Oro Subdivision, Lot 87, 11113 North Guava Drive, APN#224-27- 1990 Dear Randy and Karen Barbera, At their regular meeting of May 27, 2003,the Board of Adjustment voted to deny your variance for the subject parcel. The motion was as follows: MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler moved to deny the request finding that the request did not meet the legal standard the Board of Adjustment is required to use. Member Schannep SECONDED the motion. Motion to deny carried,4-0. Additional information on the action will be available when the minutes have been prepared by the Clerk's office. Please contact Linda Hersha at 227-4700 regarding the minutes and contact me if you have any other questions. Sincerely, , Dee Widero Senior Zoning Inspector xc: file F:\ov\ovto\2003\ov10-03-03\BoA Action Letteviliv4i98149noforovalley.com Page 1 TOWN OF OR( ALLEY—BUILDING PERMIT ArrLICATION APPLICANT TO FILL OUT TOP PORTION OF PERMIT APPLICATION. (PLEASE PRINT) PERMIT# ALSO.PLEASE COMPLETE GRADING AND CONTRACTOR INFORMATION ON INSIDE. - p®�,c)o ZS( PROJECT ADDRESS SUBDIVISION NAME 1Mt 3 k) . Cs- uc..vc., 1r. o^TA- b,1 Or v SECTION/TOWNSHIP/RANGE ASSESSORS PARCEL# BOOK/PAGEIS ET OV CASE NUMBER ZONING LOT# c0 MO-26 / -? \\ _ rs -A.1-Act 0 APPLICANT MAILING ADDRESS CITYiSTATE2IP PHONE PATIO POOLS & SPAS 6320 N ORACLE RD Tucson, AZ 85704 :520) 797-2299 PROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP PHONE ISiSetf„, TZ`,..1,.1/4\vY\,,,«.,N3 .4 Saw. 1V44of\l Ar $V I1 Z CONTRACTOR MAILING ADDRESS CiTY/STATE/ZIP PHONE PATIO POOLS &SPAS 6320 N ORACLE RD Tucson, AZ 85704 (520) 797-2299 CONTRACTOR'S ORO STATE TRANSACTION PRIViLEDGE(SALES) REGISTERED WITH ORO CONTRACTOR'S LIC.# VALLEY BUSINESS TAM VALLEY FOR TOWN SALES LICENSE# 363 - 10-042262—C TAX? YES NO B6-32554 ARCHITECT,ENGINEER DESiGNE ircle One) MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP PHONE b 6320 N ORACLE RD Tucson, AZ 85704 (520) 797-2299 DESCRIBE WORK Gv,►.\-.. ?t5a` tost..1vvr.� . �i►y o� 3N+ r:�ti. v.Z. 4' 1\ .� �$ CiMa W411 %4t.iti: S41C -(1os<t 5 ORO VALLEY MODEL#AND NAME 16 BUS INESS ESS NAME IF COMMERCIAL PROJECT STAT D VALUATION OF WORK M0200081 LIST MODEL OPTIONS ptappscabie) DATE OF APPLICATION I (_, I O, RECEIVED AUG 15 2003 -77 cf)0 ci" NOTICE:§R105.1,iRC or§105.1,IBC Required.Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct,enlarge,alter,repair,move,demolish,or change the occupancy of a building or structure,or to erect,install,enlarge,after,repair,remove,convert or replace any electrical,gas,mechanical or plumbing system,the installation of which is regulated by this code,or to cause any such work to be done,shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit Application for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitation,and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. A permit becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is not commenced within 180 days or if construction or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days at any time after work is commenced. I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct I am the owner of the property or the owners authorized representative,and if not the owner,I have obtained the owners permission to perform stated work All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the performance of construction. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: PRINT NA� ate, �1 •��C��...� (DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE) USE DESCRIPTION FROM VALUATION TABLE SQUARE FEET OCCUPANCY GROUPS DEPOSIT INFORMATION AMOUNT$ (.S4 . TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION CASH #OF STORIES #OF UNITS CHECK CHECK# TRUST ACCOUNT ADD PLUMBING FIXTURES? TAKEN BY: Y N FIRE SPRINKLERS? PLAN LOCATION: WATER METER SIZE(if applies): Y N Enclosure: 264' of 54"min. W.I. and 11 ' of 48"min. cmu wall Barrier: Self closing doors 4.95, N84°06'23, E . .,..... 22 Nizscit,,,, -:2.% , c', :. 'Y Rep 1749e44 �NCoo �4'�,vu aV •/P,yje�'-D!` 9� u3-' "' ` ) Fs6CT cqs fs Tee /vie 0 6,9�,,11 0 t�,,;--,, /0N R 4EE �E rn r' (f) ° \ 2.!. 0 0-z ,A,_. ,,,. /44///',1 -0 --- t9.,c.), . -i-V,-, 6-69 co CA e Sew j 07, li cf ° h ( 'o ��e l�-o .-C. 000 p ctr. 9 `, o Co �/ on , cGQs, rgaF 35'-8" Po 1 ,-5 d wQ ��,roFsf�y , o� fie/' 9� �����`�'��• NJ 4"m i n. wrought iron ��F�t,t6(`)2� 1 --N N--•---___ft, g �� yo �� 21 '— 0" � m ���,�Gf*f L 1 286.03' N86°37 44 E �c���` 1 . R g ro U 'Karen 3arDara KE- - • Nome: Pgms 11113 \ . Guava Dr. . 8r Address: RECEIVED T r U onte Del Oro G 1J 200 Subdivision: 1 ! 87 013732 c' Lot Number: Patio Pools Job Number: SCALE: 1 "=40' f' 2aikil Copper Spring P , , . .._, , I u .- � � � one , „N --- , I i '1 r , , r - 1 ) (I \ ; (----- I 1\ i/ \ --A 1 1 Nrar 7 -____ , t, ,‘ \ \V_II--wA \I---- ) -< / , )) \ , ,__-/ /4,, I . , ,/ _ f,k, ----A-----„\/y/� _____________H5\Y- ri .N Ca N N/ r-- „\'6 ('(/'-!h- / 1.__ --- ' AXI\I-HIE (crins ei 1 1 ). , - 9^ `�/ NS1r JrckafTf' \ \ N ' in : P i ( - (/ \,\. t - Fr./ 7 \ / \-s_____--- 1, ) 1 i 1 \-- J / / ,t",,,:\ --..„„Qvi,3 - , \ z- --- * p Pi_All - - -- j iAi / , TT__ii.A,<‘___ / , \c<, n\4ii,j, ) _____/ L----- ':%,.//\ ' 4" as ----\ lir- / -- — ( A 7k- \\ )/ \i \ _______cs \i>1 \\N ) J .________-- \cz.,_— ,\ ____ , ___________ . ,3- sA oL/. „,/..0 ,. __ 1 r___ ,\- maw -IL A%--, ,,,, )4 __\ ____ //_________0,_ \\\ ____, Ti 1 '' lit \Varimi f. , ,i:: :,4ii , ,I / ! ik9 _ _____ • . gi \ ,, , \ , u___ \ '‘• 4*** -\-- - 1 1Pt4 ---'icrh.____ im i\.__. \• _moo ( K \-'` ,6 6 i;) , / - \ ilk*'''' ' \' z L.,L , -0_ 0 0\ * e* (47 3 cam . q s \---\____-. L V---) 1 e 4 q / �J .... ,,, ,..... " ... jr.- , . • .7 , . - +. , a ; ' ', • ir --P •41,... - iliv••- . '- . - -.. . gi.. . ...64 , It,r r yy, s # 4 4 :(1 till It • + 3 1 • . f • 4 , . ,4 . tow 4 OP' 1 - -• . , . . /�, , , or ' r x { • r = - r ` ‘41 ?II • II ,, . i • Ff f .. 4,1K.._ ' . 4 lo 1 i i?' '11 i 1r• . '..4, li # 1. -.- . I" ,,..th: , V 1 �'1 4 Ifs " V A< r•� +r -} r « y 41111111111401% , j . I � � `"tea ^ 3 « . 1,,. ,4,. At.. • +i et ' ' '' L. . f 141 ...* + i e .T...1. .�r ♦ • A _... + 110A;r1r1 i 'ill 11 4 _,.. , IP 4,44 1. .1 JP' #6 Alto f ip. 4 . . - • 8 - 10 •♦ ' is,.. 4 . 0 i • 4. . • ,„ . 11‘4• . * '.... ,4•., *0 . ;0'10 ' „ i , i . • ii• - « . 4" iiii A -tvfl . • ilill!it *At' - ,', ,i, , r.:,,:v" • , ` OA ► , * ;fir ii•7 Ate • I"wlett kt . . , ,,,...: opoldr.,. .,.„..-„,y aj- ..... , .:, . ,... .ilif . 111' ,. , . . i"",, II. I.* ' . . :00,. .. s . .. ......r, - .. • - * IP .40 . . . tits, . V # I' Op - ii'' 1 . .. .44&411 ilot oftrrie ..„..... .:-.....-.......: .1 I. ..---iciziol, 1207.: ' , i.,,,.. ,a-( r I' - I i t 1R As*, : 0 v 02,,C,62 igollivili I& 'ift, 60 0-4'1 . i ... 'F i t , 14 e, „.41, '4 ,..._ _ it,- 51 A ..„, „......* ''' . . ,, .I. • .10 rt 'ft . cao' ts) P 411 - to p: a) b 71 $ 11) tri ,t10. 00 .....,„,„,„........_,,,_, • ....-- 4:1\ t 0 0014). 0 tvd trl`' 8 I It) DI)1 3 kaf at In 0 0 -12, .......,...„,- C., Yb U\ ,\ -1,9''.'•• - - ,4,4160 cv...,------• 1tr 0 .: -• 0 1--*** ' ' IV' ,,------- _.......--- 0 • . . ' . ...„.. ,. • ' '/Z V ' • ' , r , , - r IN OS , a, (.0 N) * *, .16 444 i; g . ' S 0 4 . . . .1. • 0 . 1$C)• 0 6 , . •- SO tO Pima County Assessor Online Page 1 of 2 2004 Pima County Assessor Property Inquiry Search Parcel2003 History Residential Tax Summary Genealogy PRC PARCEL 1224271990 Go] 4 Appraiser Carlos Jacome Book-Map-Parcel: 224-27-1990 TaxArea: 101 1 TaxYea r: 2004 TaxPayer Information Recording Information BARBERA RANDAL L & KAREN S CP/RS Docket 11788 Page 3300 Date Apr-29-: 11113 N GUAVA DR WARRANTY DEED ORO VALLEY AZ Zoning Information ORV Miscellaneous 85737 0000 Section 11 Twn 12S Rngl 3E Map&Plat 27/99 LandMeasure 1 Legal Description MarketArea:CASAS ADOBES (11) MONTE DEL ORO LOT 87 Tract Block Lot 0087 Group( CensusTract 4611. UseCode 0141 F Date of Last Change Jun-19-2002 Property Address 11113 N GUAVA DR(OV) SFR GRADE 010-4 URBAN SUBDIVIDI Secondary Valuation Data LegislativeClass FullCash Percentage As: Land RES OWNER OCC(5 0) $65,000 10 Improvements RES OWNER OCC(5 0) $233,553 10 $2 2002 Personal Property Gross Value Totals $298,553 2002 LMTD/SCND Exemptions Net Value Totals $298,553 $2 PriorLimitedValue: 8274,019 CurrentLimitedValue: $298,553 Recordings 8669^ 120 Affidavit of FeeNumber SaleDate PropertyType Sale$ Cash$ Validation Financing Sale 820703 04 2002 Single Family S412.000 $111,300 X JAC Conventional IntendedUSE:Owner Occupied DEED:Warranty Deed(X=Good Sale) Sale 145357 08 1989 Vacant Land $49,000 $0 W 1 JSC None DEED: Warranty Deed(WI. =BUYER/SELLER HAS AN OUT-OF-STATE ADD Sale 21500 02 1985 Vacant Land $45,100 $0 X ZZZ UnKnown (X=Good Sale) Map Selection 2077C.T1F 2004 Valuation subject to change until August 2004. httn://www.asr.co.nima.az.us/ania/asrsalvv.cfm9invear=9004k tax r nd e=774'771 QQfl nctn-7/2n1yz • yr fin; h€r - tir s f 44. ] ; - =a y :", 4 • .. " 2 t, €"< -a€# k -.. . — -• '%444k,o;, 0. . f-•.•••• • ,_ €• ;.; '.�:. e milk......•s < - �.,' S is: fir,".:*.sF-; , , } ip `�` a« , 5," t ygy ` f ' 8 i K 5 N . ;,,,.':11, .".4'.: • .1:i?:.' _ ';,', ' . a e gam,,, ••ff-£:, £• , =}y; .i• 4,.. i*: e •. a i :,.#;,..'..47:1.1,*.47::'''''..t..1'...Wilkt:771.1,::.' .*:.:'.::::'''''...: ';'-':"4"'•' '' '- , --.;-,-, ,-,-;,..., ,-. Mom, ,!.... •"*,"......t.1:4;1.701111:i., --:4,..,1., �,. �> i.44: i- :....,-,:'.**.:1414. .44-. '1111',.-i• •'...:::-:. :-:•..k:. .:,. Nir k, • .•'.44*•!....'' ' (4 1 Vt• ••''':•' i r 1-. 4$.- ..' is • • a, s } ../�• "` tit a I € .n F •",.: €:`', --;!lit-,.liti$1; 7- %* ', , --`,„it iv,.41, . 444t4 ir / p ,,.,, j men '€ r,y.;"' ,Sks Y€ .1. 4.:: 1-':- gyp,, " ;9es> '•j#`''a'� % � 1:;''%%',",1.4,;,,,, -',,';'1. ' _:) 32g >. off" A t € ',':.;!;:if.' 'k sj3Cis:s(``y � g. s e, . , .: ,4'6 0 # '� ,:< £ f ' 'Md-�'�' ^ 6,,,,, " �� • it i. .,'::.:',,;:,',4';:.- ,i ,, ,. — •.A' ' fib: ,.„ ,,,i... . : . , +�P .' *i t k,,, . 5:,-/. , .,. , �(( £' < '�%' €%fi -:�` ;If,04'' ' i ".4.,,,,, ,r- -t, --•,t21:4V A to, ,-, „,,, ,:::-,:4.' ,. , , Nr4" - - ' -P .: :411'!"-111111111('. . *:. ,:11:.: ',1.4:: ',14:::1;:',.',4,,,:::::::::::.4';,..:1::,:.::,..1*-'..,1 -;,..yir'--- •--'' ', 4.-''2,—...-...,,,,, 14'*!,1.--.... , ' ','--.-r..., • "4.' ,, - 4-,!-,! „:::-. ----,. .- ..1:,....:.'.. , -"::- ,i, •::.•,,,, - '—.--:-.--!..t ;:,".::,'--4-..-_,, .7' ••::;.''7'1'.1'1.711't illiff;"7.7,'-'• . to, '..!:::ii..,i;,','.. .':.‘•r.,..,....::-.11# ' tit,.-.;. : ::.4 - '''•'::!••::-.'r•'-7..,',. .:„,,, . ' t't.-... 7:.' • . — - - - - ,:. ..- ...,N -. t4p. „.. . 4.„re;toil,A, . ,L4. ,..ortlii - -.„ - ;;,b,,,,,"-,- - 4-0 • ,...,,,,' -"4:4 tr I:,-,.:-,- .=. it • p .> :i ,,,, . :moo �.. , , 4 -: -;. : - ,, ,--4°-1'.:114:0:-'c::..;r1"' . .,.. 4''..‘t- - -•-,, .:3, . % � ` Few �ra'w �#'K ' ;� �... :i'', 3'� a � �� z am x o " 1977 )lt3 i I q CI g r f-Etsior 1000 o--ZY 027 /f7 ENTIAL PROPERTY RECORD CARD rq 8 AREA A CODE°� lIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIII JG224271990 LAWYERS TITLE OF ARIZONA TR 5328-T S P 0 BOX 5406 P I II ?TUCSON AZ 85703 o • r r el , S 1 p `i MONTE DEL ORO LOT 87 T I (Is i T BASIS CODE UNITS 9/ 11113 N. G-vta.v4 bPive. ANNUAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY OF VALUES ^ Change Land Improvements Total Appraised Assessed Property Class Value y Value n IP 7QQ7 $ 15QO $ ENT l l 19 ,AQ PETITION 46670 ENT land OI 1` 1c f IjJ" .- ( pO / C 1 j 4-- 19 '82 PFTITION /0,00 ENT � $ ( $ 19 'r83. PETITION 499644 IS000 ENT B.A , 19 f R3 (.11_1:4ry MA Pr),,, N/C 4'/C ENT /�C Buildings and Improvements or $ 1 b $ 1 s PF ITIOI� / /9 .ENT Household Furnishings l D/T/ ENT %77 \ 19 ENT 60/SU TOTAL VALUE $ $ 19 ENT SERVICES AND AREA Off Srte Improvements Utilities Zoning/�j�_ j Neighborhood DATE OF / (—1, I APPRAISAL ,S/ yo Paved Street City Water / Single Family Improving ((( MEASURED BYr moth,r. Block Topped Street "I Well Two Family Static LISTED BY . A64 Grovelled Street Sewer Multi Family DecliningTAt/, PRICED BY Unimproved Septic Tank Business Blighted REVIEWED BY DATE Public Walks Natural Gas Commercial POSTED BY Curbs and Gutters Cesspool Industrial DATE Alley L.P.Gas p No Alle / �i RULE8 v , Electncity Topography )L`� - Temporary ry Land Value r LAND VALUE CALCULATION :v^^��!: l !`tf !{ry 4CVPIOp Regular lot Size Irregular Lot Site (/1�� A x x x 1 • REMARKS x x x x • x x x x M x x x x Front Foot • Depth,Corner,Other Unit Of Value Value Sq. Foot Table Factor a ._Y TOTAL $ !`J0 0 0 • O • CLASSIFICATION NO. Z Li.- / r Grade 4 3 © 1 Grote 4 .i 2 I ' STORIES I.,r' ROOMS -70 NO. APTS. / INTERIOR'FINISH t ELECTRICAL ,.00, 'i Type&Use Construction Quality of Construction Unfinished i I,. Wiring Single Dwlg home Lam,_CC 0 Grade Plostered .---a• Fixtures Or Two Fom.Dwlg. Solid Masonry 4 Excellent Drywall ile • BASEMENT -• Three Fom.Dwlg. Block sA Good Wallboard `T Four Fan' Dwlg. Brick Veneer 2 For Plywood Plain • ,Prefab. I Minimum Plywood Detailed I um Part:Unfinished Hardwood Panel 1 Area: Sq•Ft- Knotty Pine Port. Finished BATH WALLS ■ Area: Sq.Ft. Grode 4 3 2 I Grade 4 3 2 1 Metal Tile ■ Concrete Floor Sq.Ft. FOUNDATION ROOFING Plastic Tile IIOther Sq.Ft. .4,Concrete Wood Shingles Ceramic Tile . GRADE RATE Glint.Blk. Asphalt Shingles Plastered ■ Description: Stone Asbestos Shingles .- Drywall /: Brick Built Up T.&G. HEATING I COOLING , Tile IIIATTIC Piers • Y _._.- ,■ ■ None Slate EXTERIOR WALLS t;T'T„CM Metal _ Steam -11111 • A. Fr.Wd.or Cermp 8I Ivrg Prepared Roll / Hot Water _ AMIN 4, Area: Sq_Ft. B. Fr.Brk.Veneer Insul Ceiling L,'TO . Rad,onlGRADE RATE C. Blk.8"Pointed Floor Furn. �•::� Description: Other D.81k.8"Stucco Wall Furn. E. Brk.&81k.or Brk. Elec.Panel -111111111111111.11� F. Native Stone Refrigeration A•R G.Slump Block FLOORS 111111 PORCHES �r H. Adobe , Wd.Joist ■. Number,' Open / Insut.Walls fZ-1 CI ,/ , Sub.Floor O.S.Chimney Number, Closed Other ( Softwood Fling. PLUMBING• ' ll Frame Hardwood Fling. Base / Masonry t Concrete s--Z- 2 Fix.Bath A.■SE:12M ., I IIII Resilient Fling. 3 Fix.Bath AIMIIII Patio Carpet ater Closet et III ROOF Lavatory A..1 PHYSICAL COND TION Flat J s BATH FLOORS Tub S'•C.0 ZZI IMO 4 IMAII 2 1 Shed Ceramic Tile IIZMIIIIIIIII Other Items aor ^1.. Goble Resilient Tile 7 Kit.Sink E I Go' 1 C -Z q Hip _ Linoleum lndry.Tubs , Gambrel 4. Hot Water Htr. Other Disposal II GROUND PLAN SKETCH DATE OF CONSTRUCTION REPLACEMENT COST AND FIN L VALUE (INDICATE NUMBER STORIES) Gate {-- (3 I I I I I I I I T I I I I I l I I I I j 1 I 1 I I 1 l 1 f I 1 1 I I I I I I l, J / ITEM ITEM AREA OR TOTAL - - Age N£s r' NO. QUANTITY COST -r Source S I BASE �)b ( 2 ! - DEPRI, AND OBSe T'"1--e:,6,. /r7/i`®l .- y Age INormal Depreciation)`% 3.�3U Tf}•�iraicr Physical Condition �% Modernirotion (Minus) _% - Total Depreciotion % I (,•�I _ Net Condition % SPECIAL OBSOLESCENCE ""' Location (Area No. . % - - Other % _, Total Special Obsolescence-% - Final Net Condition _% _ SPECIAL NOTES:je cr' I ^ - CoA-1tuN2w.,Fi.c3-F' - _ ' ' _ -' r_/E C 4 r 'A•r. t.i£.�.c o i mn ri.<-2 c a-•Yro--,-. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III 1 ( I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I f I 0..1C-/Fr" ^„''a'cura..A, REPLACEMENT FRONT • rjd.:i' COST $ OTHER ITEM Grade Walls Floor Roof Dimensions Area Sy.Ft. Replace Value - Dep. Votue FINAL NET CONDITION % ` FINAL VALUE G, ^ (n 3 A 4 Ft. x Lin pG x MAIN BUILDING 1 1 3,Q_I Gt , G NGT x 3 G �r0 x I 0,0 x 1 OTHER $ •I 4 et 3 / ItUrt fG x �^ ~-OTHER IMPROVEMENTS $ 12 A It G 3 G FI'`,u S,o x PV,0 x T.OTAI`BUILDINGS I A Se. 3 a. , AND l �3 W� �, x ! v x _ IMPROVEMENTS S x x TOTAL $ r jt `;` 1 Floj -yOF . -,7 � / 1 ?7 CARD "CARDS LAND CLASS IMP CLASS COMMERCIAL MODELq�APPLICATjON 401 402 403 404 405 406 40i P18 409 410 410A PART, p4p1 YEAR 413 417 CLASS SUB.GRADE WALL HEAT COOL BSAfT FIRE POND OBSOt lsOD. HT, PANTY. Ft4$, . BLDG. SQ- FTBE, TOTAL OF ADD ITEMS L NAME DATE DRAWN 4._. EXT BATH PATIO PHY RESIDENTIAL ASS APPRAISAL SYSTEM SALE CLASS STORY ROOMS QUAL WALLS ROOF HEAT A C. FIX PORCH COND. LIVING AREA N.TR Cki. POOL AREA SALE--8 _DATE_ /[ . - ..1rrrIIirrIrTTTr rTrI } rr ltrrr1rTi -TIj , TTT TTrrI T-TIT1IIrTI TTfTITT1I [ rTrTr Trrr1rTTlr rrrTfrTrri rjr-Irr= (�Q n 0 • 0 2 f,5- ....,,, 1-) ---- J L` w 3°,a o ,o sJ 04. -..- J 3.o 0 v O c -, --- — q,0 O - �. - - Np o - '`O O1.0 I y o - o G sT' I �) U�/.0 r' Vy,O ^I Ii h i l l 111 I I I i l LI I L1 t r I1IIA 11 LT T I1-I r 1 ti I I I I 1 I l 1 IL-! Lil r I . 1 1 LT 11 1 , 1 r 1I l 11 l t-1 I Ll , ,i . , , l 1 t , , r 1-L1i_1_ ADD ITEM CONST. ROOF ROOF YES NO ITEM DESCRIPTION ITEM CODE DATE GRADE FDN. WALL FLOOR FORM. MATL. DIMENSIONS QUAN.OR SQ.FTGEX UNIT COST =FULL CASH VAL. 1 x x $ $ 2 _ - X X -$ , — - _ . 3 — - - _ x x # _S 4 X X 0 9 i - 5 _ x x a _ 9 _ 6 x x li iII 7 - - x x $ ,$ 8 - -- - - - x x .$ ! _ __ 1111 CODE I0- s M dl► V! y 4/► il! {/► M N M N M 40! -4> p •V! M iA iA 4, 4 • N 44 4,410 411 4, 4 M 4, 44 4, 4 X X X X X XXXXX X X X X X X X X X X XXX XXX X X X X XX HISTORY OF PROPERTY DATE REVIEWED BY R E MARKS 0 r r 1 — ' cNV Qf 0 — eV en a' to t0 ti m O� N_ N N N_ 1 sa.z.v.-c 11,1L-42C TA I I.De p-KJI,.,JP001. 4 1-111 64.0.'1 CV9W-1:7`fl I J°E.0' TO Gi..04.1P-4,1•4-T M. Silla.F.E 1 PA Pi?...t:,-ve.- Z,C144 lisia. 1 P451,27--r. -7, Mew-5 w6.1 N.".. e.. 1,%#143RILIYA.-:`'KA etNI.TS. '5\41%.t•A'I TA.1'ON !It4 ...; GI..,-- I I 12 5 I I '. teGA WD t7 ivt.ctovEmKGA't44 ) S,si-Gs-7R.it: with-rpca 114. Tip.41 IA, ili}t 1, 17 • ,.., ! t--. = • i tr_ 4 .CS.4.61/41 R.AA A.ki ici,eke,s1s OF a LerVit.Tr elk4 c ,OkLif) r51- t.e Cr,E SECITIC*4 i i V i SCAR,S. k, EA_ oirso ls I, 4f II- Noll j il 11,41 IAA 1 Cir AREA- LIN F.,.. so V - CEe-n, P-1 C AT 1 0%.1 43-- Nistmez riii. 5k..,11 to 1 1.4T ejZiOR 4L:TE.E., Tr• ptmA. Caxitrir -,'''' eiCtEPI.11E t r.,N,,,K4 Pr S-r-krr sTilsic362 bli,. I wifejalMes'e c...- Vit.Ti 1:-",- nkiNT re.tE. litX,ZUN DieNkCir -6141e.v .--- silacrost KA 014 Tfoli.5 ;Julia'-wek.S P-...St r-t- P.....1bAe..0 1.1t-40F1P NV vr Vi— ui 1 RI * 0 er..1- A2 rIR.IVEIA'AV5 oe TURN ES,RMI'l DS Witl, ea PRO- V ICAtID am,`IE' I.Cres. capoeNcri Neir csie mils*. e..3 ,i-rivrt,-CIF-wee. eiNtOje Y'SVP4 tetJAA VENI,Cnr, ekilkorE '5rE. CLIONTE OatiTA. i213-.T. 1014 ,i1 V-.41 D 1-1.4 Xli- A.kJ. ..,...VI,ST i f•LCA- A.t...ipd/CAZ PRO6:10061F.O. ---,UTZ kl*/a:1r isAC.41-144110411S AEAret, toltuRKM,ZiE, ts. vg t-1, A.,er CAD RiateCT -" t•-le1114-44'..t625 -D. .1 PLIQ'TkAt.- c,,,.%rssctl -li.- Tv04.-r 74,-5 PL MY DIM .."-.C7101,4.. 40 LIEE. 01 114'HUNISER MAD Lezr-rE2,,,FizbV4eLl.70eTZ.Pow.,M$441:1104,sirstmA. El? _.. -... ,A,1/4--.,...46 12 -5111eg,T it. ut_ w .e.4,..,"6„, .0:mla - pa . .vomme,,,o,v, e,, ,,Nmo ime,:.ce.„ *hk. coa.5 .. M ic z 464' lipil k 2 I ID 1 1 1 ...,,,i>!1) ;/2 ii 1 116 ' / 7) • ... mows . \./.., ,,,, ../.: ..., ,...: ,, -11,114 V 4.01 f Ci. T?0 .,./ - i A u t1 4.....,•=1...1..,,,,agic) .,,-'...4 i., ?) - N ,.. 4 / // / , / — • • /e•*/./ ; • • ,,, / -npre /. ./ / L-0115 I "r1-421--) lir 1 /„, ,........0......4.9.. /i ,„, ,5T.,.. '0414... 4,.--...- ,1/7/' .,,, A SUBDIV151ON Oir-:- Pl.')..2T OF -11-4E EA451- LIPAPPirlima . .„ . . .... 4=}0.43 ,.. .. ..*-;:// , , , epP ' 1tZ C:f elECTIONI I 1 T. 12 , „. . . Filmtk cot_ri4TY L.,iie_l.2:0 t4 IN... __ -'ri z. .74," >RAINAGE,.. ,,, :.:47.. 6,....„0„ 11i , R 1....v.4 14",FA 0 w.4.141L0 or ."' L.. I 'E L.00131014 M,AP 1 e.oc A.L E t z.inCi ‘3ECTION 1, tit 1-1a8 CC) CZ 14, 41 IT F 6_ lk i 4.5 , S Ggi itti LA PI 44A C., jtkirr *Le:IvN & CO 9 TN 1 Oda 4: .!,iec..4.1-te -er itt 14 i t..r. ' r ri 9 1% i Otk A. AM - Conk Ileft EVOMos st nalkilk$10 elates- — leH k. rEET 1 ., 1 -. z. gainlienri .• Pt AMP* k br.d, tif MIS likillrhi NKr*AVIV I 11 I OFLICIttsik eetemetit•eerie OF it 16'291 ..L........ , SCOV-ii,___A-1....,_ AG E If ri • 2-12-87 Town Council Special Session page 8 deciding on signs, particularly permanent signs. MOTION died for lack of a second. Mr. Kerley stated he has no problem with D.R.B. handling temporary signs within a development only. However, when a request comes in not dealing with a development, the request should go to the Zoning Administrator. If he makes a decision in which the applicant disagrees, it then goes to the Board of Adjustment. This will then be accordance with the State Statutes and as was the history with the Board of Adjustment when the Council served as the Board. Steve Hagedorn gave the background on the rationale for the changes. Further discussion followed. Vice-Mayor Kerley asked the Town Manager to seek the assistance of the Town Attorney in drafting the text of those sections of the Town Code that must be changed to give affect to the 3 items he addressed; and to present, if any, the proposed changes to the Council for consideration by the regular Council meeting in March of 1987. Councilman Zipf agreed that the Code is too restrictive. Therefore, he MOVED for the adoption as presented in the Council Communication. MOTION died for lack of a second. Councilwoman Hufault recommended this request should be looked into. She also agreed this item should go before the Board of Adjustment and not the Development Review Board. Town Manager, Jon Devner stated if so directed by the Council, he will meet with the Town Attorney. As a point of clarification, the developer was looking for the flexibility to go to whatever Board so that 1 larger sign could be used instead of a number of smaller signs that would be in accordance with the Sign Code. Mayor Engle directed the Town Manager, Town Attorney and Zoning Administrator to meet and sort this matter out. ORDINANCE NO. 142 - ANNEXATION OF MONTE DEL ORO ESTATES SUBDIVISION Mayor Engle stated that 64% of the property owners have signed petitions in favor of annexation, as well as 65% of the assessed valuation of property owners and utility companies have signed petitions in favor of annexation. Mayor Engle opened the public hearing and asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak. There being no comments, Mayor Engle closed the public hearing. 2-12-87 Town Council Special Session page 9 Mayor Engle read Ordinance No. 142. (Copies of the ordinance were previously distributed to the councilmembers). Councilman Renneckar MOVED to ADOPT Ordinance No. 142. MOTION SECONDED by Vice-Mayor Kerley and UNANIMOUSLY carried 5 - 0. Mayor Engle announced that Mr. Charles Hulsey, resident of Monte Del Oro Estates, has volunteered to serve on the Development Review Board. However, he can not be appointed until this item is placed on the Agenda. AWARD OF PROPOSAL FOR COMPUTER EQUIPMENT FOR USE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE The Town Clerk reviewed her request for award of computer equipment to Entre Computer Center as outlined in the Council Communication. Councilman Renneckar MOVED to APPROVE the purchase of the computer equipment, as presented, including a laser printer of the choice of the Town Manager and the Town Clerk, whichever they feel the best for a total price not to exceed $12,131.35. MOTION SECONDED by Vice-Mayor Kerley and UNANIMOUSLY carried 5 - 0. Don Bresemann, Chairman, Planning Commission, because of his computer experience, suggested maintenance contracts be purchased at the time the computer equipment is purchased. Mayor Engle directed the Town Clerk to discuss this with Mr. Bresemann. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM PRESENTED BY JERRY McCLAIN DURING THE 1-22-87 COUNCIL MEETING After reviewing the information received, the Council decided not to take action at this time. APPROVAL OF MEDIAN LANDSCAPING ALONG LA CANADA DRIVE Paul Sera, landscape architect with The dLB Group presented the landscape plan which will run along La Canada Drive between Lambert Lane and Naranja Drive. Councilman Renneckar MOVED to APPROVE the landscaping plan of the median along La Canada Drive as submitted, subject to a hold-harmless agreement satisfactory to the Town Attorney being entered into prior to the start of construction; and, with the revisions as appropriate to the maintenance agreement. MOTION SECONDED by Councilman Zipf and UNANIMOUSLY carried 5 - 0. MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STUDY SESSION APRIL 24, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: Darrell Gilman, Vice-Chairman Freddy Hershberger Terry Lon Myers Richard Starkey EXCUSED: Toni Simon OV10-89-1 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE BY GARY GRIFFIN, OF SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A SWIMMING POOL, SECTION 13-109 OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED (SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 10985 N. POINSETTIA DRIVE, MONTE DEL ORO SUBDIVISION Dave Williams reviewed his staff report for Case No. OV10-89-1. Mr. Williams stated that Gary Griffin is requesting a variance of a side yard setback for a swimming pool. He stated that the Zoning Code states that normally swimming pools would conform with the regular side yard or front or rear yard setbacks. The subject property is Lot 22 of Monte del Oro subdivision and is characterized by a steeply sloping front and rear yards. Zoning for this lot is R1-43 which stipulates 30 ' front, 20 ' side, and 40' rear yard setbacks. Due to the topographic constraints of this site, Mr. Griffin is requesting a variance of the side yard setback to allow the construction of his swimming pool which will ultimately lie approximately 6 ' from his side property line. Mr. Williams stated his primary concern with locating a pool in the side yard was potential impacts to Mr. Griffin's neighbor to the south. The applicant has contacted this property owner and has furnished staff with a letter approving Mr. Griffin's pool plan and consenting to the variance requested tonight. Mr. Williams stated all property owners with 300 ' were notified and as of this date, no written protests were received. Staff recommends that the location of the pool and side yard is apparently the best location when compared to the significant amount of disturbance, grading, fill and retaining walls that would be required to place the pool in either the front or rear yard. He recommended this request be approved due to the special topographic constraints and authorizing such a variance would not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, the adjacent property owner or to the neighborhood or public welfare in general. 12-6-93 Board of Adjustment Minutes page 2 Open Meeting Law. Gary Kidd suggested that the manual be placed on the next agenda for discussion and a recommendation for Council adoption. He also suggested that, if the BOA members wish to discuss cases on the agenda amongst themselves at the outset of a meeting, a study session should be added at the beginning of each agenda and, also, Gary suggested, a Chairman's review of order of business. PUBLIC HEARING - OV10-93-3 OCKER REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK IN THE R1-43 ZONING DISTRICT LOT 103, MONTE DEL ORO Chairman Gilman opened the meeting and public hearing on this case. Mr. Al Kincade, the project contractor, said that he had become quite familiar with Lot 103. He said that the Ockers had purchased this property, and a set of building plans, some time ago. As work commenced on the site, Al said, it became obvious that the topography depicted on the site plan was incorrect, and adjusting for the errors, while adhering to the Town's Grading Ordinance, became quite a problem. As a solution, the Ockers decided to request a variance to the front yard setback, from the required 30 feet, to 20 feet. Mr. Kincade said that, with the granting of this one variance, the construction could proceed without encroachment into the floodplain or any other type of variance from the Town. Don Chatfield reviewed the Staff Report, which stated that the extreme northeast corner of Lot 103 was the only feasible building pad on the site, because it is the only area that is not in the floodplain. Don read the findings which the BOA must make to approve this variance request and concluded by stating that Staff supported the Ocker's request, due to the fact that a hardship does appear to exist on Lot 103, created by an extensive floodplain area and topography. Mr. Kincade said that he agreed with Staff's assessment of the building constraints on Lot 103 and requested approval of the Ocker's variance request. Terry Lon Myers then mentioned the letter from Mr. Kincade, which was a part of the agenda packet. He stated that the letter did not correspond in any way with the site plan which had been submitted with the application. Mr. Kincade said that the letter related more to the site plan which was approved with the building plans, however, he said, the letter did explain the actual problems encountered when the contractor set out to do the rough grading on the lot. He said that the topography was incorrect on the plans the Ockers purchased and added that this variance is necessary to correct the problem. Jim Swan said that he was confused because he did not see the Town-approved site plan. Al Kincade said that the plan he submitted with the application for variance outlined just the grading changes required in certain areas. 12-6-93 Board of Adjustment Minutes page 3 David Williams said that he felt the plan which was distributed to the BOA members does adequately explain this variance request. He said that, if the Board of Adjustment members did not agree, he would suggest a continuance pending submittal of additional information. Mr. Kincade apologized that the BOA members had not seen the approved site plan. He said that he assumed that, since the Building Codes Dept. had the approved site plan, the BOA members would have it available for study. When Terry asked Mr. Kincade if he felt that the lot could be developed, while still maintaining the required 30 foot front yard, he answered in the negative, adding that the large, existing cut slope and flow channel prevented this. The only way to maintain the required front yard, Al said, was to construct a large retaining wall, which would encroach into the floodplain. David Williams agreed that the house could not be built in accordance with the approved plans, given the constraints on the site. He said that a variance must be granted or, as an alternative, the plans must be revised radically. Terry Lon Myers inquired as to the side yard setback on the north side of the house. David Williams said that the Town required a 20 foot setback, which has been met, and, he added, he had been told that the Monte del Oro Homeowners' Association had granted a variance to its 30 foot side yard setback requirement. At this point, Ms. Angela Stevanus, who is a member of the Monte del Oro Board, said that she had discussed this matter with other board members and none were aware of any variance to the side yard setback granted for Lot 103. She said that she felt that more backfill could be used under the rear of the house to achieve a 30 foot front yard. She said that she objected to the front yard setback variance and favored uniformity in the street scene. Ms. Stevanus said that she understood that there may be instances where a variance is required, but added cost to the property owners in developing the property should not constitute a reason for approval. Mr. Ron Wisner, 10854 N. Pomegranate, said that he was opposed to this variance request and emphasized that the MDO CC&Rs should prevail. He felt that the granting of this variance would be damaging to the quality of life enjoyed by all Monte del Oro residents. He concluded by stating that the Ockers should have been aware of the building constraints on the site when they purchased the property, and been willing to work with them within the Codes. Mr. Jim McCormick, Lot 142, Monte del Oro, said that he objected to the fact that the Ockers began their project and then decided to really study the lot's characteristics. He agreed that more backfill and a retaining wall behind the house would solve the problem and negate the need for a variance. Mr. McCormick suggested that the BOA continue this case pending receipt of a revised plan for the Ocker home. Bill and Pam Bittner, Monte del Oro residents, said that everyone who moved into the subdivision expected that their neighbors would adhere to the CC&Rs, just as they had. They spoke in opposition of the Ocker's request and, in addition, submitted a letter from Esther Underwood, 10945 N. Pomegranate, which also opposed this variance request. This letter will 12-6-93 Board of Adjustment Minutes page 4 be made a part of the permanent record in P&Z case files. Mr. Kincade then said that he wanted clarify that the 20 foot setback requested is from property line. In fact, the house would be approximately 33 feet from edge of pavement. He also said that little fill will be required to develop this site and assured a person who inquired, that the fill would be properly compacted. In answer to a question, Al said that the home is of moderate size, 2,600 to 2,800 square feet. Mr. Ocker said that the retaining walls along the wash, which were suggested earlier, would be cost prohibitive. He said that he is doing his best to comply with all codes, given this particular lot. Mr. Bittner said that the cost to develop this lot should not be a factor in the BOA's decision. Mr. Ocker should be forced to comply with the Codes, he said. Mr. Kincade commented that the 6 to 8 foot high retaining wall required in the wash would be unattractive. He also felt that this encroachment into the floodplain would place the house dangerously close to the floodway. Hayward Thresher asked Staff to speak to this issue. Don Chatfield said that Staff found a shifting of the house toward the front of the lot to be an appropriate solution for this problem lot. He added that a reduction of the front yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet would allow placement of the home outside the floodplain and, in addition, it would preserve more vegetation. Jim Swan then MOVED to APPROVE OV 10-93-3, the Ocker request for a variance to reduce the front yard setback on Lot 103, Monte del Oro, from 30 feet to 20 feet, in accordance with the plans presented. Hayward Thresher SECONDED. Discussion of the motion ensued. Hayward said that he felt uncomfortable approving this request when a conflict remains with the homeowners' association. He added, however, that the only finding not met, in his opinion, was E. He felt that the granting of this variance could very well be detrimental to those living in the area. Jim Swan said that he questioned whether, in fact, Finding A had been met. He said that he did not necessarily agree that there was something peculiar to Lot 103 that was not the case for other Monte del Oro lots. Most lots in that subdivision, he said, have some constraints, principally, floodplain and topography. Jim said that he would vote for denial of this request. There was a question raised as to point of order. The Town Attorney was consulted as to whether or not Mr. Swan could vote against his own motion or, as an alternative, abstain. It was decided that the MOTION on the floor should be WITHDRAWN. Jim WITHDREW the MOTION and Hayward WITHDREW his second. Terry Lon Myers then MOVED to DENY OV10-93-3, the Ocker request for approval of a variance to the front yard setback for Lot 103, Monte del Oro, finding that the conditions on Lot 103 are not unique and can be overcome with proper construction techniques. Further, the BOA 12-6-93 Board of Adjustment Minutes page 5 makes a finding that the granting of said variance would interfere with the enjoyment of property and property rights. Hayward Thresher SECONDED. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING OV 10-93-4 Contreras Request for Variances to Required Side Yard Setback and Maximum Building Height Lot 446, Rancho Feliz, No. 5 Darrell Gilman opened the public hearing on this case. Don Chatfield reviewed the Staff Report on this request. Lot 446, he said, is 1.37 acres in size and a large portion of the rear of the property is located within the 100 year floodplain. The Contreras family requests approval to encroach approximately 8 feet into the required 15 foot side yard setback in the R1-36 Zoning District. In addition, Don said, a second variance is requested to permit a building height of 19 feet, 6 inches, for a partial second story addition, the maximum height in the district being restricted to 18 feet. Staff, he concluded, feels that, given the ample size of the site, the addition may be situated in such a way as to meet all required setbacks, i.e. the front, rear or north side of the home. If approved, Staff outlined two conditions as follows: 1. Maximum building height should be limited to 19 feet, 6 inches above natural grade, and 2. The Development Review Board shall, at its next regularly scheduled meeting review and approve the proposed plans for the addition from an aesthetic standpoint. Darrell Gilman asked if adjacent property owners had been notified and Don confirmed that Staff had sent notices to all property owners within 300 feet of Lot 446. No comments, pro or con, had been received to date. Roy and Vicki Contreras then approached the podium to speak. Roy Contreras explained his reasons for the placement of the addition. He said that, if the addition were located on the north side of the house, access to it would be through the master bedroom which, he said, was not acceptable to him. He added that he had built a nice, large back porch on the house which he did not wish to destroy. Locating the addition in the front yard, Roy said, would destroy a patio he had made there, as well as his mountain views. Vicki Contreras said that the Estes Company had erred when the house was constructed for them, in that the house was located closer to the south property line than was approved by them. Because construction had already commenced, they agreed to the placement but, she pointed out, the house barely met the Pima County code from the beginning. Mrs. Contreras reiterated her husband's comments regarding alternative locations, adding that, if the addition was on the north side or in front of the house, there would not be sufficient space for vehicles to turn around, L-. August 5, 1998 MINUTES, �,ARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2 In answer to questions from Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Nodine stated that the house is single story and is located to the left is the conservation area. Chairman Swan swore in the applicant, witnesses and those intending to testify. Bill Ridlinghafer, 5913 N. Placita Ligera, Tucson, AZ, representing the applicant. Mr. Ridlinghafer showed photos of the lot to the Members of the Board. Mr. Ridlinghafer added that he has a letter from the owner of Lot 48 to present to the board for the record. The letter states that Mr. Robert W. Lewis does not object to the variance. Mr. Nodine stated the access easement is from the cul-de-sac because of traffic control on the major street. Chairman Swan opened the public hearing. Bob W. Lewis, 3902 N. Placita Ligera, Tucson, AZ. Mr. Lewis he lives next door to the applicant and does not oppose Mr. Ridlinghafer's request for a variance. Chairman Swan closed the public hearing. In answer to Mr. Mitchell's question Mr. Nodine briefly stated that the Town's policy and goals are to preserve and reduce the impact of the natural vegetation by utilizing the Native Plant Salvage and the General Plan. MOTION: Mr. Thresher MOVED to approve OV10-98-12, variance request to Section 6-603. Mr. Mitchell SECONDED the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Vice Chair Thresher Aye Mr. Mitchell Aye Chairman Swan Aye MOTION carried 3-0. 2. OV10-98-13 SALAZAR REQUEST FOR VARIANCE.TO SECTION 6-403D MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT IN THE R1-43 DISTRICT LOT 84 MONTE DEL ORO SUBDIVISION, GUAVA DRIVE Mr. Nodine stated the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Salazar have requested a variance from the maximum building height requirement(18 feet) in the RI-43 Zoning District. If approved, this variance would permit construction of a new custom home with a maximum building height of approximately 22 feet in height above finished grade for a portion of the house. Mr. Nodine stated that the Monte Del Oro subdivision was annexed into the Town of Oro Valley in 1987. Upon annexation into Oro Valley, and translation of the zoning in Monte Del Oro to its current R1-43 zoning, building height was restricted to 18 feet. The Town Council approved a code amendment to allow two-story homes, not to exceed 18 feet in height, in the R1-43 zoning district,provided DRB approval of the proposed architecture is obtained. If approved,the applicants would be permitted to build a custom home which exceeds the permitted August 5, 1998 MINUTES, tiUARD OF ADJUSTMENT 3 height in the R1-43 zoning district by approximately four feet. The architectural elevations will go before the DRB in September of 1998, if their request for a height variance is approved. Mr. Nodine reviewed that Lot 84 is narrow in width and there are developed one-acre lots that surround Lot 84. There are both single and two-story homes in the immediate area. The closest homes to the Salazar site are one-story homes, Lot 46 to the west, and Lot 85 to the north. Mr. Nodine added that the elevations and site plan submitted for the Salazar home have been submitted for the Board of Adjustment to review. Per the Petitioner,the maximum building height of the proposed home will be approximately 22 feet above the finished grade. The northwest(front) and the southeast(rear) elevations of the home present a combination of single and two-story facades. Being primarily cut into the hill on the flattest part of the site,the proposed structure will range in height from 11' to 24' above the existing grade. Mr. Nodine added that the home has a living space of 3106 square feet, with a relatively small disturbed area(for the house) of 4031 square feet. The house is a typical size for the area and the use of a two-story structure limits the need to cut, fill and otherwise disturb the steep site. Mr.Nodine explained that all property owners within 300 feet of Lot 84 have been notified of this hearing and he has received one letter in protest from Jack Kennedy who owns the house on Lot 85, next door to the proposed construction. In answer to Chairman Swan's question,Mr. Nodine replied that the height range of surrounding two- story homes is approximately in the 25-30 foot range. Chairman Swan asked for clarification on the grading height. Mr.Nodine explained that it would be measured from the final grade height. Chairman Swan swore in the applicant, witnesses and those intending to testify. Kerry Salazar, 3341 W. Green Ridge Drive, Tucson, Arizona, stated that their lot slopes extensively and that is why they are requesting the height variance for their proposed two-story home. Chairman Swan asked if the Salazars had reviewed plans with their architect to move the house forward, as the neighboring Darby's suggested. Mrs. Salazar answered that they had not yet consulted with their architect. In answer to Mr. Thresher's question,Mr.Nodine explained that extra fill would be required if the house was moved forward as suggested by the Darby's. Chairman Swan opened the public hearing. Jack Kennedy, 11051 N. Guava Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona, opposes the proposed appearance of the house on the property. Mr. Kennedy added that the home would be located at the top on the highest part of the hill and in his opinion would be unsightly. Gene Darby, 11070 N. Poinsettia, Oro Valley, Arizona, also opposes the variance request for Lot 84. Mr. Darby added that the proposed home would block the sun from his yard. Chairman Swan closed the public hearing. August 5, 1998 MINUTES, DUARD OF ADJUSTMENT 4 MOTION: Mr. Mitchell MOVED to deny OV 10-98-13 Salazar request for variance to Section 6- 403D maximum permitted height in the R1-43 district Lot 84 Monte Del Oro subdivision, Guava Drive. MOTION SECONDED by Mr. Thresher. ROLL CALL VOTE: Vice Chair Thresher Aye Mr. Mitchell Aye Chairman Swan Aye MOTION carried 3-0. 3. OV10-98-15 HILZENDEGER REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SECTION 13-109D.2, REQUIRED SIDE YARDSETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR SWIMMING POOL Mr. Nodine stated that Mr. and Mrs. Hilzendeger,the property owners, seek a variance to allow them to build their swimming pool 5 feet into the side yard setback. Section 13-109D.2 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised states, "Swimming pools shall be subject to the front and side yard requirements of the zone in which they are permitted." The existing zoning is R1-10 and the side yard setback for this zone is 5 feet. Mr. Nodine explained that there has been confusion with pool requirements that P&Z is working on clarification with the pool companies due to the fact that Pima County allows a different setback, which is why this variance is being requested. Mr. Nodine stated that the Desert Vista subdivision is a single-family residential community located north of Naranja Drive and between La Cholla Boulevard and La Canada Drive. The property in question regarding this variance request, Lot 118, is located at 1693 West Petunia Place. Mr. Nodine added that all property owners within 300 feet have been notified by mail of this hearing. Mr. Nodine added that this property is a 17,772 square foot residential lot, with a 2.500 square foot single family residence on site. There is a limited rear yard due to a significant grade change across this narrow area. Due to the topology, significant fill was required to accommodate house placement. House placement, driven by grade constraints, has resulted in an irregular shaped rear and side yard with only limited size available for constructing the proposed swimming pool. Complying with the existing 10 foot side yard setback would result in a pool location exceedingly close to the house. Upon observation, it is clear that an alternate pool design and size would solve this issue without the need for a variance. Mr. Nodine summarized that the house is comparable in size to others in the area and that the side yard grade and the corner lot location dictated a house placement that resulted in a small side and rear yard. These special circumstances connected to the lot results in the construction of the proposed swimming pool encroachment into the side yard. Views and/or use of lots adjacent to the side and rear yard are not negatively impacted by this zoning variance. It should also be emphasized that an alternate pool design and size may be the solution in complying with the side yard setback requirement.