HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV109304 •
CASE NO.:C3V to-
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
FOR: f Zoning Variance
Zoning Interpretation
Appeal of Administrative Decision
NATURE OF REQUEST:
leaven fo/e VARMA/6.6 of onNiv(g 5'o r f/D 5erg40"
No AlLomipte Ifttelir Fr9AA 771/O 5ThAr ' II UcTUfe .
APPLICANT: � ' , j e:%),e-7-6/4..p's
ADDRESS: / 7020 469
OWNER: S#,/ig
ADDRESS: 5,.9,
PROPERTY LOCATION/ADDRESS: /720 h/ PIA(6/64 1•4/eA co Z.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: tor 40 t G//a
ACREAGE: CURRENT ZONING: g
APPLICABLE FEE:
ATTACHMENTS: g •/TE P'I44I /Goak ?L 4/1 eCel/4r/oNS
sik d-e8 n_s:7L 0, /Gd/•e- frleyz,p4.,
G 3
SI NATURE OF APPLICANT A E
1
SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS FOR APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
1. Identify difficulties or problems that would result from complying with the present zoning
requirements.
(m1ei'r.) t(/ /Go Nor be Ifike 70 FJ/Gb A Pl4V6170MABGe Iwo STORY AOh/r/aAV
- (LEG49 t/UE 10 /N1� oA E/6//7S No coC UD ,JOT A 7cw rz'ie� Oo S 65.
E rQ cK) tvc�vc'5 cEd�7a v/Lo ow Nagai Five o MUfe a//�RE /ex/sr7 YY
Rev/wall /5 %UfAe )4, Awe ac'out o Nor 4v0/2-14 FUivcnavl4cr 70 Cad v 6h' ovQ
Bet,001 fN1n / MDze12. 6444&E.
2. Identify and explain all unique and peculiar circumstances that would prevent you from
complying with the present zoning requirements on your property hi regard to the following
areas (slope, narrowness, shallowness, irregular shape, location, washes, vegetation and
easements, etc.).
frffMow ;f of r& f cvr" 7t//$ Car 11/N/#1/z E; 7lft 0fTI04/1 fog
h Off-fa"extrA VAopt gam amRscot- Coat dv NVA17/ etw.
UEtf/cte
3. Identify and explain any peculiar conditions in the surrounding area which would keep you
from complying with the present zoning requirements.
#7,4
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
4. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING:
The most current available list of property owners from the Pima County Assessor's Office
and the date such list was obtained.
8 copies of dimensioned plot plan, if applicable
8 copies of dimensioned floor plan, if applicable
8 copies of building elevations, if applicable
An estimate of the incremental cost of the change in, or additions to, the property, such
estimated cost to be endorsed as accurate by a licensed contractor or engineer.
Any additional comments/information you wish to provide regarding your request.
2
ARTICLE 1-7. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Sec. 1-701 Scope
The Board of Adjustment shall hear and decide requests for variances and appeals of
interpretations of this Code in accordance with A.R.S.,
Section 9-462.06.
Sec. 1-702 Powers and Duties
A. Interpretation
The Board of Adjustment shall interpret this Code on appeal when:
1. There is a dispute between the appellant and the Planning and Zoning Director or
other Town Official as to a decision or interpretation as set forth in Sec. 1-706; or
2. The location of a zoning district is in doubt.
B. Variances
The Board of Adjustment may allow variances from the proN,isions of this Code in
accordance with Sec. 1-709, Findings.
Sec. 1-703 Meetings, Administration of Oaths and Compelling Attendance of
Witnesses
All meetings of the Board shall be held at the call of the Chairman and at such other times as the
Board may determine. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the pLblic. The Chairman, or
in his absence, the acting Chairman, may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses
in accordance with the laws of the State of Arizona.
Sec. 1-704 Composition
A. Appointment: The Board of Adjustment shall be composed of five members appointed by
the Town Council.
B. Terms: Appointments are for staggered terms of two years each with no limit on the
number of terms.
C. Vacancies: Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired portion of that term within a
reasonable time period as provided for by appointments of the Town Council.
D. Removal: The Town Council has the authority to remove, by majority vote, any member
for neglect of duty, inefficiency or misconduct in office.
3
Sec. 1-705 Transaction of Business
A. The Board of Adjustment shall conduct its business in accordance with the Arizona Revised
Statutes and applicable Town regulations and any rules and procedures as adopted by the
Town Council.
B. The Town Clerk, or an appointed representative from the Town Clerk's office, shall serve
as the Executive Secretary of the Board of Adjustment and the minutes and records of all
board proceedings will be kept and filed as public record in the files of the Town Clerk.
Sec. 1-706 Appeals from Administrative Decisions
Appeals may be taken to the Board of Adjustment by persons aggrieved or by any officer,
department, board or bureau of the municipality affected by a decision of an administrative official,
within 30 days, by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken, and with the Board of
Adjustment, a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The officer from whom the appeal
is taken shall forthwith transmit all papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed
from was taken. Said appeal shall be filed on a form provided by the Town Clerk.
A. An appeal shall stay all proceedings in the matter appealed from unless the officer from
whom the appeal is taken certifies to the Board that, by reason of the fact stated in the
certificate, the stay would, in his opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property. In such
case, proceedings shall not be stayed, except by restraining order granted by the Board or
by a court of record on application and notice to the officer from whom the appeal is taken.
The Board shall fix a reasonable time for hearing the appeal and give notice thereof to the
parties in interest and the public.
B. The concurring vote of a majority of the Board shall be necessary to reverse any order or
decision of an administrative official, or to pass or to affect any variations from the terms
and conditions of this ordinance.
Sec. 1-707 Application for Variances
Application for a variance of zoning regulations shall be made to the Board of Adjustment in the
form of a written application. Said application shall be filed with the Town Clerk upon forms
provided by the Board of Adjustment and shall be accompanied by:
A. Plans and description sufficient to indicate the nature of the project involved and the
proposed use with ground plans and elevations of all proposed buildings.
B. Evidence satisfactory to the Board of Adjustment of the ability and intention of the
applicant to proceed with actual construction work in accordance with said plans within 6
months after issuance of the variance.
C. A filing fee according to the fee schedule adopted by the Town Council. The owner of a
nonconforming sign shall not be required to pay a filing fee when applying for a variance
from the ordinance that renders the sign nonconforming.
4
D. From the time of filing the application until the time of such hearing, the application and
all maps, plans and other accompanying data shall be available for public inspection during
office hours at the office of the Town Clerk.
Sec. 1-708 Hearing and Notice
Upon receipt in proper form of any such application, the Board of Adjustment shall proceed to
hold a public hearing upon said application not more than 30 days, nor less than 15 days, after such
filing, at which time all persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard. Such Board of
Adjustment shall cause one notice of such hearing to be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Town of Oro Valley and one notice to be posted on the subject property, giving
at least 15 days notice of said hearing, and the time and place where said hearing will be held.
Said notice, both as published and posted, shall also show the nature of the variance or exception
requested and state that anyone wanting to protest may appear in person or by writing. All
property owners within 300 feet must be notified.
Sec. 1-709 Findings
A variance from the provisions of this Code shall not be authorized unless the Board shall find
upon sufficient evidence:
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.
Sec. 1-710 Action
The Board shall prescribe, in connection with any variance, such condition:: as the Board may deem
necessary in order to fully carry out the provisions and intent of this Code. Such conditions may
include, among other things, a limitation of the time for which such variance shall be valid.
Violation of any such condition shall be a violation of this ordinance and such violation shall render
the variance null and void.
5
.
Sec. 1-711 Review
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Board after hearing on application made by any taxpayer
or municipal officer, may petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Board's decision pursuant
to ARS Section 9-465 (1956) as amended.
FEE SCHEDULE
•
For applications or appeals involving construction of any nature, and which require legal advertising
and posting of property affected, the fee shall be determined upon the total valuation of the
improvements to be made, as follows:
Developers Individuals
To and including $5,000 $ 200.00 $ 110.00
Each additional $1,000 or fraction 20.00 10.00
Maximum fee 1,000.00 500.00
For application of a variance of an appeal not
involving construction of any nature 200.00 100.00
For parking variance 200.00 100.00
For appeal of decision on home occupation N/A 100.00
For postponement of hearing after legal notices
have be publicized 100.00 50.00
For applications or appeals which do not require legal notices or postings, the fees are:
Developers Individuals
For changes estimated to cost $5,000 or less 100.00 55.00
Each additional $1,000 of estimated cost 20.00 10.00
Maximum fee 500.00 250.00
6,fri)
case No. Cr.j\13 -(V6. 4
CAI NTR .As
STATE OF ARIZONA )
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY )
I h certify that on hereby fy i ` 4
I caused to be delivered, A ldigal notirk, regarding the
above-mentioned case to be published in the
'1).-T _ on 1 1�
A copy of public hearing notice ' on file in the Oro
Valley Tc n Hall.
I hereby certify that on JVV
I mailed individual le 11to all agencies g and
individuals as required, together with notice of publish
hearing and specific map involved, if any.
I hereby certify that on
I caused to be posted the subject property in the above-
mentioned case.
AdMinistrative Assistant
Planning and Development Svcs.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
19 9 .
Notary Public
My commission expires:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
In accordance with Section 1-505 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised and
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-462.06,
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment will hold a
special meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, December 7, 1993 at or after
1:00 p.m. at the Oro Valley Town Hall, 11,000 N. Tea Canada Drive, Oro Valley,
Arizona with regard to the following case:
OV10-93-4 : Contreras Request for Variance to Side Yard
Setback and Maxinamn Building Height Requirements
Lot 446, 1720 W. Placita Caracol
Rancho Feliz No. 5
Request for variance on the setback and building height
requirements of the R1-36 Zoning District. These regulations
state that a side yard setback of 15 feet must be maintained and,
further, that building height shall be limited to 18 feet and two
stories. If this request for variance is approved, it would have
the effect of allowing the property owners to construct an
addition to their home which would be approximately 19'6" in
height and would encroach into the required side yard setback
approximately 7.75 feet along the south property line
Persons interested may appear in person, by agent or attorney, and petitioners
on the appeal must appear or be represented.
5i411.14114114111111
Steve Hagedorn,
Zoning Administrator
ALE Y /9/
,q
\
O O2 O
/(bi A°UNDED � NOTICE
OROTIME •
•
P . M • 12///cts
. ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL
CANADA
1 1 000 N . LA
In accordance with Section 1-505 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised and
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-462 .06,
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment will hold a
special meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, December 7, 1993 at or after
1:00 p.m. at the Oro Valley Town Hall, 11, 000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley,
Arizona with regard to the following case:
0V10-9 3-4 : Contreras Request for Variance to Side Yard
Setback and Maximum Building g Height Requirements
Lot 446, 1720 W. Placita Caracol
Rancho Feliz No. 5
Request for variance on the setback and building height
requirements of the R1-36 Zoning District. These regulations
state that a side yard setback of 15 feet must be maintained and,
further, that building height shall be limited to 18 feet and two
stories. If this request for variance is approved, it would have
the effect of allowing the property owners to construct an
addition to their home which would be approximately 19' 6" in
height and would encroach into the required side yard setback
approximately 7.75 feet along the south property line
Persons interested may appear in person, by agent or attorney, and petitioners
on the appeal must appear or be represented.
414:4144"4"P'
Steve Hagedorn,
Zoning Administrator
Mr. •
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF ARIZONA)
:ss.
COUNTY OF PIMA ► being first
Loretta O t au i rt
NOTICE OF duly sworn, deposes and says that (he) (she) is the Legal Advertising Manager
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
ORO VALLEY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the
In accordance with Section 1-505
of the Oro Valley Zoning Code
Revised and Arizona Revised
Statutes Section 9-462.01, Countyof Pima, State of Arizona, and ofgeneral circulation in the Cityof Tucson,
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
the Oro Valley Board of Adjust-
ment will hold a special meeting
and public hearing on Tuesday,December 7, 1993 at or after County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached
1:00 p.m.at the Oro Valley Town
Hall,11,000 N.La Canada Drive,
Oro Valley, Arizona with regard
to the following case:
OV10-93-4: Contreras Request
for Variance to Side Yard Set-
back and Maximum Building I_t1,/1 0—9;=;-,. f:r;;,rt t r"a B.r"r3.Fs Request
Height Requirements
Lot 446, 1720 W. Placita Caracol
Rancho Feliz No. 5
Request for variance on the set-
back and building height require-
ments of the R1-36 Zoning Dis-
trict. These regulations state that
a side yard setback of 15 feet was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE
must be maintained and, further,
that building height shall be lim-
ited to 18 feet and two stories. If
this request for variance is ap- DAILY TERRITORIAL for issues; that the first was made
proved, it would have the effect 1
of allowing the property owners
to construct an addition to their
home which would be approxi- on the
mately 19'6' in height and would .;� i day of N,r u e m L-+e r- 19'.,:-;
encroach into the required side
yard setback approximately 7.75
feet along the south property line and the last publication thereof was made on the t:h day of
Persons interested may appear
in person, by agent or attorney,
and petitioners on the appeal
must appear or be represented. 19
Steve Hagedorn Steve Hage- ;that said publication
dorn, Zoning Administrator November
Pub: The Daily Territorial
November 19, 1993 was made on each of the following dates,to-wit:
Reg: Town of Oro Valley
hrcontre 11/19/93 as 1 1 /1 9P.93
Request of
TOWN OF ORO VAL..L..F V
DailyTerritorial
By
Subscribed a sworn to before me this 9 t h'f day of November
19 93
Notary Public in and for the County of Pima,State of Arizona
My Commission Expires: .l (IL `�
LLEY 4Ri
ORO VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
•
A
IS) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REPORT
°UNDED\ „
CASE NO: OV10-93-4 Contreras Request for Variances
1. Side Yard Setback Reduction from 15 feet to 7.25 feet
AND
2. Building Height Exceeding 18 feet
Hearing Date: December 7, 1993
Agenda Item No.: 2
REQUEST:
Mr. and Mrs. Contreras propose an addition to their existing single story masonry home. The addition
is proposed to encroach into the side yard setback approximately 7.75 feet and is proposed to be two-
stories over a portion of the existing building footprint and 19 feet, 6 inches in height.
SITE LOCATION:
1720 W. Placita Caracol, Rancho Feliz No. 5, Lot 446
SITE SIZE:
59,748 square feet (1.37 acres)
PROPOSED USE:
There is an existing single family residence on this property. The owners wish to expand the house over
the garage, extending the footprint approximately 5 feet on the south side of the home and adding a
partial second story.
CITIZEN SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:
No comments, pro or con, have been received to date.
EXISTING ZONING:
On-site : R1-36
North : "
South : "
East
West : " Unsubdivided Pima County SR
EXISTING LAND USE:
On-site : Single Family Residential
North : Single Family Residential
South : Single Family Residential
East : Single Family Residential
West: : Vacant
ADJACENT STREETS:
Lambert Lane abuts the northwest corner of this property.
BACKGROUND:
The Contreras request approval of two variances, one is to permit them to encroach into the required 15
foot side yard, reducing it to 7.25 feet. Secondly, they request approval to add living space to their
home by adding a partial second story over the existing garage area. The proposed building height for
the addition would be 19 feet, 6 inches, 1 foot, 6 inches over the 18 foot maximum building height in
the R1-36 District.
It should be noted that Rancho Feliz No. 5 subdivision was annexed into the Town in November of
1989. Prior to that the properties carried CR-1 zoning in Pima County, which allowed a 10 foot side
yard and a maximum building height of 34 feet, two stories. This home, as constructed, was well within
the maximum building height limitations, but barely met the required 10 foot side yard requirement.
SITE ANALYSIS:
A substantial amount of the this property in located within the 100 year floodplain. This could make
adding onto the house in the rear somewhat difficult. Staff perceives that it may be possible to add on
to the north side of the house, instead of the south, where setbacks may be met, however, it would
appear that more grading would be necessary as the property slopes up and away from the house. Two
retaining walls have been put in place to stabilize this slope.
LAND USE ANALYSIS
The Contreras' property is constrained by a large utility easement which traverses and rear of their
property and a large expanse of floodplain, thus reducing the buildable area.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff perceives that the reduced setback and the added building height will have little impact on
neighbors in any direction. However, after an on-site inspection, Staff finds that ample room for
additional building area exists on the north, west and east side of this existing house without encroaching
into the side yard setback to the south.
2
• N
It should be noted that a Zoning code Amendment was adopted several months ago which permits two-
story homes with a maximum building height of 18 feet in all R1 Districts. This code amendment was
intended to support the construction of split level homes, i.e. homes built with a portion of the floor area
below grade. Split level homes are, by definition, two story homes. It is Staffs feeling that any two-
story homes should be constructed within the 18 foot height limit restriction and in a split level
configuration. In order for a two-story home to be built in an R1 District, the Development Review
Board must review and approve the aesthetics for the home. In the Contreras' case, then, if the Board
elects to approve the height variance, the DRB must then review the plans as well for aesthetics.
FINDINGS:
As the Board considers the Contreras request, the members should keep in mind the following:
A variance from the provisions of this Code shall not be authorized unless the Board shall find upon
sufficient evidence:
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.
If the Board members are satisfied that all findings have been met, and vote for approval of the two
Contreras variance requests, Staff would suggest the following stipulations be made:
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.
10-93-4\boa.rpt
3
. .
414.44
Dee
-off)
wbk
December 15, 1993
Mr. & Mrs. Roy R. Contreras
1720 W. Placita Caracol
Oro Valley, Arizona 85737
Oro Valley Planning & Zoning
Board of Adjustment
Darryll Gilman - Chairman
11.000 N. La Canada Drive
Oro Valley, Arizona 85737
re:OV10-93-4 Contreras request for reconsideration of variance
side yard setback and building height
Mr. Chairman,
We appeared before your committee on December 7, 1993 with a
request for a variance of the side yard setback and height
restrictions for Rancho Feliz. The recommendation from staff was
mixed, pro and con.
We were not aware that we would have to speak at the meeting,
but after arriving we had the impression that the reason we were
there was to explain why a hardship would be placed on us if a
variance was not granted and also to answer any questions from
the committee.
We were not notified of any on-site inspections to be made by
staff or committee members so were not available when you came.
One member of the committee drove up to the driveway as we were
leaving for the scheduled meeting . We don't know if he had a
question or not.
Staff stated there would be no adverse affect on neighbors
and there were no letters in opposition. Our neighbor, Mr. Jim
Boyd, came to speak on our behalf . He is the only one within our
area that would be directly involved and he stated no objections.
His house is 90 feet from us, so it is impossible to believe it
would have an adverse impact on him.
Staff also stated it is possible for us to build on the other
three sides of the house, but that is not true. Our project
involves several goals. One was to enlarge the carport to be
able to put our vehicles in and have a garage door close. There
is no other place to put a garage and be able to back and turn
around to exit. We back all the way to the street now, but at
least it is fairly straight and manageable.
We don't have sufficient land in the rear to build where the
ground stays usable in storms. The 100 year flood plain is even
closer to our house than the county plan shows. The ground is
very sandy and soft, especially after a rain, so it would be
difficult to use even for a driveway turn-a-round.
Another goal of ours is to add a second bedroom. Staff was
asked during the meeting if any houses in the Oro Valley area
were being built to the 18 foot limit for two stories and they
stated "few, if any" and further remarked that 18 feet was a ball
park figure originally.
Since the terrain in this area is very hilly, it seems a
height restriction would be subject to much variation as it is
not as noticeable, but we are aware that it is measured from the
existing ground. With no one residing to the west of us and the
hills there being much higher than we are, there would be no
restrictions of city or mountain views, if and when a residence
is built there. We would not have asked for a variance if that
were the case because that has happened to us in the past.
We have stayed in Rancho Feliz even though it is a
neighborhood that doesn't seem to have a lot of pride or
involvement in enhancing it's property. We've lost some good
neighbors because of that fact. We love the area though, and
enjoy our privacy in this cul-de-sac. The proposed project is
valued at more than we should spend on upgrades for this area but
we decided, after much thought, that we wanted to stay here, if
possible. The addition would add much to the livability of this
house.
We've noticed as each owner in a neighborhood does a little
upgrading, it seems to spur on other neighbors to do a better job
in their own yards. Hopefully, that would happen here.
We respectfully ask the committee to re-evaluate our case
from the staff report, the information in this letter and also,
if possible, with an on-site inspection, and at the next
scheduled meeting reconsider our variance. We would also
appreciate any comments from the committee if they feel they must
deny this variance again.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter
Sincerely,
Mr. & Mrs. Roy R. Contreras
76, Y A.
memo
to Board of Adjustment Members
from : Linda Frew, temp. clerk for the BOA
date : December 17, 1993
re : OV10-93-4 Contreras' Request for Side Yard and Building Height Variance
We received the attached letter in our office today which, basically, asks the BOA to reconsider
the request for variances on this case.
In order for the BOA to reconsider the case, one of the members voting against the variances
at the last meeting must make a motion, in open meeting, to reconsider. This motion must carry
by a majority vote. If the vote for reconsideration is affirmative, a new public hearing date, at
least 15 days out, would be scheduled to hear the case again.
Upon consulting with Tobin Sidles, Ass't. Town Attorney, on this matter, he informed me that
it would be inappropriate to simply canvass the BOA members by phone to see if any one of you
would be willing to make the motion to reconsider. Therefore, a special meeting will probably
be scheduled some time after the first of the year for this reconsideration item. (We will
probably also schedule the BOA Manual for some action too.) At any rate, it will be a very
short meeting.
We will be in touch.
Have a very Merry Christmas and a safe and happy New Year!
JPLLEY R/
QO �02
O . TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
if
or 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
D► ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA 85737
Administrative Offices(602)297-2591 Fax(602)297-0428
A . ✓,
A
�. _ A
/►POUNDED 1g1
December 21, 1993
Mr. and Mrs. Roy R. Contreras
1720 W. Placita Caracol
Oro Valley, 85737
RE : OV10-93-4 Request for Side Yard and Building Height Variances
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Contreras:
We are in receipt of a copy of a letter dated December 15, 1993, which you sent to several of
our Board of Adjustment members relative to the above-referenced case. We acknowledge your
request to have your case reconsidered before the Board and the Chairman has agreed to call a
special meeting for this purpose. As it is difficult to obtain a quorum around holiday time, the
meeting will be held some time during the first few weeks of January, I would guess.
At the meeting, one of the persons who voted to deny your variance requests must make a
motion for reconsideration. If the motion carries, a second meeting will then be scheduled at
least 21 days after the first, to allow ample time for public hearing notification.
You should be aware that, if no one makes a motion for reconsideration and/or if it does not
carry, the case is closed insofar as the Board of Adjustment goes. Your appeal, at that point,
would be to the Pima County Superior Court.
If you are willing to work with your plans, to revise them to address the Board's concerns, you
may wish to re-apply for variance. However, this would call for a second application fee and
I'm afraid there would be no guarantees that the BOA would vote in your favor the second time
around.
•
Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Contreras
12-21-93
page 2
I hope that this letter answers any questions you may have as to how to proceed from here. I
would appreciate it if you would contact me at 797-9797 to confirm that you still wish to
proceed with the request for reconsideration. If so, as soon as the holidays have passed, I will
be happy to contact the BOA Chair, set up a special meeting and notify you of the date.
Please let me know if I may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Linda Mason-Frew
Planner I
Town of Oro Valley
dVto-qs -4
ORO VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REPORT
CASE NO: OV10-93-4 ko�
Hearing Date • February 15, 1994
4.VS‘-‘
Agenda Item No. 1 : Contreras' Request for Variance to Side Yard Setback and Building
Height in the R1-36 Zoning District.
Ovt O REQUEST:
Several Several members of the BOA received a letter dated December 15, 1993 from Mr. and Mrs. Contreras.
The Contreras, whose request was denied on December 7, 1993 (see minutes in this packet), have
requested that their variance requests for building height and side yard setbacks on Lot 446, Rancho
Feliz, No. 5, be reconsidered by the Board.
At the BOA meeting this afternoon, which is not a public hearing on this particular item, one of the
persons who voted to deny the Contreras variance requests must make a motion for reconsideration. If
that motion carries, a second meeting must then be scheduled at least 21 days from today, to allow ample
time for public hearing notification.
If no Board member makes such motion for reconsideration and/or if such motion does not carry, the
case is closed insofar as this board is concerned. The appeal of the board's decision, should the
Contreras decide to pursue it, will then be to the Pima County Superior Court.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report from 12-7-93 meeting
2. Letter of request from Mr. and Mrs. Contreras
10-93-4\recons.mem
,p,,,LEY;i00
oQo ,1„, ORO VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
CG)11C'7-1
t� BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REPORT
DUNDED g�
CASE NO: OV10-93-4 Contreras Request for Variances
1. Side Yard Setback Reduction from 15 feet to 7.25 feet
AND
2. Building Height Exceeding 18 feet
Hearing Date: December 7, 1993
Agenda Item No.: 2
REQUEST:
Mr. and Mrs. Contreras propose an addition to their existing single story masonry home. The addition
is proposed to encroach into the side yard setback approximately 7.75 feet and is proposed to be two-
stories over a portion of the existing building footprint and 19 feet, 6 inches in height.
SITE LOCATION:
1720 W. Placita Caracol, Rancho Feliz No. 5, Lot 446
SITE SIZE:
•
59,748 square feet (1.37 acres)
PROPOSED USE:
There is an existing single family residence on this property. The owners wish to expand the house over
the garage, extending the footprint approximately 5 feet on the south side of the home and adding a
partial second story.
CITIZEN SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:
No comments, pro or con, have been received to date.
EXISTING ZONING:
On-site : R1-36
North :
South
East
West : " Unsubdivided Pima County SR
EXISTING LAND USE:
On-site : Single Family Residential
North : Single Family Residential
South : Single Family Residential
East : Single Family Residential
West: : Vacant
ADJACENT STREETS:
Lambert Lane abuts the northwest corner of this property.
BACKGROUND:
The Contreras request approval of two variances, one is to permit them to encroach into the required 15
foot side yard, reducing it to 7.25 feet. Secondly, they request approval to add living space to their
home by adding a partial second story over the existing garage area. The proposed building height for
the addition would be 19 feet, 6 inches, 1 foot, 6 inches over the 18 foot maximum building height in
the R1-36 District.
It should be noted that Rancho Feliz No. 5 subdivision was annexed into the Town in November of
1989. Prior to that the properties carried CR-1 zoning in Pima County, which allowed a 10 foot side
yard and a maximum building height of 34 feet, two stories. This home, as constructed, was well within
the maximum building height limitations, but barely met the required 10 foot side yard requirement.
SITE ANALYSIS:
A substantial amount of the this property in located within the 100 year floodplain. This could make
adding onto the house in the rear somewhat difficult. Staff perceives that it may be possible to add on
to the north side of the house, instead of the south, where setbacks may be met, however, it would
appear that more grading would be necessary as the property slopes up and away from the house. Two
retaining walls have been put in place to stabilize this slope.
LAND USE ANALYSIS
The Contreras' property is constrained by a large utility easement which traverses and rear of their
property and a large expanse of floodplain, thus reducing the buildable area.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff perceives that the reduced setback and the added building height will have little impact on
neighbors in any direction. However, after an on-site inspection, Staff finds that ample room for
additional building area exists on the north, west and east side of this existing house without encroaching
into the side yard setback to the south.
2
It should be noted that a Zoning Code Amendment was adopted several months ago which permits two-
story homes with a maximum building height of 18 feet in all R1 Districts. This code amendment was
intended to support the construction of split level homes, i.e. homes built with a portion of the floor area
below grade. Split level homes are, by definition, two story homes. It is Staff's feeling that any two-
story homes should be constructed within the 18 foot height limit restriction and in a split level
configuration. In order for a two-story home to be built in an R1 District, the Development Review
Board must review and approve the aesthetics for the home. In the Contreras' case, then, if the Board
elects to approve the height variance, the DRB must then review the plans as well for aesthetics.
FINDINGS:
As the Board considers the Contreras request, the members should keep in mind the following:
A variance from the provisions of this Code shall not be authorized unless the Board shall find upon
sufficient evidence:
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.
If the Board members are satisfied that all findings have been met, and vote for approval of the two
Contreras variance requests, Staff would suggest the following stipulations be made:
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.
10-93-4\boa.rpt
3