HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV108906 E S "STEV"E" ENGLE, Mawr �-. PAIRI( IA NOLAND, ManageriClc'rk
JAMES H PE I E RSON, Vice Mayor KAJ HRYN ARMS FRONC, Chief Deputy (lerk
JAMES D KRIECH, Councilman V' .IVV WALTER I. HENDERSON, Attorney
EDWARD H. NEEDHAM, Councilman ;rig
JAMES D. KRIECH, Lngineer
PAULINE R )OHNSON, Councilwoman AN: „ ROYAL C. BOUSCHOR, Magistrate
4134 FREDERIC E. ROOF, ( of 1'rilic c�
1e, ‘ ftV
vt
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
680 W. Calle Concordia Oro Valley, Arizona 85704 ['hone 297 259 I
April 14, 1982
Mr. Bruce Marshall
Oro Valley, Arizona 85704
Dear Mr. Marshall:
On March 25, 1982, you filed an application for a variance to the
height limitation set by the zoning code, for the entry way of your
residence and for an addition to the 2nd story bedroom.
On April 8, 1982, I wrote to you, confirming our telephone conversation
with your wife, explaining that the application was not complete, and
could not be scheduled for the Board of Adjustment until you supplied
the additional items needed to make it a complete filing.
I received a letter fran you on April 13, 1982 stating that you felt
your application was complete, to which I responded in detail by letter
to you on April 15, 1982.
Please be advised that you must either complete this application for
variance so it may be scheduled before the Board of Adjustment, or you
must proceed in the removal of your entry way structure which is in
violation of the Oro Valley Zoning Code. This information must be
received no later than May 28, 1982 so it can be scheduled for the
June 24th Board of Adjustment meeting.
If you have any questions regarding this, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
(--
Patricia Noland
Town Manager/ Asst. Zoning Administrator
itO0i0
O i,
S"'
3 -
0 FOOTHILLS BUSINESS PARK 10900 NORTH STALLARD PLACE-SUITE 100
r ♦ 't
ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA 85737 (602)297 2591
4*IZO
October 19, 1988
Mr. Orville Shields
Oro Valley, AZ 85737
Dear Mr. Shields:
I apologize about the length of time it has taken my office to
respond to your zoning complaint of April 19, 1988. It has not
been due to a lack of interest but, rather, to a lack of man
power on my part.
My office contacted Mr. & Mrs. Porter of
Vista, Mrs. Celta Godfrey of and Mr. &
Mrs. John Howe by letter concerning
possible zoning violations at their residences. They were
informed that the Town had received a complaint of possible
zoning violations and they were asked to contact the Town Hall
so that we might schedule a time and date for inspection of
their properties. Mrs. Porter and Mrs. Godfrey both responded
with a visit to the Town Hall. .,\
Mrs. Porter spoke with Mark Krauklis and explained to him that
the trailer, which was parked year round on her property, was
occupied only intermittently when guests would visit them from
out of state. Mr. Krauklis told Mrs. Porter that there would be
/ no permanent residents within that trailer. Later, we were able
to reach Mrs. Porter by telephone and at that time she confirmed
her conversation with Mark earlier and stated that their trailer ,
was now unoccupied. ��_ ------- 1 `"„,./,
_ t �_� --, i< _._. —..._ -- -LlY_,_j—``�—
Mrs. Godfrey spoke with Linda Frew shortly after she received our
letter. She said that she had been exchanging work for use of (,
i the shack as a residence with one of her employees. She said she r
was not aware there would be a question of legality with this use
and said that she would ask the employee to move. We are
following this up with a letter advising her that if there is any
evidence of continued occupancy, we will file criminal charges.-
-
'� ;,
E.S."STEVE"ENGLE,Mayor CATHY HUFAULT,Vice Mayor CHERYL SKALSKY,Councilmember
STEPHEN E.RENNECKAR,Councilmember WILLIAM H.SCROGGINS,III,Councilmember JON L.DEVNER,Town Manager
APPLICATION NO. OV SRO
4.
44
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE 04
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT t~ y � .�•
• 44b •
Q�/z ova
1. APPLICANT'S NAME C1r-`,i I Le, 5LA4-14.5 ADDRESS '
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER -
4. PROPERTY OWNER owt—e_
5-
ADDRESS Ll
I1
TELEPHONE NUMBER
S. ADDRESS OR LEGAL (072p W, C U..� ( -.c&tr-ct,o
DESCRIPTION OF
SUBJECT PROPERTY
LOT NO. ; LOT SIZE ; ACRES St ; ZONED RA-•144
6. WHAT PROVISION OF THE ®l 2ovA,L MALIAA4 }- V 5
�'p-ems— 3 Ica s 1.41="•..
ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE
REVISED ARE YOU r`c�J�'�'`A, eAh-'4-", ( ^( ' , I - 5'
REQUESTING A VARIANCE.
hre4.4t.-‘ Pk" I
7. STATE BRIEFLY AND FULLY THE REASONS WHY THE 4mcE IS DEEMED NECESSARY:
Oc>t"1 - u„7. / '/ �-�- Z CkQs--1 S C c 'J �'�-c s. c...
e-r--1 ca— ka-01.t. thu-t-,c-4,-,-trc a
. z _ _ice�.,L.s c4� e..�.�•. '�G-e- l"�,cat SG-6J c
-1-iggro. Ls kenxsR- 4-4==. -At-J.1s are trotreti-
b Z. < A(9-5'4,10". kzes2- ard--
0Q- ktenv-- ,st
- 1 -
8. IS A REZONING OR A SUBDIVISION PLAT INVOLVED IN THIS REQUEST YES ( ) NO
9. HAS A PREVIOUS APPLICATION BEEN FILED OR A HEARING HELD RESPECTING
THE SUBJECT PREMISES. YES X NO ( )
10. PROVIDE - -:s oe r
THE FOLLOWING:
( ) DIMENSIONED PLOT PLAN, COPIES. N.I"
( ) DIMENSIONED FLOOR PLAN, COPIES. ` '`
( ) DIMENSIONED ELEVATION PLAN, COPIES.
( ) 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.
( ) NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY, ANY PART OF WHICH IS
WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
- 2 -
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Received by on 198
All requirements satisfied on 198
Fee $ paid by check no.
Applicant was given Schedule of Fees and applicable rules on
is--0 47 611
__ _
6t1E-kke kaZie
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 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 improvement 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 been publicized 100.00 50.00
For applications or appeals which do not require legal notices or postings, the
fee 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
NOTES:
1. Fees for rehearings of an application for a variance or an appeal shall be
double the corresponding above quoted fee.
2. If the application is made after a citation has been issued for a
violation, the fee will be double the corresponding fee quoted above.
ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE 1-5. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Sec. 1-501 Board of Adjustment Established
The Board of Adjustment of the Town of Oro Valley is established according to
Sec. 3-7.1 of the Oro Valley Town Code.
Sec. 1-502 Powers and Duties
The Board of Adjustment shall have the power and jurisdiction to hear those
matters set forth in this code.
Sec. 1-503 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 public. 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. 1-504 Rules, Regulations and Records
The Board shall make rules and regulations to govern its proceedings. The
minutes and records of all Board proceedings shall be kept and filed as public
record in the office of the Town Clerk.
Sec. 1-505 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 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 certified 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
given notice thereof to the parties in interest and the public.
•
aMIN'TSTRATJoN
B. The concurring vote of a majority of the Board shall be necessaryto
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. 1-506 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 elevation of all proposed
buildings together with an estimate of cost.
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 requirement that renders the sign
nonconforming.
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. 1-507 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,
given a opportunity to be heard. Such causeBoardoftAdjustment which eshall all pses shall be
of such hearingto be one notice
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. 1-508 Findings
A variance from the provisions of this code shall not be authorized unless the
Board shall find upon sufficient evidence:
- - _ - --_
AD I1 ISTRA'1ION _ - _
A. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property .
referred to in the application including its size, shape, topography, p y -
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 vicinty, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or
the public welfare in general.
Sec. 1-509 Action
The Board shall prescribe, in connection with any variance, such conditions 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.
Sec. 1-510 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 A.R.S. Section 9-465 (1956) as amended.
ri- ---7 '---
.
........ .. .,
...._
' .1 , . '.A ,.*' , •
0 il
.t
. .,. . ....4f,-.
td, , ': ' ' •41(' f
,•
'' •
.,
•ilfr 4' 1
• • • . • ili
. t . , • • •,, S •
• , ,•. , . ". ; ' •• • .•
,•0.:•• 4 2,,,v,
,
•
-' 0- 'Oe • -..!, , t.,..,
7-',,,.*4..
..,..• et , . , . 4, " ' -
•
-. 'OIL •
.....-..
' •,'• ' ,
'4-
- , 4. . 1.t. .., .. ." . ,i is.• i.r
:
.. -• , . . 1..-..,., .-•.‘.
,
-, ..1...,...*
' t4 4 • ,.
, •-,. '..
.-. - —
•
•
•
• ' Neittil' , °;y�A'k. ' Alt,
706S+., /
1.
,x4r..1 o + 1 t __
• 3 i
R
6")/v
.,AL'
e`1
'.,„.......0""
...
.ak...
4 plipm.p14,14.1 T
.... i I I I
i\
. "
ti 1
4 A
• -1.:,
.,,,•.i , .
,tsk /0.. .• ..-- •*qt.,
' - -.4 411. • '' !
,_11111j•, _,... ,i,,-(4.....A.-,'. . ,, ,
.. "• , „I„.,
. •. ., . *
•
.- .'',1.1....4:.,.3,44 4';1,.,•'Mir
''.-...sposummemolk. ,It ..,,i.:1 i' •; li.w.n't,,.7-1.:14
r, A.,. #, ., •, ,,,,,,,.., . ,
, it
* , '
•
NJ • ,,,'. ' ' '
-
....
,..44 . • .s . ... 4.
,.„
, t..
...„.., .r... :.1 .. .
P"'-'10!" •-' .' ; .
. .. ,,
I I.
IS% •li. -.,
-,4. • .
co •'
liejt.
..A,
--,.- --`
,.
1 A
t ,/� V ; w, M �.
�1 ^� ►• fir
y ►
r 4$ . ,
` \
r
a
iiiiiIIIIIIIMS4
.. • ... J.
kb1/4 i . • •
::':'-.: ‘:1 S' , , . •
,.,:!. .,A • , A
. .
,.. • "ik .40, . ..
0 i...-,
,..04111
illeall.
•.- -.allp..........,
__.... .
'
111111144 141 kik
.,
• ',I ..
. . .,
. . ,
it ORO
Oros
1111
'
FOOTHILLS BUSINESS PARK 10900 NORTH STALLARD PLACE-SUITE 100
0 • M ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA 85737 (602)297-2591
y
• •
49#sz oe'
July 26, 1989
To Whom It May Concern:
In early 1982 Mr. Bruce Marshall, then residing at 9380 N. Calle
El Milagro, constructed a tower at his home without prior
approval. This tower exceeded the height limitation by some
18-24 feet.
Through the efforts of Mr. Orville Shields, this violation was
brought to light and Mr. Marshall was required to remove or
modify the height of the structure.
Yours truly,
,j3tatAf--•
Steve Engle k �
Mayor
E.S."STEVE"ENGLE,Mayor CATHY HUFAULT,Vice Mayor CHERYL SKALSKY,Councilmember
STEPHEN E.RENNECKAR,Councilmember WILLIAM H.SCROGGINS,III,Councilmember JON L.DEVNER,Town Manager
9369 N. Calle Buena Vista
_ _ Oro Valley,- Az. 85737
- -- July 27, 1989
To: The Board of Adjustment Town of Oro Valley
Re: Case No. OV10-89-4 Godfrey 2-Story Guest House/Garage
This request for ftavariance is asking for a violation of the zoning code of
Oro Valley in regard to the height limitation. The attorney for Oro Valley
at the July 18th meeting read you the Arizona State Statute on this matter.
It had to meet five limitations and failed on four.
On Godfveys/Sheppherd petition, she got six signatures out of a possible
eight. Four of the signatures are themselves in violation of the Oro Valley
zoning code. Two lave their property up for sale and one does not reside here.
At the July 18th meeting, it was brought to your attention that this property
already has a guest house rental on it -occuped by two people. In April, 1988,
Mrs. Godfrey stated to Linda Frew that one of ter employees lived there in
exchange for work. Abe Hill and Jeanne Todd never worked for her. They paid
$200 a iponth tent and electricity. Abe Hill died before Christmas, 1988, and
Jeanne Todd still resides there.,..:Jeanne told me on Sunday, July 23rd, on
July 19 she got a notice to vacate by August 19. She occuped this place twol
years this coming August.
About three years ago, when Mrs. Godfrey had about completed her residence, she
took me through and showed me the house. At that time, she stated she would
like to make it into a lodge and the top deck would be her dining room/
To krant a variance on the height limitation because of the existing building
would be setting a precedent. In 1982, at 9380 N. Calle El Milagro, presently
occupied by Margaret and Stephan Phillips, Bruce Marshall built without a permit
an addition with a tower 36-37 feet high by his existing house which was about
27-28 feet high. He was made to tear it down to comply with the zoning code.
He then got a permit to restructure and had his rafters cut and up to make a hip
roof and I saw that it was just a little bit under the original house. I reported
to Town Hall that he Was over the heighth limitation. !ir. Eckenrodt went over,
measured it and found it was over the legal height and made him tear it down.
Mr. Marshall then put a flat roof on the addition to conform to the zoning code.
If Mrs. Godfrey/Sheppherd is granted this variance, you are setting a double
standard. Others could ask for the same variance and the height limitation
would be null and void in your Ordnance.
41 ) S,440_,:gx14
�urs !y,
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27 day of July 1989 .
•
5:-
Notar Public
My commission expires :
OFFICIAL SEAL
!�!►. KATHRYN E.CIJVELIER
1. ," Notary Plshtic--Arizona ,
;� PifAA C Ot 1N v
My Ccmrnission Expires 7-27-91 -
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S OPINION - ALTERATION OF NONCONFORMING USE
FROM: Steve Hagedorn, Zoning Administrator
DATE: August 11, 1989
RE : GODFREY-SHEPPARD RESIDENCE
630 W. CALLE CONCORDIA
The subject property at the above-described address contains an existing
residence which does not conform to the building height restrictions of
the R1-144 Zoning District within which it is located. This residence
did, however, conform to the applicable height restrictions when
constructed and is, therefore, a legal nonconforming use. The R1-144
District, Section 6-203D, presently limits buildings to one story and
eighteen foot maximum height. The existing residence is a two story
structure, measuring approximately twenty-three feet in height.
The owners are proposing an additional structure for the property. The
new construction includes a two story garage and guest quarters connected
to the existing structure via a masonry wall and covered porch. The
revised plans have been modified from those originally submitted for Board
of Adjustment review as a request for a variance.
The Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR) , Article 1-6 Nonconforming
Uses, specifically, Section 1-605 Enlargement, Extension, Reconstruction
or Structural Alteration of Building or Land, addresses the expansion of
nonconforming uses, which this office determines the existing subject
residence to be. This section states:
"No existing building or land designed, arranged or intended for or
devoted to a use not permitted under the regulations of this code for
the district in which such building or land is located shall be
enlarged, extended, reconstructed or structurally altered unless such
building and such enlargement, extension, reconstruction and structural
alterations and further use hereof conform in every respect with the
regulations specified by this ordinance for such district in which said
building or land is located, provided nothing herein shall prohibit any
reasonable repairs or alterations in a building or land used for such
existing purposes".
As indicated above, "reasonable . . . alterations in a building . . . for such
existing purposes. . ." are permissible. In regard to the existing purpose,
that is, single family residence, the applicant is on public record that
the purpose of the new construction is to accommodate member(s) of the
family unit currently maintaining a household at the above address by
constructing additional rooms and a garage. It should be noted that the
1
residence currently does not have a garage.
Therefore, the acceptability of the proposed construction is dependent
upon a consideration of whether the proposed construction constitutes a
"reasonable alteration" to the existing nonconforming use. The Oro Valley
Zoning Code Revised defines "alteration" as follows:
"22. Alteration shall mean any change, addition or modification in
construction, structure or occupancy."
Obviously, this is a general definition, open to wide interpretations.
Research regarding the legislative intent of this definition, adopted as
an amendment to the Town Zoning Code on November 18, 1982, has revealed
no insight which would assist in the interpretation of this definition.
Further investigation of other jurisdictions' zoning codes, including the
Cities of Tucson, Phoenix, Scottsdale and Mesa and Pima County show no
such definition. Therefore, tracking the origin of the term "alteration"
through other land regulations and attempting to find administrative
interpretations has been unsuccessful. Webster's Ninth Edition New
Collegiate Dictionary contains a significantly different definition for
alteration which includes "modification" and "to make different without
changing into something else".
Clearly, the existing definition of "alteration" in the OVZCR is overly
broad and in need of revision. However, in regards to the case at hand,
this code definition must be applied. Further, the OVZCR does not define
addition. However, addition is defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
as an extension or increase in floor area or height of a building or
structure. Therefore, in this specific case, the structurally connected
addition to the Godfrey-Sheppard residence could be determined to
constitute a reasonable alteration to the existing nonconforming use on
the property, under Section 1-605 of the OVZCR. In addition to this
concern, a second issue of the areal extent or square footage of the
proposed addition or alteration needs to be considered in relation to the
existing structure.
This second issue is that of reasonableness of the additional square
footage of the proposed addition in relation to the square footage of the
existing nonconforming use. While other jurisdictions have commonly
utilized 50% as the maximum permissible increase in floor area for
enlargements of nonconforming uses, the Pima County Zoning Administrator
uses a 100% increase as a maximum.
The proposed addition to the Godfrey-Sheppard residence represents an
increase of 44.5% in total square footage. The actual increase in
footprint square footage represented by the addition is 31.5%. In this
case, this is an acceptable enlargement of the nonconforming use.
As previously indicated, the proposed addition entails two story
construction. The intent of height regulations contained in section 6-
203D is widely accepted as the preservation of the character of the
district and the immediate neighborhood. The official record reflects one
2
written objection from an adjacent neighbor with regard to the previously
submitted plan and request for a variance. In fact, the only neighbor, in
this office's opinion, that may be potentially harmed by the proposed
construction, is the Town of Oro Valley property including the Police
Department and Maintenance Yard which is located immediately to the west
of the Godfrey-Sheppard property. The Town has not filed an objection to
the two story "alteration". Therefore, the alteration is determined to be
reasonable in this particular case in that no adjacent owner is injured.
DAW:lmf
3
MEMORANDUM
TO • Steve Hagedorn, Zoning Administrator
FROM : Bob Maassen, Building Official
DATE : August 18, 1989
RE :
Guest House and Garage addition to Residence of Stephen
Sheppard. 630 W. Calle Concordia, Oro Valley, AZ.
At your request, I have examined the plans submitted for a
building permit to ascertain whether or not there would be any
structural revisions to the existing house.
The plans do not show, or call for, any structural revisions to
the existing house.
The plans call for an attached garage/guest house connected to
the existing house by the way of an 8 (eight) foot high wall and
covered walkway.
i
Bob Maassen, Building Official
Town of Oro Valley
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
In accordance with Section 1-505 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code
Revised,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT IS HEREBY GIVEN:
TIME • at or after 6: 30 p.m. , Tuesday,
September 26, 1989
PLACE • Oro Valley Town Hall, 10900 N. Stallard
Place, Suite 100, Foothills Business
Park
SUBJECT • APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S
DECISION REGARDING ARTICLE 1-6 AND
SECTION 1-605 OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING
CODE REVISED, RELATING TO THE GODFREY
REQUEST FOR ADDITION TO EXISTING HOME
Mr. Shields, 9369 N. Calle Buena Vista,
does not agree with the Zoning
Administrator' s decision that this
is a legal addition to a non-conforming
structure.
LOCATION • 630 W. CALLE CONCORDIA, west of Calle
Buena Vista on the north side of Calle
Concordia. A portion of Lot 45, Linda
Vista Citrus Tracts, No. 2 .
Members of the public are invited to attend this meeting and will
be given an opportunity to speak. (Plans of the proposed
directional sign can be viewed in the office of the Clerk. )
Steve Haged n
Zoning Administrator
Town of Oro Valley
PUB: The Daily Territorial
9/11/89
Case No. OV10-89-6
STATE OF ARIZONA )
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY )
I herebycertifythat on 9/08/89 I caused to
be delivered, a legal notice regarding the
above-mentioned case to be published in the
Daily Territorial on 9/11/89. A copy of
public hearing notice is on file in the Oro
Valley Town Hall.
I hereby certify that on 9/08/89 I mailed
individual letters to all agencies and
individuals required, together with notice of
public hearing and specific map involved, if
any.
74 ``'-(1"1"4-
r tify c c t
q•//.gg U - OV l Z.
DeiD y Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this /7 day of .,/,/APL 1989 .
1
/(;/
otary Pli
My commission expires: `/` � 9 --
The Oro Valley -`, ' � ' _
r ,
Territorial, September 15, 1989 page
.............,__ ---- A ctivate body and give
dorn said. "We have been receiv- Raydean Cluff, representing program, to increase communit your hair incredible volume and
COUNCIL ing a whole slug of complaints community concerns, presented a involvement and awareness of shine will, VaVoom Conditioning one a A
duringthepast one and one half map outlining streets involved in substanceof the fabulous VaVoom Volume
abuse in Oro Valley, GeneratorsTM from Matrix. VaVoom ' � " •
From Page 1 years the path. The streets include Pa- was also approved by the county. Condition -a instantly moisturizes, a , '
There have been about 8 calls seo del Norte, Magee, Northern This program would be in associ-
strengthens, detangies and prevents
could be sent out with the fire concerning the 10 or 12 guest Way, Hardy and Calle Concordia. ation with the Governor's Office frizzles. its incrediblylightweight formula _ ;
',engine, house in Oro Valley, and therealready
then the ambulance could "Since there have been of Substance Abuse. leaves hair feeling clean, healthy and ®
e available to be used anywhere are problems bringing them into some accidents, we are proposing Joan Harphant, Oro Valley alive' 4rilati%
=in Pima County, he said. compliance Hagedorn said. this off-street bike path so child- court administrator said the
y
Under this proposal, there "We have scheduled investiga- ren can go to school without fear Community Awareness Team was
HAIR DESIGNERS FOR MEN& WOMEN
would be no ambulance stationed tions only to go out and find a for their lives," Cluff said. formed in Oro Valley last Febru- 7890 N. Oracle at Magee
in the building next door to the hole in the cabinet where an oven The council approved a request a r y, and has received a MOI`►.-SAT. 8 a.m.-5 p.m. I
:Town Hall, but ambulance ser- used to be, and after we leave the for remodeling of the Oro Valley $1,000-grant from the governor's 297-4996 EVENINGS BY APPOINTMENT
vice would be available from owners put it back," Hagedorn Police Department building to office.
;Northwest Hospital, Engle said. said. provide additional space.
Vice Mayor Cathy Hufault Hagedorn suggested eliminat- "We are running out of space 1......o x, . ;; -. ;.-.
mentioned that Rural Metro sells
ing the guest house ordinance to put people until they can be V
subscriptions for ambulance ser- singe it was so difficult to en- moved to county facilities, and 4'
we need some holdin cells,>, said Q''
DOUBLE WAMMY GIVEAWAY
`vice to about 30 percent of Oro force, but Gary Kidd, Oro Valley g A
Valley _‘,.‘ 4\f‘ ..
, and asked if that was -a town attorney, said the town Werner Wolff, chief of police.
higher percentage than other could not eliminate the ordinance Along with approving more
mik Come&visit our ne:�� loc lion at 3773 *.„ ,
areas. space for thepolice department,
for existing guest houses, but P partme t, = W. Ina 170 (Safeway Center) anti +►��
p the council approved a resolution :--#
"Thirty
percent of Oro Valley c o u 1 d d a l with future PP . a }.
is about 900 people," Engle said. construction, for a proposed intergovernmental = enter our drawing for 'I boys and 1 '4
"That compares with about Then council decided to start agreement between Oro Valley .� Bicycle Pictured
30,000 people in the county, and the procedure for a public hearing and Pima County relating to pns-` girls bicycles. Drawing Oct. 1 S9 is Not Actual Giveaway
other areas such as Green Valley on the issue. oner housing fees. The Jail Bill,`
The council approved an enacted by the state, goes into Come and visit our Bright, New Shop NO PURCHASE NECESSARY • NEED NOT BE PRESENT TO WIN
where there is a 70 percent sub- t effect Sept. 5 and requires small e— — "" '® �''"''"'" .' '"`....'"'�amendment to the Rooney Ranch q PERM SPECIAL woMFN'S FASHION SPcCIAL 1 ADULT
scription rate." F ,
communities such as Oro Valle planned . area development that Y
"We wouldn't be abandoning would allow a full-service gas which has no jail facilities, to pay Longer or Thicker Hair Extra Mon-Toes-W$ 1� a.m.-3 p.m.
service to Oro Valley because we the countyfor housingA L•
Station to be built near the in- l-ielene Curtis Top Quality, Custom,
would be providingaparamedic Individually Packaged Perms Bring in your Pre-Schooler Includes: • Shampoo • Precision Cut
tersection of Oracle Road and La The county fee for housing
" Includes: • Shampoo • Precision Cut (5 under) • Complete Styling
who can offer first care services, Reserve Drive. prisoners will probably be $50 For an Additional
• Complete Styling
Engle said. "Right now there are Linda Polito, of WLB Group, per day per prisoner, Kidd said. $395 95 Regular Value
many hours of the day when there represented John Lieber, owner of "I hate to have to pay this fee, $ 95 Regular value OFFER VALID ONLY WITH $ 1.00
isn't any paramedic in Oro Valley but it appears we have no alterna- $3s.00 PRE PRE-SCHOOLER AT THE SAME TIME
the proposed 1.2-acre site, and PP
at all because the ambulance is in the Rooney family, said that the tive," FULL SERVICE Expires 9-30-89 Expires 9-30-89 FULL SERVICE Expires 9 30-89
Wolff •`said. F 4 -1 --i
another area:" ` station would not face Oracle In a discussion of a resolution CUT M E N'S NIGHT M E 'S
The council members decided Road, that there would be land- on a proposed intergovernmental ��® `�
they needed more time and infor- Age r r and Under SPECIAL _ SPECIAL
scape buffers, and that all con- agreement with Pima County for Includes: •• Shampoo •• Rinse Men's Style Cut Women's Style Cut
mation to discuss issue, and de- struction would need to meet the the community block grant prog- • Fashion Style Cut
cided to postpone action until the approval of an architectural re- ram, which distributes funding for • Blow Dry • Complete Styling Thursday Only Thursday Only
Nov. council meeting. 5:00 PM-8:00 PM 12:00 PM-3:00 PM
view committee HUD projects, John Devner, Oro
.
Guest houses in Oro Valley Valley town manager, said that $595 $ 9S Regular Value $ 95 Regular Value
Reg. $7.00 $11.00 $11.00
have become a zoning enforce- The council also told represen- the county needs Oro Valley's
ment problem said Steve Hage- tatives of parents and school that support in order for them to getFULL SERVICE Expires 9-30-89 FULL SERVICE Expires 9-30-89 FULL SERVICE Expires 9-30-89
dorn, Oro Valleyzoningadmini- PPo ` sal
they would have their support for the funding. Senior Citizen Shampoo & Blowdry, M-F 9 a.m. to 2 p.m., $6.Ofl, reg. $8.00
strator,•in a report to:the council. a bicycle path on streets connect- Before the council approved NO APPOINTMENT NECESSARY . ONE COUPON PER CUSTOMER
"Guest houses are not allowed ing Harelson Elementary and the resolution, the mayor coin-
to have cookingfacilities or to be y HOURS: Monday-Saturday 9:00-6:00 Thursday `fi! 8:00
Cross Middle Schools with Ca- mented that the county "never
rented because this classifies nyon Del Oro High School and funnels any money our way." ,munoi F'asIionthem as dwelling units," Hage- Dennis Weaver Park. An assessment and education -I' ADDITION( utsts
;�,
V LOCATIONS
finishes
Family Hair Care Centers COMING SOesto cable microwave receiver m...cwd
Jones Intercable Inc. has corn- near Ina and Thornydale. The Englewood, Colo., cable- Fashion Cuts,Independently owned and operated by your neighbors&committed to serving our community with excellence in family tsaitcc re€e ye.
pleted construction on the Nar- The new receive site will also TV concern recently redeemed its • 7059 E. Tongue Verde 886-6553 • 8781 E. Broadway 2"rya 2y 4042 E. 22nd St. 45 9805 no
anja microwave receive site, lo- feed to Copper Creek, Highlands 14.5 percent subordinated deben- • 1802 E. Prince 327-5128 • 7255 E. Golf Links 886-1952 • 1716 W, Alo Way 294-3320
cated at First Avenue and Narania Mnhile Noma Aartr T !''..t;,;�� • 3514 E. Grant 88i 5798 • 1307 W. St. Mary's b2d 96 920 W. Valencia 573-1228 �r �o
lures rice 1094 for S'3l million - - ---- .- .. _ . __. ..._
MINUTES OF THE
ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR SESSION
SEPTEMBER 26, 1990
CALL TO ORDER: 6: 56 p.m.
PRESENT: Darrell Gilman, Chairman
Terry Lon Myers, Vice-Chairman
Richard Starkey, Member
EXCUSED: Freddy Hershberger, Member
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A MOTION was made by Chairman Gilman and SECONDED by Vice-
Chairman Myers to APPROVE the minutes of the August 22 , 1989
meeting. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY carried 3 - 0.
PUBLIC HEARING OV-10-89-6 - APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S
DECISION REGARDING ARTICLE 1-6 AND SECTION 1-605 OF THE ORO
VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED, RELATING TO THE GODFREY REQUEST FOR
ADDITION TO EXISTING HOME (GODFREY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 630 WEST
CALLE CONCORDIA
Mr. Hagedorn said the file on the Marshall case is located in
dead storage in another building, therefore, he is not able to
present the file to the Board at this time. Mr. Hagedorn said if
the Board feels that the Marshall case is relevant to the case at
hand, they will have to continue the meeting in order for staff
to retrieve the file. Mr. Hagedorn said he does not feel the
case is relevant to the case at hand.
It was the consensus of the Board to disregard the Marshall case
and proceed with the case at hand.
Mr. Hagedorn said the real question tonight is whether the
proposed Godfrey construction constitutes a reasonable alteration
to the existing nonconforming use. The subject property contains
an existing residence which does not conform to the building
height restrictions of the R1-144 zoning district within which it
is located. This residence did conform to the applicable height
restrictions when constructed and is, therefore, a legal
nonconforming use. As such, that structure was built to
approximately 23 ft. in height and is a two story structure. The
existing Oro Valley Zoning designation to that property would
normally permit only a one story 18 ft. structure. The Oro
Valley Zoning Code Revised has a Section Article 1-6 covering
9/26/89 Minutes, Regular Session 2
nonconforming uses , specifically Section 1-605 covering
enlargement, extension, reconstruction or structural alteration
of building land which states that no existing building or land
designed, arranged or intended for or devoted to a use not
permitted under the regulations of this code for the district in
which such building or land is located shall be enlarged,
extended, reconstructed or structurally altered unless such
building and such enlargement, extension, reconstruction and
structure alterations and further use hereof conform in every
respect with the regulations specified by this ordinance for such
district in which said building or land is located, provided
nothing therein shall prohibit any reasonable repairs or
alterations in a building or land used for such existing
purposes.
When translated, this means that reasonable repairs or
alterations to an existing nonconsisting building are permitted
in Oro Valley. As indicated under this definition, reasonable
alterations in a building for such existing purposes are
permissible. In regard to the existing purpose (a single family
residence) the applicant is on public record that the purpose of
the new construction is to accommodate a member of the family
currently maintaining a household at the above address. Mr.
Hagedorn said it should also be noted that there is no existing
garage at this residence.
Mr. Hagedorn said another issue in terms of reasonableness that
would apply to this definition is having to do with the overall
size of the addition that they have put on their property. The
guest house and garage combination that the Godfrey' s are
building on their property comprises approximately 31. 5% of the
existing floor area of the building. Mr. Hagedorn said the
reason he is looking at this is because other jurisdictions do
take a look at the overall size of the addition in relation to
existing structures to determine whether or not the addition is
reasonable by size. Most of the jurisdictions utilize 50%
maximum permissible increase in floor area, Pima County zoning
uses 100% increase as being reasonable for a maximum limit.
Mr. Hagedorn said therefore, he believes this constitutes a
reasonable size addition.
Vice-Chairman Myers asked if the structure was complete and built
in place without a garage previously?
Mr. Hagedorn said that was correct.
Vice-Chairman Myers asked if it is more appropriate to say that
the Godfrey's are asking for a bedroom addition with special
features as opposed to a guest house because it is a member of
the household that they are building the addition for?
Mr. Hagedorn said yes, as the Zoning Administrator, that is his
9/26/89 Minutes, Regular Session 3
interpretation. Mr. Hagedorn said the two key items in making
this decision had to do with reasonableness of the addition and
the fact that the Godfrey's will be adding to their existing
house. The Code states that any reasonable alterations in
building are permitted. The Oro Valley Zoning Code defines
alteration as any change, addition, or modification in
construction, structure, or occupancy, therefore, it is Mr.
Hagedorn's interpretation that this alteration was indeed an
addition to the existing house. The only issue in question is
the fact that the addition is added to the main structure by a
covered walk way and an 8 ft. wall connecting the roof with the
ground line or the sidewalk line.
Vice-Chairman Myers asked if this was any different than an
atrium or a semi-open air foyer in any other house?
Bob Maassen, Chief Building Inspector/Architect, said buildings
are frequently planned and built this way all at one time and
considered a building, not buildings. Mr. Maassen said he looks
at this as a single building because it enjoys one set of
electrical distribution and one plumbing system. The fact that
it is tied together by a roof structure makes it a single
building within the Building Code and it could not be sold as a
separate unit.
Vice-Chairman Myers said it does not meet the criteria of a town
house then. Vice-Chairman Myers asked if the garage underneath
were a three car garage, and if Mr. Maassen had ever come across
anyone to build a one bedroom home over a three car garage?
Mr. Maassen agreed that it does not meet the criteria of a town
house, it is a three car garage, and yes, he has seen this type
of building before, as a stand alone product that is considered
a carriage house and a very common structure.
Chairman Gilman opened the public hearing.
Gary Kidd, Town Attorney, requested that Mr. Hagedorn' s staff
report and Mr. Maassen's report be introduced into the record and
made exhibits as part of the case.
Orville Shields, 9369 N. Calle Buena Vista, submitted photographs
of the Marshall addition. Mr. Shields asked how wide the strip
is between the two houses?
Mr. Maassen replied 15 feet.
Mr. Shields gave a history of the Marshall residence entry
addition and proceeded to discuss the Godfrey residence addition.
Mr. Shields said there are two guest houses on the Godfrey
property already, one of which has been rented out for two years.
9/26/89 Minutes, Regular Session 4
Vice-Chairman Myers said they have a hypothetical proposal for a
guest house which has probably been mislabeled because it is a
bedroom which does not yet exist, so they only have one guest
house at this time.
Chairman Gilman pointed out that this has all been discussed at
previous meetings, and they are dealing with a new case at this
time.
Mr . Shields said he does not agree with the Zoning
Administrator's decision that this is a legal addition to a non-
conforming structure. Mr. Shields said he believes the Godfrey
case relates to the Marshall case. Mr. Shields said he thinks
they should have built a bedroom onto the existing house and that
guest houses should be taken out of the Zoning Code. Mr. Shields
claimed that the addition contains 220 volt plugs. Mr. Shields
then presented an article from The Oro Valley Territorial, dated
September 15, 1989, regarding the guest house ordinance.
Robert Liddle, Godfrey representative, said the Godfrey' s worked
very closely with the Town staff to be certain that the plans
for the addition would be approved by the Town. A building
permit was issued and they were in the midst of construction when
Mr. Shields filed his appeal. The reason for the 220 volt plug
was for a hot water heater for the bathroom because it is too far
to bring hot water from the main house. Mr. Liddle said there
are now two hot water heaters in the house and one in the
addition.
Vice-Chairman Myers asked if the hot water heater in the addition
is an energy conserving device?
Mr. Liddle said yes, so they will not be losing heat when
transferring water to the far end of the house and so additional
piping will not have to be installed. This will be saving energy
and construction expenses. Mr. Liddle pointed out that all of
the neighbors, except for Mr. Shields, have signed or given oral
statements to the Godfrey's that they do not object to the
addition.
There being no further comments, Chairman Gilman closed the
public hearing.
A MOTION was made by Vice-Chairman Myers to uphold the decision
of the Zoning Administrator with regard to the Godfrey residence
and allowing them to continue with construction, the basis for
this motion is the expansion of an existing two story house to
accommodate a growing family, the fact that the expansion calls
for a garage which no garage was present when the Godfrey's took
possession of the house, the storage of a car is an enhancement
to the community and it is dictated in the C.C. & R. ' s of many
of the new communities that are designed, there are special
9/26/89 Minutes, Regular Session 5
environmental considerations that of the trees and one story
sprawl to accommodate three cars and additional bedrooms to the
house which would be conforming, might endanger the environment
that the neighborhood has already been accustomed to, also the
fact that their growing family is not unlike that of a family who
suddenly has a new member that is one year old instead of 70
years old, that the house to reiterate existed without the
garage, that the Godfrey' s should use the land the way they got
it, with two stories and their expansion includes two stories,
further, that the appeal lacks any of the evidence that it refers
to with regard to protest in the 300 foot area. MOTION SECONDED
by Member Starkey and UNANIMOUSLY carried 3 - 0.
ADJOURNMENT
A MOTION was made by Member Starkey and SECONDED by Vice-Chairman
Myers to ADJOURN the regular meeting at 7: 38 p.m.
Respectfully submit ed,
Judi h A. Deters, Deputy Clerk
AGENDA
ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 26, 1989
STUDY SESSION
All items listed on the agenda may be discussed during the study
session.
CALL TO ORDER: 6: 30 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
CALL TO ORDER: 6:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 22 , 1989
2 . PUBLIC HEARING OV10-89-6 - APPEAL OF ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION REGARDING ARTICLE 1-6 AND
SECTION 1-605 OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED,
RELATING TO THE GODFREY REQUEST FOR ADDITION TO EXISTING
HOME (GODFREY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 630 W. CALLE CONCORDIA)
ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE
ORO VAT,T.F,Y BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
STUDY SESSION
SEPTEMBER 26, 1989
CALL TO ORDER: 6: 30 p.m.
PRESENT: Darrell Gilman, Chairman
Terry Lon Myers, Vice-Chairman
Richard Starkey, Member
EXCUSED: Freddy Hershberger, Member
PUBLIC HEARING OV-10-89-6 - APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S
DECISION REGARDING ARTICLE 1-6 AND SECTION 1-605 OF THE ORO
VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED, RELATING TO THE GODFREY REQUEST
FOR ADDITION TO EXISTING HOME (GODFREY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT
630 WEST CALLE CONCORDIA)
The Board members discussed the appeal by Orville Shields. Mr.
Shields does not agree with the Zoning Administrator' s decision
regarding the Godfrey's addition, that it is a legal addition to
a non-conforming structure.
Vice-Chairman Myers pointed out that Mr. Shield's also indicated
that a past decision by the Town regarding Bruce Marshall 's entry
structure, located at 9380 N. Calle El Milagro, is contrary to
the Godfrey approval.
Steve Hagedorn, Zoning Administrator, said the Marshall 's,
without obtaining a building permit, built an addition to their
house which resembled a bell tower for the front entrance of
their home. Mr. Hagedorn indicated that the tower exceeded the
building height of the Zoning Code. The Town required the
Marshall ' s to remove the addition that was taller than the height
of the house to bring the addition into conformance. Mr.
Hagedorn said the Marshall addition was an illegal addition.
Vice-Chairman Myers asked how the Godfrey case and the Marshall
case are related?
Mr. Hagedorn said he does not feel the two cases are related.
Chairman Gilman asked what year the Marshall case came before the
B.O.A. ?
Mr. Hagedorn replied 4-6 years ago.
9/26/89 Minutes, Board of Adjustment Study Session 2
It was the consensus of the Board members and staff to examine
the Marshall file prior to the regular session.
Member Starkey said he does not see a relationship between the
Marshall case and the case at hand.
Vice-Chairman Myers said there is a relationship only if they are
identical in the uses existing and the uses proposed, and the
fact that the Marshall project was stopped and for what reason.
Vice-Chairman Myers noted that the Marshall case is being used by
Mr. Shields as a precedent for the subject case.
Study Session recessed at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
c • 4 (S
Judith A. Deters
Deputy Clerk