Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 12/27/2007 MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL SESSION December 27, 2007 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER - at 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: John Hickey, Member Colleen Kessler, Member Andy Martin, Member Paul Parisi, Member Bart Schannep, Member Colleen Kessler served as Chair and Paul Parisi served as Vice Chair for the December 27, 2007 Board of Adjustment meeting. MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of November 27, 2007 MOTION: A motion was made by Member Schannep and seconded by Member Hickey to approve the minutes from the November 27, 2007 meeting. MOTION carried, 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CASE NO: OV10-07-07, Clint Opine, requests a variance from the required 15' side yard setback to 12'. Subject property (parcel #224- 40-1250) located at 10182 N. Hacienda Hermosa, Oro Valley, AZ, 85737. Chair Kessler swore in the applicant to testify. Oro Valley resident Clint Opine explained that the original carport had been enclosed prior to his possession of the home. He stated that the house was built up in to the far northwest corner of the property and from there the yard sloped down a hill into a swimming pool. He noted that the north end of the house was the only place to build a carport. Chair Kessler clarified that the carport proposed would be a double carport. 12/27/07 Board of Adjustment, Regular Session 2 Member Martin noted that the house was currently for sale. Mr. Opine stated that a prospective buyer noted that the house would have been suitable if it had a carport. Senior Zoning Inspector Dee Widero presented the Staff report: • The request was for a carport addition on the north side of the home. • The setback from the home was 15 feet and the requested encroachment was 3 feet. • The existing home was 2,100 square feet. • The home currently had neither a garage nor a carport. • The property had a driveway that accessed two streets: o Hacienda Hermosa and Camino Valdeflores • The home was located in the Rancho Feliz Subdivision. • All property owners within 300 feet were sent notices regarding the request. • The request was published in the Daily Territorial and at the site. • The property had been zoned CR-1 with Pima County and translated to R- 136 when annexed to the Town of Oro Valley in 1989. • The lot was 36,000 square feet. • Town of Oro Valley engineers have found no issues with site visibility. • The north side of home was the most appropriate place to build the carport. • The storage sheds on the property would be removed. • Access to the property would not change as a result of the addition. Discussion determined that a detached carport would need to meet the same setback requirements as an attached garage. It was further noted that a detached carport could be placed on the rear of the property though it would create extensive disturbance to the property. Chair Kessler opened the public hearing at 3:08 p.m. There being no speakers, she closed the public hearing. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Martin and seconded by Member Hickey to approve OV10-07-07 a request to encroach in to the 15' side yard setback by three feet with a carport addition. Members agreed that: • The findings had been met satisfactorily. • Removal of the sheds would be beneficial for the yard. • The addition was consistent with the trends of the neighborhood. MOTION carried, 5-0. 2. CASE NO.: OV10-07-08, James and Amie Oetter, requests a variance from the required 20' side yard setback to 13". Subject property: (parcel #225-09-2220) located at 9415 N. Raleigh Place, Oro Valley, AZ, 85704. 12/27/07 Board of Adjustment, Regular Session 3 Chair Kessler swore in the applicant to testify. Oro Valley resident James Oetter stated that he requested a variance in order to build an additional bedroom and bathroom to provide a place for his elderly father. Additionally, Mr. Oetter stated that he wanted to add a bay to his garage, which would make it a three car garage. Member Schannep noted that the land surrounding the house was flat. Discussion clarified that if the garage were turned more to the west to avoid encroachment, turning space issues would arise. Mr. Oetter stated that the septic field was also a consideration. He noted that the submitted proposal was the easiest place to add to the garage. He stated that the positioning of the additional bedroom and bathroom made it so that the addition could be attached to the utility room walls and tie in to the existing plumbing. Discussion determined that placing the addition on the south side would require creating a hallway to have direct access to the addition from within the home. It was noted that this would require removal of closets from two bedrooms which would reduce currently limited storage space. Mr. Oetter stated that when the plans were drafted for the additions, the consultants believed these plans to be the simplest and most efficient use of space. Chair Kessler clarified that the majority of the variance was for the garage. It was noted that beyond the existing fence there was an additional 3 feet of the applicant's property. Discussion determined that placing the garage on the south side of the house had not been considered. Mr. Oetter stated he would have to drive across his front yard to access the garage and that he had recently planted four new trees in that area. Senior Zoning Inspector Dee Widero presented the Staff report: • The request would allow the applicant to add a living area, patios and to extend the garage. • The setback from the home was 20 feet and the request for encroachment was seven feet. • The existing home was 1,649 square feet. • The proposed addition would add 1,753 square feet. • A small portion of the living area would encroach into the setback. • The majority of the variance was for the addition to the garage. • Half of the 328 square feet shown would encroach into the side yard setback; it was noted that this was for the garage only. • The property was located in the Rancho Verde Subdivision. • All property owners within 300 feet have been notified. 12/27/07 Board of Adjustment, Regular Session 4 • The request was published in the Daily Territorial and at the site. • A petition submitted from the adjacent neighbors was in favor of the request. • The subdivision was annexed to the Town in 1984 and zoned R-143. • The lot was 49,901 square feet and noted as an irregular rectangular lot. • The lot had 15-25% sloped areas which would create construction difficulties on the south and lower southwest areas of the parcel. • There were no records found with either Pima County or the Town of Oro Valley regarding this parcel. • Utilities were located in the southwest area of the lot. • The septic system and leach field ran directly west at the rear of the property. Ms. Widero reported that the findings had been met due to the topography of the lot. She stated that the original location of the home on the lot qualified as a special circumstance due to the fact that the situation had not been created by the current owners. She noted that the variance would not hinder the neighbors. Discussion clarified that lot 200 had a driveway access that was the actual property of the lot rather than a granted easement. Chair Kessler opened the public hearing at 3:25 p.m. There being no speakers, she closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued regarding repositioning the garage on the property. Member Schannep noted that there were other ways to make the garage fit within the lot boundaries. He stated that he did not feel there were special circumstances warranting an exception. Mr. Oetter noted that if the addition were placed on the south side of the property it would impact the neighbors' view. Member Martin noted that putting the garage on south side of the house would require moving utility lines. Member Hickey addressed the two encroachments. He asked Mr. Oetter to explore the possibility of rotating the utility room so that a variance would not be necessary. Mr. Oetter agreed. Member Hickey asked Mr. Oetter to further explore moving the garage southeast. He stated that this would reduce the size of the variance. Mr. and Mrs. Oetter stated that they had explored moving the garage structure forward 15' which would reduce the encroachment to approximately 3 feet. Members concurred that all options must be explored. Member Hickey cited that special consideration was not allowable by state law. 12/27/07 Board of Adjustment, Regular Session 5 Member Kessler swore in applicant Amie Oetter. Mrs. Oetter requested clarification of Member Parisi's suggestion to shift the garage to a 45 degree angle. Discussion determined that Member Parisi's suggestion was to shift the entire garage (all three bays) to a 45 degree angle rather than the additional bay only. Member Martin requested clarification from the applicants' perspective of the special circumstances for a variance. Mr. Oetter stated that the location of the home on the property made additions difficult. He noted that they wanted to maintain the line patterns of the existing house. He stated that the professionals he had consulted stated that the proposal submitted produced the fewest issues and was the most efficient compared to other options. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Schannep and seconded by Member Parisi to deny passage of this variance. Member Schannep stated that he disagreed with Staff that special circumstances existed. Member Parisi stated that there was plenty of room for the addition without creating the need for a variance. Member Hickey suggested that they explore all options. He noted that they could return for a variance if necessary. MOTION carried, 5-0. 3. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE - No update. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Member Hickey and seconded by Member Martin to adjourn at 3:45 p.m. MOTION carried, 5-0. Prepared by: Chris ickeri Office Specialist