Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 11/28/2006 MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION NOVEMBER 28, 2006 ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: at or after 3:02 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Colleen Kessler, Chair Andy Martin, Vice Chair Paul Parisi, Member Bart Schannep, Member EXCUSED: John Hickey, Member MOTION: Member Martin moved to APPROVE the minutes from October 24, 2006 meeting. Member Schannep SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CASE NO. OV10-06-14, DAVID AND SHONA NACCARATI, REQUEST A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED PUSCH RIDGE ESTATES PLAT SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 10' TO 3', IN ORDER TO BUILD AN ADDITIONAL GARAGE AND STORAGE SPACE. SUBJECT PROPERTY: 9660 N. HORIZON VISTA PLACE, PARCEL #220-15- 5150, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85704 Chair Kessler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Shona Naccarati, 9660 North Horizon Vista Place, explained that the request was for a variance for a 20 foot side yard setback to a 3 foot side yard set back to allow room for an additional garage space and storage. She explained that the upgrade would bring the home up to standards and would be consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. Discussion followed regarding: • Were there other alternatives for the placement of the garage that would not require a variance? • The remodeling being done to the inside and walkway and how the breezeway affected the design of the home. • When the applicant originally purchased the home. • Was there any consideration to build the garage on the front lower level of the lot? 11/28/06 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 2 • If the garage was moved further to the west could it be built without a variance? Senior Zoning Inspector Dee Widero reviewed the staff report. She explained that the applicant was requesting a side yard setback reduction from the allowed 10 feet to 3 feet to build a 296 square foot garage and storage unit on the south side of their home. The proposed addition will have a permanent lattice attachment creating a breezeway between the existing home and proposed garage. She explained that the existing home did meet a 20 foot side yard setback requirement for a R1-43 zone. However, the Pusch Ridge Estates plat designates a 10 foot side yard setback per the Pima County CR-1 zone and the Town of Oro Valley Annexation Ordinance Agreement. Ms. Widero reported that Lot 26 was a one acre irregular rectangular-shaped parcel within the Pusch Ridge Estates subdivision which had been annexed into the Town in March of 1983 and the home was built in 1992. Finding of Fact: • Annexation zoning requires a 10 foot side yard setback. • Shona Naccarati has referred to a 20 foot setback incorrectly on her application; she is asking for relief from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement. • The development on the site is constrained by topography. • The existing home has a two car garage. • If this request is granted, approximately half of the proposed garage will be in the required setback; mature landscaping will have to be relocated or removed (no native vegetation will be removed). In conclusion, Staff reported that the site does have some special circumstances due to topography and the owner could place the third car garage on the north side of the home. However, this would impact the neighbors to the north and east with additional paving and native plant disturbance. The addition would also have to meet the requirement for placement of an accessory structure to be placed "no closer than the main structure". Chair Kessler opened the public hearing and swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, stated that the variance would be to accommodate the applicant with an amenity, and in his opinion, a garage was an amenity and not a necessity. Chair Kessler closed the public hearing. Shona Naccarati explained that the access to the garage was on the south side of the home and if the garage was constructed further west the access to the garage would be difficult. 11/28/06 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 3 MOTION: A motion was made by Member Parisi to DENY Case No. OV10-06- 14, a request for variance to encroach into the required 10 foot setback from the south property line by 7 feet. Member Schannep SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Member Schannep stated that it was not the Board of Adjustment's responsibility to help an applicant's redesign and, in his opinion, by denying the request it would not be denying the homeowner "substantial property rights", but granting a "special circumstance". Vice Chair Martin stated that the 5 criteria had not been met, therefore, he could not authorize the variance. Roll Call Vote: Vice Chair Martin — aye Member Parisi — aye Member Schannep — aye Chair Kessler - aye Motion to DENY Case No. OV 10-06-14 carried, 4-0. 2. CASE NO. OV10-06-15, DAWN C. LESLIE AND FRANK L. FINFROCK, REQUEST A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 18 FEET BUILDING HEIGHT, UP TO 24 FEET, WHEN MEASURED FROM NATURAL GRADE ON A CUSTOM GRADED LOT WITH A GREATER THAN 6% SLOPE. SUBJECT PROPERTY: 762 W. SOARING HAWK DRIVE, PARCEL 219-50-0550, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737 Chair Kessler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Frank Finfrock explained that the request was for a 4 foot plus height structure which will help with the driveway grade and extreme drainage issues. He explained that it would not be possible to meet the criterion because the lot was situated 10 to 15 feet below the elevation of the adjoining cul de sac. He explained that designing strictly by the Code would require driveway slope access exceeding 25%, which would serve as a hazard to those entering and exiting the site. Zoning Inspector Patty Hayes reported that Dawn Leslie and Frank Finfrock were requesting a variance of approval to build a house on a custom graded lot with a greater than 6% slope. She explained that the building height was measured from natural grade on lots with a slope greater than 6%, and the proposed actual height of the house ranges from 10 feet 6 inches to 16 feet 0 inches. Ms. Hayes reported that the home had a parapet wall that was 16 feet 0 inches in height on a 6 foot foundation, with up to 7 foot 6 inches of fill dirt. She said that 11/28/06 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 4 the 16 foot of building, 6 inches of foundation, plus the 7.6 inches of fill exceeds the allowable building height of 18 feet by 6 feet. Finding of Fact: • Lot 47 has a 15% slope under the house pad. • The driveway slopes down 17.2% from the street to the garage. A maximum of 20% is allowed per code: however, a 20% slope with the turn at the slope easement into the garage would not allow a flat parking area in front of the garage. • The building area of Lot 46 is restricted by slope easements on the north and south side conservation and floodplain easement on the west side and a public sewer and utility easement on the east and south sides. • The building walls, including parapet, vary from 10 feet 6 inches to 16 feet 0 inches in height. • Lot 47 is several feet lower than the surrounding lots as shown on the topographic map. The applicant stated that they have worked with several engineers to fit this house onto Lot 47. • The west and northwestern portions of the building are the areas with the most amount of fill dirt causing this request for a variance. The east and south sections of the building are in compliance with the building height. • The applicant states the variance request is for 4 feet 0 inches +/-, but upon further review of the grading plans the amount of additional height required for the proposed house is 6 feet 0 inches. In conclusion, staff's opinion was that all of the required findings were met, in particular; 1. The topography of this lot creates the difficulty in complying with the 18 foot maximum building height as measured from natural grade. 2. Allowing the requested increase in height should not impact the surrounding neighbors due to low topography of the lot. Discussion followed regarding: • The 7 1/2 foot fill dirt underneath the home and how it related to criteria for "substantial property rights". • Could the home be placed lower on the lot to avoid the 7 1/2 feet of fill. • The western portion of the home that extended beyond the allowable height requirement. • The interior design of the home. • What was the standard height of a room from floor to ceiling? Chair Kessler opened the public hearing and swore in all witnesses that were intending to testify. 11/28/06 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 5 Victor and Rose Fontes, 763 West Soaring Hawk, were opposed to the request because the home was not being built to the topography of the lot. They felt that the proposed home would be too large for the lot and the request was unreasonable. They believe that if the variance were granted, it would be granting a "special privilege". Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, explained that the need was to fill the slope to increase the height of the driveway to keep the drive down the slope safe because the lot was peculiar in shape. He explained that even with a smaller home the driveway would still be an obstacle, therefore did not believe the applicant had any other alternatives but to request the variance. Chair Kessler closed the public hearing. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Martin to APPROVE Case No. OV10- 06-15, a request to exceed the 18 foot building height up to 6 feet when measuring building height from existing grade on a greater than 6 % slope. Member Parisi SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Vice Chair Martin stated that the drop-off was very severe and in his opinion, because of the grading he was not sure how the parcel had been designated as a lot; however, it was a lot and the applicant was entitled to build a home. He explained the applicant had done their due-diligence and had tried to construct a home on the site that would have the least impact on the area. Therefore, he believed all 5 criteria had been met. Member Parisi pointed out that a hole was being filled for the driveway because the lot was so steep, but this would not be raising the height of the home. Member Schannep explained that the buyer had to have known that this would be a difficult lot to build on because of the driveway sloping, easement issues on all 4 sides of the property; and was the applicant's property rights affected by trying to build a home that was suitable for the neighborhood or trying to build a home that was suitable for the lot. He asked where a home could have been built that would have conformed and not have required grading into the various easements and remained a home of value in the neighborhood. Roll Call Vote: Vice Chair Martin — aye Member Parisi — aye Member Schannep — nay Chair Kessler - aye MOTION to approve Case No. OV 10-06-15 carried, 3-1, with Member Schannep opposed. 11/28/06 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 6 3. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE There will be no meeting held during the month of December 2006. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Member Schannep to adjourn the meeting at 4:01 p.m. Vice Chair Martin seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. Prepared by: ,r Linda Hersha, Office Specialist