Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 9/26/2006 MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER at 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bart Schannep, Chair John Hickey, Vice Chair Andy Martin, Member Colleen Kessler, Member Paul Parisi, Member MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Chair Hickey to approve the minutes of August 26, 2006. Member Martin seconded the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CASE NO. OV10-06-10A, RANDY AND KAREN BARBERA REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT'S DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN 18 FEET REAR YARD SETBACK, RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 40 FEET. SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PARCEL #224-27-1990) LOCATED AT 11113 N. GUAVA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737 Chair Schannep swore in all witnesses that were intending to testify. Karen Barbera explained that after reviewing the recorded transcript of the July 25, 2006 hearing, she felt that there had been too many personal issues addressed. She submitted the following additional facts, concession and supporting material to the Board and reviewed the site using photos and diagrams: 1) A letter from the President of the Monte Del Oro Homeowners Association Architectural Review Board granting their approval of the proposed addition. 2) Data from the Monte Del Oro Homeowners Association stating that due to the unusual topography in this particular subdivision, 95%+ plus of the homes have been granted variances of one form or another confirming that the topography does indeed impact the design and construction of nearly every home in the unique subdivision. 3) A letter from Chris McLean (neighbor) confirming that the proposed addition will not impact his views or privacy and was granting his approval of the proposed addition. 09/26/06 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 2 Regular Meeting 4) A design concession by the homeowner reducing the total square footage that would extend beyond the original footprint of the home to 42% of the total square footage for the proposed addition. (approximately 100 square feet) 5) Revised drawing illustrating the reduction to 42% of the total square footage of the proposed addition that would extend beyond the rear set back of the home's original footprint. 6) Affirmation that the addition will match the existing height of the home and will be stucco-ed and painted the same color of the home to visually blend with the original Territorial style of the home. 7) A previous variance case was granted by the Town of Oro Valley Board of Adjustment to a resident in the Monte Del Oro subdivision. Pamela Cleveland, 10762 North Pomegranate Drive, stated that after conducting her own assessment of the home and the proposed revisions, she believed the neighbors to the north and south would not be impacted with the changes, therefore was in full support of the variance request. Senior Zoning Inspector Dee Widero explained that at the July 25th, 2006 Board of Adjustment meeting Randy and Karen Barbera made a request to encroach into the required 40 foot rear yard setback. She explained that the change would allow an addition to the rear of the home with an 18 feet setback but this request was denied. She reported that the applicant has provided additional information for the Board's consideration. She said that the new information included a letter from the President of the Monte Del Oro Homeowners Association, Mick Sonne, data from the Monte Del Oro Homeowners Association, a letter and an approval signature on the site plan from Mr. McLean, the property owner sharing the rear property line; a design revision with less encroachment into the setback; a revised drawing of the proposed addition; information regarding a previous variance that was granted by the Town of Oro Valley Board of Adjustment in 1989 for lot 22 of Monte Del Oro subdivision; and detailed response to the required findings for granting a variance. Findings specific to this request: • Oro Valley records include four past variances for the Monte Del Oro subdivision, two approved and two denied. The 95% of the lots that required a variance, per the HOA letter may have been minor enough that they were not required by the OVZCR only the Monte Del Oro Review Board. • There are topographical constraints to development of this site, including steep slopes that necessitated the building of the house to the very rear of the lot. • Given the location and design of the home when built, the proposed addition and remodel is necessary to the rear of the dwelling. The proposed addition is to expand existing closet and bathroom space to the rear of the dwelling. 09/26/06 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 3 Regular Meeting • The home was originally built in 1991 and the applicant bought their home in 2002. • The home was originally built with a 30 foot rear yard setback • Due to the grade difference between this lot and the lot to the rear encroachment into the required rear yard will not affect views, privacy, or the enjoyment of other property rights of the neighbor. In conclusion, Staff analysis of the variance request to allow a room addition with an 18 foot rear yard setback would be that the findings are predominantly met. In particular, there are special circumstances that were not created by the owner, but due to the topography of the site and existing configuration of the home. Chair Schannep opened the public hearing. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, stated that he had concerns with criteria "C" as it related to the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. He explained that the design of the home was not creating the hardship but the topography. However, he stated that if someone purchases an existing home which satisfies their property rights and subsequently decide that the home was not satisfying their needs any longer, this would not be considered a zoning code problem. Chair Schannep closed the public hearing. Karen Barbera stated that she enjoyed living in the Monte Del Oro subdivision and felt that there was plenty of land available to make the revision. MOTION: Member Hickey moved to approve Case No. OV10-06-10A, to reduce the rear yard setback for the addition only to 18 feet from the property line. Member Parisi seconded the motion. Member Hickey stated that this was the minimum setback that would be necessary to accomplish the revision, and he believed that this was a very unique piece of property, therefore, was in favor of the variance. Member Parisi acknowledged the fact that property rights change over a period of time, and due to the circumstances, the property should not be compared to other properties in the vicinity. Member Martin stated that with the additional information and concessions, he believed the 5 criteria are now met. Member Kessler believed that the Barberas had explored all of the possibilities and the proposal seemed to be the least invasive and would not be detrimental to anyone residing in the area. 09/26/06 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 4 Regular Meeting Roll Call Vote Vice Chair Hickey— aye Member Martin — aye Member Kessler— aye Member Parisi — aye Chair Schannep - aye Motion carried, 5-0. 2. CASE NO. OV10-06-11, ROBERT AND GINA ALLARD ARE APPEALING THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S INTERPRETATION PERTAINING TO A MINOR LAND DIVISION. MINOR LAND DIVISIONS ARE REGULATED BY THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED, CHAPTER 22 — REVIEW AND PROCEDURES, AND CHAPTER 31 — DEFINITIONS, AS DEFINED IN THE ARIZONA REVISED STATURES, ARS 9-463.02. SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PARCEL #220-13-0830) 1300 E. EL CONQUISTADOR WAY. Chair Schannep stated that he would recuse himself from this case having been a past property owner in the area, therefore the remaining portion of the meeting would be conducted by Vice Chair Hickey. Vice Chair Hickey swore in all witnesses that were intending to testify. Gene Wickey, 7836 North La Canada Drive, a representative for the applicant stated that the owners believed that the Planning and Zoning Administrator has wrongly interpreted the law. He explained that the applicant should be allowed to divide their land into two (2) parts and did not believe a subdivision was required or necessary since there had been other homes built in the neighborhood without having the land subdivided. He reported that there were seven (7) existing homes on the parcel and this was the last suitable lot to build a single-family dwelling on. Stu Spaulding, 6100 North Oracle, a consultant for the applicant explained that he was unclear if subdividing the lot would provide any additional value to the community or improve the lot, but the lot could easily accommodate a subdivision. Vice Chair Hickey reiterated the fact that this hearing was to address an alleged error made by the Planning and Zoning Administrator only and not a variance request. Gene Wickey stated that he understood but was not implying that there had been an error but a misinterpretation of the law. He stated that the applicant believed 09/26/06 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 5 Regular Meeting the Zoning Administrator had abused her discretion and believed there was no rational basis for denying the Allard's request. Vice Chair Hickey reiterated for the record that according to State Law "the Board of Adjustment shall hear and decide appeals in which it is alleged an error in a decision." Senior Zoning Inspector Dee Widero reviewed the staff report. She explained that Robert and Gina Allard have filed for an appeal to the decision of the Zoning Administrator. She explained that the variance request was denied for a Minor Land Division lot split of the subject property, stating that the proposed division of the parcel constitutes a subdivision. She reported that staff had received comments from Page Beason, Bud Watson, Richard Stern and Niki Stern and all were not in favor of the request to split the lot and agreed with the Planning and Zoning Administrator's interpretation. Dee Widero reported that in general, a parcel may be split into three parcels without the filing of a subdivision plat plan. Therefore, there should be only three approved lots or homes in the area. She explained that unfortunately, the local regulation for lot splits were not adopted until the year 2005, resulting in several unauthorized splits in the past. She reported that Oro Valley considers these lots to be non-conforming at this time, but any decision to allow a lot split here would not negate the effect of State Law. Findings: State Law ARS 9-462.06 (G) (3) provides that the Board of Adjustment (BOA) shall: Reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or modify the order, requirement or decision of the zoning administrator appealed from, and make such order, requirement, decision or determination as necessary. The legal Standards for the Board consideration of this case are the same as those that the courts would use to review the decisions of the BOA or the Town Council. Namely: 1. was the decision within the jurisdiction of the Planning and Zoning Administrator, or conversely, did the Administrator abuse his discretion; and, 2. did the Administrator act with a rational basis, or conversely, was the decision arbitrary and capricious. In conclusion, Dee Widero reported that based on the facts presented, staff could not approve the lot split and found the Zoning Administrator's decision to be correct. She explained that the remedy for the applicant would be to file a subdivision plat and bringing the access drive up to Oro Valley Zoning Code. She further explained that a question had been raised regarding the home being a 09/26/06 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 6 Regular Meeting "bed and breakfast" facility and wanted to clarify that a bed and breakfast business was allowed in an R-4R zoning. Discussion followed regarding: • The existing bed and breakfast facilities in the area. • The number of lots that were split off within the parcel over the years. • The adoption of the "Minor Lot Split Regulations." • The subdivision process and the legal standards. • The definition of an R-4R Zoning. • The easement to the south of the proposed lot plat. Vice Chair Hickey opened the public hearing. Bill Adler 10720 North Eagle Eye Place stated that he believed the Planning and Zoning Administrator was simply enforcing the Zoning Code and the lots that had been split previously occurred prior to the 2005 ordinance. Mike Beeson, 1290 East El Conquistador Way, explained that he was very disappointed in the indiscriminate development of East El Conquistador Way over the past 10 years. He explained that he had new hope that the current Board was taking a stronger stand to protect the homeowners in Oro Valley. He said that he fully supported the rejection of the request to subdivide the lot located at 1300 East El Conquistador Way. Bud Watson, 1286 East El Conquistador Way, was opposed to dividing the lot. He believed it would promote an increase in traffic near his home as well as concerns with the Waste Management Department of Pima County, and the sewer system servicing the existing homes. He had concern with the fact that the neighborhood sewer system did not meet the State of Arizona and Pima County standards. Also, he believed that the lot did not have adequate access to support emergency vehicles entering and leaving the proposed lot. Rene Fritz, Jr., 1250 East El Conquistador Way stated that he was concerned about the increase in traffic and the public sewer system. Vice Chair Hickey closed the public hearing. Gene Wickey stated that a single family home could be built on the lot and did not believe the applicant should be required to spend a lot of money to create a subdivision. Stu Spaulding stated that as due diligence, he had investigated the utility capacity issue for the lot and found that the lot could be set up to accommodate a new home. 09/26/06 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 7 Regular Meeting MOTION: Member Kessler moved to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Member Martin seconded the motion. Discussion: Member Kessler stated that there was no doubt in her mind that the Planning and Zoning Administrator was in her jurisdiction to rule in this manner. She stated that she had some serious concerns due to the "wildcat" subdivision effect, of which she considered had been developed haphazardly over the years. She thought that the Administrator would be irresponsible to perpetuate the problems. She stated that it would be important to create the subdivision for the Development Plan was "to provide for the orderly growth and harmonious development of the Town". She believed that the traffic circulation, water supply, drainage and sewage issues needed to be addressed more thoroughly too secure the adequate previsions necessary and be in compliance with the Code. Member Martin stated that the decision was in the jurisdiction of Planning and Zoning and the Administrator responded in a rational manner. Member Parisi stated that if the Administrator had approved the request she would have ignored the Town ordinance. Vice Chair Hickey stated that based on the law that has been enforced by the Town of Oro Valley, he did not believe the administrator had exceeded any of the perimeters or abilities. Roll Call Vote Member Kessler - aye Member Kessler - aye Member Kessler - aye Vice Chair Hickey — aye Motion carried, 4-0. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Kessler moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:36 p.m. Member Martin seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. Prepared by, Gic) in.a `ersha Office Specialist