Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 3/28/2006 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION MARCH 28, 2006 ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER at 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: John Hickey, Chair Colleen Kessler, Vice Chair Andy Martin, Member Paul Parisi, Member Bart Schannep, Member PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CASE NO. OV10-06-02, GEORGE HOLGUIN REPRESENTING MR. DEHLINGER, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH BY 3', INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 15', FOR R1-36 ZONE. LOCATED AT 131 WEST ROLLING HILLS STREET (PARCEL 225-11-1330). Chair Hickey swore in the witness that was intending to testify. George Holguin, a representative for the applicant explained that the request was for a reduction of the side yard building setback line from 15 feet to 12 feet to accommodate a two-car garage to the home. There was discussion regarding the setbacks and easements of the adjacent properties and the size of the two-car garage and the approximate 6 foot drop on the west side of the home. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector reviewed the staff report. She explained that the applicant was requesting to encroach 3 feet into the east side yard setback which would be a reduction from the required 15 feet to 12 feet to add a two-car garage to the existing home. She reported that at the time of the report preparation, staff received letters from Mike and Jan Wilson, Curtis Gregory, Jon Sjorgren and Nancy O'Connor who were all in support of the request. She further explained that Pima County recorded the Shadow Mountain Estates subdivision in 1959. A portion of the Shadow Mountain Estates was a part of the original incorporation of Oro Valley in 1974 and the remainder of the subdivision was annexed in 1979. She reported that in 1981, the Town adopted the current Oro 3/28/06 Board of Adjustment 2 Minutes Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR), and the subdivision was zoned R1-36, and the original carport was enclosed in 2001 to create a 343 square foot hobby room. Staff finding of facts: • The home was built in 1959 and the applicant purchased the home in 2002. • The existing home is approximately 2200 square feet and the proposed addition is 704 square feet. • There is a 20 feet utility easement running along the west property line as well as the 4 foot slope. • The proposed addition will match architecturally to the existing home. • This addition should not pose any other zoning issues. In answer to a question from Member Schannep, Ms. Widero explained that the reason the proposed garage could not be placed further south and slightly west to maintain the setback requirements was because the yard area had already been established with a pool. Mr. Holguin explained that the easements current design was based primarily on the reaction of the neighbors not wanting a structure so close and so tall to their home. He added that the original plan was to have a 10 foot side yard setback which was a Pima County requirement but when the property was annexed into the Town, the side yard setbacks increased. Chair Hickey opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Member Martin moved to APPROVE Case No. OV10-06-02, request for variance to encroach into the required 15 foot side yard setback by 3 foot at 131 West Rolling Hills. Member Parisi SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Member Schannep supported the motion because the home had been built in 1959 and a 20 foot side yard setback could have been used. He said that the proposed garage would not infringe upon the neighbors views, and that there was at least a 40 foot gap between the home and the neighbors. Vice Chair Kessler agreed that there were some "special circumstances" involved such as the topography and easements. She explained that many of the neighbors had 2-car garage; therefore, it would not be "atypical" to see the home with a 2-car garage attached. She stated that she believed the "variance was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of their substantial property rights." MOTION carried, 5-0. 3/28/06 Board of Adjustment 3 Minutes 2. CASE NO. OV10-06-01, VICTOR BOLDUC, SAYLER-BROWN LARA ARCHITECTS, REQUEST A RECONSIDERATION TO THEIR REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 23.4 TABLE 23.2.B, TO ALLOW A 34' BUILDING HEIGHT. LOCATED AT 8950 NORTH ORACLE ROAD (PARCEL 225-12-066C). (Any reconsideration motion must be made and seconded by only the BOA members who voted to deny the original case, all members present may vote on the actual motion. In the event that the BOA votes to reconsider this matter, Case OV10-06-01 will be placed on the agenda for full debate in front of the BOA for their next regularly scheduled meeting). In answer to a question from Member Schannep, Town Civil Attorney Joe Andrews explained that if an applicant were to reapply for a variance the evidence would need to change considerably. He expounded on wording in a paragraph written in a letter from the applicant that read, "3 - It appears that the Board may have more flexibility in granting a variance based upon the actual wording found in the Oro Valley Zoning Code regarding height requirements for a C-1 zone, Table 23-2B, Dimensional Requirements, states that the maximum building height was 25 feet or 2 stories. Other districts, S&C and POS, are restricted to 1 story and 24 feet to 45 feet. We believe that the use of the "or" implies flexibility in designing with either a restriction in height or a restriction in the number of floors." Mr. Andrews explained that the "or" as written in the letter would be an interpretation of the Code that would need to be addressed by the Zoning Administrator and her interpretation would rule. He reiterated the fact that the Boards' current responsibly was to address and determine whether or not those members who voted on the variance at the previous meeting would like to move to reconsider the case. MOTION: Vice Chair Kessler moved to RECONSIDER Case No. OV10-06-01. Member Martin SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Member Schannep explained that after reviewing the applicant's letter, he believed there had not been any new information or substantial changes that would warrant a reapplication for reconsideration. He explained that even though the applicant had made some steps in the right direction, the request still did not fit within the Town's Zoning Code limitations. Member Martin explained that the request to reduce the overall building height from 34 feet to 29.9 feet in conjunction with the possible change of the interpretation of the Code by the Zoning Administrator, in his opinion, was enough to reconsider the case. 3/28/06 Board of Adjustment 4 Minutes ROLL CALL VOTE Chair Hickey— nay Vice Kessler—aye Member Martin — aye Member Schannep— nay Member Parisi - nay MOTION failed 2-3, to reconsider the case, with Vice Chair Kessler and Member Martin in favor of the motion. 3. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE No report. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Schannep moved to ADJOURN the meeting at 3:33 p.m. The motion was SECONDED by Vice Chair Kessler. Motion carried, 5-0. Prepared by, f ` � r + ✓ V Lina Hersha, Office Specialist