Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 5/23/2006 MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION MAY 23, 2006 ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: at or after 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Parisi, Chair Bart Schannep, Vice Chair Colleen Kessler, Member John Hickey, Member EXCUSED: Andy Martin, Member MOTION: A motion was a motion to approve the minutes of April 25, 2006. The motion carried unanimously, 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CASE NO. OV10-06-04: SONORAN DESIGN GROUP REPRESENTING MIKE AND LINDA ARNOLD, REQUEST A VARIANCE FROM THE 18' BUILDING HEIGHT, UP TO 20', WHEN MEASURED FROM NATURAL GRADE ON A CUSTOM GRADED LOT WITH A GREATER THAN 6% SLOPE. SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PARCEL 219-50-0300) 721 W. SEDONA RIDGE, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737 Chair Parisi swore in all witnesses that were intending to testify. Thomas Spevak, Project Manager for Sonoran Design Group, explained that the variance was in regards to an 18 foot height limit from the natural grade. He explained that the o to raphy at the homesite shows a low natural grade at the center of the topography ro osed custom home placement, and a parapet of 15 feet and 18 inches above the p proposed low spot exceeds 18 feet from the natural grade for a small portion of structure. Zoning Inspector Patty Hayes reported that Mike and Linda Arnold were requesting approval to build a house on a custom graded lot with a slope greater than 6%. She p explained that the building heights are measured from natural grade on lots with a slope greater than 6%. She reported that the 10 feet of foundation and the 3.5 feet of fill exceeded the allowable building height of 18 feet by 2 feet because the natural grade at certain points of the building was significantly lower than that of other parts of the building site. She explained that the amount of fill dirt accounts for a portion of the allowable building height. 05/23/06 Board of Adjustment 2 Minutes Ms. Hayes reported that Sunridge II was a 65-lot subdivision, recorded in Oro Valley in 1995, zoned R1-20. She said that the subject property was a 29,215 square foot, square shaped lot, and the lot had a floodplain to the west, and conservation easements on the south and east, and a slope easement on the north. Staff finding of facts: • Lot 22 has a 12% slope under the house pad. • The building area of lot 22 is restricted by slop, conservation and floodplain easements on all sides. Driveways are allowed in the slope easement and screen walls allowed only with homeowner's association approval. • The building walls, including parapet, vary from 12 feet to 16 feet and 6 inches in height. • The section of house in question is 15 feet 8 inches from finished floor, 16 feet and 5 inches from finished grade, but exceeds the 18 feet from natural grade. • Theapplicant states the building has been redesigned so as to minimize parapet elevations, and that the structural components and approved design prevents further lowering of the parapet. Chair Parisi opened the public hearing and swore in all witnesses that were intending to testify. Patrick Lewis, 704 West Sedona Ridge Place, stated that he could not support the variance because of the height of the home, and the retaining wall. He believed that this would create a potential impact on future home development. He proceeded to distribute photographs of the site and identified specific locations surrounding the home to describe how the home would impact the neighborhood. Chair Parisi closed the public hearing. Mr. Spevak pointed out that one the issues addressed in designing the roof parapet height was the surrounding homes and their view corridors and he felt confident that the adjustment would not obstruct any neighboring home's views. There was discussion regarding the following topics: • Alternatives for the retaining wall. • Alternatives for the parapet height and location. • The possibility of lowering the home for less fills. • Would there be room to move the structure south using the same design. • How was the topography causing the special circumstances? • How was criteria item #3 being met? Gary Moreno the owner of the Sonora Design Group explained that the Lewis's view quarters would not be affected or blocked in any way. He reviewed the site using photos and diagrams of the area. MOTION: Member Hickey moved to approve Case OV10-06-04, a request to exceed the 18 feet building height up to 2 feet when measuring building height from 05/23/06 Board of Adjustment 3 Minutes existing grade on a grater the 6% slope, with the caveat that it not exceed what has been currently shown to the Board. Member Kessler seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. 2. CASE NO. OV10-06-05: TOM AND SUE HAYES, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO BUILD A WALL VARYING IN HEIGHT FROM 6' TO 10' AT THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, IN TANGERINE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, ZONED R1-144. SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PARCEL 224-02-0370) 11425 N. 1sT. AVENUE, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737 Chair Parisi opened the public hearing and swore in all witnesses that were intending to p testify. Tom Hayes, 11425 North 1st Avenue, explained that the request was to build a wall on Y the property line along 1st Avenue to block the noise and sight of traffic. He explained that the wall would vary in height from 6 feet on the north end (where the topography rises) to 10 feet on the south end to tie into the neighbor's wall. Senior Zoning Inspector Dee Widero reported that Tom and Sue Hayes were requesting to build a 220 linear foot wall ranging in height from 6 feet to 10 feet, on or within 10 feet of the frontp roperty line. She explained that from the front property line to the closest portion of the main structure, a wall could be no higher than 4 feet 6 inches. She said that from the front of the main structure extending the full width of the lot, running back toward the rear of the property, a wall may be higher than 4 feet 6 inches and any wall 6 feet or higher was required to obtain a building permit. Staff finding of facts: • The proposed wall will match the architecture of the existing home. • The wall will match or blend with the proposed wall that Mr. Blair, the neighbor to the south has proposed to build. • Property line walls are allowed without permit or approval up to 4 feet and 6 inches. • This addition should not pose any other zoning issues. There was discussion regarding: • The height of the sound abatement walls Oro Valley intended to install on other properties in the neighborhood. • When and how was it determined which section of 1st Avenue would get the noise barriers. • The proposed wall gate height. • Could noise be considered a contributing factor in a special circumstance? Chair Parisi opened the public hearing and swore in all witnesses that were intending to testify. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, stated that walls had virtually no impact on noise and that there was no such thing as sound abatement with walls. He explained that the only thing that would absorb sound was earth and berm. He stated that the 05/23/06 Board of Adjustment 4 Minutes Board should review the request objectively and adhere to the Zoning Code because he did not believe all of the five standards had been met. Julianne Herrera, 501 East Monaco Place, said that he had no problem with the variance as long as it improved the area and was aesthetically pleasing and was made ofood quality materials. He explained that he did have some concern with the Hayes' g water line on the northeast corner of the property. He explained that because the line encroached onto his property, he hoped that staff would look into the matter. Harvey Blair, 11355 North 1st Avenue, was in support of the variance request and believed the wall would improve the appearance of the area. Chair Parisi closed the public hearing. Mr. Hayes stated that the special circumstances did apply to the topography because his home did sit on a hill which was affected more by the sound of traffic than the lower line properties. MOTION: Member Kessler moved to approve Case No. OV10-06-05, a request to build a wall varying in height from 6 feet to 10 feet on the front property line for R1-144 zone, located at 11425 North 1st Avenue. Vice Chair Schannep seconded the motion. Motion carried, 3-1, with Member Hickey opposed. • 3. CASE NO. OV10-06-06: ROBERT PAGE, ARCHITECT REPRESENTING JANA AND BRIAN DAVIES, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE TYPE "B" BUFFER YARD (MIN. 15'); ELIMINATE REQUIRED SCREENING AND REDUCE REQUIRED 40' BUILDING SETBACK TO 20' ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING AN R1-144 ZONE. SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PARCEL 225-51-0130) 7780 N. ORACLE ROAD, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85704 Chair Parisi opened the public hearing and swore in all witnesses that were intending to testify. Robert Page, the architect for the project reviewed the variance request application. He explained that the applicant was requesting a variance from a Type "B" buffer yard to a Type "A" buffer yard along the north property line between R1-144 and R-S zones. He reported that this would eliminate 5 feet of the screening required along the north property line between R1-144 and R-S zones and reduce 40 feet of building setback p Y along the north property line to a 20 feet setback. Senior Zoning Inspector Dee Widero reviewed the report. She explained that Robert Page, the architect for the property owners had designed and submitted two concept plans for the site. She explained that the first site plan met the zoning requirements; The secondp lan was more desirable to the owners but requires a variance approval. She said that site plan #2 was a court yard setting, confining the business activity to the center of the complex and, providing an enjoyable area for the future tenants as well as beingless intrusive to abutting properties. However, she explained that in order to construct the proposed site plan #2, the builder would need relief from the required 40 foot setback. She explained that the applicant was asking to encroach by 20 feet into 05/23/06 Board of Adjustment 5 Minutes the required setback along the north property line only. She reported that the plan did meet all other required setbacks. She explained that the required Type "B" buffer yard waser Section 27.6.E Table 27.7 and Table 27-11, requiring at minimum a width of 15 p feet; the request was to reduce to a type "A" with a 10 foot minimum width, per Table 27-10 (the same table is required along the south property line.) In addition, she explained that the applicant was also requesting to eliminate the 5 foot screening requirement along the north boundary line completely, but that the screening was not required along the south property line, however; it was required at the east or rear of the property. Staff finding of facts: • The two plans submitted are concept plans only, and there may be other conditions that do not meet Code, that will be addressed with a later process. • All variance requests are solely for the north property line. The applicant will meet the requirements of all three issues on the south and east boundaries. • The parcel to the north is vacant and undisturbed. • A 10 foot minimum buffer yard is the requirement for the south boundary and at least a 15 foot is required on the east. The plan meets Code on the east boundary. • Screening is a requirement for the north and east side; The plan meets Code on east boundary. • Thero osed construction will be built to architecturally match and p p enhance the existing building on site. • The applicant has submitted a plan #1 that is in compliance. • The General Plan supports commercial and development to the north on a site fronting Oracle Road. Discussion followed regarding: • Changing the 40 foot setback requirements. • The modification of the buffer yard requirements. • If the request to eliminate the 5 foot screen was denied would the wall be extended only to the new building project or would it be extended to the entire length of the north side of the property? • The difference between the landscaping and the buffer. • Non-Conforming Use. • The differences between Type "A" and Type "B". MOTION: Vice Chair Schannep moved to approve Case No. OV10-06-06, in regards to reducing the required 40 foot building setback to 20 feet along the northern side, but not theg ranting of a variance for the screening. Member Kessler seconded the motion. Discussion: Vice Chair Schannep explained that he had no problem in recommending the reduction in the setback because of the existing building setbacks. He explained that he did have some concerns regarding granting something special that might affect future owners in the northern corridor of the neighborhood and their quality of life. 05/23/06 Board of Adjustment 6 Minutes Chair Parisi opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Vice Chair Schannep moved to allow the Type "A" buffer yard 10 foot minimum as opposed to the Type "B" buffer yard at the 15 foot minimum that is required that has been requested. Member Kessler seconded the motion. Member Kessler stated that it was difficult to make a ruling on an assumption,but if the Board wanted to keep it to a minimum, then she did not have any objection to eliminating the 5 foot required screen wall. Chair Parisi agreed about leaving the screen because the screening could be removed if the northern property became a commercial property. MOTION with amendment carried, 4-0. 4. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE Planning and Zoning Administrator Sarah More announced the following upcoming meetings and projects: • The Arizona Department of Commerce would be sponsoring their annual Boards and Commission Conference in the Phoenix metro area in November. • The Town Council was currently reviewing the budget for the Fiscal Year 2006/2007. • Planning and Zoning is fully staffed after several months of being short staff. • Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission are currently working on the departments' Work Plan. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Member Hickey to adjourn the meeting at 4:37 p.m. Member Kessler seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. Prepared by, , fikf JA "Of ind. Hersha, office Specialist