HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Board of Adjustment (40)
AGENDA
ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR SESSION
July 28, 2020
ONLINE ZOOM MEETING
Join Zoom Meeting: https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/91194141295
To attend via phone only, dial 1-669-900-6833 , then enter meeting ID: 91194141295
Executive Sessions – Upon a vote of the majority of the Board of Adjustment, the Board may enter into
Executive Sessions pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes §38-431.03 (A)(3) to obtain legal advice on
matters listed on the Agenda.
REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 2:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
EXECUTIVE SESSION – Pursuant to ARS §38-431.03(A)(3) for legal advice with the Chief Civil Deputy along with
discussion, and consultation with designated Town representatives regarding application of the criteria for deciding
a variance.
RECONVENE THE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 3:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL TO AUDIENCE - at this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Board on any issue
not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona open meeting law, individual Board members may
ask Town staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to
criticism made by speakers. However, the Board may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised
during "Call to Audience." In order to speak during "Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to
discuss when completing the blue speaker card.
COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS
REGULAR SESSION AGENDA
1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE MAY 26, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES
2.PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT YARD OF A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10971 N. POINSETTIA DR.
(2000517)
3.PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE A FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR AN
ATTACHED GARAGE LOCATED AT 525 W. GOLF VIEW DR. (2001494)
ADJOURNMENT
POSTED: 7/21/2020 at 5:00 p.m. by pp
When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours
prior to the Board meeting in the Town Clerk's Office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability
needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk’s Office at least five days prior to the Board
meeting at 229-4700.
Instructions to Speakers:
Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted Public Hearing. However, those items
not listed as a Public Hearing are for consideration and action by the Board of Adjustment during the
course of their business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the
discretion of the Chair.
In accordance with Amendment #2 of the Mayoral Proclamation of Emergency issued on March 27, 2020, the
following restrictions have been placed on all public meetings until further notice:
1. In-person attendance by members of the public is prohibited.
2. Members of the public can either watch the public meeting online:
https://www.orovalleyaz.gov/town/departments/town-clerk/meetings-and-agendas or, if they would like to
participate in the meeting (e.g. speak at Call to Audience or speak on a Regular Agenda item), they can attend the
meeting and participate via the on-line meeting application, Zoom: https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/91194141295 or may
participate telephonically only by dialing 1-669-900-6833 prior to or during the posted meeting.
3. If a member of the public would like to speak at either Call to Audience or on a Regular Agenda item, it is highly
encouraged to email your request to speak to jancona@orovalleyaz.gov and include your name and town/city of
residence in order to provide the Chair with advance notice so you can be called upon more efficiently during the
Zoom meeting.
4. All members of the public who participate in the Zoom meeting either with video or telephonically will enter the
meeting with microphones muted. For those participating via computer/tablet/phone device, you may choose
whether to turn your video on or not. If you have not provided your name to speak prior to the meeting as specified
in #3 above, you will have the opportunity to be recognized when you “raise your hand.” Those participating via
computer/tablet/phone device can click the “raise your hand” button during the Call to the Public or Regular
Agenda item, and the Chair will call on you in order, following those who submit their names in advance. For those
participating by phone, you can press *9, which will show the Chair that your hand is raised. When you are
recognized at the meeting by the Chair, your microphone will be unmuted by a member of staff and you will have
three minutes to speak before your microphone is again muted.
5. If a member of the public would like to submit written comments to the Board of Adjustment for their
consideration prior to the meeting, please email those comments to jancona@orovalleyaz.gov, no later than sixty
minutes before the public meeting. Those comments will then be electronically distributed to the public body prior
to the meeting.
If you have any questions, please contact the Commission’s recording secretary at jancona@orovalleyaz.gov.
Thank you for your cooperation.
“Notice of Possible Quorum of the Oro Valley Town Council, Boards, Commissions and Committees: In accordance
with Chapter 3, Title 38, Arizona Revised Statutes and Section 2-4-4 of the Oro Valley Town Code, a majority of the
Town Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board, Stormwater Utility Commission, and Water Utility Commission may attend the above referenced
meeting as a member of the audience only.”
Board of Adjustment 1.
Meeting Date:07/28/2020
Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development
Submitted By:Jeanna Ancona, Community and Economic Development
Case Number: N/A
SUBJECT:
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE MAY 26, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
N/A
BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION:
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I MOVE to approve (approve with changes), the May 26, 2020 meeting minutes as written.
Attachments
5-26-2020 Draft Minutes
D R A F T
SUMMARY MINUTES
ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR SESSION
May 26, 2020
ZOOM ONLINE MEETING
(NO RECORDING AVAILABLE)
REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 3:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Dankwerth called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Helen Dankwerth, Chair
Stephen Roach, Vice Chair
Octavio Barcelo, Member
Mary Murphy, Member
David Perkins, Member
Staff Present:Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner
Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney
Attendees: Steve Solomon, Town Council Liaison
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Dankwerth recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
CALL TO AUDIENCE
There were no speaker requests.
COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS
Council Liaison Solomon thanked the members for their attendance and welcomed Member Murphy to the Board.
REGULAR SESSION AGENDA
1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 26, 2019 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES
Motion by Member David Perkins, seconded by Member Octavio Barcelo to approve the February 26,
2019 meeting minutes as written.
Vote: 5 - 0 Carried
2.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE MAY 21, 2019 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES
Motion by Member Octavio Barcelo, seconded by Member Mary Murphy to approve the May 21, 2019
Motion by Member Octavio Barcelo, seconded by Member Mary Murphy to approve the May 21, 2019
meeting minutes as written.
Vote: 5 - 0 Carried
3.PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE IN THE
FRONT YARD OF A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10971 N. POINSETTIA DR. (2000517)
Senior Planner Hannah Oden provided a presentation that included the following:
- Purpose
- Location map
- Applicant's request
- Five Criteria
- A review of each of the five criteria in further detail:
(1) Special circumstances applying to property
(2) Shall not grant special privileges
(3) Not detrimental to the neighborhood
(4) Circumstances not created by the owner
(5) Substantial property right
- Summary
Discussion ensued between the Board and staff.
Applicant and homeowner Michael West provided a presentation on his written rebuttal to the staff report;
this document was also provided to the Board. He spoke on the five (5) requirements and his perspective
on staff's interpretation of those requirements. He outlined his reasons and provided examples of why he
disagrees with staff's recommendation.
Discussion ensued between the Board and applicant.
Chair Dankwerth opened the public hearing.
Peter Wong, who owns a home adjacent to the applicant, spoke about his concerns of the project as
outlined in the letter he submitted to staff, which was provided to the Board.
Chair Dankwerth closed the public hearing.
Further discussion continued among the Board, applicant and staff.
Motion by Member David Perkins, seconded by Member Octavio Barcelo to deny this variance request to
construct a detached garage in the front yard of 10971 N Poinsettia Drive, based on the finding that the five
criteria have not been met.
Member Perkins stated that the special circumstances referenced in the criteria were not only those
described in criteria 1, but also special circumstances of the situation created by the owner, in this case,
the excess vehicles.
A roll call vote was taken:
Chair Dankwerth - Aye
Vice Chair Roach - Nay
Member Perkins - Aye
Member Barcelo - Aye
Member Murphy - Aye
Vote: 4 - 1 Carried
Vote: 4 - 1 Carried
OPPOSED: Vice Chair Stephen Roach
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Member Octavio Barcelo, seconded by Member Mary Murphy to adjourn the meeting.
Chair Dankwerth adjourned the meeting at 4:41 p.m.
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the
Town of Oro Valley Board of Adjustment of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 26th day of May, 2020 I further certify
that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
Dated this 27th day of May, 2020.
___________________________
Jeanna Ancona
Senior Office Specialist
Board of Adjustment 2.
Meeting Date:07/28/2020
Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development
Submitted By:Hannah Oden, Community and Economic Development
Case Number: 2000517
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
IN THE FRONT YARD OF A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10971 N. POINSETTIA DR. (2000517)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the conditions in Attachment 1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant is requesting a variance to construct an
approximately 1,500 square foot detached garage in the
front yard of their property. The subject property is located
within an R1-43 zoning district which does not allow
detached accessory structures in the front yard. The subject
property is lot 21 in the Monte del Oro subdivision as shown
on the map to the right.
The home was built towards the back of the property on the
highest and flattest part of the lot, with a significant
downward slope behind the home to the rear of the lot. A
significant slope also exists at the front of the property,
causing the need for a long, steep driveway to the home.
Due to the placement and construction of the home, as a
result of the topography constraints, there is no functional
location for a detached accessory structure in the side or rear yard, which would be permitted by the Zoning Code.
The proposed location of the detached accessory structure is in front of the home on a more level part of the lot and
is the only area for a detached accessory structure on the property.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request determining that all five findings have been met as described in
the following background and detailed information.
BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION:
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Property is located in the Monte del Oro subdivision
Lot size is 61,000 square feet
Property was purchased in 1991 with the existing home already constructed on the lot (built in 1988)
The home is located on the highest and flattest part of the lot with significant slopes to the front, side, and rear
DISCUSSION:
State Law and the Oro Valley Zoning Code require the Board of Adjustment to determine that all of the following
variance findings have been met in order to grant a variance. The required five findings are shown in italics below,
followed by the applicant and staff comments. The applicant’s complete response to the findings are included in
Attachment 2.
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application
including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district.
Applicant Comment:
The applicant refers to the west side of Poinsettia Drive where their property is located and explains that the
topography has created long, narrow lots. The applicant also describes the steep approach to their home with a
long driveway, the steep slope behind the home and how the home was built on the flattest part of the lot.
A leach field exists to the north of the home limiting any potential garage location, and mature vegetation and
potential setback issues exist to the south of the home for a detached accessory structure. The applicant explains
that enlarging the existing garage would not be feasible as it would render the existing tight turn-around space
unusable.
The applicant states that the shape, topography, locations of the existing driveway, home, and garage, and the
existing setbacks all create special circumstances that do not apply to other properties in the district and that the
proposed location is the only place on the property where a detached garage could be located.
Staff Comment:
The subject property has special circumstances that apply to it in terms of shape and topography. The subject
property is a long, narrow lot, leaving very little buildable area in the side yards due to building setback
requirements. A leach field is also located to the north of the home and must remain unobstructed (Attachment 3).
This makes placement of a detached accessory structure not feasible on the north or south sides of the home due
to the existing leach field and building setback constraints (Attachment 4).
Topography constraints also limit where a detached accessory structure can be built. Construction is not feasible
behind the home due to a significant slope downwards to a wash. Topography to the south of the home also
restricts placement of a detached accessory structure as downward slopes severely limit any buildable area. The
proposed location of the detached accessory structure is the only place on the property where one could be built as
it is a more level area among the slopes (Attachment 5).
Other homes in the Monte del Oro subdivision are located on flatter and wider lots where there would be more
opportunities for a detached accessory structure location. Due to the aforementioned factors regarding topography
and lot shape, staff finds that special circumstances do apply to this property and that this finding has been met.
2. That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant.
Applicant Comment:
The property owner states that the home was purchased in 1991 and was already built, and therefore did not make
any decision regarding the placement of the home, existing garage, or driveway and turnaround design. The
applicant states that the topography on the lot was not created by them and that the special circumstances
necessitating the request for the variance were not caused by them either.
Staff Comment:
Whether or not the applicant built the existing home is irrelevant. However, the applicant did not create the
aforementioned special circumstances in regards to topography and lot shape. Staff finds that this finds that this
finding has been met.
3. Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
Applicant Comment:
The applicant refers to the existing two-car garage which is short and narrow and inadequate for keeping vehicles
and having extra storage space. The applicant explains that due to the six vehicles they own, extra vehicles must be
and having extra storage space. The applicant explains that due to the six vehicles they own, extra vehicles must be
parked in the turnaround area on the shoulder of Poinsettia Dr. when service vehicles or company is expected. The
applicant explains that this creates safety issues and that an additional larger garage is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
Staff Comment:
Detached accessory structures are not uncommon in the Monte del Oro neighborhood or in R1-43 zoning districts.
Because there is only one location for a detached accessory structure on the property, and because the request to
construct a detached accessory structure is not unusual for the neighborhood or zoning district, this finding has
been met.
4. That any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not
constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone
in which such property is located.
Applicant Comment:
The applicant states that if the variance request is granted, the detached garage would be placed in a very specific
location due to the existing special circumstances on the property and that the proposed location is the only area
where the detached garage could be built. The property owner states that the granting of a variance does not
constitute a special privilege from other properties in the district due to the unique circumstances that exist on the
subject property.
Staff Comment
A number of lots in the Monte de Oro subdivision have detached accessory structures on the property. While nearly
all of these are in the side or rear yard, the unique circumstances that apply to the lot make the proposed location
for the detached garage the only realistic area on the property. Detached accessory structures are not unusual in
this zoning district and do not grant a special privilege.
However, the request is subject to conditions to limit potential negative impacts to the surrounding area. Staff
recommends the conditions of approval outlined in Attachment 1 as part of this variance request. These conditions
accomplish the following:
Place a limitation on the building height to a maximum of 12 feet to the top of the parapet.
Restrict roof mounted appurtenances such as antennas and air conditioning units.
Require additional landscaping for visual screening along the north side of the proposed structure
where vegetation is currently sparse.
The structure must be painted earth tones, which would allow the building to match the existing home and
blend in to the surrounding environment.
These proposed conditions will minimize any potential visual impacts from Poinsettia Dr. and adjacent neighbors.
The applicant is aware of these proposed conditions.
Based on the aforementioned factors and the recommended conditions of approval in Attachment 1, this finding has
been met.
5. That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to
adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general.
Applicant Comment:
The applicant has included Exhibit A and Exhibit B in their application (Attachment 2) which shows an aerial with
the proposed garage location and elevations and floor plan of the proposed garage. The proposed garage will sit
lower than the neighboring home to the north and will not create negative visual impacts. The applicant also
explains through Exhibit C that view impacts will be minimal from Poinsettia Dr. Exhibit D is an approval letter from
the Monte de Oro Homeowners Association for the proposed structure. The applicant states that the proposed
garage will match the existing home and that the request is not detrimental to adjacent property owners, the Monte
de Oro neighborhood, or public welfare in general.
Staff Comment
Staff has met with the property owner on-site twice to discuss the request and evaluate the proposed building
location and impacts to surrounding properties. The findings are summarized below:
location and impacts to surrounding properties. The findings are summarized below:
The proposed garage will be located substantially lower, approximately 24 feet lower, than the existing floor
elevation of the home to the north. A 12 foot detached accessory structure would not negatively impact views
looking southeast towards the mountains.
The proposed structure will be set back over 100 feet from the front property line and will have minimal if any
visual impact from Poinsettia Dr.
Staff has recommended vegetative screening along the north side of the proposed detached accessory
structure to mitigate view impacts from the adjacent property to the north (Attachment 1).
The recommended conditions of Approval in Attachment 1 will limit any potential negative impacts to the
surrounding area.
Due to these factors and the existing approval from the Monte de Oro Homeowners Association, this finding has
been met as the proposed garage will not be materially detrimental to adjacent properties, the neighborhood, or
public welfare in general.
GRADING ALLOWANCE:
The proposed detached garage will require grading to create an area that is relatively level for placement of the
structure and associated driveway. Due to the existing topography, the amount of grading required may trigger the
need for a grading exception if Zoning Code based cut (removing dirt) and fill (adding dirt) limitations are exceeded.
Allowed cut and fill amounts are six (6) feet or eight (8) feet if terracing is utilized, and the applicant is aware of
this. It is important to note that a grading exception requires a separate public hearing approval process through the
Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. Approval of this variance request does not grant approval of a
grading exception.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Public Notice has been provided as follows:
Notice sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject properties.
Notice posted on the property.
Notice posted online at www.orovalleyaz.gov
Notice advertised in the Daily Territorial.
One letter has been received by a neighbor of the property (Attachment 6) detailing concerns about
building height, screening, and erosion issues. Staff has worked to minimize and mitigate for any
potential negative impacts in the conditions of approval included in Attachment 1.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that the variance request meets all the findings per State Law and the Zoning Code and staff
recommends approval.
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I MOVE to approve this variance request to construct a detached accessory structure in the front yard of 10971 N.
Poinsettia Drive, subject to the conditions in Attachment 1, based on the finding that the five criteria have been met.
OR
I MOVE to deny this variance request to construct a detached accessory structure in the front yard of 10971 N.
Poinsettia Drive, based on the finding that the five criteria have not been met.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Conditions of Approval
Attachment 2: Applicant Submittal
Attachment 3: Subject Property and Surrounding Neighbors
Attachment 4: Site Photos
Attachment 5: Topographic Map
Attachment 6: Comment Letter
Attachment 1
Conditions of Approval
Poinsettia Dr. Detached Accessory Structure Variance
(Case No. 2000517)
Planning
1. The proposed detached accessory structure may not exceed 12 feet to the top of
the parapet.
2. No roof mounted appurtenances or roof mounted mechanical equipment is
permitted on the proposed detached accessory structure. This does not include
structurally integrated items such as vents or skylights.
3. The northern side of the proposed detached accessory structure from the
northeast corner to the northwest corner of the new building is subject to
additional vegetation requirements. This vegetation must consist of two 15 gallon
native trees placed a minimum of 20 feet apart, 3 shrubs, and 5 accents or
cactus. Irrigation and vegetation maintenance are subject to Sections 27.6.C and
27.6.D of the Zoning Code.
4. The walls and roof of the detached accessory structure must be painted desert
earth tone colors which allows for the proposed structure to match the existing
home.
R. MICHAEL WEST
Via E-mail Planning@orovalleyaz.gov
February 19, 2020
Town Of Oro Valley
Community And Economic Development Department
11000 N. La Cañada Drive
Oro Valley, Arizona 85737
Attention: Planning
Re: Application For Variance
Applicant/Owner: R. Michael West
Subject Property: 10971 N. Poinsettia Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona
Please find submitted herewith, the undersigned’s Application for a Variance from the
Zoning Code provision of the single family residential district R1-43, which prohibits building a
detached garage closer to the front lot line than the main house.
The Application includes the following materials:
The completed General Application form;
A Site Plan;
Narrative Describing Nature Of Request;
Detailed Answers To Each Of Five Findings - Discussion And Evidence Providing
Justification For Grant Of Variance; and,
Supporting Documents:
Exhibit 1
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
The Fee related to this Application For Variance, in the amout of $150 will be paid by credit
card. Please contact the undersigned by telephone for the credit card information.
Respectfully submitted,
R. Michael West
R. Michael West
RMW/cb
Enclosures: as stated
Narrative Describing Nature Of Request
Applicant seeks a variance from the general R1-43 Zoning Code provision which prohibits
building a detached garage closer to the front lot line than the main house. Applicant was first
advised of this provision, when he made a preliminary submission of his building plans to the
Building Permit Division, of the Town Of Oro Valley. Applicant was advised that owing to the
location of the proposed detached garage on his property, he would have to apply for and be granted,
a variance, before a building permit could issue.
The legal description of the subject property is Lot 21 of the Monte Del Oro subdivision in
Oro Valley. Lot 21 is a long and narrow piece of property, extending up hilly terrain from the west
side of Poinsettia Drive. There is an existing driveway leading up a ridge to the main house, located
approximately 3/4 of the distance from the front lot line to the rear lot line. The terrain from the rear
of the main house drops off sharply to a wash running along the rear lot line.
As explained more fully below, Applicant has substantial need for additional garage and
storage space on his property. There is no room for expanding the existing garage, because the
existing driveway, the garage turn-around area, and the main house prohibit such expansion. Thus,
Applicant turned to the concept of a detached garage to meet that need.
In reviewing possible locations for a new garage, it became apparent that there was only one
feasible area on the subject property for that proposed garage. That area is between the main house
and the front lot line, to the north of the existing driveway. Applicant is therefore seeking from the
Board of Adjustment, a variance in the literal provisions of the zoning code. Such a variance would
allow Applicant to build a detached garage in the sole feasible area on his property, and would avoid
undue hardship on Applicant.
-1-
Detailed Answers To Each Of the Five Finding In Section 2.0 With
Discussion And Evidence Providing Justification For Grant Of Variance
A.There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in
the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which
do not apply to other properties in the district.
The subject property is located on the west side of North Poinsettia Drive, in the Monte Del
Oro subdivision of Oro Valley. The subject property and the lots around the subject property, are
approximately 1+ acres in size. However, owing to the topography of the lots on the west side of
Poinsettia Drive, the lots are long and narrow, rising westerly from street level to higher terrain
where homes are built.
The home and the existing garage on the subject property were built on the highest portion
of the lot, approximately 3/4 of the distance from Poinsettia Drive, to the back lot line. The terrain
between the west side of the house drops off steeply to the back lot line, leaving an inadequate
amount of room for a garage and a vehicle turn-around space. Also, access to the rear portion of the
property is limited to one approximately 30' setback strip on the south side of the house, where
existing mature natural plants and landscaping would have to be removed to provide access to a rear-
located garage. (See, Exhibit 1). The septic system and the leech line are located on the north side
of the house, so an access road could not be built there. Lastly, access to a rear-located garage would
be problematical for access by the fire department.
The driveway on the subject property is long, ending in a confining turn-around space in front
of the existing garage. The existing garage cannot be enlarged in any direction, as there are existing
structures and the turn-around space would no longer be usable.
-2-
In a more typical lot, there would be more buildable spots for a detached garage, or for the
expansion of an existing garage. However, the shape, topography, locations of the existing
driveway, home, and garage, and the existing setbacks, all create special circumstances which do not
apply to other properties in the district. These special circumstances make the proposed location
for the detached garage the only possible location for it on the subject property.
B.Special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant.
Applicant for the present variance purchased the subject property in 1991, from a private
financier who had foreclosed on a loan made by the builder/owner. The builder/owner was a
contractor who designed and built the home for himself, but never lived in it. In other words,
decisions regarding the size and location of the driveway, the present two-car garage, and the house
were all made by the foreclosed-upon builder/owner, not by Applicant.
Applicant did not create the size and shape of the subject property, nor did he have any say
about the topography and terrain which likely resulted in the long and narrow configuration of the
subject property. Consequently, the special circumstances necessitating the request for the present
variance, were not caused by Applicant.
C.The authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights.
Applicant’s existing two-car garage is very inadequate, both for garaging vehicles, and for
storage. Applicant has six vehicles registered in the State of Arizona, and no room to house them
safely and securely on his property. Three of these vehicles are covered under special policies which
-3-
require that the vehicles be housed in a secure garage.
Because multiple vehicles have to be parked outside the garage in the turn-around space,
vehicles often have to be moved temporarily down for parking on the shoulder of Poinsettia Drive,
when service vehicles or company is expected. This creates potential safety hazards for the public,
and property security issues for Applicant.
The existing two-car garage is short and narrow, providing little room for storage at the end
or sides of the garage. A new and much larger detached garage would not only allow Applicant to
house all of his vehicles, but it would also provide much needed space for storage racks and cabinets.
Authorizing the requested for variance is therefore necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights.
D.Any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the
adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is
located.
If a variance is granted for the subject property, the detached garage will be built in a specific
location on the property, based upon the previously discussed special circumstances which exist on
that property.
There is no other location on the subject property where a detached garage could be built,
Applicant did not create the special circumstances which necessitate the variance, and grounds have
been shown that grant of the variance will preserve the integrity of the property and enhance the
enjoyment of Applicant’s property rights. Moreover, as discussed below, the grant of the variance
-4-
will not detrimentally affect adjacent property owners or the public in general.
Under these circumstances, authorizing the allowance of a detached garage in the proposed
specific location does not constitute a grant of special privileges which are inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. The general zoning prohibition on building a
detached garage closer to the front lot line than the main house still remains; the grant of a variance
to build a detached garage in a specific location when special circumstances have been shown is not
inconsistent with that general prohibition.
E.The authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing
in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in
general.
Attached hereto, and identified as Exhibit A, is an aerial photograph of the subject property,
showing the front and side property lot lines, the existing house (including attached garage and
porches), the existing driveway, Poinsettia Drive, and the area of the proposed detached garage,
including an access driveway. There are no accessory structures on the property.
Attached hereto, and identified as Exhibit B, is a drawing sheet of the proposed garage,
showing the floor plan, the roof framing plan, a north/south sectional view, a front elevational view,
and a south elevational view, the north elevational view being identical thereto.
The proposed detached garage is more than 30 feet from any property line, so no offset
variance is needed.
The proposed garage is located at an elevation substantially below the upper end of the
existing driveway, and some of the walls will be partly below the grade of the surrounding ground,
-5-
imbedded in the hillside. As a consequence, there will be no impairment of any views toward the
mountains, either from the subject property or from the property of the neighbor to the north, or from
the vacant property to the south.
Attached hereto, and identified as Exhibit C, is a photo taken from Poinsettia Drive toward
the location of the proposed detached garage. Owing to the existing trees and the partially imbedded
walls of proposed structure, very little, if any, of the proposed garage will be visible from Poinsettia
Drive.
All utilities to the proposed garage will be underground, and the architecture and exterior
color of the proposed garage are consistent with the existing main house.
Attached hereto, and identified as Exhibit D, is the approval of the Monte Del Oro Home
Owners Association, dated September 9, 2019, for building the proposed detached garage.
In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that authorizing the variance will
not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property owners, to the
Monte Del Oro neighborhood, or to the public welfare, in general.
-6-
DETACHED
GARAGE
EXISTING
HOUSE
EXISTING DRIVEWAY POINSETTIA DRIVE120'30'439.
6
0
'
S 72
°
5
6
'
4
5
"
E
469.
5
0
'
S 72
°
5
6
'
4
5
"
E135.00'N 00° 02' 55" W25.78'123.93'Garage
268
0
26702670
266
0
2
6
5
0
2
6
5
0
2
6
4
0
2
6
6
0
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
SITE PLAN
SHEET # 1
AREA BREAKDOWN
DRAWING PACKAGE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL:
LOCATED IN SECTION: 11, T-12-S, R-13-E,
G.S.R.B. & M.
3,001
SQ. FT.TOTAL AREA FOR
EXISTING GARAGE:
LIVING AREA:
LOT:
140COVERED PORCHES:
MONTE DEL ORO LOT 21
ZONING:R1-43, Single Family Residential 1 RAC
SITE PLAN
FOUNDATION PLAN
FLOOR PLAN / ROOF FRAMING PLAN
ELEVATIONS / SECTIONS
DETAILS
ELECTRICAL PLAN
SHEET 1
SHEET 2
SHEET 3
SHEET 4
SHEET 5
SHEET 6
60,994
600
SCALE: 1"= 20'NSITE PLAN
224-27-1330
BOOK 27, PAGE 99
VEHICULAR USE AREA:6,320
DETACHED GARAGE
MIKE WEST & CATHERINE STRAIGHT
10971 N. POINSETTIA DRIVE
ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737
NEW DETACHED GARAGE:1,496
EXHIBIT 1
10971 N POINSETTIA
MOO/lot #21
R.Michael \/'Jest
Monte Def Oro Home Owners Association
1870 W Prince Rd Suite 47 -Tucson, AZ 85705
Tefephone:520-297-0797•Fax:520-742-2618
ARC Approval
RE: 10971 N Poinsettia Dr -Garage
Dear R. Mfchaef West:
Date: September 9, 2019
Thank you for following the architectural process for Monte Del Oro Home Owners Association. The
Committee has reviewed your submittal.
Your application has been approved to install a detached garage with the following specifications:
1.No changes to the submitted paint color for all walls and doors.
2, Trim color needs to be submitted (if any}.
3.Roof color to be Desert Tan, not White.
4.Exterior lighting to be downward focused, nci glare toward adjourning lots or street.
5.No kitchen or living quarters to be instaHi;d.
Approval of the modification relates to conformity of the plans and specifications to the general
architectural styfe and compliance with the governing documents of Monte Del Oro. This fetter does
not imply approval for engineering design or architectural specifications and codes.
The Association reserves the right to make a final inspection of the modification to make sure it
matches the request you submitted for approval. Please follow the plan you submitted or submit an
adciitionat request for any modifitations to the origi'naf-pfan.
Yo!-! must foJJow all local building. codes and setback requirements when makin_g this modification. A
building permit may be needed, which can be applied for at your local governmental offices.
Please keep this approval letter with your official records for your home.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at the office 520-297-0797 or e-mail kolson@cadden.com.
For the Association,
;(-tl.1M-, PlirlL
Keren Olson, CAAM®
Community Association Manager
Cadden Community Management
EXHIBIT D
Attachment 3
Subject Property and Surrounding Neighbors
2000517
Yellow outline = subject property
= existing leach field
Attachment 4
Site Photos
2000517
Existing leach field north of the home
Attachment 4
Site Photos
2000517
View from behind (west) of the home with a significant slope
towards a wash.
Attachment 4
Site Photos
2000517
Existing garage and turnaround area
Attachment 4
Site Photos
2000517
Existing garage and turnaround area
Attachment 4
Site Photos
2000517
Existing garage with a walkway, landscaping, and outdoor living
space to the east and south.
Attachment 4
Site Photos
2000517
View facing southeast with a significant slope down the driveway
and to the east of the existing garage.
Attachment 4
Site Photos
2000517
View of the proposed garage location and driveway.
Attachment 4
Site Photos
2000517
View of the existing driveway and proposed detached garage
location.
Attachment 4
Site Photos
2000517
View from Poinsettia Dr. towards the existing home.
Attachment 5
Topography Map
2000517
Yellow outline = subject property
Proposed garage
location
From: Peter Wong
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 11:06 AM
To: Oden, Hannah
Subject: Re: Detached Garage Variance Case
To: Hannah Oden, Community and Economic Development
Hi Hannah -
Per your email of July 7, we understand that our neighbor's
variance request to build a free standing garage building in
their front yard has been re-submitted and will be considered by
the Board of Adjustment on July 28 as a new case.
Our concerns remain essentially the same as before with
additional/new comments underlined. Please accept this email
as our comments of concern to the request for variance known
as Case Number 2000517 (10971 North Poinsettia Drive; Monte
del Oro Lot 21) . As mentioned, my wife Patti and I are
neighbors adjacent north of this property. We purchased our
home in great part for the unimpeded and panoramic views of
the Catalina Mountains and of the Tucson city lights from our
home and pool patio area. Prior to purchase, we were also very
observant of storm water drainage on our property because of
known erosion issues in the southwest desert environment.
Our primary concerns, therefore, are threefold.
1. The proposed detached 4 car garage has a height of 12 feet to
the top of the parapet wall. Our concern/objection would that
the top/roof of the detached garage will adversely impact our
present views of the Tucson city lights. Referencing the
topographical site plan shown on the OVProjects.com link, it
appears that the floor of the proposed garage would be at 2,660
foot ground elevation, which would mean that the parapet wall
would reach 2,672 foot ground elevation. At that level, it seems
that our views would be preserved.
Additionally, we request that there be a restriction against any
roof mounted appurtenances including, but not limited to,
antennas, satellite dishes, wind gauges, cameras and
heating or cooling equipment,
If, in my wife and my opinions, our views are fully preserved
and undisturbed from present, we would be satisfied. To make
certain, we request that temporary height markers be placed at
the four corners of the proposed building prior to plan approval
so that we have the ability to determine the height of the parapet
walls and its impact upon our views? (Inasmuch as we are
'snowbirds' and in this time of COVID with restricted travel
abilities, please provide us with a minimum of 30-day advanced
notice as to when those temporary height markers would be
erected and we request those markers remain in-place for at least
14 days.
2. The lower portion of our property will be totally exposed to
the access driveway and turnaround area as well as the north
wall of this proposed garage. When we drive or walk up and
down our driveway, those portions of the new improvements
will be in our full view. As such, we request requirement for a 6
foot tall permanent solid stucco wall or solid privacy hedge-
like landscaping to provide visual screening along our common
property boundary from the new driveway and turnaround
area.. We are concerned that there may be parked vehicles or
similar (trailers, trash cans, etc.) that may be parked or stored in
the proposed driveway or turnaround area in front of the
proposed garage that would be visible from our property and
driveway. Additionally, the 30 foot side setback from our
common property boundary as shown in the variance submittal
documents will be maintained.
3. We understand that the Town of Oro Valley building plan
approval process would guaranty that our property will not be
adversely impacted by construction of the proposed detached
garage, particularly regarding storm water runoff and soil
erosion. At this point, there is a ravine between our properties
that carries storm water runoff towards Poinsettia Drive and
culvert beneath. We trust that both our neighbor and Oro Valley
would be liable should there be any adverse impact or soil
erosion on our property resulting from construction of the
proposed improvements.
If there is anything else or any other type of communication we
need to submit, please let me know. As before, we plan to
'attend' the Zoom meeting as well. Please provide us with
information as to date and time and how to access the Zoom
meeting.
Thank you, Hannah, for this new information you have
provided.
Peter and Patti Wong
Board of Adjustment 3.
Meeting Date:07/28/2020
Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development
Submitted By:Hannah Oden, Community and Economic Development
Case Number: 2001494
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE A FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR AN ATTACHED
GARAGE LOCATED AT 525 W. GOLF VIEW DR. (2001494)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant is requesting a variance to encroach into the
required front yard building setback by 2.5 feet to construct
an attached garage (Attachment 1). The subject property is
located within an R1-36 zoning district with a required front
yard building setback of 30 feet. The subject property is lot
93 in the Oro Valley Country Club Estates subdivision as
shown on the map to the right and is outlined in yellow.
The home was built toward the front of the property and is
adjacent to the Oro Valley Country Club golf course. The
home was built in 1959 by a famous local architect, Thomas
Gist. The home has an original attached carport that has rot
damage and is in need of repair or replacement (Attachment
1).
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing carport
and construct an attached garage within a similar footprint to
the existing carport and privacy fence. However, due to the historic nature of the home, the garage is proposed to
be built approximately 5 feet from the existing home to leave the main wall untouched and will be attached by a
common roof. To accomplish this design, the applicant is requesting a 2.5 foot encroachment into the front building
setback, reducing the required front yard setback to 27.5 feet.
Staff recommends denial of the variance request determining that all five findings have not been met as described
in the following background and detailed information.
BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION:
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Property is located in the Oro Valley Estates subdivision
Lot size is 38,295 square feet
Property was purchased in 2019 with the existing home already constructed on the lot (built in 1959)
An existing 2-car carport is attached to the home
An existing 2-car carport is attached to the home
DISCUSSION:
State Law and the Oro Valley Zoning Code require the Board of Adjustment to determine that all of the following
variance findings have been met in order to grant a variance. The required five findings are shown in italics below,
followed by the applicant and staff comments. The applicant’s complete response to the findings are included in
Attachment 1.
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application
including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district.
Applicant Comment:
The applicant details the historic value of the home and provides background on the home's history. They explain
that the house was built in 1959 by a famous local architect, Thomas Gist, and that a National Register Multiple
Property Documentation Form, which incudes the subject property, is currently under review by the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Historic Sites Review Committee (HSRC). The applicant details how the
design of the garage will compliment and protect the historic character of the home by moving it away from the
main home.
The property owner also explains that this is the only preserved Thomas Gist home that exists in Oro Valley and that
the Town's Historic Preservation Committee supports retaining its historic character. Due to the unique historic
significance of the home, the applicant explains that this is a special circumstance that applies to the property.
Staff Comment:
A special circumstance, as determined by State Law, means that the property itself must be unique in its
topography, shape, location, surroundings, or size in such a way that would deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district.
The subject property is located in a flat area with virtually no slopes or topography that would create a special
circumstance necessitating the need for a variance (Attachment 2). Furthermore, the topography, or lack thereof,
was not an influencing factor for the placement of the home. There are also no unique circumstances in terms of
the size, shape, location, and surroundings of the property that do not apply to other parcels in the neighborhood
and R1-36 zoning district. Based on these factors, staff finds that this finding has not been met.
2. That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant.
Applicant Comment:
The applicant articulates that the home is considered part of the property and that the house was placed
strategically for mountain views and to overlook the 18th fairway. The property owner also explains that the
setbacks, design, and shape of the lot influenced the placement of the home.
The applicant discusses that they did not influence where the home was placed nor that the carport is in poor
condition as the home was purchased with these conditions existing. The applicant states that locating the garage
away from the home will preserve the historic character of the building and that "building an enclosed garage to
replace the carport is a reasonable expectation for a circumstance not created by the current homeowner".
Staff Comment:
As mentioned previously, unique conditions must apply to the property itself for a special circumstance to exist per
State Law and the Zoning Code. This finding refers to the special circumstances related to the property itself
detailed in the first finding. Because no special circumstances apply to this property in terms of its size, shape,
topography, location, or surroundings, this finding has not been met.
3. Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
Applicant Comment:
The applicant explains that Gist added garages in later years to his designs and that the design of the proposed
garage will not detract from its historical significance. The applicant emphasizes that the existing carport is in
disrepair and poses a safety risk and that it is a substantial property right for a home of this value to have an
enclosed garage, and that the majority of homes in the neighborhood have enclosed garages, too.
The applicant described how no other places on the property can accommodate a garage. The side yards have
Town and HOA setback constraints. The rear yard is not where Gist placed garages in his designs. The property
owner explains that a garage in the rear yard would negatively impact views and would place the garage a
considerable distance from the home and that "this would create a hardship in daily life to access, park, load,
unload vehicles with no easy, direct entrance to the house".
Staff Comment:
Garages, both attached and detached, are not unusual or uncommon in this neighborhood or zoning district.
However, in this particular case, opportunities exist to construct an attached garage within the building setback. The
garage could be moved 2.5 feet closer to the existing home to meet the building setbacks. This would eliminate a
functional breezeway and would bring the garage entrance closer to the front door of the home and existing planter
(Attachment 3), but would still be a viable option to comply with the building setbacks. This would also preserve the
wall of the main home, retaining its historic value.
Moreover, alternative designs, such as putting the garage door on the west side of the proposed garage facing Golf
View Drive, could bring the proposed addition within the allowed building setbacks. While this change would involve
a driveway reconfiguration, there are opportunities to alter the garage design to meet building setbacks.
As previously mentioned, the lot is flat with no significant topography constraints. While the placement would be
inconvenient and would bring the garage farther from the main home, there is ample room behind the main home
and enclosed yard for a detached garage to safely house the applicant's vehicles. This would also involve a
driveway reconfiguration, but a detached accessory structure would be able to meet all building setbacks in the
rear yard (Attachment 3).
While garages are not unusual in this neighborhood or zoning district, the fact that there are options to reconfigure
the design of the garage or place it elsewhere on the property to meet the building setbacks would render the
granting of this variance a special privilege. Staff finds that this finding has not been met.
4. That any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not
constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone
in which such property is located.
Applicant Comment:
The applicant states that they are asking for a 2.5 foot encroachment into the front building setback, which would
reduce the front building setback to 27.5 feet. The applicant lists three other properties in the neighborhood with
R1-36 zoning that have been built closer than 30 feet to the front property line and states that their request would not
be setting a precedent.
The property owner explains that the HOA requires a 50 foot golf course setback on the north side of their property.
They did request to build the garage on the golf course side but this was denied by the HOA. Instead, they were
granted a 5 foot encroachment into the golf course setback which allows the garage to be built within the existing
footprint of the carport and privacy fence.
Lastly, the applicant points out multiple zoning districts in their neighborhood, some of which have reduced front
setbacks from the subject property. They state that "granting a 2.5-foot exception on our property for a structure
should not be considered a special privilege based on the other inconsistent zoning laws in the area". The
applicant summarizes that their request would not grant a special privilege based on other properties and that the
proposed location is the only viable option for a garage on the property.
Staff Comment
This finding is meant to apply conditions, if necessary, to variance requests to ensure no special privileges are
granted that are inconsistent with surrounding properties. If the Board chooses to approve this variance request, an
appropriate condition of approval to consider would be for the applicant to provide additional vegetative screening
between the garage wall and Golf View Drive as approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. This is a
reasonable condition because the building will be brought closer to the street scape and vegetative screening will
ensure no special privilege is granted.
This variance request is subject to conditions that would ensure that no special privileges are granted that are
inconsistent with other properties in the neighborhood or zoning district. Therefore, this finding has been met.
5. That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to
adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general.
Applicant Comment:
The applicant states that the garage will replace an existing footprint and that the design will compliment the historic
character of the existing home. The property owner explains that the structure will not be unusual or obtrusive for
the neighborhood and that replacing the carport will add curb appeal. The structure will not pose any safety risks
and will not adversely impact residents or property in the vicinity or public welfare in general.
Staff Comment
Staff has met with the property owner on-site to discuss the request and evaluate the proposed location. The
proposed garage will essentially be within the same footprint as the existing carport and privacy fence and would be
designed to compliment the main home using similar burnt adobe bricks. Due to the curve of Golf View Drive at this
location, the proposed garage would not cause any sight visibility issues. Because of these factors, this finding has
been met as the proposed garage will not be materially detrimental to adjacent properties, the neighborhood, or
public welfare in general.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public Notice has been provided as follows:
Notice sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject properties.
Notice posted on the property.
Notice posted online at www.orovalleyaz.gov
Notice advertised in the Daily Territorial.
SUMMARY
Staff finds that the variance request does not meet all five findings of the Zoning Code and State Law and
recommends denial.
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I MOVE to approve this variance request to reduce the front building setback to 27.5 feet at a property located at
525 W. Golf View Drive, based on the finding that the five criteria have been met.
OR
I MOVE to deny this variance request to reduce the front building setback to 27.5 feet at a property located at
525 W. Golf View Drive, based on the finding that the five criteria have not been met.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Applicant Submittal
Attachment 2: Topographic Map
Attachment 3: Site Photos
Oro Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Request Criteria
1. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in
the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which
do not apply to other properties in the district.
a. The term property in this criteria is understood to be real property. (“The legal
definition of real property is land, and anything growing on, affixed to, or built
upon land. This also includes man-made buildings as well as crops.” Source:
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/legal-definition-of-real-
property.html ) The phrase, “including its size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings” is not an all-inclusive list.
b. This property was built by a famous local architect, Thomas Gist, in 1959. From
the Tucson Historic Preservation Foundation web site
(www.preservetucson.org), “Tom Gist was a custom home designer/builder
prominent in Tucson from the mid-1950’s through late 1970’s. His unique design
aesthetic, along with a problem-solving approach to custom home design and
superb building skills, created many superior examples of mid-century modern
design with a Tucson flair. His homes of burnt adobe with Catalina view-facing
window walls and sumptuous mahogany interior woodwork embodied Gist’s
concept of ‘gracious natural living at its best.’” (Slides 3, 4)
c. Michael Fassett, president of the Tucson Historic Preservation Foundation is in
the final stages of producing a large format book on the work of Thomas Gist.
(slide 28)
d. This historic property has been kept structurally intact with modern upgrades to
electrical, plumbing and HVAC while preserving the original exterior (and
interior) with the architecture and footprint that was the vision of Thomas Gist in
1959.
e. This property is historic. Our goal is to build an enclosed garage away from the
front wall so as not to destroy or impact the historical significance of the home.
The garage will be situated approximately 5 feet from the home and attached at
the roof to allow for drainage and to meet the zoning code R1-36 requiring
structures in front of the main home to be attached (OVZC 23.6.A2.b). (slide 10)
f. The National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF)
http://npshistory.com/newsletters/crm/crm-v19n9s.pdf,
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB16B-Complete.pdf
documents groups of thematically related properties. This form defines and
describes one or more historic contexts, describes associated property types
related to the historic context(s) and establishes significance and integrity
requirements for nominating properties to the National Register. There is a
current draft of an MPDF for Thomas Gist properties in the works at the state
level that includes our home. The MPDF draft is under review by the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) https://azstateparks.com/shpo and the Historic
Sites Review Committee (HSRC) https://azstateparks.com/historic-sites-review-
committee-
hsrc#:~:text=The%20Historic%20Sites%20Review%20Committee,as%20mandated%20by
%20the%20Arizona. If/when this document is approved, we (or the Town of Oro
Valley) may nominate our property for review and approval through the HSRC.
g. The University of Arizona College of Architecture, Planning and Landscape
Architecture created a project to preserve the legacy of Thomas Gist and his
impact and influence on mid-century modern architecture. Part of that project
included cataloging Gist properties, including this one, to assure his buildings
remain true to their original design intent. (slide 27)
h. We hired a well-known local historical preservation architect, Jon Mirto of Poster
Mirto McDonald, (www.pmm.design) to design the garage to preserve the look
and feel of our Thomas Gist home. (slide 8)
i. Jon Mirto designed the garage in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior
Standards as it relates to additions and changes to historic properties.
Specifically, the house has high integrity as historic and the addition will be
compatible but differentiated from historic so that it does not give the illusion
that it is part of the original architecture. Building the garage away from the
home will strengthen this concept.
j. The Town of Oro Valley’s Historic Preservation Commission requested this home
be one of the first additions of a private residence to be listed on the Town of
Oro Valley historic registry. We worked with the HPC on their desire to maintain
the historical integrity of the home when designing the garage. We have
obtained personal support from commissioners on the HPC. (slides 25, 26)
k. Conclusion: This well preserved 1959 historic Thomas Gist home creates a special
circumstance for the property which by definition includes the land and attached
structure. No other preserved Gist homes exist in Oro Valley. An attached garage
would significantly and irrevocably alter the historic nature of the home, thus
rendering it no longer historic. By moving the garage forward and away from the
home by 5 feet, the property will remain unaltered and its historical significance
will be preserved for the future.
2. Special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant.
a. This is an historic property. Through Gist’s vision, this home was situated, and
custom built specifically for this piece of land overlooking the 18th fairway of Oro
Valley Country Club with magnificent Pusch Ridge views behind it. Its location
and position were intentional. The home is part of the property. The location of
this immovable structure of this property, the design and shape of the lot,
coupled with the original and still existing setbacks to the front, side, rear and
golf course dictated where the home could be built.
b. The carport structure is part of the original building from 1959. It is rotten and
poses a safety risk. It must be removed. (slide 20)
c. As the current owners of this property, we did not create the special
circumstances of this of a mid-century modern home overlooking the golf course
and Catalina mountains. Gist’s vision did that. We are merely benefitting from
Gist’s style and design and we consider ourselves fortunate to live here now.
Building an enclosed garage away from the main home will maintain the
elements of a Thomas Gist style of architecture while preserving the historical
value of the property.
d. Replacing the carport with an enclosed garage is a reasonable expectation for a
circumstance that was not created by the current owner.
e. Conclusion: Gist designed this custom home and built it on this specific lot in its
exact location to fulfill his vision for mid-century modern living in the desert. The
original carport is rotting and poses a safety hazard. It must be removed.
Locating a new structure away from the historic property maintains its historical
significance and preserves it for the future. Building an enclosed garage to
replace the carport is a reasonable expectation for a circumstance not created by
the current homeowner.
3. The authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights.
a. In later years, Thomas Gist and other similar architects did design homes with
garages once automobile ownership became more mainstream in the mid-
century era. His garage designs featured a garage door opening adjacent to the
front door of the home, not facing the street. See Gist context study-excerpts pdf
attached (Section E, page 10, paragraph 6). Consequently, the addition of a
garage designed in a complementary style will not detract from the historical
significance of the home provided it is kept away from the structure so as not to
imply that is was part of the original design. (slide 22)
b. The original existing carport is in disrepair. It poses a safety hazard and must be
removed. (repeat slide 20)
c. It is reasonable to replace a carport with an enclosed garage to provide security
for vehicles and provide shelter for vehicles from weather, theft, vandalism and
damage from animals.
d. It is a substantial property right for the preservation and enjoyment of a home of
this value to have an enclosed garage. The vast majority of homes in this
neighborhood have enclosed garages. This garage is of modest size to
accommodate two vehicles and a golf cart designed to compliment Gist’s style of
architecture.
e. Other locations on the property do not accommodate a garage. (slide 14)
i. Right (south) side of home does not have enough space for a garage due
to side setback zoning laws. Additionally, there is no access to the home
on this side where the bedrooms are located.
ii. Left (north) side of home would encroach far into the HOA golf course
setback rules, as well as not meet the side yard zoning setback laws. This
location has been denied a variance by the HOA.
iii. A detached garage in the rear of the property is not a design feature
found in Gist architecture. Especially where it would block the view he
had so thoughtfully preserved.
iv. The rear of the property would place the garage at a considerable
distance (more than 150 feet) from the home without access through any
opening in the original burnt adobe walled in backyard. This would create
a hardship in daily life to access, park, load, unload vehicles with no easy,
direct entrance to the house.
f. Conclusion: Gist designed homes with garages in later years. The existing carport
is in disrepair, causes a safety hazard and must be removed. An enclosed garage
provides protection for vehicles from weather, theft, vandalism and animals. An
enclosed garage is a reasonable expectation and substantial property right for
preservation and enjoyment of a home of this value. There is no other practical
location on the property to put a garage.
4. Any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of
the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is
located.
a. We are requesting a variance of a maximum 2.5-foot encroachment into the
front street setback to locate the street side wall of an enclosed garage. (slide 6)
b. Currently, the zoning setback is 30 feet from the property line, which we
understand to begin 15 feet from the edge of the road. Under these conditions,
a structure must be 45 total feet from the road edge. We are asking for the
equivalent of a 27.5-foot setback from the front property line which makes a
42.5-foot setback from the road edge. (slide 7, 15)
c. This variance is not precedent setting in the vicinity. Other, newer properties in
the neighborhood appear to have been granted a zoning variance to the front
setback. These are a sampling of the properties in the area that appear to be
built within the 30-foot setback. (slide 23)
i. 415 W Golf View Dr
ii. 475 W Golf View Dr
iii. 565 W Golf View Dr
d. OVCC Estates HOA requires a 50-foot setback from the golf course. We did
request permission from the HOA to build the garage on the golf course side
which would require approval of a substantial variance into the golf course
property line. It was denied. However, we did obtain permission to build the
garage in the footprint of the carport and privacy wall to include a variance for a
5-foot encroachment into the golf course setback. (slides 11, 12, 13)
e. There are multiple zoning laws applicable in the neighborhood of Oro Valley
Country Club Estates. The zoning law pertaining to our property requires a
greater setback than zoning laws along other roads in the same neighborhood
which allow for structures to be closer to the road. Granting a 2.5-foot exception
on our property for a structure should not be considered a special privilege
based on the other inconsistent zoning laws in the area. (slide 24)
f. Conclusion: A 2.5-foot front setback variance will not grant a special privilege
that has not already been given to other homes on the same road. Other zoning
laws in the same neighborhood allow for structures to be set closer to the road.
Abnormal zoning laws exist within this neighborhood. There is no other place on
the property to locate a garage that will conform with Oro Valley and HOA side
yard and golf course setback rules.
5. The authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing
in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in
general.
a. The enclosed garage will essentially replace the footprint of the existing carport
and privacy wall by moving the building toward the road by 5 feet to keep the
original property preserved in its original state, thus maintain its historic
significance. The garage will enhance the property and its curb appeal by
replacing the existing carport that is in disrepair and the existing privacy wall.
(slides 16, 17, 21)
b. The current design of the garage will incorporate similar burnt adobe bricks and
ribbon windows in keeping with the original style of the house. The roofline will
be flat with overhanging eaves complementing the original roof and overhang.
(slide 9)
c. A garage located in the place of a carport will not stand out as an unusual
structure.
d. The majority of homes in this neighborhood have enclosed garages which
provide security and protection of vehicles from theft, property damage,
rodents, adverse weather, etc.
e. Many homes in this neighborhood have free standing buildings including
garages, outbuildings and living quarters. A garage attached at the roofline will
not look out of place on this property.
f. Golf View Drive curves away from the property in both directions. There is no
traffic safety concern that a building in the footprint of the carport/privacy wall
will create. (slides 18, 19)
g. Conclusion: An enclosed garage will enhance the property and replace the
carport in disrepair without creating a traffic safety concern. It will not adversely
impact residents or property in the vicinity or public welfare in general.
Summary
We have two equally important goals for our request of a 2.5-foot variance to the front
setback. Something must be done with the original carport that is rotting and in disrepair. It is a
safety hazard and must be removed. One goal is to build an enclosed garage to replace the
carport. The second goal is just as important as the first, and that is to preserve the historic
significance of our Thomas Gist home by building the garage away from the front wall. (slides 5,
29, 30)
Based on the answers and explanations provided, we are confident each of the five criteria
have been met. We believe this variance request should be approved. We encourage each of
you to vote to preserve history by approving this request. Thank you.
Town of Oro Valley
Board of Adjustment
Variance Request
Gene and Tracey Alexander
July 28, 2020
Overview We purchased a Thomas Gist home built in 1959 located in the
historic neighborhood of Oro Valley Country Club Estates in Feb
2019. It is one of the first homes completed around the Oro
Valley Country Club Golf Course which opened in 1959.
The town of Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
had worked with the previous owners to begin the process of
listing the home on the local historic registry.
We spoke with Lynanne Dellerman from HPC about our desire to
replace the carport with a garage while maintaining the historical
integrity of the property.
We hired a well-known local preservation architect, Jon Mirto, of
Poster Mirto McDonald to design a garage to complement the
historical structure in conformance with the Secretary of the
Interior Standards as it relates to additions and changes to
historic properties; making it compatible but different.
Upon submission to the town of Oro Valley for a building permit,
a staff member in the Planning and Zoning department denied
our request because the structure did not meet the required
front setback from the road.
Thomas Gist
(1917-2000)•Tom Gist was a custom home designer/builder
prominent in Tucson from the mid-1950’s through
late 1970’s. His unique design aesthetic, along
with a problem-solving approach to custom home
design and superb building skills, created many
superior examples of mid-century modern design
with a Tucson flair. His homes of burnt adobe with
Catalina view-facing window walls and sumptuous
mahogany interior woodwork embodied Gist’s
concept of “gracious natural living at its best”.
•Many of the over 170 homes he designed and
built were regularly featured in print publications
of the time. The second home he built for himself
and his wife Tish is listed on the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP), and many more of his
homes are contributing properties to Historic
Districts throughout Tucson. A multiple property
NRHP nomination is currently pending with the
State of Arizona.
Thomas Gist
(1917-2000) Cont.
•Besides the local designation the HPC is interested
in for the Gist house, the Town of Oro Valley may
be unaware that The National Register Multiple
Property Documentation Form (MPDF) also has its
eye on this property. The MPDF documents groups
of thematically related properties. This form
defines and describes one or more historic
contexts, describes associated property types
related to the historic context(s) and establishes
significance and integrity requirements for
nominating properties to the National Register.
There is a current draft of an MPDF for Thomas
Gist properties in the works at the state level that
includes this home. The MPDF draft is under
review by the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) and the Historic Sites Review Committee
(HSRC). If/when this document is approved, we (or
the Town of Oro Valley) may nominate our
property for review and approval through the
HSRC.
Request for Variance
•Preserve our 1959 historic home
built by Thomas Gist, a well-
known local architect and builder
of mid-century modern homes
•Obtain a variance of 2.5 feet to the
front setback of the property to
build an enclosed garage in the
footprint of the existing carport
and privacy wall
•Replace rotting carport with
enclosed garage
Site Plan
and
Request for Variance
The current location of the carport privacy wall
is the approximate desired location of the street
side wall of the new garage structure.
This location allows for the garage to be
attached at the roofline (a zoning requirement),
yet set away from the historic dwelling, thus
preserving its historical integrity.
This location is approximately 2.5 feet into the
required setback from the property line for a
structure. In other words, 27.5 feet from the
setback instead of 30 feet. The setback begins
15 feet into the property from the road edge.
So, instead of 45 feet from the road edge, we
request to locate the street side garage wall
37.5 feet from the road edge.
The road curves away from the property in both
directions, so visibility is not affected by moving
slightly closer to the road.
Site Plan Detail
Red text indicates variance request of 2.5 feet
into the front setback and the HOA approved 5
feet variance into the golf course setback.
Green lines represent current Golf View Dr,
front property line, front setback and golf
course setback.
Blue text shows garage dimensions.
Orange text shows garage located 5 feet from
front of house.
The location of the proposed garage replaces
the footprint of the existing carport and privacy
wall. The privacy wall sits approximately where
the street side wall of the proposed garage will
be located.
The proposed garage is approximately 25’4”
wide by 33’4” deep. The width allows for a
standard 16’x7’ garage door. The burnt adobe
brick walls which will surround regular wood
framing require a slightly larger footprint due to
their size.
Dimension Detail
2’-6”
5’-0”
Architectural Design
Statement
GIST
A renowned mid-century architectural designer and builder, Gist is increasingly recognized as a notable and distinctive contribu tor to Tucson’s
built environment and architectural history. He was a master practitioner whose work was representative of his time, style, and method of
construction, and was of high artistic value. His homes helped to pioneer a unique regional modernism and were regularly featured in the
Tucson Citizen, Better Homes and Gardens, and Sunset Magazine. One of his residential properties has the high honor of individual listing on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and many more of his homes are contributing properties to Historic Districts throughout Tucson. A
multiple property NRHP nomination is currently pending with the State of Arizona to recognize the full body of his work. As a builder he built
homes designed by some of Tucson’s most accomplished architects including Josias Joesler and Arthur Brown. By the mid-1950’s he had
developed his own unique design aesthetic which, coupled with his skill as a builder, would continue to distinguish his work in Tucson for the
next 25 years. Gist homes featured:
· Mid-century ranch house style
· Elongated floor plans
· Long, linear, horizontal roofs
· Carports and floating rooflines
· Ribbon windows and window walls
· Integrated patio walls
· Lightly mortar washed Burnt adobe
· Interior mahogany woodwork
DESIGN STATEMENT
The house at 525 W. Golf View Drive, built in 1959, is a significant and high integrity surviving example of Gist’s fully developed regional modern
style. The applicant seeks modest relief from the front and side yard setbacks to allow for a sensitive and historically compatible garage addition.
The design proposes to join the structural roofing of the existing and new but allow for a breezeway between the two. Essential elements and
goals of this design approach are:
Retain and preserve historic fabric and character. Detaching the new addition will limit the removal of (and damage to) historic materials,
features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in
the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property will be unimpaired.
Avoid a false sense of historical development. Separating the new from the old will allow for a clear interpretation of the historical development
of the property. The new work will be modestly differentiated from the old but will remain compatible with the historic mater ials, features, size,
scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
Limit risk, complexity, and expense. Attaching the new garage to the historic home would require underpinning of foundations and soils
investigations, may require invasive structural tie-ins, and risks differential settlement and future property damage. This approach helps to
support the expense of the historically compatible high-quality materials and detailing.
Compatible design features. The breezeway, along with glass garage door and ribbon windows, creates an expression of a floati ng roof and
sense of “carport”. The breezeway, together with integrated adobe site walls, creates layered usable outdoor patios. All of these features are
characteristic of Gist’s original design approach.
Access and function. Locating the new garage slightly west of the main house will allow driveway access from the south without disturbing the
historic planter attached to the front of the house. The southern approach is the historic land use pattern for the property and should be
preserved. Also, the new garage requires a 7’-0” door head, which is 1-1/2” higher than the historic. Setting the garage slightly west will allow for
this more modern head height without disrupting the lines of the historic house.
Design statement from Jon Mirto, Architect
and Principal; Poster, Mirto, McDonald.
POSTER MIRTO McDONALD
317 N Court Ave
Tucson, AZ 85701
520.882.6310
www.pmm.design
Elevation
Jon Mirto’s architectural rendering of the
approximate location and look of the
property with an enclosed garage in the
location of the existing carport and privacy
wall, attached at the roofline.
Roofline Attachment
Attaching the enclosed garage to the house
at the roofline allows for proper drainage of
runoff and complies with zoning law OVZC
23.6.A.2.b.
OVCC Estates HOA
Architectural Review
Committee Approval
We have obtained permission to locate the
garage structure 5 feet into the required 50-
foot side yard setback to the golf course from
the Architectural Review Committee with our
Homeowners Association, Oro Valley Country
Club Estates.
OVCC Estates HOA
Architectural Review
Committee Denial
We inquired about permission from our HOA
about locating the entire garage on the side
yard next to the golf course. This would
require a large variance to the setback of the
golf course property line. This inquiry was
denied for a variety of reasons.
Hello Tracey,
Thank you for submitting your request for consideration of the garage. John and I have reviewed
the information.Would you be so kind as to clarify some information for us? If we are reading
the site plan correctly the proposed location of the garage structure is right on the setback line
(0-foot setback) with the golf course. Is that correct?
We took a look at the setback requirements in the CC&Rs for the community. They prohibit the
HOA from giving a variance of any more than 10 feet for anything other than a wall, fence or
hedge. In addition the CC&R’s are quite specific actually that walls, fences and hedges exceeding
5 feet in height may not be erected nearer than 30’from any property line abutting the golf
course. As this structure will have walls higher than 5 feet, I believe that would contradict
provision (f) as well, but of course that primary provision relating to structures is (B) which sets
the setback at 50 feet from the golf course property line.
Unfortunately, the HOA and ARC cannot grant the request of the variance you are seeking at this location based on our governing documents.The location as requested is in close proximity to the golf cart path and this location would set a precedent that we concur that placement here would not be in the community’s interest. It appears that if the plan is to remove the existing carport which is deteriorating there are options to replace the structure with a new garage in the carport's current location. This area would be closer to the home, would facilitate egress and may permit for a more reasonable variance to the setbacks, one that the HOA has authority to grant under the above mentioned criteria. Is there a reason why the Town of Oro Valley Zoning is not in favor of reconstruction in the current location? Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. My phone number is 520-907-5497.
Thank you!
Alexis Paterson
ARC Chair, Oro Valley Country Club Estates
Oro Valley Country
Club Estates HOA
CC&Rs Excerpt
Setback requirements and variance request
allowances from HOA CC&Rs.
Page 2, line 25, number 9b; golf course
setback: No structure, other than a fence or
wall, shall be located nearer than fifty (50)
feet to any property line abutting on the golf
course property.
Page 3, line 4, (f) second paragraph;
limitation to variance allowance into setback:
In no event shall the said architect or agent
permit a structure other than a fence or wall
to be located nearer than ten (10) feet to any
property line.
Overhead View
Google map with superimposed 15-foot
property line setback (black line) from Pima
maps website.
Neither side yard provides space for a garage
within the required side yard setbacks and
HOA golf course setback.
Rear of property would situate a garage
more than 150 feet from any entrance to the
home. The original burnt adobe wall
enclosing the backyard has no gate access.
This would create unreasonable ingress and
egress between the house and vehicles.
Closest Point to
Setback
Using the measurement tool on Pima Maps
website, the distance from the setback to the
closest point of the privacy wall is
approximately 26 1/2 feet.
The front corner of the garage will begin
approximately 12 feet to the north of the
existing corner of the privacy wall. This will
position the street side garage wall further
from the road/setback as the street curves
away from the property.
Current view of privacy
wall from the road
Privacy wall represents approximate location
of street side wall of the enclosed garage.
Home from middle of
Golf View Dr.
Approach from South
Approach from North
Carport Rot
Burnt adobe wall to be
preserved
Gist Garages; building
and location
excerpt:•As automobile ownership became more mainstream, Gist began
designing homes with garages
•Garages were designed at the end of the house if the
property was wide enough, with the entrance to the side
•Narrow property, like ours, garage placed in front of house
•Garage door facing sideways at a 90 angle to the front
door, not facing the street
Excerpt:
6. Carport In the mid-20th century, the automobile was both a status
symbol and a symbol of the machine age. It represented freedom of
movement and opportunity and was an integral part of the suburban
lifestyle. Starting in the 1940s, most Gist houses had open carports
where the vehicle was clearly visible from the street. Some carports
were located beneath the extended eave of the house, creating a longer
profile for the house. In subdivisions where the lots were narrower, it
was common to locate the carport in front of the house. In higher end
subdivisions, such as Tucson Country Club, neighborhood restrictions
were in place to limit the visibility of the carport from the street. The
large lot sizes in these subdivisions also provided sufficient space to
allow the carport to be located at the end of the house and screened
from view. While carports were typical, there were also a few houses
with garages. The garage door was rarely visible from the front of the
house.
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number E Page 10
Name of Property
Pima County, Arizona
County and State
Residences of Tom Gist in Southern Arizona,
1947-1981
Other OVCC Estates
Properties
A sampling of other, newer properties
located on Golf View Dr. that appear to have
been granted a variance to the 30-foot
setback from the front property line.
Line indicates (approximately) 30 feet from
front setback. These homes are all located
less than 30 feet from the setback.
1. 415 W. Golf View Dr.
2. 475 W. Golf View Dr.
3. 565 W. Golf View Dr.
The 30-foot setback is indicated on our
original set of blueprints from 1959, so
newer homes would be held to the same
setback requirements.
We are not asking for a precedent setting
variance. We are asking for the same
consideration these properties received
when they were built.
415 W Golf View Dr
475 W Golf View Dr
565 W Golf View Dr
Unusual Zoning in Oro
Valley Country Club
Estates
This area is located within Oro Valley Country
Club Estates less than ¾ of a mile from our
property. These are all single-family homes of
similar size and value on similar sized lots. All
these properties are part of the Oro Valley
Country Club Estates neighborhood and HOA.
The yellow area, where our property is located
is zoned R1-36; single family residences, low
density.
The brown area is zoned R-6; multi-family
residential. There are no multi-family homes in
this zone, the property lines include the roads,
multiple lots overlap two zones, one home is
positioned on the property line with the
driveway on the adjacent lot.
The green area is labeled PAD Zoning TZ-5;
multiple residence zone. It is unclear what kind
of zone this meant to be and the link for more
information is broken on OV website. However,
there is a zero-foot setback to the road and
many lots are located within two zones.
Community Support
Letter of support from Daniel Biel. This is Mr.
Biel’s personal support of our request for a
zoning variance. Mr. Biel is a Commissioner
on the Historic Preservation Commission
with the Town of Oro Valley.
Community Support
Letter of support from Mike Wilson. This is
Mr. Wilson’s personal support of our request
for a zoning variance. Mr. Wilson is a
Commissioner on the Historic Preservation
Commission with the Town of Oro Valley.
University of Arizona
College of Architecture
Project
Students and faculty of the College of
Architecture, Planning and Landscape
Architecture at the University of Arizona
created a project to preserve the legacy of
Thomas Gist and to maintain his place among
the historic collection of homes in and
around Tucson.
Among other purposes, this project
assembled an inventory of Gist properties,
including this one, to assure that his buildings
remain true to their original design intent.
Tucson Historic
Preservation
Foundation Executive Committee, Michael Fassett, MD, President
•A native Arizonan currently residing in Los Angeles, Dr. Fassett began his
advocacy for preservation of Tucson’s mid-century modern architecture in
2004, after witnessing the demolition of a Catalina Foothills Estates
modernist residence for the purpose of speculative, in-fill
development. Michael has restored mid-century modern homes in
Windsor Park and Indian Ridge Estates.He has won numerous awards
from the Tucson-Pima County Historical Commission.Fassett has restored
his Tucson home designed and built by Tucson modernist Tom Gist, and is
involved with preparing a nomination to the National Register for Gist’s
residential work in Tucson. Fassett is authoring a forthcoming book on the
residential work of Tom Gist. While studying as a Grady and Kathryn
Gammage Scholar at Arizona State University, Michael earned his B.A. in
French and B.S. in Microbiology.He received his M.D. from the University
of Arizona College of Medicine.
•This book will follow Gist through his childhood and military career, and
explore the development of his unique design and construction style. The
evolution of Gist’s style and detailed building techniques will be illustrated
through a combination of archival images, current photographs,
interviews with clients and contemporaries. This book will serve as the
ultimate reference for Gist’s work for current and future Tucsonans.
Since March of 1984 the Tucson Historic
Preservation Foundation has been working
to save Tucson's heritage and cultural
resources. For over 30 years we have been
on the front lines advocating and strategizing
to protect the places that make Tucson
unique. Throughout the year we offer a
variety of programing including lecturers,
tours, films and exclusive access to otherwise
inaccessible historic properties. We partner
with numerous organizations throughout our
city and region to help protect our shared
past. Only with the support of our members
and donors can we fulfill our mission.
Summary
1. This property, made up of land and a firmly
attached, immovable structure includes an
historic, well preserved mid-century modern
home built in 1959 by well-known architect,
Thomas Gist. It is the only one of its kind in Oro
Valley that has not been significantly and
irrevocably altered. This makes it special relative
to all other properties in the area.
2. Gist created this mid-century modern home.
Thoughtful owners who appreciated and valued
Gist’s vision over the last 60 years preserved its
original style and design. We had no hand in
creating this property. The carport from 1959 is
rotting. It is a safety hazard and must be
removed. Building a safe, secure replacement to
the carport is a reasonable expectation for a
circumstance not created by the current
homeowner. Building a new structure away
from the main house maintains the historical
significance of the firmly attached structure
portion of the property.
3. The existing carport must be removed.
Replacing it with an enclosed garage is a
reasonable expectation for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights and for
homes of this value in this neighborhood. There
is no other location on the property to put a
garage.
Summary
Cont.
4. Granting of this variance does not create a
special privilege, nor is this precedent
setting. Other, newer properties on the same
street are positioned closer to the road than
the zoning standard of 30 feet from the
property line that this property is being held
to. Other zoning laws in this neighborhood
allow for structures to be set closer to the
road without a variance. Abnormal zoning
laws exist within this neighborhood.
5. An enclosed garage will enhance the
property and replace the carport in disrepair.
An enclosed garage located in the footprint
of the carport in a complimentary
architectural style to the original builder
located away from the main home will
preserve the historic property while fitting in
with the surrounding neighborhood. Its
location will not create any traffic safety
concerns.
Attachment 2
Topography Map
2001494
Yellow outline = subject property
Attachment 3
Site Photos
2001494
Aerial overview of the subject property.
Attachment 3
Site Photos
2001494
Existing carport, wall with privacy screening, home entrance, and
wall to be preserved.
Attachment 3
Site Photos
2001494
Existing carport, home entry, wall to be preserved, and planter.
Attachment 3
Site Photos
2001494
Existing carport and area of proposed setback encroachment.
Attachment 3
Site Photos
2001494
Proposed setback encroachment. The stake to the left of the
existing wall represents the proposed garage wall location.
Attachment 3
Site Photos
2001494
Existing planter referenced in the applicant's application.
Attachment 3
Site Photos
2001494
Existing privacy fence and location of the proposed garage.
Oro Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Request Criteria
1. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in
the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which
do not apply to other properties in the district.
a. The term property in this criterion is understood to be real property. (“The legal
definition of real property is land, and anything growing on, affixed to, or built
upon land. This also includes man-made buildings as well as crops.” Source:
www.legalmatch.com) The phrase, “including its size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings” is not an all-inclusive list. For these reasons, the
historic home must be included as part of the property when evaluating this
criterion.
b. This home was built by a famous local architect, Thomas Gist, in 1959 . From the
Tucson Historic Preservation Foundation web site (www.preservetucson.org),
“Tom Gist was a custom home designer/builder prominent in Tucson from the
mid-1950’s through late 1970’s. His unique design aesthetic, along with a
problem-solving approach to custom home design and superb building skills,
created many superior examples of mid -century modern design with a Tucson
flair. His homes of burnt adobe with Catalina view-facing window walls and
sumptuous mahogany interior woodwork embodied Gist’s concept of ‘gracious
natural living at its best.’” (Slides 3, 4)
c. Michael Fassett, president of the Tucson Historic Preservation Foundation is in
the final stages of producing a large format book on the work of Thomas Gist.
(slide 28)
d. This historic property has been kept structurally intact with modern upgrades to
electrical, plumbing and HVAC while preserving the original exterior (and
interior) with the architecture and footprint that was the vision of Thomas Gist in
1959.
e. This property is historic. Our goal is to build an enclosed garage away from the
front wall so as not to destroy or impact the historical significance of the home.
The garage will be situated approximately 5 feet from the home and attached at
the roof to allow for drainage and to meet the zoning code for R1-36 requiring
structures in front of the main home to be attached (OVZC 23.6.A2.b). (slide 10)
f. The National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF)
npshistory.com, nps.gov documents groups of thematically related properties. This
form defines and describes one or more historic contexts, describes associated
property types related to the historic context(s) and establishes significance and
integrity requirements for nominatin g properties to the National Register. There
is a current draft of an MPDF for Thomas Gist properties in the works at the state
level that includes our home. The MPDF draft is under review by the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) https://azstateparks.com/shpo and the Historic
Sites Review Committee (HSRC) azstateparks.com/hsrc. If/when this document is
approved, we (or the Town of Oro Valley) may nominate our property for review
and approval through the HSRC.
g. The University of Arizona College of Architecture, Planning and Landscape
Architecture created a project to preserve the legacy of Thomas Gist and his
impact and influence on mid-century modern architecture. Part of that project
included cataloging Gist properties, including this one, to assure his buildings
remain true to their original design intent. (slide 27)
h. We hired a well-known local historical preservation architect, Jon Mirto , of
Poster Mirto McDonald, (www.pmm.design) to design the garage to preserve
the look and feel of our Thomas Gist home. (slide 8)
i. Jon Mirto designed the garage in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior
Standards as it relates to additions and changes to historic properties.
Specifically, the house has high integrity as historic and the addition will be
compatible but differentiated fr om historic so that it does not give the illusion
that it is part of the original architecture. Building the garage away from the
home in a Gist style will strengthen this concept.
j. The Town of Oro Valley’s Historic Preservation Commission requested this ho me
be one of the first additions of a private residence to be listed on the Town of
Oro Valley historic registry. We worked with the HPC on their desire to maintain
the historical integrity of the home when designing the garage. We have
obtained personal support from commissioners on the HPC. (slides 25, 26)
k. Conclusion: This well preserved 1959 historic Thomas Gist home creates a special
circumstance for the property which by definition includes the land and attached
structure. No other preserved Gist homes exist in Oro Valley. An attached
garage, a garage with street facing doors or a garage located in the rear of the lot
would significantly and irrevocably alter the historic nature of the home, thus
rendering it no longer historic. By moving the garage for ward and away from the
home by 5 feet and positioning the garage doors perpendicular to the front of
the house, the property will remain unaltered and its historical significance will
be preserved for the future.
2. Special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant.
a. This is an historic property. Through Gist’s vision, this home was situated , and
custom built specifically for this piece of land overlooking the 18 th fairway of Oro
Valley Country Club with magnificent Pusch Ridge view s behind it. Its location
and position were intentional. The home is part of the property. The location of
this immovable structure of this property, the design and shape of the lot,
coupled with the original and still existing setbacks to the front, side, rear and
golf course dictated where the home could be built.
b. The carport structure is part of the original building from 1959. It is rotten and
poses a safety risk. It must be removed. (slide 20)
c. As the current owners of this property, we did not create the special
circumstances of this of a mid -century modern home overlooking the golf course
and Catalina mountains. Gist’s vision did that. We are merely benefitting from
Gist’s style and design and we consider ourselves fortunate to live here now.
Building an enclosed garage away from the main home in a complimentary
design will maintain the elements of a Thomas Gist style of architecture while
preserving the historical value of the property.
d. Replacing the carport with an enclosed garage is a reasonable expectation for a
circumstance that was not created by the current owner.
e. Conclusion: Gist designed this custom home and built it on this specific lot in its
exact location to fulfill his vision for mid-century modern living in the desert. The
original carport is rotting and poses a safety hazard. It must be removed.
Locating a new structure away from the historic property maintains its historical
significance and preserves it for the future. Building an enclosed garage to
replace the carport is a reasonable expectation for a circumstance not created by
the current homeowner.
3. The authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights.
a. In later years, Thomas Gist and other similar architects did design homes with
garages once automobile ownership became more mainstream in the mid -
century era. His garage designs featured a garage door opening adjacent to the
front door of the home, not facing the street. See Gist context study-excerpts pdf
attached (Section E, page 10, paragraph 6). Consequently, the addition of a
garage designed in a complementary style will not detract from the historical
significance of the home provided it is kept away from the structure so as not to
imply that is was part of the original design. (slide 22)
b. The original existing carport is in disrepair. It poses a safety hazard and must be
removed. (repeat slide 20)
c. It is reasonable to replace a carport with an enclosed garage to provide security
for vehicles and provide shelter for vehicles from weather, theft, vandalism and
damage from animals.
d. It is a substantial property right for the preservation and enjoyment of a home of
this value to have an enclosed garage. The vast majority of homes in this
neighborhood have enclosed garages. This garage is of modest size to
accommodate two vehicles and a golf cart designed to compliment Gist’s style of
architecture.
e. Other locations on the property do not accommodate a garage while preserving
the historic significance of the home. (slide 14)
i. Right (south) side of home does not have enough space for a garage due
to side setback zoning laws. Additionally, there is no access to the home
on this side where the bedrooms are located.
ii. Left (north) side of home would encroach far into the HOA golf course
setback rules, as well as not meet the side yard zoning setback laws. This
location has been denied a variance by the HOA.
iii. A detached garage in the rear of the property is not a design feature
found in Gist architecture. Especially where it would block the view he
had so thoughtfully preserved.
iv. The rear of the property would place the garage at a considerable
distance (more than 150 feet) from the home without access through any
opening in the original burnt adobe walled in backyard. This would create
a hardship in daily life to access, park, load, unload vehicles with no easy,
direct entrance to the house. Additionally, it would require an HOA
variance and removal of substantial vegetation to engineer a long,
narrow driveway on the golf course side of the lot.
v. We disagree that there is ample room to situate a garage in the rear of
the lot within the HOA golf course setbacks while avoiding the arroyo and
septic leach field.
f. Conclusion: Gist designed homes with garages in later years. T he existing carport
is in disrepair, causes a safety hazard and must be removed. An enclosed garage
provides protection for vehicles from weather, theft, vandalism and animals. An
enclosed garage is a reasonable expectation and substantial property right for
preservation and enjoyment of a home of this value. There is no other practical
location on the property to put a garage or a configuration design that would
meet the Gist style and maintain the home’s historic integrity.
4. Any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of
the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is
located.
a. We are requesting a variance of a maximum 2.5-foot encroachment into the
front street setback to locate the street side wall of an enclosed garage. (slide 6)
b. Currently, the zoning setback is 30 feet from the property line, which we
understand to begin 15 feet from the edge of the road for an easement. Under
these conditions, a structure must be 45 total feet from the road edge. We are
asking for the equivalent of a 27.5-foot setback from the front property line
which makes a 42.5-foot setback from the road edge. (slide 7, 15)
c. This variance is not precedent setting in the vicinity. Other , newer properties in
the neighborhood appear to have been granted a zoning variance to the front
setback. These are a sampling of the properties in the area that appear to be
built within the 30-foot setback. These lots are of similar size and topography.
(slide 23)
i. 415 W Golf View Dr
ii. 475 W Golf View Dr
iii. 565 W Golf View Dr
d. OVCC Estates HOA requires a 50-foot setback from the golf course. We did
request permission from the HOA to build the garage on the golf course side
which would require app roval of a substantial variance into the golf course
property line. It was denied. However, we did obtain permission to build the
garage in the footprint of the carport and privacy wall to include a variance for a
5-foot encroachment into the golf course setback. (slides 11, 12, 13)
e. There are multiple zoning laws applicable in the neighbo rhood of Oro Valley
Country Club Estates. The zoning law pertaining to our property requires a
greater setback than zoning laws along other roads in the same neighborhood
which allow for structures to be closer to the road. Granting a 2.5-foot exception
on our property for a structure should not be considered a special privilege
based on the other inconsistent zoning laws in the area. (slide 24)
f. Conclusion: A 2.5-foot front setback variance will not grant a special privilege
that has not already been given to other homes on the same road with similar
lots sizes and topography. Other zoning laws in the same neighborhood allow for
structures to be set closer to the road. Abnormal zoning laws exist within this
neighborhood. There is no other logical place on the property to locate a garage
that will conform with Oro Valley and HOA side yard and golf course setback
rules and maintain the historic integrity of the hoe.
5. The authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing
in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in
general.
a. The enclosed garage will essentially replace the footprint of the existing carport
and privacy wall by moving the building toward the road by 5 feet to keep the
original property preserved in its original state, thus maintain its historic
significance. The garage will enhance the property and its curb appeal by
replacing the existing carport that is in disrepair and the existing privacy wall.
(slides 16, 17, 21)
b. The current design of the garage will incorporate similar burnt adobe bricks and
ribbon windows in keeping with the original style of the house. The roofline will
be flat with overhanging eaves compl ementing the original roof and overhang.
The garage doors will be situated adjacent to the front of the house in a
complimentary Gist design style. (slide 9)
c. A garage located in the place of a carport will not stand out as an unusual
structure.
d. The majority of homes in this neighborhood have enclosed garag es which
provide security and protection of vehicles from theft, property damage,
rodents, adverse weather, etc.
e. Many homes in this neighborhood have free standing buildings including
garages, outbuildings and living quarters. A garage attached at the roofline will
not look out of place on this property.
f. Golf View Drive curves away from the property in both directions. There is no
traffic safety concern that a building in the footprint of the carport/privacy wall
will create. (slides 18, 19)
g. Conclusion: An enclosed garage will enhance the property and replace the
carport in disrepair without creating a traffic safety concern. It will not adversely
impact residents or property in the vicinity or public welfare in general.
Summary
We have two equally important goals for our request of a 2.5-foot variance to the front
setback. Something must be done with the original carport that is rotting and in disrepair. It is a
safety hazard and must be removed. One goal is to build an enclosed garage to replace the
carport. The second goal is just as important as the first, and that is to preserve the historic
significance of our Thomas Gist home by building the garage away from the front wall in a
complimentary mid-century modern Gist style. (slides 5, 29, 30)
Based on the answers and explanations provided, we are confident each of the five criteria
have been met. We believe this variance request should be approved. We encourage each of
you to vote to preserve history by approving this request. Thank you.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Case Number: 2000517
Meeting Date: July 28, 2020
Re: Variance Request For
10971 North Poinsettia Drive
Detached Garage Between House
And Poinsettia Drive
APPLICANT’S COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF
ORO VALLEY PLANNING STAFF
In its Report submitted in advance of the Board’s meeting on July 28, 2020, the Oro Valley
Planning Staff concluded that Applicant had satisfied all five of the criteria required for the grant
of a variance, as set forth in Oro Valley Zoning Code, Section 22.13 (C)(1-5). Accordingly, the Staff
recommended approval of Applicant’s request for a Variance, subject to the conditions set forth in
Attachment 1 of the Report.
Applicant concurs, and respectfully submits that he has, in fact, submitted sufficient evidence
from which the Board Of Adjustment (BOA) can and should find that all five (5) Requirements set
forth in Section 22.13 of the Code, have been satisfied, and that the requested Variance be granted.
A. Correction Of Written Record Of Previous Hearing On May 26, 2020
Prior to the previous hearing on this matter, both the Board and the Planning Staff were
provided with copies of Applicant’s written submission entitled, “Applicant’s Rebuttal To Report
And Recommendations Of Oro Valley Planning Staff”. This submission was referred to and relied
upon by Applicant during the course of that previous hearing. The submission contained references
to the OV Code and to Arizona Revised Statute Section 9-462.06(G)(2), which enabled the creation
APPLICANT’S COMMENTS -1-Case Number: 2000517
of local Board of Adjustments throughout Arizona. Applicant’s submission also included arguments
regarding the proper interpretation of the Oro Valley Code in light of corresponding provisions of
ARS Section 9-462.06(G)(2) and (H)(2). Two photographic exhibits, Exhibits D and E, were also
attached to this written submission.
At the time of the previous hearing, Applicant requested that his seven (7) page Rebuttal be
made part of his Application and part of the public record for the hearing. The Town Attorney later
confirmed that this would be so, in a subsequent e-mail to Applicant. However, Applicant notes that
the present record of his submission contains no copy of the referenced “Applicant’s Rebuttal To
Report And Recommendations Of Oro Valley Planning Staff”. (See, Staff Report Attachment 2).
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that his Rebuttal document and Exhibits D and E relied
upon and referred to in the previous hearing be considered part of his Application, and be included
in the public record of this proceeding.
B. Comments On Recommendations Of Oro Valley Planning Staff - Variance Findings
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred
to in the application, including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not
apply to other properties in the district.
Based upon the evidence and circumstances set forth in his Application, and the further upon
the findings and comments provided in the current Staff Report, Applicant submits that this
Requirement has been met.
2. That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant
Based upon the evidence and circumstances set forth in his Application, and the further upon
APPLICANT’S COMMENTS -2-Case Number: 2000517
the findings and comments provided in the current Staff Report, Applicant submits that this
Requirement has been met.
3. Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights
Based upon the evidence and circumstances set forth in his Application, and the further upon
the findings and comments provided in the current Staff Report, Applicant submits that this
Requirement has been met.
4. That any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that the authorizing
of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located .
Based upon the evidence and circumstances set forth in his Application, and the further upon
the findings and comments provided in the current Staff Report, Applicant submits that this
Requirement has been met.
Applicant further agrees with the Conditions Of Approval, contained in Attachment 1 of the
Planning Staff’s current Report.
5. That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons
residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general
Based upon the evidence and circumstances set forth in his Application, and the further upon
the findings and comments provided in the current Staff Report, Applicant submits that this
Requirement has been met.
C. Conclusion
Applicant believes that he has provided substantial evidence to support a finding that all five
APPLICANT’S COMMENTS -3-Case Number: 2000517
Requirements for the grant of a variance, have been satisfied, and that the written recommendation
of the Planning Staff for approval of the variance, be adopted.
Applicant further requests that his written Rebuttal as well as Exhibits D and E, appended
hereto collectively as “Attachment A”, be accepted by the Board as part of his Application and as
part of the public record for this variance proceeding.
Dated: July 27, 2020 R. Michael West
R. Michael West, Applicant
Encl: Attachment A
APPLICANT’S COMMENTS -4-Case Number: 2000517
Attachment A
APPLICANT’S COMMENTS -5-Case Number: 2000517
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Case Number: 2000517
Meeting Date: May 26, 2020
Re: Variance Request For
10971 North Poinsettia Drive
Detached Garage Between House
And Poinsettia Drive
APPLICANT’S REBUTTAL TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
ORO VALLEY PLANNING STAFF
In its report, dated May 19, 2020, the Oro Valley Planning Staff opined that Applicant did
not meet all five of the criteria required for the grant of a variance, as set forth in Oro Valley Zoning
Code, Section 22.13 (C)(1-5). Specifically, the Staff stated that Applicant did not provide sufficient
evidence to support findings that Requirements (2) and (3) of Section 22.13 (C) were satisfied.
Requirement (2) states: “That special circumstances were not created by the owner or
applicant;”.
Requirement (3) states: “That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights;”.
Applicant respectfully submits that he has, in fact, submitted sufficient evidence from which
the Board Of Adjustment (BOA) can and should find that all five (5) Requirements, including
Requirements (2) and (3), have been satisfied, and that the requested Variance should be granted.
A. The Report And Recommendations Of The Oro Valley Planning Staff Are Based Upon A
Faulty Interpretation Of Section 22.13 (C).
Requirement (1) of Section 22.13 (C) states: “That there are special circumstances or
APPLICANT’S REBUTTAL -1-Case Number: 2000517
conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including its size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district;”.
(emphasis added).
Requirement (2) of Section 22.13 (C) states: “That special circumstances were not created
by the owner or applicant;”. (emphasis added).
Applicant respectfully submits that the special circumstances in Requirement (2) are
referencing the special circumstances described in Requirement (1). In other words, properly
interpreted, Requirement (2) should read: “That (the) special circumstances (of the property) were
not created by the owner or applicant;”.1
The Planning Staff is interpreting the term “special circumstances” as used in Requirement
(2) to mean literally any decision, activity, or need of the owner or applicant. With that
interpretation of the Code language, virtually every application for a variance could be denied, unless
a change in the law prompted the need for the variance.
The Planning Staff is interpreting the relevant Code provisions, without authority or
1. Arizona Revised Statutes at Section 9-462.06(G)(2), provides that a board of adjustment
shall:
Hear and decide appeals for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance only
if, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size,
shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning
ordinance will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property of
the same classification in the same zoning district. Any variance granted is subject
to conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant
of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the
vicinity and zone in which the property is located. (emphasis added).
Arizona Revised Statutes at Section 9-462.06(H)(2), provides that a board of adjustment may
not:
Grant a variance if the special circumstances applicable to the property are
self-imposed by the property owner. (emphasis added).
APPLICANT’S REBUTTAL -2-Case Number: 2000517
rationale, to require that two (2) classes of “special circumstances” be satisfied. One class of
“special circumstances” having to do with the features or characteristics of the subject property
(Requirement (1)), and another class of “special circumstances” having to do with any and all
decisions, activities, or needs of the applicant whether or not they affect the features or
characteristics of the property (Requirement (2)).
As a general proposition, the Code should be interpreted by this Board reasonably, in view
of the purpose of the Code, the language used elsewhere in the Code, and in a manner consistent with
other provisions of the Code. Applicant submits that Requirement 2 should be read and understood
in light of Requirement (1), and should not be given the vague, subjective, and overbroad
interpretation offered by the Planning Staff.
B. Misinterpretation Of Section 22.13 (C) Of The Oro Valley Code Leads To Arbitrary And
Capricious Recommendations
Central to the Planning Staff’s recommendation that the Application be denied, are the
assessments that, “.....the property owner did create the special circumstances to necessitate the need
for an additional garage”, and that, “.....the circumstances to require an additional garage were
ultimately self-imposed”.
By misinterpreting Requirement (2) of the Code to focus on all decisions, activities, and
needs of the applicant, rather that focusing on applicant’s conduct that may have created the
special circumstances exhibited by the property, the provisions of the Code pertaining to
variances are impermissibly arbitrary and capricious. This misinterpretation of the Code led directly
to the erroneous conclusions contained in the Planning Staff Report.
APPLICANT’S REBUTTAL -3-Case Number: 2000517
As applied by the Planning Staff, the Code is arbitrary because it is subject to an individual’s
will or judgment, without restriction, contingent solely upon one person’s discretion. There is no
objective standard or measure upon which the public can rely, to be treated fairly and evenhandedly
when applying for a variance. For example, if the necessity for the auxiliary structure were for an
art studio, an indoor archery range, or a woodworking shop, would the application be viewed more
favorably? Why should that be the case, if the standard is objective?
As applied by the Planning Staff, the Code is capricious because it is based upon ideas (six
cars are too many, only one garage is sufficient, having need for additional storage is self-imposed),
that are impossible to predict. How is the public to know how many cars, garages, workshops, or
storage places are too many for the Planning Staff of Oro Valley? How is the public to know that
a second garage is not a good thing, but having a tool shed is acceptable?
In short, the application of the Planning Staff’s misinterpretation of Requirement (2) to an
array of situations and circumstances that are likely to arise, will lead to arbitrary and capricious
recommendations, and ultimate findings, if followed. In its variance applications, the public
deserves not only to be treated fairly, but also in a manner which is reasonably predictable. It is for
these reasons that the interpretation of the Oro Valley Code proposed by the Planning Staff, should
be rejected by this Board.
C. Applicant Has Shown That The Variance Is Necessary For The Preservation And
Enjoyment Of Substantial Property Rights
In its recommendation respecting Requirement (3), the Planning Staff found that “...one
garage is considered a substantial property right”, and that “...staff does not find that an additional
APPLICANT’S REBUTTAL -4-Case Number: 2000517
garage due to circumstances created by the property owner to be a substantial property right”. This
conclusion is premised on circular reasoning, namely, if A is true then B must be true. The problem
is, as stated above, this conclusion is based upon an erroneous misinterpretation of Requirement (2).
Simply put, Applicant has not engaged in decisions and activity which have affected the size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property in such a way as to give rise to
“special circumstances”.
And, in his Application, Applicant has shown that having a second garage and additional
storage space is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
As an illustration of what “enjoyment of substantial property rights” means, suppose that
Applicant’s family grew over the years, from say three members to seven members, and the need
arose for an additional garage or additional storage space. One should question: is it the purview of
the Planning Staff to conclude that Applicant should only have one garage even though that garage
is demonstrably inadequate?
Clearly, Applicant had something to do with the necessity of the additional garage, but under
the Planning Staff’s rationale, one garage is enough particularly when Applicant is responsible for
the necessity of a second garage. Such a conclusion is neither fair nor rational.
The Board should reject the Planning Staff’s circular reasoning, which led to the improper
conclusion that an additional garage is not necessary to preserve and enjoy substantial property rights
in the subject premises.
D. Traffic Safety Remains A Substantial Issue On Poinsettia Drive
The Planning Staff acknowledges that there are traffic safety issues arising from the limited
APPLICANT’S REBUTTAL -5-Case Number: 2000517
turnaround space in front of the existing garage, and the steep driveway on the subject property. But
then blame is laid upon Applicant, for having too many vehicles. In other words, instead of viewing
an additional garage as a solution to an existing traffic safety problem, the Planning Staff is more
concerned about denying the variance based upon Applicant’s perceived culpability for having six
cars registered in the State of Arizona.
Attached hereto, and identified as Exhibit D, is a photograph taken on Poinsettia Drive facing
to the north-east, or uphill. The location of the lower section of Applicant’s driveway is shown in
solid white line, as it is completely hidden by the topography and existing vegetation. Vehicles
driven by friends and family who come to visit, as well as delivery and utility vehicles, cannot easily
turn around. Longer vehicles cannot turn around at all, if there are other vehicles already in the
turnaround area.
Then, boxed in, the vehicles must back down the long, narrow, and steep driveway and enter
this completely blind curve area of Poinsettia Drive. Because they are backing into the street, they
are completely unable to see traffic coming up Poinsettia Drive. (See, Exhibit E).
Again, this is not a “special circumstance” created by Applicant, but rather a dangerous
hidden driveway which could at least be made somewhat safer, if the driver could edge forwardly
into the street, instead of blindly backing up.
One would hope that the Planning Staff would be more concerned about traffic safety for the
public, rather than blaming Applicant for a circumstance which he did not create.
E. Conclusion
Applicant believes that he has provided substantial evidence to support a finding that all five
APPLICANT’S REBUTTAL -6-Case Number: 2000517
Requirements for the grant of a variance, have been satisfied. The improper interpretation of
Requirement (2) of the Code proposed by the Planning Staff, as well as the erroneous
recommendation which has been offered by the Staff should be rejected. Favorable findings and the
grant of a variance are respectfully requested.
Applicant further requests that this written Rebuttal as well as new Exhibits D and E,
appended hereto, be accepted by the Board as part of the record for this variance proceeding.
Dated: May 24, 2020 R. Michael West
R. Michael West, Applicant
Attachments: Exhibits D and E
APPLICANT’S REBUTTAL -7-Case Number: 2000517
7/27/20
Hannah Oden and The Oro Valley Board of Adjustment:
I am writing to express concerns regarding the Case # 2001494 “Request for variance to reduce a front yard setback
for an attached garage located at 525 W Golf View Dr.”
As the only residential property owner that shares a property line with the property in question, I feel that the im-
pact of this variance and garage remodel affects my property rights the most. And I believe that this adds gravity to
my concerns.
After reviewing the Staff recommendations and outline, I agree with some of the findings, and disagree with others.
With the granting criteria being “meeting all 5 findings” outlined, I would like to comment on each individually.
1– Circumstances and conditions– Though the staff could not find any “special circumstances”, I must disagree.
In fact, there ARE a few special circumstances for this property:
This is a unique property that has the golf course bordering two sides, not just one. And the golf course variance re-
strictions seem to be much greater for this property.
The property Does have a unique shape. The front property line point to point, is restricted severely by the curva-
ture of the road. This causes the need for the minimal 2.5 ft variance request only in a small area of the frontage,
not the full frontage. There are also several trees on the property, that have been there since before the house was
built. Yes, the property does qualify under “special circumstances”
2. Special circumstances NOT created by the owner:
The above outlined “special circumstances” were not created by the present owner, and they apply to the property
itself.
So I disagree with the Staff findings on #2 also.
3. Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
The proposed location and size of the new garage project is the logical choice, as it does maintain the general posi-
tion and esthetic of this historic home. A garage in another area, especially toward the rear of the house would ob-
scure views of the tree lined bosque and golf course behind and between our homes. This would devalue both
properties.
The owners have recently built a work/storage shed in between our properties. The shed acts as a 9 Ft wall, and is
now the main view when entering my driveway. I have discussed removing the shed for this reason, and because it
was built with less then the normal 20ft side yard setback (OVCC association CC&Rs), and detracts from the ar-
chetectural esthetic of both of our houses and the riparian bosque. I have been told that if the garage can be com-
pleted, the shed removal is possible.
Therefore, to “preserve the enjoyment of my substantial property rights”, I recommend that point #3 will be satis-
fied, with the new garage and shed removal.
4. Authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges…:
A minimal 2.5 ft setback with the board proposed vegetative screening between the garage wall and street, will
hardly be noticeable, and will preserve the esthetic. The board agreed to this, as do I.
5. That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to
adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general:
I agree with this wholeheartedly, as long as the shed mentioned above will be removed right after the garage is rea-
sonably completed.
A new garage and shed removal, as proposed, will allow storage of both autos and golf cart, and shed items. Cur-
rently one car is always out front. This will solve those detrimental points.
This point was granted by the staff.
So, as long as my concerns are accounted for, I will support this variance request and resolution.
(Please view attached images.)
Sincerely,
Brian and Jana Davies
NEW WORK/STORAGE SHED
1
Ancona, Jeanna
From:Jan Cunningham
Sent:Tuesday, July 28, 2020 1:40 PM
To:Ancona, Jeanna
Subject:Alexander Historic petition
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
As a neighbor of the Alexander’s,( I am thrilled to see them go thru this much time and effort to
maintain the historical significance of their home. The addition and additional 2.5 feet needed will not make any
negative impact on the neighborhood at all. In fact, I am sure it will improve the aesthetics of the house. I see no
reason why they shouldn’t be granted the variance. In fact, the Alexander’s should be commended for their diligence in
attempting to keep this property historically significant when so many others in the neighborhood have literally
demolished the previous house to build new.
Jan Cunningham
Sent from my iPad
1
Ancona, Jeanna
From:Hilary Backlund
Sent:Monday, July 27, 2020 6:36 PM
To:Ancona, Jeanna
Subject:Urgent- Case #2001494, 525 Golf View Drive Variance Meeting
Hi there,
Please confirm receipt and circulate this prior to the variance meeting tomorrow for
Thank you so much! H
To the Members of the Board:
My name is Hilary Backlund. I am local REALTOR® and a resident of the Oro Valley Estates, where the subject property is
located. In addition, my husband and I own the only other Thomas Gist property in Oro Valley. I wanted to voice my
support for the homeowners on Golf View in their quest to obtain a variance from the Town. Firstly—some backstory—
our home was built in 1969, but renovated so drastically by the previous owners that we are unable to qualify for
historical designation. I think history is very important to respect, and in the fairly new Town of Oro Valley—historical
homes should be even more revered. I applaud the homeowners at 525 West Golf View for not only wanting to preserve
the historical aspect of the home, but to go above and beyond to try and ensure it—by hiring special architects,
researching Gist homes for hours and going through this laborious and sometimes quite frustrating process to obtain a
variance.
With regard to discussion point one I would like to point the Board to the following. The Maricopa County variance
application page reads the following on variances (I realize we are not in Maricopa County but for precedent and
explanatory purposes I am using it as a reference):
“Generally, Variances may be granted only if special circumstances, such as size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings of the property, would cause the strict application of the Regulations to deprive the property of privileges
enjoyed by similar property in the floodplain.
Reasons for a Variance to Be Issued
Variances may be issued for the repair, rehabilitation, or restoration of structures listed in the National Register of
Historic Places or the State Inventory of Historic Places, upon a determination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation
will not preclude the structures' continued designation as a historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary
to preserve the historic character and design of the structure.” —https://www.maricopa.gov/602/Apply-for-a-Variance
As far as discussion point number two—the “property” is the land, the home, and all other fixed improvements. The
land and the home are not separate. So, while the land may not have a special circumstance in reference to topography,
shape, etc., the historical home (and therefore “property”) does. Real property in the State of Arizona is defined as
“land, together with fixtures, improvements and appurtenances”. Land is not delineated from home in property tax
assessments, nor when it is bought and sold. It is all recorded as one entity.
Discussion point three is something that I can definitely lend professional knowledge to. I understand that the Board
may feel that there are things that could be done so the owners could build without a variance, however, some of these
suggestions would impact the not only the historical aspect, but also the functionality and their property value, and
therefore, I absolutely do not believe they are viable options. As a REALTOR® who has sold hundreds of in the last 12
2
years in the Greater Oro Valley area, I can attest that the suggestion to locate the garage behind the main home and
enclosed yard would GREATLEY impact the value of the subject property, obstructing golf course and the Catalina
Mountain views. Surely, anyone on the Board and familiar with Oro Valley real estate is well aware of the inherent value
of views. Suggesting that they move the garage to the back would DECREASE their value and would detrimentally affect
the future salability of the property. In addition, eliminating the functional breezeway and forcing a walk-around would
also not be ideal for use and enjoyment of the property for the current homeowners or future ones, and also would
impact the value.
In closing, I would implore that the Board reconsider their recommendation and allow the variance. They operated in
good faith and followed procedure. They very much want to preserve the historical aspect of their home while being
allowed to improve the property for their comfort and general functionality. An enclosed garage is something that
among modern day-homeowners is a must-have, especially in the sometimes brutal Arizona climate, and with pack rats
and rattlesnakes afoot. Thank you so much for your time and consideration of my letter.
Best, Hilary Backlund
Hilary Backlund
Associate Broker, REALTOR ® GRI, e-Pro, GREEN
Vice President Member of the Executive Council
Long Realty Company- A Berkshire Hathaway Affiliate
Attention: Electronic communications such as email, text messages and social media messaging, are not able to
be guaranteed secure nor confidential—even with the best systems in place. Hackers are getting smarter and
much more creative in their schemes. ***Neither we, nor someone from Long Realty, will EVER send you any
electronic communication with instructions to transfer funds or provide financial account numbers or other
nonpublic personal information.***
Town of Oro Valley
Board of Adjustment
Variance Request
Gene and Tracey Alexander
July 28, 2020
Overview We purchased a Thomas Gist home built in 1959 located in the
historic neighborhood of Oro Valley Country Club Estates in Feb
2019. It is one of the first homes completed around the Oro
Valley Country Club Golf Course which opened in 1959.
The town of Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
had worked with the previous owners to begin the process of
listing the home on the local historic registry and we continued
that conversation.
We spoke with Lynanne Dellerman from HPC about our desire to
replace the carport with a garage while maintaining the historical
integrity of the property.
We hired a well-known local preservation architect, Jon Mirto, of
Poster Mirto McDonald to design a garage to complement the
historical structure in conformance with the Secretary of the
Interior Standards as it relates to additions and changes to
historic properties; making it compatible but different.
Upon submission to the town of Oro Valley for a building permit,
a staff member in the Planning and Zoning department denied
our request because the structure did not meet the required
front setback from the road.
Thomas Gist
(1917-2000)•Tom Gist was a custom home designer/builder
prominent in Tucson from the mid-1950’s through
late 1970’s. His unique design aesthetic, along
with a problem-solving approach to custom home
design and superb building skills, created many
superior examples of mid-century modern design
with a Tucson flair. His homes of burnt adobe with
Catalina view-facing window walls and sumptuous
mahogany interior woodwork embodied Gist’s
concept of “gracious natural living at its best”.
•Many of the over 170 homes he designed and
built were regularly featured in print publications
of the time. The second home he built for himself
and his wife Tish is listed on the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP), and many more of his
homes are contributing properties to Historic
Districts throughout Tucson. A multiple property
NRHP nomination is currently pending with the
State of Arizona.
Thomas Gist
(1917-2000) Cont.
•Besides the local designation the HPC is interested
in for the Gist house, the Town of Oro Valley may
be unaware that The National Register Multiple
Property Documentation Form (MPDF) also has its
eye on this property. The MPDF documents groups
of thematically related properties. This form
defines and describes one or more historic
contexts, describes associated property types
related to the historic context(s) and establishes
significance and integrity requirements for
nominating properties to the National Register.
There is a current draft of an MPDF for Thomas
Gist properties in the works at the state level that
includes this home. The MPDF draft is under
review by the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) and the Historic Sites Review Committee
(HSRC). If/when this document is approved, we (or
the Town of Oro Valley) may nominate our
property for review and approval through the
HSRC.
Purpose of Variance
•Preserve our 1959 historic home
built by Thomas Gist, a well-
known local architect and builder
of mid-century modern homes
•Obtain a variance of 2.5 feet to the
front setback of the property to
build an enclosed garage in the
footprint of the existing carport
and privacy wall
•Replace rotting carport with
enclosed garage
Site Plan
and
Request for Variance
The current location of the carport privacy wall
is the approximate desired location of the street
side wall of the new garage structure.
This location allows for the garage to be
attached at the roofline (a zoning requirement),
yet set away from the historic dwelling, thus
preserving its historical integrity.
This location is approximately 2.5 feet into the
required setback from the property line for a
structure. In other words, 27.5 feet from the
setback instead of 30 feet. There is a 15-foot
easement from the road. So, instead of 45 feet
from the road edge, we request to locate the
street side garage wall 42.5 feet from the road
edge.
The road curves away from the property in both
directions, so visibility is not affected by moving
slightly closer to the road.
Site Plan Detail
Red text indicates variance request of 2.5 feet
into the front setback and the HOA approved 5
feet variance into the golf course setback.
Green lines represent current Golf View Dr,
front property line, front setback and golf
course setback.
Blue text shows garage dimensions.
Orange text shows garage located 5 feet from
front of house.
The location of the proposed garage replaces
the footprint of the existing carport and privacy
wall. The privacy wall sits approximately where
the street side wall of the proposed garage will
be located.
The proposed garage is approximately 25’4”
wide by 33’4” deep. The width allows for a
standard 16’x7’ garage door. The burnt adobe
brick walls which will surround regular wood
framing require a slightly larger footprint due to
their size.
Dimension Detail
2’-6”
5’-0”
Architectural Design
Statement
GIST
A renowned mid-century architectural designer and builder, Gist is increasingly recognized as a notable and distinctive contribu tor to Tucson’s
built environment and architectural history. He was a master practitioner whose work was representative of his time, style, and method of
construction, and was of high artistic value. His homes helped to pioneer a unique regional modernism and were regularly featured in the
Tucson Citizen, Better Homes and Gardens, and Sunset Magazine. One of his residential properties has the high honor of individual listing on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and many more of his homes are contributing properties to Historic Districts throughout Tucson. A
multiple property NRHP nomination is currently pending with the State of Arizona to recognize the full body of his work. As a builder he built
homes designed by some of Tucson’s most accomplished architects including Josias Joesler and Arthur Brown. By the mid-1950’s he had
developed his own unique design aesthetic which, coupled with his skill as a builder, would continue to distinguish his work in Tucson for the
next 25 years. Gist homes featured:
· Mid-century ranch house style
· Elongated floor plans
· Long, linear, horizontal roofs
· Carports and floating rooflines
· Ribbon windows and window walls
· Integrated patio walls
· Lightly mortar washed Burnt adobe
· Interior mahogany woodwork
DESIGN STATEMENT
The house at 525 W. Golf View Drive, built in 1959, is a significant and high integrity surviving example of Gist’s fully developed regional modern
style. The applicant seeks modest relief from the front and side yard setbacks to allow for a sensitive and historically compatible garage addition.
The design proposes to join the structural roofing of the existing and new but allow for a breezeway between the two. Essential elements and
goals of this design approach are:
Retain and preserve historic fabric and character. Detaching the new addition will limit the removal of (and damage to) historic materials,
features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in
the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property will be unimpaired.
Avoid a false sense of historical development. Separating the new from the old will allow for a clear interpretation of the historical development
of the property. The new work will be modestly differentiated from the old but will remain compatible with the historic mater ials, features, size,
scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
Limit risk, complexity, and expense. Attaching the new garage to the historic home would require underpinning of foundations and soils
investigations, may require invasive structural tie-ins, and risks differential settlement and future property damage. This approach helps to
support the expense of the historically compatible high-quality materials and detailing.
Compatible design features. The breezeway, along with glass garage door and ribbon windows, creates an expression of a floati ng roof and
sense of “carport”. The breezeway, together with integrated adobe site walls, creates layered usable outdoor patios. All of these features are
characteristic of Gist’s original design approach.
Access and function. Locating the new garage slightly west of the main house will allow driveway access from the south without disturbing the
historic planter attached to the front of the house. The southern approach is the historic land use pattern for the property and should be
preserved. Also, the new garage requires a 7’-0” door head, which is 1-1/2” higher than the historic. Setting the garage slightly west will allow for
this more modern head height without disrupting the lines of the historic house.
Design statement from Jon Mirto, Architect
and Principal; Poster, Mirto, McDonald.
POSTER MIRTO McDONALD
317 N Court Ave
Tucson, AZ 85701
520.882.6310
www.pmm.design
Elevation
Jon Mirto’s architectural rendering of the
approximate location and look of the
property with an enclosed garage in the
location of the existing carport and privacy
wall, attached at the roofline.
Roofline Attachment
Attaching the enclosed garage to the house
at the roofline allows for proper drainage of
runoff and complies with zoning law OVZC
23.6.A.2.b.
OVCC Estates HOA
Architectural Review
Committee Approval
We have obtained permission to locate the
garage structure 5 feet into the required 50-
foot side yard setback to the golf course from
the Architectural Review Committee with our
Homeowners Association, Oro Valley Country
Club Estates.
OVCC Estates HOA
Architectural Review
Committee Denial
We inquired about permission from our HOA
about locating the entire garage on the side
yard next to the golf course. This would
require a large variance to the setback of the
golf course property line. This inquiry was
denied for a variety of reasons.
Hello Tracey,
Thank you for submitting your request for consideration of the garage. John and I have reviewed
the information.Would you be so kind as to clarify some information for us? If we are reading
the site plan correctly the proposed location of the garage structure is right on the setback line
(0-foot setback) with the golf course. Is that correct?
We took a look at the setback requirements in the CC&Rs for the community. They prohibit the
HOA from giving a variance of any more than 10 feet for anything other than a wall, fence or
hedge. In addition the CC&R’s are quite specific actually that walls, fences and hedges exceeding
5 feet in height may not be erected nearer than 30’from any property line abutting the golf
course. As this structure will have walls higher than 5 feet, I believe that would contradict
provision (f) as well, but of course that primary provision relating to structures is (B) which sets
the setback at 50 feet from the golf course property line.
Unfortunately, the HOA and ARC cannot grant the request of the variance you are seeking at this location based on our governing documents.The location as requested is in close proximity to the golf cart path and this location would set a precedent that we concur that placement here would not be in the community’s interest. It appears that if the plan is to remove the existing carport which is deteriorating there are options to replace the structure with a new garage in the carport's current location. This area would be closer to the home, would facilitate egress and may permit for a more reasonable variance to the setbacks, one that the HOA has authority to grant under the above mentioned criteria. Is there a reason why the Town of Oro Valley Zoning is not in favor of reconstruction in the current location? Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. My phone number is 520-907-5497.
Thank you!
Alexis Paterson
ARC Chair, Oro Valley Country Club Estates
Oro Valley Country
Club Estates HOA
CC&Rs Excerpt
Setback requirements and variance request
allowances from HOA CC&Rs.
Page 2, line 25, number 9b; golf course
setback: No structure, other than a fence or
wall, shall be located nearer than fifty (50)
feet to any property line abutting on the golf
course property.
This applies to the side and rear of our
property.
Page 3, line 4, (f) second paragraph;
limitation to variance allowance into setback:
In no event shall the said architect or agent
permit a structure other than a fence or wall
to be located nearer than ten (10) feet to any
property line.
Overhead View,
Backyard View
Google map with superimposed 15-foot easement
line (black line) from Pima maps website.
Neither side yard provides space for a garage within
the required side yard setbacks and HOA golf course
setback.
Rear of property would situate a garage more than
150 feet from any entrance to the home. The original
burnt adobe wall enclosing the backyard has no gate
access.
This would create unreasonable ingress and egress
between the house and vehicles. There is not ample
room to locate a garage within the golf course
setbacks, arroyo and septic leach field. Additionally,
substantial vegetation would need to be removed
and a long, narrow driveway engineered on the golf
course side of the property which would require an
HOA variance.
Most importantly, Gist would not locate a garage here
as it would it would block the view he so carefully
crafted.
This alternative is unreasonable and irrational
considering the option presented.
Closest Point to
Setback
Using the measurement tool on Pima Maps
website, the distance from the setback to the
closest point of the privacy wall is
approximately 26 1/2 feet.
The front corner of the garage will begin
approximately 10 feet to the north of the
existing corner of the privacy wall. This will
position the street side garage wall further
from the road/setback as the street curves
away from the property.
The original staff member who denied our
permit used this measurement tool but
indicated that it is not a precise
measurement.
Current view of privacy
wall from the road
Privacy wall represents approximate location
of street side wall of the enclosed garage.
Home from middle of
Golf View Dr.
Approach from South
Approach from North
Carport Rot
Burnt adobe wall to be
preserved
Enclosed garage will begin approximately
halfway down this wall and 5 feet off the wall
with the rooflines attached.
Gist Garages; building
and location
excerpt:•As automobile ownership became more mainstream, Gist began
designing homes with garages
•Garages were designed at the end of the house if the
property was wide enough, with the entrance to the side
•Narrow property, like ours, garage placed in front of house
•Garage door facing sideways at a 90 angle to the front
door, not facing the street
Excerpt:
6. Carport In the mid-20th century, the automobile was both a status
symbol and a symbol of the machine age. It represented freedom of
movement and opportunity and was an integral part of the suburban
lifestyle. Starting in the 1940s, most Gist houses had open carports
where the vehicle was clearly visible from the street. Some carports
were located beneath the extended eave of the house, creating a longer
profile for the house. In subdivisions where the lots were narrower, it
was common to locate the carport in front of the house. In higher end
subdivisions, such as Tucson Country Club, neighborhood restrictions
were in place to limit the visibility of the carport from the street. The
large lot sizes in these subdivisions also provided sufficient space to
allow the carport to be located at the end of the house and screened
from view. While carports were typical, there were also a few houses
with garages. The garage door was rarely visible from the front of the
house.
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number E Page 10
Name of Property
Pima County, Arizona
County and State
Residences of Tom Gist in Southern Arizona,
1947-1981
Other OVCC Estates
Properties
A sampling of other, newer properties
located on Golf View Dr. that appear to
have been granted a variance to the 30-
foot setback from the front property line.
These lots are of similar size with similar
topography.
Line indicates (approximately) 30 feet from
front setback. These homes are all located
less than 30 feet from the setback.
1. 415 W. Golf View Dr.
2. 475 W. Golf View Dr.
3. 565 W. Golf View Dr.
The 30-foot setback is indicated on our
original set of blueprints from 1959, so
newer homes should be held to the same
setback requirements.
We are not asking for a precedent setting
variance. We are asking for the same
consideration these properties received
when they were built on similar lots with
similar topography.
415 W Golf View Dr
475 W Golf View Dr
565 W Golf View Dr
Unusual Zoning in Oro
Valley Country Club
Estates
This area is located within Oro Valley Country
Club Estates less than ¾ of a mile from our
property. These are all single-family homes of
similar size and value on similar sized lots. All
these properties are part of the Oro Valley
Country Club Estates neighborhood and HOA.
The yellow area, where our property is located
is zoned R1-36; single family residences, low
density.
The brown area is zoned R-6; multi-family
residential. There are no multi-family homes in
this zone, the property lines include the roads,
multiple lots overlap two zones, one home is
positioned on the property line with the
driveway on the adjacent lot.
The green area is labeled PAD Zoning TZ-5;
multiple residence zone. It is unclear what kind
of zone this is meant to be and the link for more
information is broken on OV website. However,
there is a zero-foot setback to the road and
many lots are located within two zones.
Community Support
Emails of support from Mike Wilson. This is Mr. Wilson’s
personal support of our request for a zoning variance. Mr.
Wilson is a Commissioner on the Historic Preservation
Commission with the Town of Oro Valley.
Mike and Jan Wilson Jul 26, 2020, 8:43 PM
To Whom It May Concern/Tracey Alexander:Thanks so much for the
invite and vital information regarding your variance request. I
will do my best to zoom the meeting, however I feel, as I did when
you made your presentation to our HPC meeting, this variance should
be approved, for several reasons: This appears to be the best
possible solution as the Alexander's strive to conform as much as
possible in an effort to present a historic property in our town
and maintain a living comfort with fellow neighbors and the
community. The cost to the Alexanders, as they work to comply, has
become enormous and will only grow if denied. The architectural
draft presents a product that is practical and pleasing to the eye
of neighbors and visitors to the neighborhood. Most of all is
protecting the integrity of the Gist home and it's historic value
to our Town Of Excellence.I applaud the Alexanders for
understanding and navigating this complicated process and feel the
approval is warranted as our Town moves further into the task if
identifying historic properties in our fine Town. Please approve
the variance request as practical and in compliance with our
preservation of historic properties.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael R. Wilson, Commissioner
Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission
Community Support
Letter of support from Daniel Biel. This is Mr.
Biel’s personal support of our request for a
zoning variance. Mr. Biel is a Commissioner
on the Historic Preservation Commission
with the Town of Oro Valley.
University of Arizona
College of Architecture
Project
Students and faculty of the College of
Architecture, Planning and Landscape
Architecture at the University of Arizona
created a project to preserve the legacy of
Thomas Gist and to maintain his place among
the historic collection of homes in and
around Tucson.
Among other purposes, this project
assembled an inventory of Gist properties,
including this one, to assure that his buildings
remain true to their original design intent.
Tucson Historic
Preservation
Foundation Executive Committee, Michael Fassett, MD, President
•A native Arizonan currently residing in Los Angeles, Dr. Fassett began his
advocacy for preservation of Tucson’s mid-century modern architecture in
2004, after witnessing the demolition of a Catalina Foothills Estates
modernist residence for the purpose of speculative, in-fill
development. Michael has restored mid-century modern homes in
Windsor Park and Indian Ridge Estates.He has won numerous awards
from the Tucson-Pima County Historical Commission.Fassett has restored
his Tucson home designed and built by Tucson modernist Tom Gist, and is
involved with preparing a nomination to the National Register for Gist’s
residential work in Tucson. Fassett is authoring a forthcoming book on the
residential work of Tom Gist. While studying as a Grady and Kathryn
Gammage Scholar at Arizona State University, Michael earned his B.A. in
French and B.S. in Microbiology.He received his M.D. from the University
of Arizona College of Medicine.
•This book will follow Gist through his childhood and military career, and
explore the development of his unique design and construction style. The
evolution of Gist’s style and detailed building techniques will be illustrated
through a combination of archival images, current photographs,
interviews with clients and contemporaries. This book will serve as the
ultimate reference for Gist’s work for current and future Tucsonans.
Since March of 1984 the Tucson Historic
Preservation Foundation has been working
to save Tucson's heritage and cultural
resources. For over 30 years we have been
on the front lines advocating and strategizing
to protect the places that make Tucson
unique. Throughout the year we offer a
variety of programing including lecturers,
tours, films and exclusive access to otherwise
inaccessible historic properties. We partner
with numerous organizations throughout our
city and region to help protect our shared
past. Only with the support of our members
and donors can we fulfill our mission.
Summary
1. This property, made up of land and a firmly
attached, immovable structure includes an
historic, well preserved mid-century modern
home built in 1959 by well-known architect,
Thomas Gist. It is the only one of its kind in Oro
Valley that has not been significantly and
irrevocably altered. This makes it special relative
to all other properties in the area.
2. Gist created this mid-century modern home.
Thoughtful owners who appreciated and valued
Gist’s vision over the last 60 years preserved its
original style and design. We had no hand in
creating this property. The carport from 1959 is
rotting. It is a safety hazard and must be
removed. Building a safe, secure replacement to
the carport is a reasonable expectation for a
circumstance not created by the current
homeowner. Building a new structure away
from the main house in a complimentary style
maintains the historical significance of the firmly
attached structure portion of the property.
3. The existing carport must be removed.
Replacing it with an enclosed garage is a
reasonable expectation for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights and for
homes of this value in this neighborhood. There
is no other logical location on the property to
put a garage and maintain the historical
integrity of the home.
Summary
Cont.
4. Granting of this variance does not create a
special privilege, nor is this precedent
setting. Other, newer homes on the same
street with similar topography are positioned
closer to the road than the zoning standard
of 30 feet from the property line that this
property is being held to. Other zoning laws
in this neighborhood allow for structures to
be set closer to the road without a variance.
Abnormal zoning laws exist within this
neighborhood.
5. An enclosed garage will enhance the
property and replace the carport in disrepair.
An enclosed garage located in the footprint
of the carport and privacy wall in a
complimentary architectural style to the
original builder located away from the main
home will preserve the historic home while
fitting in with the surrounding neighborhood.
Its location will not create any traffic safety
concerns.
1
Ancona, Jeanna
From:Dellerman, Lynanne
Sent:Tuesday, July 28, 2020 1:52 PM
To:Ancona, Jeanna
Subject:for the Board of Adjustment meeting on the Gist home in OVHS
To Whom It May Concern/Tracey Alexander:
Thanks so much for the invite and vital information regarding your variance request. I will do
my best to zoom the meeting, however I feel, as I did when you made your presentation to our
HPC meeting, this variance should be approved, for several reasons: This appears to be the best
possible solution as the Alexander's strive to conform as much as possible in an effort to
present a historic property in our town and maintain a living comfort with fellow neighbors and
the community. The cost to the Alexanders, as they work to comply, has become enormous and
will only grow if denied. The architectural draft presents a product that is practical and
pleasing to the eye of neighbors and visitors to the neighborhood. Most of all is protecting the
integrity of the Gist home and it's historic value to our Town Of Excellence. I applaud the
Alexanders for understanding and navigating this complicated process and feel the approval is
warranted as our Town moves further into the task if identifying historic properties in our fine
Town. Please approve the variance request as practical and in compliance with our
preservation of historic properties.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael R. Wilson, Commissioner
Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission
Mike & Jan Wilson
Realtors, ABR, SFR
Email: mjwilson@longrealty.com
Website: www.aztucsonrealestate.com
Fax #: 520-825-8950
Download Our New Mobile App!
Lynanne Dellerman-Silverthorn
Recreation Cultural Services Manager
Town of Oro Valley Parks and Recreation
10555 N. La Canada Dr. 85737
520-909-3079 c