Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 8/23/2005 MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 23, 2005 ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N.LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: at or after 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: John Hickey, Chair Colleen Kessler,Vice Chair Bart Schannep, Member Paul Parisi, Member Thomas Martin, Member MINUTES MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Chair Kessler and SECONDED by Member Schannep to APPROVE the June 28, 2005 minutes,with the change noted. 1. CASE NO. OV10-05-06 CHRIS MITCHELL FROM CALIFORNIA POOLS, REPRESENTING FRANK AND CAROLINE LA PERE,REQUESTS A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR SUFFOLK HILLS SUBDIVISION, LOT 82. SUBJECT PROPERTY (PARCEL #225-51-1020) IS LOCATED AT 230 EAST CAMBRIDGE DRIVE, ORO VALLEY,AZ 85704 Chair Hickey swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Chris Mitchell from California Pools representing Frank and Caroline La Pere, explained that the La Peres were requesting a zoning variance approval for the construction of a swimming pool and spa that would be built partially in the east side yard setback. He reported that the request was based on the lack of buildable area and the steep hillside topography of the property which made it impossible to relocate the proposed project to any other part of the yard. There was discussion regarding the following issues: • The possibility of moving the pool slightly to the north and slightly to the west to avoid the encroachment of the easement needs? • The installation of a retaining wall. • Comments and letters from the neighbors located immediately to the east of the property. • Moving the spa to the other side of the pool. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector, explained that the La Peres were requesting to encroach 6.6 feet into the 15 feet side yard setback to allow construction of a pool and spa. She reported 08/23/05 MINUTES 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING that there were definite slope concerns, and to construct a pool and spa would encroach into the required 15 feet side yard setback by 6.6 feet. She explained that the existing home was built under Pima County setbacks for CR-1 which are: front 30 feet, side 10 feet, rear 40 feet. She reported that the spa portion of this project does not meet R1-36 requirements, as our code requires that the pool meet the required side yard setback. She said that Pima County side and rear yard setback for a pool and spa are 4 feet. Staff finding of facts: • The existing home was built to meet the Pima County 10 feet side yard setback, and pools requirements are 4 feet from side and rear property line. • The existing home was built on a flat area of this lot,beyond the immediate home and yard, all the property has been left in its natural state. • This proposed pool and spa does not pose any other zoning issues. Chair Hickey opened the public hearing. There being no speaker the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Member Martin moved to APPROVE Case No. OV 10-05-06, a request to encroach into the side yard setback from the required 15 feet by 6.6 feet, to construct a pool and spa. Vice Chair Kessler SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Member Parisi stated that he understood the homeowners desire to create the yard in the proposed design but the design did not meet all of the criteria findings because there were other alternatives that would not require a variance. Member Schannep stated that he could not support the motion because the special circumstances are being created by the owner and the shape, size and positioning of the spa was clearly presented as a matter of taste. Member Martin believed that the pool design was solely dictated by the topography because of the radical drop off of the slope in the backyard. He stated that in order to put in a negative edge pool, it would be very expensive and would encroach on the existing vegetation. Vice Chair Kessler stated that she was unsure if there were alternatives,but felt that without having to spend an enormous amount of money for a retaining wall she would consider the design to be the most reasonable use of the land. Chair Hickey stated that not all five (5) criteria had been met and was unable to support the motion. MOTION failed to approve the variance request, 2-3, with Vice Chair Kessler and Member Martin in favor of the motion. MOTION: Chair Hickey moved to DENY Case No. OV 10-05-06 finding that not all five (5) criteria had been met. Member Parisi SECONDED the motion. 08/23/05 MINUTES 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING Member Parisi reported that he has spoken to staff regarding setbacks: however the Town Council was responsible for the current Zoning regulations. He suggested recommending to Council that they look in the future at having staff be responsible in determining particular setbacks and at similar requests to avoid a variance request. Motion carried, 3-2, with Vice Chair Kessler and Member Martin opposed. 2. CASE NO. OV10-05-07 RAYMOND YBARRA FROM SIGNATURE DESIGN STUDIO, REPRESENTING RUSSELL AND HEIDI TRONSTAD,REQUEST A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE REQUIRED HEIGHT OF 18 FEET, PER THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED (OVZCR), SECTION 23.4 TABLE 23- 2A FOR R1-36 ZONE, TO A HEIGHT OF 22.6 FEET. SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PARCEL 224-02-1170) LOCATED AT 460 E. STRADA PATANIA, ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737 Chair Hickey swore in the witness intending to testify. Raymond Ybarra, from Signature Design Studio representing Russell and Heidi Tronstad, reviewed the site and reported that the remodeling of the home would include a 3 car garage, new entry, new living space,back patio, master bedroom and bath and second floor with a couple of decks. He reported that the Tronstads were requesting to exceed the 18 feet height requirement by4.6 square feet. He proceeded to review pamphlets that contained exhibits of the proposed plan. The exhibits included neighboring homes, vegetation and structural plan for the home and directional photos from the homes of the surrounding community. There was discussion regarding the following issues and concerns: • Were the aesthetics causing the problem? • Alternate design. • The additional second level. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector reported that the Tronstads were requesting to exceed the R1-36 zone height requirement of 18 feet by 4.6 feet, to build a 2882 square foot remodel and addition. She explained that the applicant proposed plan is a Santa Fe style home and will exceed the height allowed by four and one half feet. She explained that the existing home was built in 1980, as a 2421 square foot one story building, in compliance with the Pima County standards fro CR-1. She reported that the new addition of 2882 square feet would still meet Pima county standards, and meets Oro Valley requirements except for the height. She said that the natural vegetation in the rear would not be disturbed or destroyed from the proposed construction. Staff finding of facts: • The original home was built in 1980; per Pima County standards, annexation did restrict height to 18 feet versus 34 feet. • Staff did a survey of the neighborhood and the majority of the homes are single story; several homes are 18 feet or higher in height; only a small number are two-story. 08/23/05 MINUTES 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING • The Town of Oro Valley has no record of a Home Owners Association for Tangerine Hills. However, neither Pima County nor the Town of Oro Valley governs over Covenants/Code/Restrictions. • If this request is approved by the Board of Adjustment, due to the second story, the owner will be required to apply for approval from the Development Review Board. • This proposed addition does not pose any other zoning issues. Chair Hickey opened the public hearing and swore in all witnesses that were intending to testify. James Bermel, 201 East Strada Patania, was opposed to a 2-story homes and felt that the request would set the precedent for future residents wanting a 2-story home. Charles Gainis, 430 East Strada Patania, was in support of the variance request and felt that the applicant had been very sensitive to the surrounding neighbors. Robert Schuelke, 11700 North Edi Place, was not in support of the variance and had concerns that if the variance was approved it would set the precedence and other neighbors would be encouraged to build 2-story homes. Denise Carpenter, 491 East Tangelo Drive, was opposed to the new addition because it would infringe on her home's private space, the second-story was not necessary and would set a poor example for future residents. John Carpenter, 491 East Tangelo Drive, was opposed because it would obstruct his mountain views and impede upon his privacy. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, stated that there was no evidence that would dictate that a variance was necessary. He said it was the responsibility of the Board of Adjustment to maintain the integrity of the Zoning Code; therefore, the Board should not make any exceptions and should adhere to the five (5) criteria of the Zoning Code. Chair Hickey closed the public hearing. Russell Tronstad, the applicant submitted additional photos of the property to the south to show and there would be additional trees planted. Also,he clarified that the total amount of living space for the home after completion would be approximately 3000 square feet. Mr. Ybarra stated that regarding the neighbors to the south, he would provide the necessary vegetation needed, but the decks would remain as a part of the design. Chair Hickey stated that the 5 criteria had not been met and that the Board was limited by State Law and had to adhere to the law. MOTION: Member Parisi moved to DENY Case No. OV 10-05-07. Member Martin SECONDED the motion. 08/23/05 MINUTES 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING Discussion: Vice Chair Kessler explained that there were no special circumstances in the case such as the size, shape or topography of the lot that was any different than the surrounding property. She believed that there was a way the family could enjoy and preserve the value without requesting a variance and by granting the variance, it would be a special privilege. Motion carried, 5-0, to DENY Case No. OV 10-05-07. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE No report. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Chair Kessler to ADJOURN the meeting at 4:31 p.m. Member Schannep SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. Respectfully submitted, )1</Ati:/)r inda Hersha, Office Specialist