HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 6/28/2005 MINUTES
ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR SESSION
JUNE 28, 2005
ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER: at or after 3:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Matt Adamson, Chair
Colleen Kessler, Vice Chair
Bart Schannep, Member
Excused: John Hickey, Member
MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of April 5, 2005
MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of May 24, 2005
MOTION: A motion was made by Member Schannep and SECONDED by Vice Chair Kessler
to APPROVE the April 5, 2005 minutes. The motion carried, 3-0.
MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Chair Kessler and SECONDED by Member Schannep
to APPROVE the May 24, 2005 minutes. The motion carried, 3-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. CASE NO. OV10-05-04 CURTIS & TRESTA ANDERSON,REQUEST A
VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE AND REAR YARD
SETBACK FOR RANCHO CATALINA SUBDIVISION, LOT 208. SUBJECT
PROPERTY (PARCEL #225-17-2080) 8390 N. RANCHO CATALINA AVENUE,
ORO VALLEY, AZ 85704
Curtis Anderson, 8390 North Rancho Catalina Ave, requested a variance for an additional
bedroom and garage because his growing family needs more space.
Member Schannep explained that there was nothing about the property that would lead the Board
to believe the property was in a special situation. He stated that there were alternatives to
building the addition that would accommodate the needs of the Andersons and would allow the
home to remain aesthetically pleasing. Vice Chair Kessler agreed.
Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector reviewed the report. She reported that the Andersons were
requesting to encroach by 7.5 feet into the required 15 foot side yard, and into the required 40
foot rear yard setback by 33 feet to allow construction of an attached bedroom, two-car garage
and storage unit. She reported that the applicant was proposing to attach the additions to the
06/28/05 MINUTES, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2
REGULAR MEETING
southern most portion of the existing house, encroaching into the southwestern section of the
side and rear yard setback requirements. The setbacks for R1-36 are front 30 feet, side 15 foot,
and rear 40 feet. She explained that the original Pima County setbacks for the home were front
30 feet, side 10 feet and rear 40 feet. She reported that this addition would not meet with those
standards nor did the existing original home, which has a 25 feet rear yard and should have a 30
feet setback. She explained that the current driveway which used to access up and into what iS
now labeled "existing house—new construction", is proposed to have direct access into the
garage. She reported that during staff review with the applicant, staff discussed the option of
placing the addition to the west side of the home or behind the home; however, the applicant felt
it would be less obtrusive to the neighbors in the proposed location.
Staff finding of facts:
• The original plat designated where the access to this property would be,which is off of
North Rancho Catalina. That access is what determines the front yard from side or rear,
not how the home is located on the lot and the result is a shallow, wide lot.
• The existing home does not currently meet Pima County or Oro Valley rear yard
standards.
• The addition could be placed elsewhere on the lot to meet code standards, and would not
disturb any natural vegetation, as the entire lot at some point has already been disturbed.
Chair Adamson opened the public hearing.
Carla Peterson, 522 East Windward Place, was not in support of the variance because it would
obstruct her views from her backyard. She suggested that the addition be reversed and
constructed on the opposite side of the home.
Mr. Anderson reported that if he were to build a detached addition it would not alleviate the
problem of obstructing Ms. Peterson views.
Chair Adamson closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Vice Chair Kessler moved to DENY Case No. OV 10-05-05, finding that the
variance does not meet the criteria. Member Schannep SECONDED the motion. Motion
carried, 3-0.
Member Schannep stated that with the proper assistance and guidance, he was confident a
solution would be found.
2. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES AND OPERATING PROCEDURES
Discussion and possible action on the Rules and Operating Procedures
Bryant Nodine explained that at the previous meeting, the Board identified items to be revised
and that the revisions have been incorporated. He suggested the Board move forward and submit
the Rules and Operating Procedures document to the Town Council for approval.
MOTION: Vice Chair Kessler MOVED that the Board of Adjustment Rules and Operating
Procedures guidelines be submitted to the Town Council for approval. Member Schannep
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 3-0.
06/28/05 MINUTES, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 3
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE
Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator, reported that the General Plan was
tentatively being scheduled by the Council to be placed on the November 8, 2005 election ballot.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Member Schannep moved to ADJOURN the meeting at 3:35 p.m. Motion was
SECONDED by Vice Chair Kessler. Motion carried, 3-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Walailt-in a a Hersha, Office Specialist