Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 2/22/2005 MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 22, 2005 ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER AT 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: John Hickey, Chair Colleen Kessler, Vice Chair Matt Adamson, Member Bill Adler, Member Bart Schannep, Member MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of December 28, 2004. Member Adler requested that the December 28, 2004 minutes reflect that the acting Chair changed the order of the meeting itinerary by moving the staff report forward on the agenda in order to introduce a consideration to the Board that was pertinent to the case. MOTION: Member Schannep moved to accept the December 28, 2004 minutes with the changes requested by Member Adler. Vice Chair Kessler seconded the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CASE NO. OV10-05-02 JOHN AND DIANE HARKED REQUEST A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SIDEYARD SETBACK FOR RANCHO FELIZ SUBDIVISION, LOT 453. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1721 WEST PLACITA SALTON, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737 (PARCEL #224-40-0420) John and Diane Harped are requesting to reduce the minimum sideyard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet in order to allow the creation of a 2-car carport structure that would be attached to the front of the existing home. Mr. Harped explained that due to the shape of the lot and the topography, he felt it would be difficult to develop any alternative locations for the carport on the property. Member Adler pointed out the objectives (5 Criteria's) and explained that these finding were essential to how the Board decided the approval or disapproval of a variance. He asked if Mr. Harped could expand on his response to "Item C" in the criteria which reads, "Is the authorizing of the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right?" Mr. Harped reported that there had been several revisions made over the years to the home such as, enclosing the existing carport, but that the homes zoning location was listed at the time in Pima County; and because the property was annexed into the Town of Oro Valley, the sideyard setback requirements changed, therefore,placing him in this situation. 02/22/05 MINUTES 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING Dee Widero reported that John and Diane Harped were proposing to encroach into the sideyard from the required 15 feet to 10 feet from the side property line, in order to build a 2- car carport at the front of the home. She reported that the home was built in 1983, with Pima County setbacks for CR-1, and the north corner of the existing home has a setback of 11 feet per OVZCR which was encroaching into the sideyard setback by 4 feet. She said the existing slope and natural vegetation in the front would not be disturbed or destroyed from the proposed construction. She reported that during staff review with the applicant, there was discussion regarding the option of placing the carport five feet east, to avoid a variance. The answer to staff's question was: The proposed location for the carport would not be seen from the road; and if moved further east it would obstruct the view from the living room window. Staff finding of facts: • The home was built in 1983; the applicant is the original owner. • The existing home was built to meet the Pima County 10 feet, sideyard setback. • The existing home was built on the only flat area of the lot, beyond the immediate home and yard, all the property has been left in its natural state. • This proposed addition does not pose any other zoning issues. In answer to a question from Member Adler, Acting Town Attorney Joe Andrews explained that thero ert would be considered a legal non-conforming use as it pertained to the 4 foot p p Y intrusion into the sideyard setback. Member Adler explained that the Zoning Code allowed "minor alteration"to a"legal non-conforming use",but he felt "minor alternations"had not been clearly defined leaving this section of the Zoning Code at best, "arbitrary". He requested that staff submit this section of the Zoning Code to the Planning Commission for review. Also, he recommended that this issue be placed on the commission's work plan, so that additional language could be added for clarification. He said, in his opinion, making a minor addition to a"legal non-conforming use" was a minor alteration, therefore, should not require a variance. Chair Hickey opened the public hearing. Susan Hess, 1711 West Placita Salton, spoke in support of the request for the variance and felt that the revision would be aesthetically pleasing. Chair Hickey closed the public hearing. Member Schannep stated that he could see no reason not to support the variance request. He explained that the Harned's were the original owners and had purchased the property with the understanding he would be allowed to construct the 2-car carport under Pima County zoning regulations, which were later changed by the Oro Valley annexation. He stated that he agreed with Member Adler that it was a further infringement, but that it did not affect the applicant's "non-conforming legal use" status. He agreed that the revision would enhance the appearance of the neighborhood. MOTION: Member Schannep moved to approve Case No. OV l 0-05-02, a request to encroach 02/22/05 MINUTES 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING into the sideyard setback from the required 15 feet to 10 feet, for the 2-car carport addition only. Member Adamson seconded the motion. Discussion: Member Adler stated that the topography of the land was not responsible for the hardship, but that the design of the home was responsible for the problems. He explained that the home was designed to virtually preclude any expansion, however, the family purchased the home anticipating the need for expansion. He said the land did have some constraints which had been dealt with at the time of construction,but when a property was annexed into Oro Valley, the Town's Zoning Code was justified, therefore,he would be unable to support the variance request. Member Schannep stated that he believed the hardship was in fact created by Oro Valley. He explained that when the home was built, the applicant had the ability to make changes to the home and remain in compliance with Pima County's legal sideyard setbacks, but that ability was eliminated when the annexation of the home into Oro Valley occurred. Chair Hickey stated that he believed all 5 Criteria had been met and because of the rezoning from Pima County to the Town of Oro Valley, he felt this issue had introduced many changes. He said he fully supported Member Adler suggestions and concerns, but those issues would be addressed at a future meeting. ROLL CALL VOTE Chair Hickey—aye Vice Chair Kessler- aye Member Schannep— aye Member Adler- nay Member Adamson— aye MOTION carried, 4-1, with Member Adler opposed. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE No report. Member Adler requested that staff help the Board understand the business of annexations and it's impact on the 5 Criteria the Board deliberates over, because the 5 Criteria did not seem to address the impact resulting in annexations. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Vice Chair Kessler moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:40 p.m. The motion was seconded by Member Adamson. Motion carried, 5-0. RespFctfully submitted, ,//i. (/(V i da Hersha, Secretary