Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 5/27/2003 MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 27, 2003 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 3:04 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bill Adler,Vice Chairman Lyra Done, Member Bart Schannep, Member Colleen Kessler, Member EXCUSED: Cindy Lewis, Chairperson STAFF PRESENT: Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Linda Hersha, Secretary II Mark Langlitz, Town Attorney MINUTES MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler moved to APPROVE the Regular Session minutes of January 28, 2003 with the correction noted. Motion SECONDED by Member Done. Motion carried, 4-0. 1. CASE NO. OV10-03-02 PATIO POOLS,MIKE JURADO, 6320 NORTH ORACLE ROAD, TUCSON,AZ 85704,REPRESENTING RON AND ROSEMARY BROWN, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR SUNRIDGE II SUBDIVISION,LOT 52. SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PARCEL#219-50-0600) 669 WEST SOARING HAWK PLACE, ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737 Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Mike Jurado, representing the applicants, explained that the back yard was toward the street, and the front entry was to the rear of the lot; therefore, the home was reversed and there was no other alternative to build a pool and spa. Vice Chairman Adler pointed out that the application did reflect that the Brown's were intending to use their pool and spa for therapeutic reasons as well as recreational purposes. He asked if the Browns had any medical condition. Mr. Jurado explained that the Browns were fairly healthy people but would use the pool and spa for the exercise. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector, reviewed the staff report. She explained that Ron and Rosemary Brown, have requested to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet for a pool. 05/27/03 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 2 She reported that at the time of this report preparation, staff has not received any public comment in support of or in opposition to the request. She reported that Lot 52 consists of 25,147 square feet in area. She explained that the home was turned in reverse to accommodate for views. Also, she explained that there was a slight amount of drainage that runs from the rear of the lot to the front and across, limiting any variation for location of a pool without disturbing the natural flow of drainage. Staff finding of fact: • Due to the location and design of the home when built, the proposed pool is desired to be placed in the front yard. There are limits of grading for this subdivision that allow 10,000 square feet and a maximum of no more than 12,000 square feet. This home,when approved was allowed 10,900, the front has already been disturbed per approved plans. The Town would like to see no further disturbance. Vice Chairman Adler opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, Vice Chairman Adler closed the public hearing. MOTION: Member Schannep moved to APPROVE Case No. OV 10-03-02, a request to reduce the front yard setback from the required 30 feet to 20 feet. Member Kessler SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Member Done asked if there was any possible way the pool could be moved closer to the drainage. Mr. Jurado explained that he has offered alternative designs with the pool and spa connected but the owners disapproved because it would be placed to close to the home. Vice Chairman Adler stated that the design of the home was the difficulty and not the topography of the property. He explained that a variance to the Zoning Code is granted when a hardship has prevented reasonable use of the land. He said that this was clearly not the case and a pool could be designed to fit on the property and that Finding#3 had not been met. Therefore,he intended to vote against the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE Vice Chairman Adler—nay Member Schannep—aye Member Kessler—aye Member Done—aye Motion carried, 3-1, Vice Chairman Adler opposed. 2. CASE NO. OV10-03-03 RANDY AND KAREN BARBERA, 11113 NORTH GUAVA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737,REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR MONTE DEL ORO SUBDIVISION,LOT 87. SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PARCEL #224-27-1990) 11113 NORTH GUAVA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737 Vice Chairman Adler swore in the witness that was intending to testify. 05/27/03 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 3 Karen Barbera, 11113 North Guava Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona, explained that she was requesting a 15 feet variance to the current south side set back allowance of 20 feet for the addition of a pool. She explained that the main purpose for the pool was for her children. In answer to a question from Member Schannep, Mrs. Barbera reported that the pool would be positioned at least 5 feet from the property line. She explained that to move the pool further west would make it difficult to monitor the children from indoors because the pool would be situated too high. Vice Chairman Adler asked if the patio area could be reduced in size to allow a pool to be placed within the setbacks. Mrs. Barbera explained that the yard could not be graded down equally to the patio and remain in compliance with the Zoning Code,but that it would be a nice alternative. Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector,reviewed the staff report. She reported that Randy and Karen Barbera,have requested to reduce the side yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet for a pool at the southwest portion of their lot. She explained that to construct the pool in the location Mr. &Mr. Barbera are requesting would require a variance approval in order to be in compliance. She reported that Lot 87 consists of slightly over 1 acre in area; the topography is hilly with anywhere from 15%to over 25% slope in the area. She explained that to place the pool in the requested area would require a cut of 3 feet from natural grade. She reported that the home was built approximately 11 years ago, four years after Monte Del Oro was annexed into Oro Valley. Staff finding of facts: • Due to the topographic constraints of this site, the location and design of the home when built,the proposed pool will lie 5 feet from the property line if approved. • The home was originally built in 1991; the applicant bought their home in 2002 and became aware of the pool restrictions after their purchase. • There are other locations on the site that would comply with the code; the applicant has explained in the narrative why those locations are not feasible for them. Vice Chairman Adler opened the public hearing and swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Jim Sheehy, 11090 North Poinsettia, explained that privacy was a very important issue and the pool would be somewhat of an invasion if it were constructed as proposed. He explained that the Barbera's home did sit on an acre or more of land; therefore, should be capable of developing other alternatives. Vice Chairman Adler closed the public hearing. Mrs. Barbera explained that Mr. Sheehy would not be impacted by the pool what-so-ever but appreciated his point of view. MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler moved to DENY the request for variance for Case No. OV 10-03- 03, finding that the request for variance did not meet the required legal standard the Board of Adjustment is required to use. Member Schannep SECONDED the motion. 05/27/03 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 4 Discussion: Member Kessler stated that there were alternatives. They could install a smaller pool but they should continue to seek other alternatives. ROLL CALL VOTE Vice Chairman Adler—aye Member Schannep—aye Member Kessler— aye Member Done—aye Motion to deny the request for Case No. OV10-03-03, carried,4-0. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator, gave an update of upcoming meetings. He reported that the Town Council would be considering the Proposed General Plan at a public hearing on Thursday, May 29th, 2003, and that Town Council has approved a new fee schedule relating to Development Review fees. He added that the interviews for the Board of Adjustment will be scheduled the 1St, 2nd and 3rd week in June. The following topics were discussed: • The evaluation of a Board of Adjustment applicant or member. • The Board of Adjustment application revisions. • What level of immunity does the Board of Adjustment have in terms of liabilities legally? ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Done moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:04 p.m. Member Kessler seconded the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. Respectfully submitted, in a Hersha, Secretary II 05/27/03 Minutes,Board of Adjustment 4 Discussion: Member Kessler stated that there were alternatives. They could install a smaller pool but they should continue to seek other alternatives. ROLL CALL VOTE Vice Chairman Adler—aye Member Schannep—aye Member Kessler—aye Member Done— aye Motion to deny the request for Case No. OV10-03-03, carried, 4-0. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator, gave an update of upcoming meetings. He reported that the Town Council would be considering the Proposed General Plan at a public hearing on Thursday,May 29th, 2003, and that Town Council has approved a new fee schedule relating to Development Review fees. He added that the interviews for the Board of Adjustment will be scheduled the 1st, 2nd and 3rd week in June. The following topics were discussed: • The evaluation of a Board of Adjustment applicant or member. • The Board of Adjustment application revisions. • What level of immunity does the Board of Adjustment member have in terms of liabilities legally? ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Done moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:04 p.m. Member Kessler seconded the motion. Motion carried,4-0. Respectfully submitted, gteA-dij Linda Hersha, Secretary II