Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 5/28/2002 MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 28, 2002 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 3:04 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Cindy Lewis, Chairman Bill Adler, Vice Chairman Lyra Done, Member Bart Schannep, Member Henry Suozzi, Member STAFF PRESENT: Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Linda Hersha, Secretary II Mike Valencic, Zoning Inspector MINUTES MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler moved to APPROVE the Regular Session minutes of March 26, 2002 and Study Session minutes of April 23, 2002. Motion SECONDED by Member Done. Motion carried, 5-0. 1. CASE NO. OV10-02-03: ALAN KENNEDY, PULTE HOME CORPORATION, 7493 NORTH ORACLE ROAD SUITE 115,TUCSON AZ 85704,REPRESENTING PATRICK AND SUZANNE BISHOP, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 7.5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 5.75 FOOT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 12646 NORTH ROCK CREEK ROAD, ORO VALLEY, AZ.,VISTOSO RIDGE SUBDIVISION,LOT 117 Chair Lewis swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Mr. Kennedy, a representative for the Bishops,reported that the home on Lot 117 had been inaccurately marked because of the irregular shape of the property. He explained that the back left corner of the home had been placed 5 feet from the side yard property line rather than the required 7 feet 6 inch setback. He explained that the shape of the lot had made the error very difficult to detect. 05/28/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 2 Vice Chairman Adler asked if the irregular shape of the lot and the substantial buffers on the south west side of the property contributed to the surveyor markers being placed incorrectly. Mr. Kennedy explained that he was unsure if the oversight had been caused by the surveyors,but because of the irregular shape of the property, it could have been surveyed inaccurately. Vice Chairman Adler asked if there was any evidence that would indicate what might have caused the error to occur. Mr. Kennedy replied no, but believed the property was probably surveyed incorrectly from the beginning. Vice Chairman Adler asked if it would be reasonable for a buyer to expect the home builder to be responsible for placing their home accurately on the property. Mr. Kennedy replied, "Yes". Vice Chairman Adler asked why was it so difficult for a builder to detect a marker that has been placed improperly. Mr. Kennedy explained that the company relies on the surveyor's expertise and accuracy to place the pins in their proper position. He said that it was not routine to check the surveyor's work to confirm if the pins have been properly placed. Vice Chairman Adler asked if the company resurveyed or carried instrumentation that would check the work done by the surveyor so that any errors made are detected in the earliest possible stage. Mr. Kennedy replied, "Our employees do not,no." Member Suozzi asked if there were any alternatives to rectify the problem other then moving the home. Mr. Kennedy stated that he was unaware of any other alternative. He stated that Pulte Home was the first to identify the problem and wanted to do the honest and admirable thing in dealing with the situation. He pointed out that neither homeowner was aware of the error until Pulte Home brought the problem to their attention. Member Done pointed out that staff had received a letter from the homeowners of Lot 118,which would contradict the statement presently made by Mr. Kennedy. She explained that Mr. Di Presso's letter reflects that he had made an attempt to notify Pulte Home Corporation employees about the angle and placement of the home during the construction of the home. Member Done suggested that the applicant purchase the 2 1/2 foot sliver of land on the northeast corner of the property to accommodate for the setback. 05/28/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 3 Chairman Lewis swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Paula Mead, representing Pulte Home Corporation, explained that the sliver of land would need to be purchased from the adjacent property. Mr. Kennedy explained that he has spoken to Mr. Di Presso, the owner of Lot 118 and has apologized for the mislocation of the home on Lot 117. He said that the company has offered to place vegetation to provide a buffer because of the close proximity between the 2 homes to alleviate some of the problem. Chairman Lewis asked if the only option would be to deconstruct the home and rebuild it from the ground up. Mr. Kennedy stated that this would be the only option. Chairman Lewis asked why is Pulte Home requesting the variance and not the Bishops. Mr. Kennedy explained that the company informed the Bishops that Pulte Home would apply for the variance to get the problem resolved. Member Done asked if any of the employees working on the home prior to its completion had spoken with the owners of Lot 118 at any time. Mr. Kennedy explained that the employees of Pulte Home did not recall speaking with Mr. Di Presso. Mike Valencic, Zoning Inspector reviewed the staff report. He explained that Pulte Home Corporation is requesting a variance to reduce the required side yard setback of 7 feet 6 inches to 5 feet 3/4 inches. He reported that all property owners within 300 feet of the property have been notified of this hearing and the property has been posted with a Notice of Hearing and the hearing has been advertised in the Daily Territorial Newspaper. Mr. Valencic reported that the home is now built and occupied. He explained that Lot 117 consists of 13,765 square feet in total area and the home has a 20 foot public slope easement along the south side. He explained that the existing occupied residence does not currently meet the required 7.5 foot setback on the north left side due to the improper pin placement. He gave the following possible remedies: A)to modify the home to meet required code. B) to purchase a small portion of the neighboring property to meet the required code. 05/28/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 4 Staff finding of facts: • The lot is an irregular shaped corner lot with a 20 feet Public Slope Easement to the south, and 10 feet Public Utility and Slope Easement to the west. • The rear property corner(N.E. corner)was improperly marked by the surveyor prior to construction of the home. • The error was identified when the subject lot and the lot directly north(Lot 118) was resurveyed and re-pinned to address the placement of a wall at the rear of the lots. • The front left corner(N.W.)meets the required 7.5 foot setback. The rear left corner(N.E.) encroaches 2 foot 5 1/4 inches into the required setback. Approximately 90 square feet of the subject house encroaches into the required setback. • Both homes (Lots 117 and 118)were completed and occupied prior to the error being identified. Member Schannep asked if there were any other remedies that would benefit and be functional for the Bishops. Mr. Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator, explained that placing additional vegetation in the area would create a barrier or buffer between the homes. He reported that Pulte Home Corporation had pursued this possibility but did not receive a positive response. Member Suozzi asked if the 2 %2 feet sliver of land located on the northeast corner of the Bishop's property could be used as a common area. Mr. Kennedy explained that if the 2 %2 foot sliver of land were used as a common area, Lot 117 would be reduced in size and Lot 118 would increase in size. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Kennedy explained that after the error was detected the following options were considered: 1)Placing a wall on the property line. 2) Purchasing a portion of land so that the neighboring property would not be so close. 3)Mr. Di Presso has agreed to allow Pulte Home to place a wall further on his property to create a buffer between the homes. Vice Chairman Adler explained that the discussion of remedies was an interesting exercise but, more times than not,was not germane to the Board of Adjustment's duty. He added that interpreting the intent of the Zoning Code also was not the Board's job. He explained that in the R1-7 District,the Zoning Code communicates that there is to be a setback of 7 1/2 feet and in this particular case, the application failed at least 2 of the Criteria, Condition#1 and#2. He stated that the error was clearly made by the applicant; therefore,not all of the 5 legal standards had been met. He explained that one might be inclined to express sympathy,but not necessarily grant variances to the Zoning Code 05/28/02 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 5 based upon the fact that he or she may sympathize with the fact that an error may have been made and it might be too complicated at this point to remedy. Chairman Lewis explained that if the owners of Lot 118 were willing to sell the 2 %2 foot sliver of land between the 2 homes, the Bishops would not need a variance. She explained that this could still happen if the variance was denied. She agreed with Vice Chairman Adler that the Board does spend time looking for solutions and alternatives to help remedy the problems because the citizens of Oro Valley were very important to the Board. She explained that the Board was responsible to follow the 5 Criteria which are based on State Statutes and agreed that the first 2 Criteria had not been met and seriously questioned if any of the Criteria had been met. She added that this case was a difficult one because of the tremendous cost that would be involved to relocate the home. She stated that Pulte Home Corporation had been very accommodating in trying to help their customers and considered this to be good business practice,but was very much against the granting of the variance because it did not meet the Criteria. Member Suozzi agreed that none of the Criteria had been met. He added that there were other alternatives to solving the problem and encouraged the builder to speak with the neighbors to obtain the 2 %2 foot sliver of land needed for the setback. MOTION: Vice Chairman Adler moved to DENY the request for variance for Case No. OV 10-02-03, finding that not all of the 5 legal standards have been met. Member Schannep seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE Chairman Lewis—aye Vice Chairman Adler—aye Member Schannep—aye Member Done—aye Member Suozzi—aye Motion carried, 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE Mr. Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator, reviewed the Project List Update for May 2002 and gave a brief synopsis on the following items: • Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL)Plan &Ordinance—staff is trying to get a facilitator that will meet with the ESL Planning Advisory Committee(PAC) and set up a meeting in June. Percent Complete: Plan 75% - Ordinance 0% • Landscape Ordinance Amendments are complete. Percent Complete: 100% • Comprehensive Code Amendments are on hold until all other amendments have been processed. Percent Complete: 80% • Livestock Code Revisions will be declared a public record on June 5, 2002. Percent Complete: 75% 05/28/02 Minutes,Board of Adjustment 6 • General Plan Update—the public information workshops are complete and staff is in the process of drafting alternatives and plan text. A draft of the code is scheduled for completion in the month of June and will be sent out for public review in July. Percent Complete: 40% • Development Review Fee and Penalty Schedule draft is complete but is on hold because of the work load of other projects such as the General Plan. Percent Complete: 90% • Sign Code Revision—Staff working with the Legal Department on the draft of the code and is looking to get the draft to the Commission on June 18th. Percent Complete: 70% • Commercial Code Revision—Percent Complete: 80% • Assurances Code was declared a public record in May and will go before Council in June. Percent complete: 95% • Parking Code Revision has been approved by Town Council and became effective at the end of April. The have been some amendments made and should come before Council in July. Percent Complete: 100% • Imagery Update—Percent Complete: 90% Mr.Nodine further reviewed the proposed amendments to the following chapters of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. • Chapter 2 -Landscape, Irrigation and Buffer Yard Plans Requirements. • Chapter 8 - Commercial District Requirements. • Chapter 17—Outdoor Lighting Code Requirements. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Done moved to ADJOURN the meeting at 4:26 p.m. Member Suozzi SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5-0. Respectfully submitted, //e, LIO Linda Hersha, Secretary II