Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 7/25/2006 DRAFT MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION JULY 25, 2006 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: Andy Martin, Chair Bart Schannep, Vice Chair Paul Parisi, Member Colleen Kessler, Member John Hickey, Member MINUTES: A motion was made by Member Kessler to approve the minutes of May 23, 2006. Member Hickey seconded the motion. The motion carried, 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CASE NO. OV 10-06-08: Scott Leska, Engineering and Design Assoc., representing Lodestone Builders, Inc., request for a variance from the required: (1) 30' setback from the north property line for lot 4 (eastern most building) to 15'; and (2) 30' setback for lot 2 (northwest building) to 22' at the northwest corner of the lot. Subject property is zoned R-S, and is adjacent to R1-36 to the north and northwest boundaries, (Parcel 225-11-1880) located on North Oracle Road, just south of Calle Concordia, Oro Valley, AZ 85704. Chair Martin swore in the witness. Jack Cook, a representative for the applicant reported that the nature of the request was to allow a setback variance that would allow the required setback of 30 feet on the northwest edge of Lot 2, and the north property line of Lot 4 to be reduced to 22 feet and 15 feet respectively. He explained that this request was required due to the narrow size and shape of the parcel, and the ability to develop the lot that is suitable to the end user. He reviewed the site using the overhead projector. In answer to a question from Member Hickey, Jack Cook explained that there had been some consideration to place the driveway on the north to avoid moving vegetation. He explained that after reviewing the concept with staff, there was concern that the residents in the area would have a road in front and behind them. 07 25 06 Board of Adjustment 2 Minutes Zoning Inspector Patty Hayes reviewed the report. She explained that the specific request was to reduce setbacks on the north and northwestern property line for a four-lot townhouse subdivision in an R-S zoned parcel. She reported that the applicant has requested the 30 foot setback, required abutting R-1 districts, be reduced to 15 foot and 22 foot. Staff finding of facts: • Current R-S zoning allows the proposed townhouse use per R-4 regulations. • The applicant submitted a conceptual site plan to the Development Review Committee (DRC) on April 28, 2006 • All variance requests are for the north and northwestern property line only. • The applicant states they contacted the neighborhood to the south for a shared access thus possibly reducing the need for a variance, but was denied by the neighborhood. • The applicant indicates that the proposed townhouses will be one story. • The General Plan designation for this parcel is NCO,Neighborhood Commercial/Office. However, the underlying R-S zoning prevails over General Plan Designation. The proposed use is also compatible with the existing surrounding residential subdivisions. In summary, the proposed townhouses are allowed in the R-S district, meet other zoning code requirements, and are supported by staff. Vice Chair Schannep stated that after reviewing the site, he did not find anything peculiar about the property but believed the setbacks were dictating how the homes would be positioned. Chair Martin opened the public hearing and swore in the witnesses that were intending to testify. Jim Kriegh, 40 East Calle Concordia, stated that the variance request was reasonable as long as the project was consistent with the proposal submitted. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, stated that the hardship was not created by the property but by post density. He explained that the property owner was having difficulty because he was proposing more development than the land space allowed. Therefore, he believed the proposed project was creating the hardship and not the land. Steve Langford, 9140 North Shadow Mt. Drive, read from a letter submitted June 27, 2006 that addressed his objection in the strongest possible terms to any change to proscribed setbacks on the South, West, and North sides of the property in question. The document also revealed that the Langfords' had no objection at all to the setback variance that the Board might deem permissible on the East side of the property, along Oracle Road. He proceeded to read from the document explaining his opposition to the variance request. (See attached) Chair Martin closed the public hearing. MOTION: Member Hickey moved to DENY Case No. OV 10-06-08, a request for variance to: 1. Reduce the 30 foot setback from the north property line for lot 4 (eastern most building) to 15 feet. 2. Reduce the 30 foot setback from the northwestern property line for lot 2 (northwest building) to 22 feet. Member Hickey explained that he could not find anything special about the lot and believed a number of things could be built on the site. He added that there were no special circumstances 07 25 06 Board of Adjustment 3 Minutes on the property other than those that were self imposed. He explained that the applicant's substantial property rights could be enjoyed using other options and did not believe Criteria 1, 3 and 5 had been met. Roll Call Vote Vice Chair Schannep—aye Member Parisi—aye Member Kessler—aye Member Kessler—aye Chair Martin—Nay Motion carried to DENY Case No. OV 10-06 08, 4-1, with Chair Martin opposed. 2. CASE NO. OV 10-06-07 Copper Stone Development LLC, request for variance from the allowed building height of 25', to allow 34' in height in an R-S zone. Subject property: (parcels 225-11-1970; 225-11-1980; 225-11-1990) located on the west side of Oracle, between Hardy and Calle Concordia, Oro Valley, AZ 85704. Chair Martin swore in the witness. Carl Winter, the Planning Consultant for Copperstone Development, explained that the request for a variance from 25 feet building height (table 23-2A)to 34 feet building height. He used the overhead projector to review the site plan. Dick Green, the architect for the project reviewed the site's elevation and explained that the company felt it was very important that the existing terrain remained in tact. He used the overhead projector to review certain aspects of the project such as the spacing between floors, drainage, lighting, screening, parking and the parapet. There was discussion regarding the placement of the air conditioning unit and alternatives for the location of the unit; and the height of the proposed building, and what type of offices would be opening in the building. Zoning Inspector Patty Hayes reported that the specific request was to increase the building height from the allowed 25 feet in an R-S zone to 34 feet. She added that the applicant proposes to build two office building that would each be two stories. Staff finding of facts: • Current R-S zoning allows a 25 foot building height which may be limited by the Development Review Board and Town Council to one story when abutting an R1 district per OVZCR section 23.7.C.4 • The applicant submitted a concept plan to the Development Review Board (DRB) for the June 13, 2006 meeting for guidance regarding the one story vs. two story issue. • The DRB supported allowing the two story building. • The applicant states they contacted neighbors regarding the height variance. • The apartments abutting the south property line are two stories. 07 25 06 Board of Adjustment 4 Minutes • The apartments abutting the north property line are three stories. The first floor is partially at basement level. • The western property line abuts 20 feet alley and single family single story subdivision. • The site slopes down more than 20 feet for Oracle Road to the western property line. • The applicant proposes to build the buildings with a finished floor elevation 16 feet below Oracle Road and terrace the parking. • An increase in building height does not increase the allowable development FAR. • The General Plan designation for this parcel is NCO,Neighborhood Commercial/Office and HDR, high density residential. However, the underlying R-S zoning prevails over General Plan designation. The proposed use is also compatible with the existing surrounding properties. • In summary, the proposed two story office complex is allowed in the R-S district, meeting other zoning code requirements, and are supported by staff. In conclusion, staff analysis of the variance to allow the proposed office development located on Oracle Road was that the required findings are met. In particular, the proposed two-story office development will fit into and should not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area. Chair Martin opened the public hearing and swore in the witnesses that were intending to testify. Sue Brinley, 9020 North Shadow Mountain Drive, stated that Mr. Winters' and the architect had been very accommodating, however, after the June 27th meeting she was distressed after receiving a letter identifying the request for variance would be changed from 25 feet to 34 feet. She stated that she had concerns because there was no guarantee other changes would not be made. She explained that there could be more of a compromise made regarding the height of the building and hoped the drainage would not be a problem in the area. Chair Martin closed the public hearing. Mr. Winter stated that the drainage was required to meet the code standards. MOTION: Member Schannep moved to APPROVE Case No. OV 10-06-07, a request for variance to include the lighting and parapet height relocation as negotiated with the neighbor. Member Parisi seconded the motion. Discussion: Member Hickey stated that he could not see any circumstances or conditions on the property that would preclude constructing 40 thousand square foot of anything, therefore believes Criteria#1 had been met. He expressed concern with the height being driven by the engineer as well as the placement of the air conditioning unit. Vice Chair Schannep supported the motion and stated that he was very sensitive to the property rights of the neighbors and appreciated the applicant's working with the community so diligently. He suggested that by repositioning the parapets walls on an angle could help preserve the views of the mountain. 07 25 06 Board of Adjustment 5 Minutes Chair Martin explained that the topography in Oro Valley has been an issue in a number of cases, but in this case all 5 criteria had been satisfied. He stated that to enjoy property rights he believed that visibility would constitute as a component. Member Kessler stated that she supports the motion because the proposed structure would be compatible with the surrounding building, so for continuity it would be sensible to have the building approximately the same height as the buildings to the north and south. She agreed that the criteria had been met. Roll Call Vote Vice Chair—aye Member Parisi —aye Member Kessler—aye Member Hickey—nay Chair Martin—aye Motion carried, 4-1, with Member Hickey opposed. Chair Martin recessed the meeting at 4:20 p.m. The meeting resumed at 4:26 p.m. 3. CASE NO. OV 10-06-09 Robinette Architects, Inc. representing Frank and Mary Engle, request a variance from the required 18' building height, up to 23',when measured from natural grade on a custom graded lot with a greater than 6% slope. Subject property: (parcel#220-07-0530) located at 11321 N. Charoleau Drive, Oro Valley,AZ 85737, in the Palisades Point subdivision. Lee Pettit, representing the Engles explained that the expiration of the pre-annexation agreement for Palisades Point will prevent this project from being developed to the standard of the existing neighborhood and adjacent properties, specifically with regard to allowable building height. He reported that the current zoning requirements would not allow this project to blend with the existing neighborhood context and would severely limit the views from the property, and would have a negative impact on the property value. He explained that only a very small portion of the project exceeded the current 18 feet-0 inches building height requirement, whereas the entire project was in conformance with the original development standards. He reported that the Oro Valley Development Review Board and the subdivision previously approved a 2-story version of the project, which had a greater overall building height than what was currently being proposed. He added that the project had not been through the permitting process and that the request would be to obtain a variance from 18 feet-0 inches to 22 feet-0 inches maximum building height. In answer to a question from Member Kessler, Lee Pettit reported that the majority of the community was developed and the existing homes were built under the old zoning rule requirements. Senior Zoning Inspector Dee Widero explained that the Engles were requesting approval to build a home on a custom graded lot with an average cross slop greater than 6 % per cent. She reported that the proposed height overall was 15 feet 6 inches in height, with the foyer being visually the highest point at 17 feet 9 inches in height on a 6 inch foundation. She explained that the southwest portion of the home, ranges from 11 feet to 14 feet in actual height; with an 07 25 06 Board of Adjustment 6 Minutes allowed height of 18 feet; adding the amount of full ranging from 8 feet 5 inches to 10 feet inches; requiring a height variance from 3 feet 5 inches to 4 feet 5 inches because the natural grade at certain points of the building was significantly lower than that of other parts of the building site. She reported that the amount of fill dirt accounts for a portion of the allowable building height. Staff finding of facts: • Lot 23 has a 12% slope under the house pad. • The building area of lot 23 is restricted by slope, only driveways are allowed in the slope easement. • The building height varies from 7 feet 6 inches to 15 feet 6 inches with the foyer being 17 feet 9 inches in height. • The section of house in question is 11 feet to 14 feet from finished floor, 11 feet 6 inches & 14 feet 6 inches from finished grade, but exceeds the 18 feet from natural grade. • The owner has been working on the design of their home for over two years. Coming up against some hurdles, one of which is expiration of the annexation agreement. In Pima County the height limit for CR-1 is 34 feet, with a cut and fill of 15 feet. Oro Valley R1- 36, 18 feet maximum height and cut and fill of 6 feet. In answer to a question from Member Hickey, Sarah More explained that it was possible that the variance would be limited only to the information currently presented to the Board. Therefore, if there was a change in the design plan such as adding an additional room in the future, and it didn't meet the height requirement, the applicant would be required to apply for another variance. Chair Martin opened the public hearing and swore in the witness that was intending to testify. Brady Buckely, 11526 North Civano Place, a representative of the home owners association reported that the association was in favor of the request and the design of the home had met the association's requirements. MOTION: Member Hickey moved to APPROVE Case No. OV 10-06-09, a request to exceed the 18 foot building height up to 4 feet 6 inches when measuring building height from existing grade on a greater than 6 % slope. Member Parisi seconded the motion. Discussion: Member Hickey reported that after viewing the site he believed it was a tough lot to build on because of the flood plain and the way the property peeked upward. He explained that the 23 feet would be the minimum the applicant needed to construct the building. He stated that all 5 criteria had been met, especially the fact that it was a unique piece of property. Chair Martin agreed and pointed out the fact that the area in question was lower than the overall height of the home. Roll Call Vote Vice Chair Schannep—aye Member Parisi—aye Member Kessler—aye Member Hickey—aye 07 25 06 Board of Adjustment 7 Minutes Chair Martin—aye Motion carried, 5-0. 4. CASE NO. Randy and Karen Barbera, request a variance from the required 40' rear yard setback to 8', in the Monte Del Oro subdivision. Subject property: (parcel#224-27-1990) located at 11113 N. Guava Drive, Oro Valley,AZ 85737. Chair Martin swore in the witness. Karen Barbera explained that the request for a variance on the rear setback from the existing 20 feet to 8 feet to construct an additional 12 feet onto the rear the existing home. She reported that revision would allow for the enlargement of an existing children's bathroom and closet to accommodate her growing family. Senior Zoning Inspector Dee Widero explained that the Barberas were requesting to encroach into the required 40 feet rear yard setback, for a 12 feet addition to enlarge one of the bathrooms and a closet. She explained that the home was built in 1991, under R1-43 zoning regulations however, it was built at a 30 feet setback to the rear as opposed to the 40 feet required. She added that the current 30 feet setback minus the proposed 12 feet addition, would leave an 18 feet set back from the rear property line. She reported that the Barberas applied for a variance in 2003 to encroach into the side yard to construct a pool and that request was denied. She added that since that time the applicant has applied; received approval and completed a garage extension and modifications; interior modification; retaining walls and archways and pool permit. Staff finding of fact: • Due to the topographic constraints of this site, the location and design of the home when built, the proposed addition/remodel will lie 12 feet from the rear property line if approved. • The home was originally built in 1991; the applicant bought their home in 2002. • The applicant is proposing to reduce the rear yard setback from the required 40 feet to 12 feet. Chair Martin opened the public hearing. There being no speakers the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Member Hickey moved to approve Case No. OV 10-06-10, a request to reduce the rear setback for the addition only to 18 feet from the property line, in order to enlarge the bathroom and closet. Member Kessler seconded the motion. Discussion: Vice Chair Schannep stated that he had concerns with the variance approval and recalled that he had ruled on the home before and was sympathetic to the fact that the family was growing. But, he believed the situation was purely caused by the families needs and not by the home. Chair Martin agreed and stated he did not believe the 5 criteria had been met. He said there was no valid reason presented for the approval of the variance other than need. 07 25 06 Board of Adjustment 8 Minutes Member Hickey explained that this property had a substantially unique topography, and in his opinion, there wasn't much else that would be doable with the property, therefore all 5 criteria had been met because the property was unique. In answer to a question from Member Parisi, Patty Hayes explained that a detached accessory structure would be allowed 5 feet from the property line. Member Kessler stated that there were some topography issues with the property and the applicant was certainly entitled to their property rights, therefore agreed with the motion. Roll Call Vote Vice Chair Schannep—nay Member Kessler—nay Member Parisi—nay Member Hickey—aye Chair Martin—nay Motion failed 1-4, with Member Hickey was in favor. 5. Planning and Zoning Update No report. Vice Chair Schannep requested that the section of the staff report labeled "Conclusion" be agendized for discussion at the next regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Vice Chair Schannep, and seconded by Member Kessler to adjourn the meeting at 5:16 p.m. Motion carried, 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Linda Hersha, Office Specialist