HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDApacket__12-17-20_0546_141
NOTICE OF MEETING
REGULAR MEETING
FOUNTAIN HILLS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Chairman Paul Ryan
Vice Chairman Carol Perica
Boardmember Nick Sehman
Boardmember John Kovac III
Boardmember Jeremy Smith
TIME:5:30 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING
WHEN:THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2020
WHERE:FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS
16705 E. AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Boardmembers of the Town of Fountain Hills will attend either in person or by telephone conference call; a quorum of the
Town’s Council, various Commission, Committee or Board members may be in attendance at the Board of Adjustment
meeting.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9, subject to certain specified statutory exceptions, parents have a
right to consent before the State or any of its political subdivisions make a video or audio recording of a minor child.
Meetings of the Commission are audio and/or video recorded and, as a result, proceedings in which children are present
may be subject to such recording. Parents, in order to exercise their rights may either file written consent with the Town
Clerk to such recording, or take personal action to ensure that their child or children are not present when a recording may
be made. If a child is present at the time a recording is made, the Town will assume that the rights afforded parents
pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9 have been waived.
REQUEST TO COMMENT
The public is welcome to participate in Board of Adjustment meetings.
TO SPEAK TO AN AGENDA ITEM, please complete a Request to Comment card, located in the back
of the Council Chambers, and hand it to the Executive Assistant prior to discussion of that item, if
possible. Include the agenda item on which you wish to comment. Speakers will be allowed three
contiguous minutes to address the Board. Verbal comments should be directed through the
Presiding Officer and not to individual Boardmembers.
TO COMMENT ON AN AGENDA ITEM IN WRITING ONLY, please complete a Request to Comment
card, indicating it is a written comment, and check the box on whether you are FOR or AGAINST and
agenda item, and hand it to the Executive Assistant prior to discussion, if possible.
1.CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE – Chairman Ryan
2.ROLL CALL – Chairman Ryan
3.CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.01(H), public comment is permitted (not required) on matters NOT listed on the
agenda. Any such comment (i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Board, and (ii) is subject to reasonable
time, place, and manner restrictions. The Board will not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during
Call to the Public unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the
Call to the Public, individual boardmembers may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter, or (iii)
ask that the matter be placed on a future Board agenda.
4.CONSIDERATION OF approving the meeting minutes of the Board of Adjustment October 17,
2019.
5.PUBLIC HEARING of the application of Heather & Clay Donnelly for a Variance to reduce the
20-foot minimum street-side building setback for an addition on an approximately 0.31-acre
lot, located at the southeast corner of San Marcus Drive and El Pueblo Drive (AKA 17503 E.
San Marcus Drive, APN#176-04-026) in the R1-8 Single Family residential zoning district.
(Case #V2020-02)
6.BOARD DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff.
7.SUMMARY OF BOARD REQUESTS from Development Services Director.
8.REPORT from Development Services Director.
9.ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF NOTICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing notice was duly posted in accordance with the statement filed
by the Board of Adjustment with the Town Clerk.
Dated this ______ day of ____________________, 2020.
_____________________________________________
Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant
The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 480-816-5199 (voice)
Board of Adjustment Meeting of December 17, 2020 2 of 3
The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 480-816-5199 (voice)
or 1-800-367-8939 (TDD) 48 hours prior to the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to participate in the meeting or to obtain
agenda information in large print format. Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the Board with this agenda are available
for review in the Development Services' Office.
Board of Adjustment Meeting of December 17, 2020 3 of 3
ITEM 4.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 12/17/2020 Meeting Type: Board of Adjustment
Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Development Services
Prepared by: Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant
Staff Contact Information: John Wesley, Development Services Director
Request to Board of Adjustment (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approving the
meeting minutes of the Board of Adjustment October 17, 2019.
Staff Summary (Background)
The intent of approving meeting minutes is to ensure an accurate account of the discussion and action
that took place at the meeting for archival purposes. Approved minutes are placed on the Town's
website and maintained as permanent records in compliance with state law.
Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle
N/A
Risk Analysis
N/A
Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s)
N/A
Staff Recommendation(s)
Staff recommends approving the minutes of the Board of Adjustment October 17, 2019.
SUGGESTED MOTION
MOVE to approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustment October 17, 2019.
Attachments
Meeting Minutes October 17, 2019
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Development Services Director John Wesley 12/10/2020 03:34 PM
Finance Director
Finance Director
Town Attorney
Town Manager
Form Started By: Paula Woodward Started On: 12/10/2020 03:19 PM
1 of 10
DRAFT
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 17, 2019 A public meeting of the Fountain Hills Board of Adjustment was convened and called to order by Chairman Paul Ryan at 5:30 p.m. Thursday, October 17, 2019, in the Town Hall Council Chambers located at 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains, Fountain Hills, Arizona.
AGENDA ITEM #1 - CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENT REFLECTION. AGENDA ITEM #2 - ROLL CALL. Present for the meeting were Chairman Paul Ryan, Vice-Chairman Carol Perica, and Board Members John Kovac III and Nick Sehman. Also present were John Wesley, Development Services Director, and Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant.
AGENDA ITEM #3 - CALL TO PUBLIC. None.
AGENDA ITEM #4 - CONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 2, 2018. Vice-Chairman Perica made a MOTION to approve the meeting minutes from the August 2,
2018, Board of Adjustment meeting. Boardmember Sehman SECONDED and the MOTION passed 4-0, by those present. AGENDA ITEM #5 - CONSIDERATION OF SELECTION AND APPROVAL OF
COMMISSIONER TERMS. Mr. Wesley explained that during a September meeting the Town Council discussed and
approved the need to bring consistency and transparency to the overall process for Boards
and Commissions. The changes made ensured uniformity between the boards and commissions and enable the members of each body to more easily obtain a quorum to expedite business. All terms are three-year terms, with terms ending in either April or October of each year. Paula will email the board with each member’s current term standing
and the changes reflecting the new term expiration dates.
AGENDA ITEM #6 – PUBLIC HEARING OF THE APPLICATION OF THOMAS S AND DEBRA S GARCIA FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK ALONG TREVINO DRIVE FROM 40’ TO MINIMUM OF 10’ IN THE R-335 ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16512 E TREVINO DR. (CASE #V2019-11) Chairman Ryan opened the public hearing at 5:35 p.m.
Mr. Wesley gave a PowerPoint Presentation that addressed:
2 of 10
REQUEST VICINITY MAP AERIAL VIEW
CONTOURS
PROPOSED HOUSE LOCATIONS INTERSECTION SIGHT VISIBILITY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Wesley also reviewed the following Zoning Ordinances as they related to the
Garcia’s request: SECTION 2.07 - APPEALS AND VARIANCES SECTION 5.06 - YARD, LOT AND AREA REQUIREMENTS
SECTION 10.9 - DENSITY, AREA, BUILDING AND YARD REGULATIONS
Mr. Wesley said that the request is to reduce the required front yard setback along Trevino drive (16512 E. Trevino Drive) from forty feet to a minimum of ten feet. He explained that in 1995 the owner of Lot 4, Block 7, Plat 403-B requested a replat to divide the lot into
parcels. The vacant lot is an oddly shaped corner lot. With corner lots, the street with the
shorter length is considered the front for setback purposes. So, the Trevino side is considered the front yard and buildings are required to meet the front setback requirement along the street front. Mr. Wesley stated that the findings support the approval of the variance: Much of the lot is steep and slopes down toward Nelson. Much of the lot within
the setback area is near the 30% slope criteria which would allow the 10’ foot set back; The
shape and topography were not created by the property owner; Keeping houses pushed back from Nelson would help maintain the open view and natural topography. He concluded that staff recommends that the Board find that the special conditions exist and the variance would not be detrimental to surrounding residences in the area and they approve the
requested variance.
Discussion took place amongst the board regarding garage placement. Mr. Garcia addressed the board. Clarified that the garage would not be more than a 20’ set
back. The site line at the stop sign would not be obstructed than what already exists. This
is a single level home that would meet the required height restriction established by the neighbor and the previous land owner. In response to Vice Chairman Perica, Mr. Wesley said that a height restriction would not
require a variance. The height restriction stated in the deed is a private civil matter. The
deed restriction is a lesser height than what the ordinance requires. Don and Joanne Meehan, Fountain Hills residents, addressed the board with concerns regarding the traffic on Trevino. They said that the drivers on Trevino do not adhere to the
speed limit. They had cars crash into their property and the neighbor’s property resulting in
damage. Their home has a 40’ foot setback. Their concern is that the variance request will allow the home to sit closer to the road making it more vulnerable to traffic incidents. Larry Meyers, Fountain Hills resident, said he was against the variance because construction
plans are not available as they should be. He was denied his variance for 10’ feet when he
asked for it. He said he was required to follow the rules and so others should also. The corner continues to be a sight issue with the existing landscape.
3 of 10
Tara Kroeger, Fountain Hills resident, said she was also representing her parents. She read a statement that was submitted to the Development Services Department. She said that they
opposed the variance because the setback would create an oddity in relation to other homes.
She said that the same laws and regulations should be followed as the rest of the homes built on Trevino Drive. The laws are there for a reason. Robin Boone, Fountain Hills resident, said that variances are put into place to protect the
spacing, the sight lines and the community’s quality of life. It would not be fair to the
neighborhood if the variance is granted. He said he opposed the variance. Chairman Ryan asked that staff review the safety of Trevino Drive. He asked if Mr. Wesley could report back to the board regarding any studies regarding the Trevino traffic and safety.
Chairman Perica reminded the board and the audience of the variance criteria. Decisions are made based on the four criteria points. In response to Boardmember Kovac, Mr. Wesley said that the greater impact would be on
Trevino Dr.
Discussion ensued relative to changing the setback requirement to 20’ feet from 10. The Board agreed it would be a good compromise for the neighbors and applicant.
Chairman Ryan closed the public hearing at 7:03 p.m.
Chairman Ryan made a MOTION to adopt the findings to include a setback requirement of
20’ and APPROVE the applicants requested Variance from the provisions of Zoning Ordinance, Section 10.09. Vice Chairman Parica SECONDED and the MOTION passed 4-0, by those present. AGENDA ITEM #7 - BOARD DISCUSSION /REQUEST FOR RESEARCH TO STAFF. None. AGENDA ITEM #8 – SUMMARY OF BOARD REQUESTS FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR.
None. AGENDA ITEM #9 - REPORT FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR.
Mr. Wesley said that the town is in the process of updating the General Plan. A community meeting will take place at the Community Center on November 20, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. for public input. AGENDA ITEM #10 - ADJOURNMENT.
Chairman Ryan adjourned the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
4 of 10
FOUNTAIN HILLS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
BY: ___________________________ Chairman Paul Ryan
ATTEST: __________________________________ Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant
CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the
meeting of the Fountain Hills Board of Adjustment held on the 17th day of October 2019. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present.
Dated this November 19th day of November, 2019.
________________________________ Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant
ITEM 5.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 12/17/2020 Meeting Type: Board of Adjustment
Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Development Services
Prepared by: Farhad Tavassoli, Senior Planner
Staff Contact Information: Farhad Tavassoli, Senior Planner
Request to Board of Adjustment (Agenda Language): PUBLIC HEARING of the application of
Heather & Clay Donnelly for a Variance to reduce the 20-foot minimum street-side building setback for
an addition on an approximately 0.31-acre lot, located at the southeast corner of San Marcus Drive and
El Pueblo Drive (AKA 17503 E. San Marcus Drive, APN#176-04-026) in the R1-8 Single Family residential
zoning district. (Case #V2020-02)
Staff Summary (Background)
Applicant: Heather and Clay Donnelly
Applicant Contact Information: 17503 E. San Marcus Dr.
Fountain Hills, AZ 85268
(303) 472-8642
Property Location: 17503 E. San Marcus Dr.
APN 176-04-026
Lot 3 of Plat 107-A
Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle:
Town Code Article 2-8-4 - Board of Adjustment Duties
Town Code Article 2-8-6 - Variances
Zoning Ordinance Section 1.12 Definitions – Street Side Yard
Zoning Ordinance Section 2.07.B – Variance
Zoning Ordinance Section 4.01 E – Nonconforming Uses and Structures
Zoning Ordinance Section 5.06.B Yard Lot and Area Requirements
Zoning Ordinance Section 10.09 Density, Area, Building and Yard Regulations
Arizona Revised Statute 9-462.06 – Board of Adjustment
APPLICABLE TOWN CODE REQUIREMENTS:
Article 2-8 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Section 2-8-4 Duties
B. It shall be the duty of the board of adjustment to hear and decide appeals for variances from the
terms of the zoning code only, if because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property,
including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning code
will deprive such property owner of privileges enjoyed by owners of other property of the same
classification in the zoning district. Any variance granted is subject to such conditions as will assure
that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located.
C. The board of adjustment may not:
1. Make any changes in the uses permitted in any zoning classification or zoning district, make
any changes in the terms of the zoning code or make changes to the zoning map, provided the
restriction in this paragraph shall not affect the authority to grant variances pursuant to this
article.
2. Grant a variance if the special circumstances applicable to the property are self-imposed by
the property owner.
APPLICABLE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Chapter 2 PROCEDURES
Section 2.07 Appeals and Variances
B. Variance.
1. Any aggrieved person may appeal to the Board of Adjustment for a variance from the terms
of the Zoning Ordinance if, because of special circumstances applicable to the property,
including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the
Zoning Ordinance will deprive such property owner of privileges enjoyed by owners of other
property of the same classification in the same Zoning District. Any variance granted shall be
made subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment authority shall not constitute
a granting of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the zone
in which such property is located.
2. The Board shall hear the appeal at the next regularly scheduled meeting after the required
advertising requirements have been fulfilled. Notice of the hearing shall be made by publishing a
notice thereof in the official newspaper of the Town and by posting the property affected not
less than fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. The notice shall set forth the time and place of
the hearing and include a general explanation of the matter to be considered.
3. A variance shall not be granted by the Board unless the alleged hardship caused by literal
interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance results in more than personal inconvenience
and/or personal financial hardship, and is not the result of actions of the applicant.
4. In granting a variance, the Board shall impose such conditions and safeguards as are
appropriate to ensure that the purpose and intent of this ordinance remain intact.
5. No nonconforming use or violations of this ordinance with respect to neighboring lands,
structures, or buildings in the same Zoning District, and no permitted use of lands, structures or
buildings in other zoning districts shall be considered grounds for granting a variance.
6. Every variance shall be personal to the applicant therefore and shall be transferable and shall
run with the land only after completion of any structure or structures authorized thereby.
7. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to empower the Board to change the terms of
this ordinance, to authorize uses which violate any other Town ordinance, to affect changes in
the zoning map, or to add to or change the uses permitted in any Zoning District.
Chapter 4 NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES
Section 4.01 Nonconforming Uses and Structures
E. Extensions:
1. Any extension of a nonconforming structure shall conform with all regulations for the zoning
district in which such structure is located.
Chapter 5 GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 5.06 Yard, Lot, and Area Requirements
Sub-Section B. Application
No building shall be erected, nor shall any existing buildings be altered, enlarged, moved, or rebuilt, nor
shall any open space surrounding any building be encroached upon or reduced in any manner, except in
conformity with the yard, lot, area and building location regulations hereinafter designated for the
zone in which such building or open space is located, except as otherwise specifically provided.
Chapter 10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Section 10.09 Density, Area, Building and Yard Regulations
Zoning District = R1-8
Required Building Setbacks:
Front = 20’
Side = 7’
Street Side = 20’
Rear = 25’
Staff Summary (background):
Heather and Clay Donnelly, owners of the 13,499 square foot corner lot located at 17503 E. San
Marcus Drive, submitted a variance request to reduce the 20-foot minimum street-side building
setback to allow construction of an addition to be set back at least 14.9 (14'-11") feet from the
street-side property line. In the case of corner lots, the street frontage with the longer dimension is
considered the street side for purposes of measuring the building setback. Therefore, the side adjacent
to El Pueblo Blvd. is considered the street side, while the front is adjacent to San Marcus Drive. Both
sides require a minimum setback of 20 feet.
The residential lot is fully developed and relatively flat with no remarkable topographic features. The
current owners of the 1,505 square-foot single-family residence, which was built in 1983, desire to add
a bedroom/bathroom on the west side. The street-side exterior wall of the proposed addition will be
flush with the existing wall of the primary residence, which at its nearest point is 15.25 feet (15'-3")
from the property line. Since the street-side building setback of the existing residence is less than the
current building setback standards, the residence is a pre-existing non-conforming structure, as it was
constructed before the Town’s incorporation in 1990.
As discussed earlier, the addition would be connected to the building at a point 15.25 (15'-3") from the
property line. The closest point of the proposed building addition to the property line would be 14.92
(14'-11") feet. The applicant’s preference is that the addition follow the setback of the existing block
fence, which is flush with the west side of the exterior wall of the existing residence.
Request for Variance from Zoning Ordinance Section 10.09, Street side Yard Setback in R1-8:
The applicants have requested the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to the required street
side yard setback for the R1-8 zoning district. The zoning ordinance required front yard setback in this
zoning district is 20’, the applicant is asking for an approximately 15’ setback, a reduction of 5’.
FINDINGS:
The four findings which must be made by the Board of Adjustment in order to grant a variance are
listed below. The applicants have provided their written justifications for each criterion in their
attached narrative. Staff’s responses are noted below:
1. There exist special circumstances or conditions regarding the land, building or use referred to in
the application which does not apply to other properties in the district.
Applicant: “We are requesting a variance to build the addition that follows these described
points on the existing block wall. We are unable to build the addition on the east side of our
property, due to the sewer easement that is in place on that entire side of the property. If we
were to build a separate “casita" in the back of the lot, it would require my father to access it
with a few steps, which is not feasible for him. Putting a structure there would also force us to
cut down 7 mature fruit trees and plants/shrubs. The only place left to feasibly build an addition
is on the west side of the property.”
Staff: There are several corner lots in the R1-8 zoning district, and particularly Plat 107, that
contain a public utility easement along the side and rear property lines, the nearest being
immediately to the west. Furthermore, the lot contains no unique natural conditions that would
warrant a variance. The Board may consider removal of the mature fruit trees as a condition that
would limit the desired addition to the west side of the property. However, this does not warrant
a reduced building setback.
2. The above special circumstances or conditions are preexisting and are not created or self-imposed
by the owner or applicant.
Applicant: “Our home was built in 1983, and the setbacks were different then they are now. Our
existing home is not located within the 20' setback that is now required."
Staff: Chapter 4 of the zoning ordinance clearly states any extension of a non-conforming
structure shall conform with all regulations for the zoning district in which the structure is
located. The subject property is located in the R1-8 zoning district, which requires a 20-foot
street side setback.
3. The Variance is necessary for the preservation of substantial property rights. Without a Variance
the property cannot be used for purposes otherwise allowed in this district.
Applicant: The applicant did not specifically address this criterion in their narrative.
Staff: The property is currently being used as a single-family residential dwelling and all setbacks
are in conformance with the zoning ordinance. No variance is necessary for the property owners
to use their property as permitted in the ordinance. Denial of the requested variances will not
alter the ability for the property owner to continue to use the property as a single family
residence. There is no loss of substantial property rights. In order for this criterion to be met, the
Board would have to find that allowing the bedroom addition to be flush with the pre-existing,
non-conforming exterior wall of the house falls under the definition of “substantial property
rights.”
4. The authorizing of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in
the vicinity, to adjacent property, or to the neighborhood or the public welfare.
Applicant: “Our home is tucked away behind many trees and shrubs. Driving down the road, you
do not notice it. It has a flat roof, is shorter than all other homes around us, and disappears into
the landscaping. Keeping the addition on the same line as the existing block wall, does not
change the existing layout of our property. The only difference is that it would look like the
existing block wall is a bit taller, where you can see it in between the landscaping, as we are not
asking to build outside of the existing footprint that already exists.”
Staff: The authorizing of a variance on the basis of a desired modification, and not an undue
hardship, will be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity of this
property and to the neighborhood, and to the public welfare because it will treat the subject
property differently than other similar properties and it would set a poor precedent by granting a
variance where no fundamentally unique characteristics exist on the property.
Compliance with State Law:
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment FIND that no variance may be issued under Arizona
law due to the fact that any hardships being addressed in this hearing are clearly self-imposed.
ARS 9-462.06 H. A board of adjustment may not:
2. Grant a variance if the special circumstances applicable to the property are self-imposed by the
property owner.
Risk Analysis (options or alternatives with implications): NA
Fiscal Impact (initial and ongoing costs; budget status): NA
Staff Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment FIND that of the required four criteria for granting a
zoning variance have not been met and that the requested Variance from the provisions of Zoning
Ordinance Section 10.09 be DENIED.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS: Move to adopt the findings outlined in the staff report and DENY the
applicant’s requested Variance from the provisions of Zoning Ordinance, Section 10.09.
Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle
NA
Risk Analysis
NA
Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s)
NA
Staff Recommendation(s)
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment FIND that of the required four criteria for granting a
zoning variance have not been met and that the requested Variance from the provisions of Zoning
Ordinance Section 10.09 be DENIED.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to adopt the findings outlined in the staff report and DENY the applicant’s requested Variance
from the provisions of Zoning Ordinance, Section 10.09.
Attachments
Application
Case Map
Applicant's Letter
Site Plan
Additional Photos
Development Standards Table
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Development Services Director John Wesley 12/09/2020 02:07 PM
Form Started By: Farhad Tavassoli Started On: 12/07/2020 02:24 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/09/2020
CASE:
V2020-02
SITE / ADDRESS:
17503 E. San Marcus Dr.
APN #176-04-026
REQUEST:
A variance to the required street side yard
setback of 20 feet
Site Location
11 October 2020
Dear Fountain Hills Neighbors,
We are applying for a variance to the setbacks of our lot line on the west side of our property. We own
a corner lot, which currently has a setback of 20’ from the property line for any building. We purchased
our home last December and moved here full time in March, with our two children. Since then, my 76
year old father has moved in with us and our home is no longer large enough. We plan on building an
additional bedroom and bathroom off the southwest corner of the home, following the footprint of the
existing 6’ block wall fence along our west property line.
Our home was built in 1983, and the setbacks were different than they are now. Our existing home is
not located within the 20’ setback that is now required. Along our west property line where we are
asking for the variance, the house has between a 11’6” to 15’ setback. Many of the homes in the
neighboring area were also built closer than the now required 20’ setback. The existing concrete block
wall is at a slight angle to the property line. The point where it extends from the house has a setback of
13’6”. At a point 28’ to the south of the house, has a setback of 14’11”. We are requesting a variance to
build the addition that follows these described points on the existing block wall.
We are unable to build the addition on the east side of our property, due to the sewer easement that is
in place on that entire side of the property. If we were to build a separate “casita” in the back of the lot,
it would require my father to access it with a few steps, which is not feasible for him. Putting a structure
there would also force us to cut down 7 mature fruit trees and plants/shrubs. The only place left to
feasibly build an addition is on the west side of the property.
Our home is tucked away behind many trees and shrubs. Driving down the road, you do not notice it. It
has a flat roof, is shorter than all other homes around us, and disappears into the landscaping. Keeping
the addition on the same line as the existing block wall, does not change the existing layout of our
property. The only difference is that it would look like the existing block wall is a bit taller, where you
can see it in-between the landscaping, as we are not asking to build outside of the existing footprint that
already exists.
The 6 photos below are of what our home looks like driving down the road and from across the street.
We have highlighted the area of the proposed new build (picture 7), which is essentially adding a few
feet to the height of the existing concrete block fence, as no windows will be put on that wall.
To recap, we are not asking to build outside of our existing concrete block wall. We are not changing
the footprint of what is already there. From the outside, nothing will have changed, except the height of
the concrete block wall. The last picture below shows a highlighted area of what will be different.
We thank you for your time and consideration with this matter, and we look forward to going over this
soon with you all.
Sincerely,
Clay and Heather Donnelly
20
’
f
o
o
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
se
t
b
a
c
k
l
i
n
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Additional photos by staff
Subject property from El Pueblo Blvd., facing east Subject property from San Marcus Dr., facing south
Subject property from El Pueblo Blvd. taken beside
neighbor’s property, facing north
Subject property from El Pueblo Blvd., facing north