Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBA.1993.0112.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 12, 1993 A public meeting of the Fountain Hills Board of Adjustment was convened and called to order by Chairman George Bard at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 12, 1993 in the Town Council Chambers located at 16836 E. Palisades Blvd., Fountain Hills, Arizona. AGENDA ITEM #1 - CALL TO ORDER Chairman Bard called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #2 - ROLL CALL Roll call was taken and present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Board of Adjustment: Chairman George Bard, Vice-Chairman Paul Kolwaite, Boardmember Joel Katleman, and Boardmember Earl Stavely. Boardmember Donald Andrews arrived at 7:04 p.m. Also present were Associate Planner, Loras Rauch and Administrative Assistant, Joan McCartney. AGENDA ITEM #3 - PLEDGE TO THE FLAG AND INVOCATION After the pledge to the flag, the invocation was given by Chairman Bard. AGENDA ITEM #4 - CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 6, 1992 Boardmember Stavely made a MOTION that the minutes of October 6, 1992 be accepted as written. Vice-Chairman Kolwaite SECONDED and the motion CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #5 - REVIEW AND CONSIDER VARIANCE REQUEST BY: JOHN A AND MARIE RYER (V93-01) 15606 E. TELEGRAPH DRIVE PLAT 604C, BLOCK 2, LOT 11 FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA Mrs. Rauch read from the Staff Report, Findings of Fact, Analysis and Recommendation. Vice-Chairman Kolwaite asked how accurate the drawings were and was told by Mrs. Rauch that the drawings had been stamped by a licensed engineer, Jerry King. Mrs. Rauch pointed out that both footprints of the house on the drawing depicting a 40 foot setback and the drawing depicting the 20 foot setback were the same and the house would have a daylight basement in either case. Mrs. Rauch added that, at the garage level and pool area, at a 40 foot setback there would be 9 to 10 feet of fill and at a 20 foot setback there would be 7 to 9 feet of fill. Vice-Chairman Kolwaite asked if the pool was impinging 1 on the property line. Mrs. Rauch explained that the dimension lines were drawn beyond the property lines, but that there was adequate an adequate side yard setback. Boardmember Andrews asked if there was any occupiable space above the garage and was told by Mrs. Rauch that there was not. Mrs. Rauch presented drawings of the elevation of the home. Boardmember Katleman asked if there was any difference in site disturbance area whether the house was set at 40 feet or 20 feet back. Mrs. Rauch stated that at 20 feet there would be 13,560 square feet disturbed and at 40 feet, there would be 17,360 square feet disturbed. Mrs. Rauch added that neither plan was in excess of the maximum allowable land disturbance. Chairman Bard reiterated that there was no conflict between front yard setback requirements and Hillside Development Standards. Mrs. Rauch explained that because of the change to the zoning ordinance that eliminated calculating allowable disturbance based on degree of slope and replaced it with the Land Disturbance Standards which calculates allowable disturbance based on the size of the footprint of the house, the conflict was removed. Mr. John Ryer, the applicant, presented a letter he had written to the Board. Mr. Ryer stated that there were about 14 homes in Stoneridge and that 14 variances had been granted, 2 of which had never been used. Mr. Ryer stated that 80% of all the lots that had already been built, had variances that had been used. Mr. Ryer went on to state that compliance to the 40 foot setback requirement would destroy the aesthetics value of the home by forcing the building down the hill where only the roof would be predominate. Mr. Ryer stated that the maximum grade for a Town road was 12% and that for driveways the maximum grade was 18%. Mr. Ryer went on to say that at the 40 foot setback, the driveway would be at 11.5% grade which would be almost the maximum and should be avoided when building a house. Mr. Ryer asked that consideration be taken over the fact that he has owned the lot in question for 5 years. Mr. Ryer stated that the variance request would fall under the "grandfather clause" and should be considered under the rules that were in effect when he purchased the property. Mr. Ryer stated that at the time he purchased the lot, obtaining a variance was not a problem and was granted upon request. Mr. Ryer stated that almost every lot in Stoneridge needs a variance. Mr. Ryer stated that the 20 foot setback he was requesting had already been approved by the Committee of Architecture. The Board explained to Mr. Ryer that approval by the Committee of Architecture had no bearing on the case before them. Boardmember Andrews suggested filling in beneath the garage at the 40 foot setback to reduce the percent of grade of the driveway. Mr. Gordon Pittsenbarger, contractor, pointed out that 80% of the homes in the Stoneridge area have applied for variances which he felt indicated a desire of the homeowners to have a street presence of their home. He stated that he felt the Hillside Development Standards were a way of getting the homes pushed forward. He added that having a home built below the curb level was a detriment to selling a home. Mr. Pittsenbarger stated that a lot of time had been spent designing the home and the drainage around it. Vice-Chairman Kolwaite stated that the other houses in the neighborhood that had variances granted were built below the street grade level. Mr. Pittsenbarger presented photographs of homes that were not built below the grade level. Mrs. Rauch stated that of the 14 variances granted, 9 were granted by the County and 5 were granted by the Town. Mrs.Rauch explained that she could not address the County's reasoning behind the granting of the variances and did not have access to that information. 2 Mr. Ed Klinger, 15535 Greystone, stated that he was against the variance because it spoiled the view and that he would rather see just the rooftop as opposed to the whole house. Ms. Grace Osterhoff stated that she was in favor of granting the variance because the lot was purchased at the same time as other properties which had variances granted. Mr.Tom Henry,Telegraph Drive,presented photographs of houses and lots in the area. Mr. Henry stated that having a 20 foot setback had a negative aesthetic impact. Mr. Henry went on to say that in his opinion, variances should not be granted for their own personal reasons and that the rule of a 40 foot setback should be followed. Mr. Jim Fonk, Sunflower, stated that the area had mixed zoning with a 20 foot setback on one side of the street and 40 foot setback on the other side of the street. Mr. Fonk stated that maintaining a 40 foot setback would be an oddity in the neighborhood and he was in favor of the granting the variance. Mr. Jim Ritchy, Telegraph, stated he was against the variance. He went on to say that when he built his home, he had to abide by the rules and place his house on the lot with the minimum required setback. Mrs. Deana Gray-Henry, Telegraph, stated that all lots in Stoneridge had a 40 foot setback. Mrs. Gray- Henry stated that the larger homes and the 40 foot setback added to the aesthetically pleasing street presence. She went on to say that in instances where the homes were brought forward, the lots had been very steeply sloping. Mrs. Gray-Henry stated that the neighbors did not want the variance granted. Mr. Eugene Wolf, Greystone, expressed his concern that if the variance was granted, the views would be blocked. Mrs. Marie Ryer, the applicant, stated that she did not think views being blocked was a good reason for being against a variance. Mr. Pittsenbarger stated that he did not think the Ryers should be penalized because they chose to wait to build on their lot. Mr. Pittsenbarger stated that had the Ryers wanted to build 6 months ago the plan would have exceeded the Hillside Development Standards by over 2,000 square feet and the Board would probably granted the variance because of the conflict between required minimum front yard setback and the Hillside Disturbance Standards. Boardmember Andrews stated that there was no such thing as a "grandfather clause" nor had any precedences been set by prior granting of variances. He added that the ordinance had been changed and the Board was now required to follow the rules that were in effect at the time the variance was requested. He went on to say that the Board could not rule on aesthetics nor judge the variance request by what had been granted before. Boardmember Stavely stated that the Board had to go by the criteria set in place for them and could not be swayed by cost reductions to the applicant or by aesthetics. Mrs. Rauch read the 4 criteria by which the Board must abide (attached). 3 Chairman Bard stated that the Board must comply with no less than all 4 criteria. He stated that in the past when variances were granted in similar cases, there was a conflict of laws. The laws in conflict were r. the required front yard setback and the Hillside Development Standards. He went on to state that since the Hillside Development Standards had been changed, there was no longer a conflict in laws. Mr. Sam Cioffi, Sunflower, stated that 80% of the 1 acre lots that must have a 40 foot setback had had variances granted. He stated that of the 42 units constructed in Stoneridge, perhaps 39 or 40 have a 20 foot setback either by variance or by original zoning. Mrs. Rauch read Mr.Ryer's letter for the Board. Chairman Bard stated that as long as the law for 40 foot setbacks was in existence, the Board must follow the law. Vice-Chairman Kolwaite reminded Mr. Cioffi that the Board was now operating under a different set of rules and one set could not be related to another. He went on to say that the amount of land that was allowed to be disturbed was not affected by the position of the house. Mr. Cioffi pointed out that there would be increased land disturbance if the house was placed at the 40 foot setback and the house would then be more the exception than the rule in relation to the other houses in the area that were placed at the 20 foot setback. Boardmember Andrews reiterated that the Board must still abide by the current law. Mrs. Rosemary Klinger, Greystone, stated that she was against the variance. Mr. Ryer restated his wishes that the variance be granted and added that any arguments for view protection were, in his opinion, invalid. Boardmember Katleman stated that because of Fountain Hills topography the houses should be stepped down the hills. Boardmember Andrews suggested that the applicant request a continuance to further study the plan. He added that if the Committee of Architecture were to reject the plans submitted, then perhaps the Board would be able to look upon the request as a hardship and be able to grant the variance. He informed the Ryers that if the variance was denied, it would be a year before they could reapply for a variance on the same issue. The Ryers conferred with Mr. Pittsenbarger and requested a continuance to see if they could move the house back to the 40 foot setback. Mr. Pittsenbarger stated that the Ryers wanted to go back to the Committee of Architecture to see if they could get the height that they wanted at the 40 foot setback. Mr. Henry stated that he strongly objected to the continuance and stated that variances should not be granted for personal reasons. Boardmember Andrews stated that if the applicant wanted to place the house at the 40 foot setback, then a variance would not be necessary. He added that the applicant could withdraw their request for a variance if the 40 foot setback could be achieved. Vice-Chairman Kolwaite asked if the Ryers wanted to restated their position and say that they were attempting to plan their house at the 40 foot setback, then a variance would not be necessary. He stated 4 that if they were still going to come before the Board for a 20 foot setback, then he could not see the point of a continuance. Chairman Bard asked if the applicant could submit a variance request and then request a continuance. Mrs. Rauch stated that it was at the Board's discretion to have the applicant state a reason for the continuance. Boardmember Andrews stated that the continuance should be a good faith effort to conform to the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Rauch stated that she didn't think the By-Law addressed the issue of a continuance. Boardmember Andrews withdrew his comments and stated that the applicant withdraw his request for a variance and reapply at another time. The Ryers requested a 5 minute recess to discuss the situation. Chairman Bard declared the recess. Mrs. Rauch reminded the Board not to deliberate without the presence of the applicant. Chairman Bard stated that there did not seem to be a justifiable reason for a continuance of the variance request. He went on to say that the Board needed to either grant or deny the variance or the Ryers needed to withdraw their request. The Ryers requested that their variance request be allowed to be withdrawn without prejudice. Because of the request to withdraw, Chairman Bard terminated discussion of the case. AGENDA ITEM #6 - CALL TO THE PUBLIC There were no speakers AGENDA ITEM #7 - ADJOURNMENT Boardmember Katleman made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Boardmember Andrews SECONDED and the motion CARRIED unanimously. Chairman Bard adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m. FOUNTAIN HILLS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT By: 1r George Bard;Chairman A'1TEST: Joan McCartney, Administrativ ssistant 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 12th day of January, 1993. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 14th day of January, 1993. Joan McCartney, Administrative ssistant 5 STAFF REPORT JANUARY 12, 1993 CASE NO.: V93-01 ADDRESS: 15606 E. Telegraph Drive aka Lot 11, Blk. 2, Plat 604C REQUESTED ACTION: Requesting a variance to allow a reduction in the required front yard setback to twenty (20) feet. DESCRIPTION: Owner: John and Marie Ryer Applicant: John and Marie Ryer Existing Zoning: R1-35 , Single-Family Residential Existing Land Use: Undeveloped residential lot Size: 1.14 acres (49,658 sq. ft.) SURROUNDING LAND USE and ZONING: North: Single-family home; Zoned "R1-35" South: Single-family home; Zoned "Rl-8" East: Existing single-family home; Zoned "R1-35" West: Undeveloped single-family lot; Zoned "R1-35" CODE REQUIREMENT: ARTICLE VII. (R1-35) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT 35,000 SQUARE FEET PER DWELLING UNIT 7.4 Yard Regulations. The required yards are as follows: (1) Front Yard: (a) There shall be a front yard having a depth of not less than forty (40) feet.