June 21, 2010
CALL TO ORDER - At 3:00 p.m.


Jeremy Christopher, Chair
Jimmy Fields, Vice Chair
Paul Parisi, Member
Sandra Hoy-Johnson, Member

EXCUSED: John Hickey, Member

Member Hoy-Johnson arrived at 3:02 p.m.

MINUTES:   Approval of the Minutes of March 23, 2010.

MOTION: A motion was made by Member Parisi and seconded by Vice Chair Fields to approve the Minutes of the March 23, 2010 Board of Adjustment meeting.

MOTION carried, 3-0.



CASE NO:  OV10-10-04, Kylie Flick requests a variance from the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised sections 23.4 R1-36 required building height of 18’ up to 22’.  Subject parcel (#224-40-0360) is located at 1721 W Placita Caracol, Oro Valley, AZ, 85737.

Chair Christopher swore in the applicant.

Kylie Flick owner of the property requested a height variance from 18 feet to 22 feet and proposed to increase the square footage from 1,404 square feet to 3,990 square feet.
She noted her intentions as follows:
~Add the addition in full rather than piece meal
~Did not want to impede the neighbors' views, privacy or land
~To preserve native plants
~Topography was an issue on the north and east side of property
~To utilize as much of the space in the rear of the property as possible

Ms. Flick stated that the neighbor to the south of her property objected due to privacy issues as she would overlook his backyard. She noted that she decided to use that area for a future pool and not encroach on setbacks or the neighbor’s yard. She further stated that she wanted to add a 2 bay garage.

She stated that going to the east impacted the neighbors and the land as there was a lot of vegetation.

She noted the following:
~With the proposed second floor, her request was for one variance instead of two
~Most of the houses in the neighborhood were 18 feet high and others were higher still
  *Her home was currently at 11 1/2 feet tall
~The natural grade was unknown

She summarized her proposal:
~A second story addition would have the least impact on the neighbors and the land
~Accommodated the neighbors’ concerns
~The proposed addition did not obstruct views

Ms. Flick noted that she was not aware of the height restriction prior to purchasing her home. She explained that she did not plan to have a second story, but felt it was less of an impact for all concerned. 

Senior Planner Karen Berchtold presented the staff report. She stated the following:
~The proposal was to remodel the existing 1,404 square foot single story home in to a 3,990 square foot two story home
~R-136 zoning applied to this home and limited the height to 18 feet
  *The request would increase the height to 22 feet
~Current house was built in 1983 under the jurisdiction of Pima County
  *Annexed in 1989 by Oro Valley
~The house was currently 11 feet 4 inches in height
  *The Pima County zoning would have allowed for a 34 foot building height
  *Under Oro Valley zoning, the height was limited to 18 feet
~Additional review would be required by:
  *The Development Review Board if the variance were granted
  *Hillside development standards
~Most of the houses in the immediate area have maintained the original building height
~Public notice was posted on the property, in the newspaper and online
~Staff had not received comments in favor of or against at the time the report was written 
~One caller stated concern about setting a precedent for future remodeling projects in the  neighborhood

Discussion noted the following:
~A couple of other homes had additions though none appeared to be above 18 feet
~A two story structure could not be built within 18 feet
~The original zoning prior to Oro Valley was 34 feet 

~There were approximately 200 lots within the subdivision

~The denial of a height variance for a neighboring home in 1993 was unknown

Chair Christopher opened the public hearing.

Oro Valley resident Elizabeth Rullo stated that she had been a resident since 1990 and that her home faced Placita Caracol. She stated that she had made additions to her home and her opposition to building up as it would set a precedent. She noted that the neighborhood was comprised of ranch style homes built by Estes. She explained that she was concerned that she would lose her view of the mountains.

Oro Valley resident Karen Stratman stated that from her backyard, she had a modest view of Ms. Flick's house. She noted her opposition to have a two story home in the area. She explained that it was important to be an informed home buyer.

Oro Valley resident Vicki Contreras stated that she had applied for a height variance and was denied. She explained that the mayor (at the time) later came to her home and stated that her variance had been approved. She noted that she later abandoned the alterations to her home as a result of a health issue. She stated that she felt Ms. Flick’s addition was a more acceptable sight from the street than a retaining wall with the vegetation removed would be. She noted that vegetation was important in southern Arizona. She expressed her hope that the Board would take this information into consideration.

It was noted that the height variance Mrs. Contreras had requested was 19 1/2 feet.

Ms. Rullo returned to state that Ms. Flick should have reviewed the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s).

Ms. Flick responded that she did address the CC & R’s and that there were a number of homes with updates in the community that made it seem that the CC & R’s did not exist. She stated that she was allowed 18 feet and that she had reduced it to 13 feet to accommodate a neighbor. She noted that height was measured from the natural grade and that she could build to that height from the hill on her property; however she felt that it would be detrimental to property values as it would remove vegetation and require a large retaining wall.

MOTION: A motion was made by Member Parisi and seconded by Vice Chair Fields to deny the variance.

Member Parisi stated that a second story would open the door for a special circumstance.

Vice Chair Fields concurred and stated that criteria for a variance had not been met.

Chair Christopher stated that the variance did not meet the fourth criteria and believed that it would be materially detrimental to the neighbors.

MOTION carried, 3-1 with Member Hoy-Johnson opposed.


MOTION: A motion was made by Member Parisi and seconded by Vice Chair Fields to adjourn the meeting at 3:47 p.m.

MOTION carried, 4-0.