Member Schannep served as Chair for the meeting of July 22, 2008.
Chair Schannep swore in the witnesses intending to testify.
Rick Herrington, Herrington DAP Architectural Designers and Planners, commented that a correction should be made to the Staff report noting that it was a request for the rear yard setback (not side yard). He then explained that they designed the structure (detached garage, patio and storage building) to have the least impact on neighbors. He explained that the structure would protrude 6-8 feet above grade on the high end of property but it will not obstruct views. Mr. Herrington also reported that there is no negative impact on drainage to this property or the neighbors’ property. He also explained that the retaining walls would be engineered and approved by the Oro Valley Building Safety Department.
Lorne Brown, applicant, explained that the purposed detached garage is being constructed to house a recreational vehicle (RV). He further explained that the smaller adjacent building is for storage purposes and that there is an outdoor kitchen/patio area planned.
Mr. Herrington explained that the overall height of the proposed buildings would not exceed the height of the existing residence.
In response to a question from Member Kessler, Mr. Brown explained that he does not currently own an RV but wants to provide a place for storage before purchasing. He explained that their Homeowners Association (HOA) requires that recreational vehicles be in an enclosure to store on their property.
Discussion followed regarding access, parking and maneuverability of the RV, rotation of the garage, required rear and side setbacks, most optimum design, letter from HOA approving the tentative construction of the RV garage, the property sits approximately 38 feet above the level of the street and the outdoor kitchen/patio area.
Patty Hayes, Zoning Inspector, reviewed the Staff report highlighting the following:
~ Applicant is requesting to build a detached garage, patio and storage building with a 5 foot encroachment in the rear yard setback (10 feet from property line). Rear yard setback for a detached accessory building is 15 feet in a R1-43 zoning.
~ Tentative approval from HOA was received.
~ Staff received an e-mail from the resident two houses to the north in opposition to this case as he felt that his views would be compromised.
~ Neighbor to the south called stating that they had no objections.
In response to a question from Member Kessler, Ms. Hayes confirmed that a detached storage garage is a permitted use on this property. She also explained that the Town will allow parking of RVs on the lot but the HOA requires that they be in a garage.
In response to a question from Chair Schannep, Ms. Hayes explained that the turning radius and size of the RV would determine whether or not the garage alone (without the patio/outdoor kitchen) would fit within the required setback.
In response to a question from Member Hickey regarding the plot plan, Ms. Hayes explained that the stairs are not part of the variance.
Member Kessler further commented that if they moved the garage and angled it, then they could pull straight in; however, backing down the steep driveway would not be feasible. She stated that she felt that they needed the turn around space in order to be safe since the lot was not flat.
Ms. Hayes confirmed that backing out of the driveway into the street would be a safety issue regardless of the elevation of the lot.
Chair Schannep opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Herrington confirmed that backing out into street would be very dangerous. He explained that there is a curve by the driveway so oncoming traffic would not be able to see the RV exiting. However by driving forward, the applicant can see any oncoming traffic.
MOTION: A motion was made by Member Hickey and seconded by Member Kessler to approve OV10-08-06, a request to reduce the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet.
Member Hickey commented that he looked at the minimum that it would take to complete this project. He stated that the structure is required by the HOA and it seems that the applicants have done the best that they can with the property limitations. He stated that in his opinion, the variance meets the five criteria.
Chair Schannep commented that in order to maintain property rights, the Board has a history of granting variances for garages or other structures that may have not been built with the original structure when it appears that the surrounding neighbors all have one. He stated that he was having a hard time with Finding B "special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant". He stated that everyone does not have an RV garage and it will be infringing on the setback because of the outdoor patio/kitchen area.
Member Hickey commented that the corner would still be within the 10 foot mark without the other structures. He stated that the applicant has stated that the best and safest way to park the vehicle is to have the garage angled. He said that due diligence has been done by the applicant. Member Hickey also commented that it is not the Boards business to tell people what they can buy but more how they use their property.
Member Kessler commented that she sympathizes with the neighbor that e-mailed about possible blocked views. However, the applicants are allowed to build a garage on the lot and it is an allowable height. She stated that even if they didn’t purchase the RV, they could still build this structure. Member Kessler stated that she was struggling with Finding C "necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of personal property rights" as she was not certain that it would affect the enjoyment of their property.
Member Hickey commented that the HOA has the effect of a government agency and it is requiring them to build the structure. He stated that the Board can not tell the applicant that they can not buy an RV.
Member Parisi commented that this variance is strictly a setback issue and that it meets the 5 criteria.
Chair Schannep stated that he would not support this variance request as he felt that it was not a special circumstance. He stated that he believed that the garage could be situated within the required setback.
MOTION carried, 3-1 with Member Schannep opposed.
Chair Schannep swore in the witnesses intending to testify.
Gregg Forszt, Ventana Medical Systems, explained that they renovating an existing building from office space to lab space which will require larger air conditioning units. He explained that they are requesting a variance to increase the building height to 47 feet 6 inches to allow for screening of the HVAC units. He then reviewed the building layout depicting the screen walls that would be required to hide the new HVAC equipment and exhaust stacks that would be on the top of the building.
Terrel Thomas, Advantech Architects, explained that the tallest exhaust stack is set back towards the center of building.
Mr. Forszt further explained that as required by the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development (PAD), the plans were submitted to the Rancho Vistoso Homeowners Association (HOA) for approval.
Discussion followed regarding:
~ Current building is approximately 60,000 square feet and about one third of the space is lab space so there are already high screening walls installed on portions of the building.
~ Air exchange requirements for lab space are considerably different than for office space. 100% of the air must be taken out of the building at least 30 times an hour. (Office setting is 10 - 15 times per hour).
~ Another building exists on their campus that is over the 36 foot limit.
~ Screen walls are metal louvers and will be painted to match what currently exists.
Patty Hayes, Zoning Inspector, reviewed the staff report highlighting the following:
~ Ventana Medical Systems is remodeling the interior of an existing building from office space to a laboratory.
~ Remodeling requires the addition of large rooftop air conditioning and venting units.
~ Screening requirement exceeds allowed 36 foot height.
~ Campus Park Industrial zoning does not provide for a 10 foot allowance for screening requirements as other zoning districts do.
~ Staff has not received any comments on this variance request.
In response to a question from Member Kessler, Chief Civil Attorney Joe Andrews explained that the near-by Sanofi Aventis project has a 46 foot height but because it was new construction, their building height was approved through the Development Review Board and the Council.
Chair Schannep opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed.
In response to a question from Member Hickey, Mr. Forszt explained that in order to get screen walls to be engineered so that they mechanically fit on the rooftop, they must be close to the parapet wall so that the existing rooftop does not collapse.
Member Hickey also questioned whether the HVAC units could be moved elsewhere on the campus so that a variance would not be required and that the potential for lightening hits would be reduced. Mr. Forszt stated that they could possibly place them in the parking lot (but it is in the front of the building). However, this would cause mechanical issues in forcing the air into the building. He also explained that they have 67-68 units on the rooftop and some them have been hit by lightening but they have provided grounding which helps mitigate the problem. Mr. Forszt then reviewed the site layout and explained that they were very limited to space near the existing building for installation of HVAC units on the ground.
MOTION: A motion was made by Member Parisi and seconded by Member Kessler to approve OV10-08-07, a request to increase the building height from 36 feet to 47 feet 6 inches.
Member Parisi stated that this variance request meets the criteria and it was an unusual circumstance.
Member Kessler stated that if the applicant were to construct the building "from scratch", they would be probably be allowed 46 feet. She stated that they are only asking for 1 1/2 feet over that. She stated that she did not think that it was a special privilege since there is another building in the immediate area that is already 46 feet in height.
Chair Schannep stated that he supports the motion.
MOTION carried, 3-1 with Member Hickey opposed.