Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 7/25/2000 t � 4 MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 25, 2000 ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 3:12 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: James Swan, Chairman Hayward Thresher, Vice Chairman William Adler, Member Lyra Done. Member (Arrived at 4:18 p.m.) ABSENT: Henry Suozzi, Member STAFF PRESENT: Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator Linda Hersha, Administrative Secretary Dan Dudley, Town Attorney Dee Widero, Sr. Zoning Inspector Shirley Gay, Assurances Clerk Melissa Shaw, Planner 11 Bayer Vella, Senior Planner MINUTES A MOTION was made by Member Bill Adler and seconded by Vice Chairman Thresher to approve the minutes of June 27, 2000. Motion carried 3-0. Chairman Swan moved Item #2 forward on the agenda with Item #1 to follow. 2.0V10-00-11 AT&T WIRELESS PCS SERVICES, INC. REQUEST A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT FOR A FLAG POLE/ANTENNA INSTALLATION IN A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT ZONE TO A HEIGHT OF 50'. LOCATED AT THE VISTOSO GOLF MAINTENANCE FACILITY, 955 WEST PEBBLE CREEK Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator explained that there were a couple of issues surrounding the request for a variance for the height of a flagpole/ cell antenna. The issues have been discussed with the Town Attorney. One is whether this will be classified as a major or a minor facility. He explained that if this is classified as a major facility, staff would not be able to handle the request for variance the way it has been presented at this time. The seconded is determining the zoning or parcel on which the 1 f 47/25/2000 Minutes, Board of Adjustment facility is located. He stated that for these two reasons staff is recommending that this item be continued until the next meeting. MOTION: Vice Chairman Thresher MOVED to CONTINUE Item Case No. OV 10- 00-11 to the August 22nd meeting. Member Adler SECONDED the motion. AMENDED MOTION: Chairman Swan MOVED to POSTPONE the motion until after the petitioner has spoken. Motion SECONDED by Vice Chairman Thresher. Motion carried 3-0. Chairman Swan swore in the petitioner that was intending to testify. Martha Kuenhold, Tynan Group, Representing AT&T Wireless Services stated the following: • The code as it is currently written is difficult to work around; it is also difficult for the carriers to work through the code if they are not getting a clear direction on which way to proceed. • This request would also include a height and parking variance for a future flagpole. Mr. Nodine reiterated that it had not been determined whether the structure was a major or minor facility, therefore staff could not specifically create a variance. Member Adler explained that because of the lack of information available on the subjects discussed, the Board will be unable to make a decision at this time. MOTION: Vice Chairman Thresher MOVED to CONTINUE Case No. OV 10-00-11 to the next meeting of the Board of Adjustment on August 22nd. Member Adler SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 3-0. 1.0V10-00-10 LEWIS & ROCA LLP LAWYERS, REPRESENTATIVES FOR EVERGREENS DEVCO, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FORM SECTION 10- 004.A.1 OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED TO ALLOW A SECOND CURB CUT ON TANGERINE ROAD. SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TANGERINE AND FIRST AVENUE Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector, reviewed the staff report. She reported that the applicant has requested a variance from the Tangerine Corridor Overlay District section 10-004.A. Evergreen Development would like two access points along Tangerine Road, approximately 300 feet from one another. The easterly curb cut on Tangerine Road will be limited to right-in/right-out only. Staff findings of fact: • The special circumstances would be the size of the site, and location in conjunction with the arterial intersection of Tangerine Road and First Avenue. • Special circumstances are due to type of development. • Authorizing this variance will improve traffic circulation for the general public as 7/25/2000 Minutes,Board of Adjustment well as retail deliveries. • Variance approval will grant special privileges • Allowing this variance will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding vicinity. • This will be a long-term temporary access, by the year 2015 the road and intersection improvements must be complete. Chairman Swan swore in the petitioner, Keri L. Silvyn, Lewis and Roca Law Firm, representing Evergreen Devco, Inc. Ms. Silvyn explained that the property consists of approximately 11.18 acres, zoned C-2. Evergreen intends to develop the commercial center in two phases. Phase 1 will include the Walgreens store, landscape, frontage improvements, curb cuts and access driveways. The construction of the remainder of Phase 1 and Phase 2 would take place at a later date. Evergreen is currently seeking a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and has begun to process a Development Plan for the property. Ms. Silvyn explained that because of the Tangerine Overlay District, Evergreen has had extensive conversations with the Town of Oro Valley Public Works Department and Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to discuss the number of access points and any restrictions along Tangerine Road. Neither ADOT nor the Town had a problem with the two access points as shown on the Development Plan. In conclusion, she explained that the property is being developed as a cohesive commercial center with five relatively small buildings along the perimeter of the site and one 28,000 square foot office building. The parking and traffic circulation for each structure are not independent of one another. The development shares parking and circulation as one center. In order for traffic to enter and exit safely and for traffic to maneuver within the commercial center safely, two ingress/egress points need to be available along Tangerine. Staff has requested and Evergreen has agreed to a condition to limit the easternmost curb cut on Tangerine to a right-in/right out only turning movement. Chairman Swan swore in the petitioner that was intending to testify. Keri Silvyn and Greg Albert, representatives for Evergreen gave and overview of the site plan. Chairman Swan asked if the widening of Tangerine Road and First Avenue intersection had been discussed. Mr. Nodine explained that the Development Plan was under review in terms of any traffic improvements and off site improvements that would be required. He explained that the right-in/right outs have been discussed and additional lanes are being considered. The only issue that is in question is whether there would be a left turn lane not an acceleration/deceleration lane. 7/25/2000 Minutes,Board of Adjustment 4 Member Adler stated that he was not convinced that the access was necessary for public safety internally or externally. He felt that this would be a detriment and not an asset. � Ms. Silvyn explained that as part of the Development Plan process, a traffic engineer was hired to prepare an extensive traffic impact analysis for the property. She stated that the report concludes that the Development Plan presented is a sound traffic engineering plan for both Tangerine Road and First Avenue, particularly for public safety. She proceeded to give an overview of the Development Plans. Mr. Nodine explained that if this were a street without an overlay district, it would meet all engineering standards. He explained that staff was not looking at this as being a permanent access onto Tangerine Road and when the limited access roadway is created, these access points will be re-directed to a frontage road. Members Adler stated that unless the road is dramatically improved the intersection would be very dangerous. Ms. Silvyn explained that Evergreen was working with ADOT and the Town to create a left-hand turn that would not be a hazard to sight visibility. Member Adler asked if it was appropriate to approve and add conditions to the variance before the improvements are complete and sight visibility was insured. Dan Dudley, Town Attorney explained that as long as the applicant and the members of the body do not appeal, anything is permissible. Chairman Swan opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, Chairman Swan closed the public hearing. MOTION: Member Adler MOVED to APPROVE Case No. OV 10-00-10 as submitted by the applicant with the following stipulations: the westerly curb cuts applied for will not be opened for use until the improvements of Tangerine Road are completed and has met the condition by ADOT and/or the Town Engineer. Vice Chairman Thresher seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE Member Adler—aye Vice Chairman Thresher—aye Chairman Swan—aye Motion carried, 3-0. 7/25/2000 Minutes.Board of Adjustment 3. OV l 0-00-12 LANTANA CORPORATION REQUEST A VARIANCE TO THE NARANJA RANCH PLAT FOR THE REQUIRED FRONT & REAR YARD SETBACKS IN ZONE R-4. 11789 NORTH VIA DE LA VERBENITA, LOT 97 OF NARANJA RANCH I SUBDIVISION Dee Widero' Senior Zoning inspector reviewed the staff report and gave an overview of the lot using the overhead projector. She reported that the applicant is proposing to reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet and the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 10 feet. Due to the shallowness of this corner lot, the approved model #2218 is the closest fit for this lot and will need a variance approval in order to comply. Staff finding of facts: • The shape of lot creates special circumstances or conditions. • The applicant or owner did not create the circumstance or condition. • The approved model home coincides with the other homes being built for the Lantana Corporation and in the surrounding lots of the subject property, for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. • The subdivision is in the final phase Member Adler asked if it was possible that the home be re-positioned to avoid the request for variance. Ms. Widero stated that she did not know if this was possible or not. Mr. Nodine added that this was the most shallow home in the subdivision. Chairman Swan expressed his concerns regarding the lot and the extreme setbacks. He stated that he was unsure if any home could be built on the lot. Mr. Nodine concurred and stated that this was a very peculiar lot. He further explained that he believed the area was originally designed to access onto Via de la Verbenita, but the access was shifted off that road to provide a safer access onto the cul-de-sac, therefore leaving the lot to remain the same. Chairman Swan opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, Chairman Swan closed the public hearing. MOTION: Member Adler MOVED to DENY the Case No. OV l 0-00-12 application for variance finding that in the absence of the petitioner's testimony, he has no reason to believe that a home could not be designed successfully to fit the lot. It is the builder's responsibility to design such a home to fit adequately on the lot and be in compliance with the ordinance. Motion SECONDED by Chairman Swan. 7/25/2000 Minutes. Board of Adjustment 6 ROLL CALL VOTE Member Adler—aye Member Done— aye Vice Chairman Thresher—nay . Chairman Swan—aye Motion carried. 3-1. the request for a variance was denied. Vice Chairman Thresher opposed. Discussion: Vice Chairman Thresher stated that the applicant had the right to build the home. 4. OV10-00-13 ARCOS ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING REQUEST A VARIANCE TO RELOCATE THE EXISTING ENTRY-WAY SIGN ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND GREENOCK DRIVE. 10195 NORTH ORACLE ROAD Ms, Widero. Senior Zoning Inspector, reviewed the staff report. She reported that the Arcos Architecture representing the El Conquistador Executive Plaza, requests a variance to relocate the entryway sign to the northwest corner of the property, and reduce the setback from the allowed 5 feet to 1 foot 8 inches. The OVZCR Sec. 12-502.B2 requires the sign shall be located at the entrance. Sec. 12-502.B.4 requires the setback to be a minimum of 5 feet from the property line, and Sec. 12-502.B.7 requires only one sign permitted per street frontage. Arcos Architecture is requesting a variance for the following reasons: 1. Lack of visibility limiting referrals and admissions contributing to financial difficulties. 2. Subject property is located below grade from Oracle Road. The existing sign is obstructed from view by vegetation. 3. The site is located on a curve of Oracle Road and the speed limit is 50 mph. This combination creates a hazard to southbound travelers who must locate the site, slow down. and turn safely . Ms. Widero reported that at the time of the report preparation. staff had received three phone calls with questions and two walk-in visits to review the site plan. Comments have not been in support of this request. The following findings exist: • Because of the topography or below level grade, special conditions do exist. • The owner of applicant did not create the condition. • A variance to increase the height of Clare Bridge sign (next property to the south) was granted in 1999. Chairman Swan swore in the petitioner. 7/25/2000 Minutes.Board of Adjustment 7 Raul Reyes. 5 821 East Paseo Busanic, project architect and owner of Arcos Architecture. gave an overview of the site. He explained that moving the sign to the corner of Greenock and Oracle would provide more visibility to better identify the project. He said that this would also benefit the residents in the area by reducing the traffic flow. Chairman Swan asked if the building was fully functioning at the present time. Mr. Reyes explained that this was a brand-new building that had not opened yet, but should be open in about one month. He explained that Arcos proposes to build an identical sign on the new corner with an additional directional arrow located beneath the sign. Chairman Swan asked how many tenants would occupy the building after the completion. Mr. Reyes explained that this was a 20,000 square foot building and the typical tenant capacity in the market place would be about eight professional tenants. Chairman Swan opened the public hearing. Chairman Swan swore in the witnesses that were intending to testify The following citizens opposed the installation of the new sign and stated that the structure would definitely affect the resident's privacy and increase the traffic flow in the area. • Laurie Stark, 10210 North Valle • Mary Lou Thomas. 10250 North Valle del Oro • Otto J. Putz, 46 West Oro Place Vice Chairman Thresher asked if the additional arrow that was to be added to the new sign would alleviate the problem. Mr. Putz replied "no.- Bart Heins. 6841 North Skyway Drive. He explained that the developer intends to focus on the following issues: • Redirecting the traffic flow in the residential area • Safety • Profit of businesses being brought into the complex. He proceeded to give an overview of the 2 signs to be used on the site using the overhead projector. He explained that if the traffic flow can be directed away from Greenock, it would help the people living behind the property and simultaneously help the businesses and ownership groups of El Conquistador Executive Plaza. Mr. Reyes suggested that the developer install a sign at Greenock and the alleyway entrance to say "entrance to this project" or "no through traffic". 7/25/2000 Minutes, Board of Adjustment 8 Member Adler stated that a reasonable and appropriate alternative would be to install a double faced sign at the location or an angled sign that would cover both directions rather than having 2 signs at two different locations. He said that this compromise would not require a variance. Mr. Nodine explained that the purpose for taking the sign off of Greenock was to alleviate some of the traffic flow in the area. He explained that the visibility of any sign at this location would be weak. Chairman Swan closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Thresher agreed with the idea of having an angled sign but had concerns with the fact that if the Board denied the variance, the secondary sign would still exist. Member Adler suggested relocating the Greenock sign to the main entrance and make it a part of the double-face sign, therefore, combining the two signs in one location facing both directions. MOTION: Member Adler MOVED to DENY Case No. OV]0-00-13, finding that an alternative sign construction is possible to achieve both proper identification for the building and to appease the concerns of the neighbors. Vice Chairman Thresher SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Member Adler felt that there were other alternatives for the sign construction that would consolidate these signs into one location and believes that this should be pursued by the applicant and by staff. Vice Chairman Thresher stated that if the request for variance was denied, the applicant has a right to leave the sign in its current location. He did not believe that the secondary sign would resolve the problem. ROLL CALL VOTE Member Adler— aye s Member Done - aye r Vice Chairman Thresher - aye r Chairman Swan—aye r Motion carried 4-0. the request for variance was denied. PLANNING AND ZONING UPDATE None 7/25/2000 Minutes,Board of Adjustment 9 ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Done MOVED to ADJOURN the meeting at 5:20 p.m. Motion SECONDED by Vice Chairman Thresher. Motion passed 4-0. Respe) Pfully Submitted, ;/"‘%/ ' inda ersha, Administrative Secretary